<p>Here’s a difficult one: Compare/Contrast the diferences of China’s influence over Korea, Vietnam, and Japan.</p>
<p>The fall of the Han and Roman Empires were similar in the subject that they can both be attributed to specific external and internal forces. </p>
<p>The Romans faced external pressure from Germanic invaders up north. Later on, Attila the Hun and his forces forced the Germanic tribes into Rome and the Visigoths decimated the empire. Similarly, after Han China was weakened, the Xiongnu invaded the region. </p>
<p>As far as internal factors go, Rome was led by some pretty bad leaders during its collapse. This, combined with its immense size and the cost to maintain it led to internal decay. Dicletian was the emperor who split Rome into two halves. Constantine, who created Constantinople, united the empire again, but after his death, the kingdom was split again. No one was able to successfully reunite the kingdom after his death, and Rome went through a period where over 25 emperors took over and died violently in a 50 year period. These men were known as barrack emperors, due to their military background. As this was happening, the eastern half of Rome thrived at Constantinople, while the west died out. </p>
<p>In Han China, when Wang Mang became emperor, he instated reforms that were vastly unsuccessful. He tried to modify land ownership and currency, which caused chaos for the rich and poor alike. This led to civil unrest and peasant uprising. Combined with famine and floods, China became extremely weak allowing Wang Mang’s enemies to easily take over.</p>
<p>Wow, that was long. I think that answers the question though. Maybe a bit too much detail, lol?</p>
<p>CURRENT QUESTION: Compare/Contrast the differences of China’s influence over Korea, Vietnam, and Japan (in the 20th century?)</p>
<p>Haha I was going to take the next one now that you also (and much better, may I add) answered the decline question, but it was the essay topic that I thought up. I’ll wait for the next one. (if I can stay awake!!)</p>
<p>I totally cheated on this one and looked it up in the textbook, but oh well.</p>
<p>China often invaded Korea and Vietnam, while establishing commercial relations with all three (Japan, Korea, Vietnam).
During the Silla Dynasty, the Tang emperor was recognized as overlord, and Korea became a vassal state with a tributary relationship. The Korean court was organized similarily to the Chinese. Also, the capital at Kumsong was modeled on the Tang Chang’an. The Koreans also were interested in Confucianism and Chan Buddhism. But in Korea, artistocracy was more powerful, and there wasn’t a merit-based bureacracy.</p>
<p>In Vietnam, they adopted Chinese agricultural and irrigation methods. They use Confucian texts and had tributary relations. Vietnam retained it’s religions and women were in higher status. </p>
<p>In Japan, the Nara and Heian periods were strongly influenced by Chinese. In the Nara (capital) was modeled of of Chang’an as well. They had similar bureacracy, equal-field sysem, and support of Confucianism and Buddhism, but still kept Shintoism.
In the Heian period, the literature imitated Chinese works and was written in Chinese.</p>
<p>Oops, forgot to post a new question:</p>
<p>Compare and Contrast the American and French Revolutions</p>
<p>It’s okay. My last one was directly from a chart in the review book showing the reasons for decline of Han, Rome and India D: </p>
<p>Ah geez. Me + Revolutions = FAILURE. I know absolutely nothing about them. My softball team was practicing every night when we were in that general time period and I totally flunked those tests. I am so clueless on them.</p>
<p>haha should I answer my own question?</p>
<p>go ahead! lol. i’d love to see the answer 
i’ll take the next one, hard or not.</p>
<p>The American Revolution was colonies vs. an imperial power (independence movent). They were able to fight off the British and establish there own country, but Britain was still powerful afterwards.</p>
<p>The French Revolution was a internal revolution with citizens rebelling from the King’s rule and angling to change the whole political and economic and even religious (under the Jacobins) structures. It was much more radical, and the whole form of government was changed.</p>
<p>They both were heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideas and philosophers. France was influenced by the American Revolution success, and modeled their Declaration of the Rights of Man off of the Declaration of Independence. Also, both were somewhat caused by war debts (especially the 7-yr War (a.k.a french-indian war); the colonists were infuriated by English taxes after French-Indian war with the whole “no taxation without representation” and the French civilians and 3rd estate were infuriated by King Louis the XVI and the government’s debt (mostly caused by 7-yr war, Spanish war of sucession, and American Revolution debts as well as over-spending). King Louis summoned the Estates General in order to raise taxes, but that only led the the National Assembly and then the French Revolution.</p>
<p>Both Revolutions influenced future independence movements, as well as the Haitian Revolution.</p>
<p>that’s all I can think of now.</p>
<p>Next question: Compare and contrast nationalism in Europe vs. nationalism in colonies.</p>
<p>This is probably an incredibly stupid question, but when you say nationalism in europe, do you mean from russia post-cold war pretty much, and then colonies places like india, africa, etc? just making sure before i start. im going to have so much trouble on this test.</p>
<p>In the 19th and 20th centuries, so basically cover imperialism, WWI, WII, and Cold War for Europe, and the independence movements in Africa, India, L. America, etc for colonies.</p>
<p>Nationalism in the more developed countries of Europe was spurred by the World Wars. In the aftermath of both wars, countries were created and others were destroyed. The entire political map was changed around. As some countries gained independence and asserted themselves, there were always other nations of people without a state (human geography terms. nation = group of people, state = political boundary, nation-state = people with same cultural ideals within a state) who were vying for their own independence. </p>
<p>Nationalist movements in the colonies were fueled by two major reasons: 1) the Europeans were seen as less of a godly status and more humanlike and approachable and beatable (agh, bad word selection there) and this gave the colonies hope to obtain independence. 2) Once the common enemy (Europeans) was gone, the countries realized their own internal differences between ethnic, cultural and religious groups. These domestic conflicts often stirred uprisings and wars to create new nations. Many of these are still going on today (Palestine, Isreal. Many states in Afric of which I don’t know the names, etc.) Additionally, the different European colonizing states took various approaches to the independence of their colonies. Some left the area with great speed, while others put up strong fights.</p>
<p>I guess that was halfway decent, hahah. Hm. Is this a good essay? If not, you can suggest another one. This is all that I can think of at the moment:</p>
<p>Compare/Contrast (describe?) the differences between the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and Glorius Revolution. </p>
<p>(This could be a very messed up question. Are they all the same thing? I’m asking this one because I am SO lost on this subject area. I’m not sure if there is much to differentiate between the three)</p>
<p>The Enlightenment, Renaissance, and Glorious Revolution are three entirely different things. Obviously the Enlightenment and Renaissance can be grouped together, as they showed European revival in thinking and the arts (respectively). Thus, after the gloomy Middle Ages, Europe was suddenly back on the map as they were part of somewhat of a Golden Age. </p>
<p>The Enlightenment is characterized by several freethinkers’ recognition of fundamental human rights. The thinkers proposed ideals for governments, which many “enlightened monarchs” had to take up in order to quell revolution. The Enlightenment is the basis for government today.</p>
<p>The Renaissance is a cultural rebirth, rather than an intellectual one. After the Crusades, the Europeans rediscovered their history in the Muslim libraries and became infatuated with that. They went back to an age of “reason” and took a very humanistic approach in their works, very different from the godliness of medieval times. However, the Church, through scholastics such as Thomas Acquinas, was able to reconcile faith with reason and manage to stay in power during this time, eventually taking the lead as a patron of the arts.</p>
<p>The Glorious Revolution is different than both of these in the fact that it was not a sort of rebirth, so much as an actual Revolution. However, it is similar in that it protested Roman Catholicism as the other two did. In the Glorious Revolution, the English refused to live under a Catholic monarch, so King James realized this and stepped down in favor of his niece Mary and her husband William, Protestants. It is called the Glorious Revolution because power was transferred, but no blood was shed like most revolutions.</p>
<p>Hoped that helped. </p>
<p>Here’s one. Discuss the changes and continuities in two of art, science, and technology in the Islamic world from 600-1450</p>
<p>Oh my god. I hate the yankees, but right now I love you! That was amazing. It was exactly what I needed. It helped a LOT. :)</p>
<p>(This is going to be weak. Bear with me, haha. I’m pretty sure of most of the facts but I’m going by memory so I wouldn’t be surprised if a thing or two was off) </p>
<p>The Islamic world from 600-1450 was a vast empire called Dar-al-Islam, which means “all under Islam”. It encompassed the homeland areas of the Middle East, along with conquered areas such as North Africa. </p>
<p>The science was greatly improved in this time period. Al-Razi and Al-Biruni classified all things as vegetable, mineral or animal, and calculated the weights of 18 minerals. There were developments in astrology and astronomy. There were also major architectural projects that included libraries, hospitals and large public works projects. </p>
<p>Art often went back to old times; the House of Wisdom was built and old Greek and Roman classics were translated to the common tongue of Arabic. Images were forbidden to use, and instead geometric shapes and other forms of writing, such as caliigraphy, were more common in art. Also (considered art of the mind maybe) there were major progressions in the fields of algebra. Old greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato were reviewed and critiqued.</p>
<p>New topic: Compare and contrast the four different river valley civilizations. (or just to make this easier and get more facts down, just write a mini paragraph about each i guess and how much you know, haha)</p>
<p>Egypt:
-Nile
-pharoahs, pyramids
-old kingdom, middle kingdom, new kingdom
-Queen Hatshpsut, women had the greatest rights</p>
<p>Mesopotamia:
-Aryans vs. Dravidians
-Phoenicians, Hebrews
-Nebachadnezzar, hanging gardens
-Hamurabbi, codification of laws</p>
<p>there i did two, i dont really know that much D:</p>
<p>I’m pretty weak on this area as well, but:
Harappan
-In Indus River Valley
-cities Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa that were master-planned and had sophisticated water systems
-govt was central and strong, probably lead by priest-king
-polytheistic
-used potter wheels
-grew cotton and made cloth
-trade with Mesopotamians
-by 1500 BCE, civilzation ended, replaced by Aryans. Not known the cause probably because of ecological degregadation and climate change, possibly natural disasters
-writing, but not deciphered yet</p>
<p>for China, the river is Huang He, but I don’t know if you want me to talk about Yangshao, Xia, Shang, or Zhou</p>