One of the reason was that the British soldiers were only defending themselves. People were become violent and had started throwing stones at them. The second reason would be they were their because they wanted to stop the people from making protest on the Townshend Acts
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/6812847#readmore
England.
It was after all a colony of britain before the revolutionary war
The Korean War led to conflict over strategies between Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur. The Korean War was a war between the North Korea and the South Korea. United Nations force led by the United States of America fought together with South; Soviet Union and China fought for North.
Answer:It is with these words that Augustus not only describes, but also justifies his unique political position. Although it is easy to see through his transparent veil, it is also easy to see how the above statement embodies both the subtly and political delicacy used by Rome's first emperor. His political power is masqueraded as personal auctoritas; his power achieved through his military supremacy passed off as rule by universal consent. To use a historical cliché, Augustus was the archetypal "master of spin".
With the gift of hindsight, even the staunchest of revisionists can acknowledge that the reign of Augustus was a clear turning point in European History. Whether or not this change was a steady evolutionary measure or a rapid revolutionary one is subject to much scrutiny. Certainly when looking at the Senate, the sheer tact of Augustus made the transition from oligarchy to autocracy seem almost seamless to his political contemporaries.[[2]] This was not to say that senators were none the wiser; the position of Augustus during the early principate developed much more organically than one could have expected. Consider the situation as thus: after the war against Antony came to a close, Augustus (or as he was known then, Octavian) was at the head of Rome's empire: he had, at his disposal, over five hundred thousand legionaries [[3]] (many of whom defected from Antony to Octavian after Actium) as well as a recently seized Ptolemaic treasury. As Tacitus puts it, "Opposition did not exist".[[4]]
With this in mind, it seems strange that Octavian developed his power base in such a piecemeal manner. Why was there such a need for subtly? If being brought up during the time of the Late Republic had taught Octavian anything, it was that overt displays of autocracy generally fed the resentment of the Senate. One only has to examine the fate of Caesar to be aware of this. However, if Octavian followed the mould of Sulla and retired directly after the civil wars, Rome would most definitely become re-enveloped by hostilities.[[5]] In the eyes of Octavian, the only way to acquire a stable, but autocratic Rome was to employ a piecemeal strategy.
This desire for subtle, gradual change is mirrored in the fact that he spent the following eight years after Actium acquiring the powers associated with the Principate. As soon as the Actium campaign came to a close, his powers of a triumvir were replaced with consecutive consulships up until 23 BC. While in this position, Octavian was voted censorial powers in 29 BC, and set about restoring order.[[6]] For a time, this worked well for Octavian. It was a flawed agreement however; rivals in the military could still be a potential threat. This was ultimately proven through the military successes of M. Lincinius Crassus, who, during a campaign in Thrace in 31 BC, won a pretext for the spolia opima.[[7]] Although awarded a triumph, Crassus was not granted the award as it overshadowed the achievements of Octavian. Realising the need to keep individuals in check, Octavian set about reforming his position; this was achieved in 27 BC through the medium of the so-called First Settlement.
Explanation:
