<p>This is a cut and paste effort. Do not thank me, thank other memmbers.</p>
<p>Describe the results of important conflicts between West Europe and the Middle East during the post-classical period.</p>
<p>Hmm… the Muslims were defeated at Battle of Tours by Charles Martel ~700 CE, which stopped the expansion into W. Europe.
And during the crusades, from ~1000-1300 CE, the Christians were motivated by not only religion but also greed to conquer Jerusalem, after the Seljuk Turks sucess previously. The Crusades were a failure, but resulted in W. Europe rediscovery of past, interaction with more advanced Islam empire, which lead to the Renaissance and all that good stuff.
And around late 15th, the Spanish inquistion began, and helped drive out Islamic influences.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure the main conflict during that time was the Crusades, right? I guess first a bit of background on the Crusades would help. The main point of the Crusades was for the European Christians to take back the Holy Land, Jerusalem, from the Muslims in the Middle East. I think there were 6 major Crusades, but only one or two were actually successful (iffy on that). </p>
<p>The main result of the Crusades was the spread of Islamic ideas and culture into European society. The Middle East borrowed heavily from the Greek and Roman philosophers and incorporated that into their own culture. When the Europeans came into contact with the Muslims, these ideas spread from the Middle East back into Europe. The rediscovery of this classic thinking would eventually lead to the major revolutions during the Middle Ages, namely the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment.</p>
<p>What were the simlarities between the fall/decline of Han and Roman Empires?</p>
<p>Both empires had problems with tax collections. The empire was too spread out, and it was difficult to keep their populations under control. As their taxes were less, the public safety and military was less powerful, and the trade routes declined, further weakening the empires. </p>
<p>The Han had problems with decentralization; powerful landlords took power and were hard to control. Also, once the Roman empire fell it was divided into the east and the west. (Random: The West fell significantly further than the East did.) Plagues caused a dramatic decrease in the population, especially for Rome. </p>
<p>Finally, nomadic invasions were a part of both of their declines, however more apparent in Rome. The Han were invaded by the Xiongnu, although they were already on the decline when taken over. The Romans were hurt by the Huns, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths (I think?)</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>Compare/Contrast the differences of China’s influence over Korea, Vietnam, and Japan (in the 20th century?)</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>