Charlemagne.
he did this by being the greatest leader he could be
justinian 1
It eliminated the leader of the Persian Empire, brought disputes amongst his potential successors, and left Alexander facing uncoordinated resistance from the eastern peoples of the Persian Empire, which he could defeat one by one..
The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.The biggest amphitheater in the Roman empire was the Colosseum and it could seat 50,000 people.
bato con
he did this by being the greatest leader he could be
he did this by being the greatest leader he could be
because he wanted to modernize Egypt and his powerful army could lead the whole empire.
justinian 1
u must have lee if u don't ignore lol It will be unequal relationship. One side, you have world's first superpower that stretched from Britain to Mesopotamia and Morocco to Crimea having 1/3 of world's population under control in very cosmopolitan civilization, and other hand you have regional power bounded under leadership of descendants of the Germanic tribes. Frankish empire was literally build just due strong personality of the Charles the Great and could survive, because he ruled unusually long (768-814), which gave it enough time to build strong government and institutions that became a model for following medieval Europe. But Frankish empire had collapsed not long after the Charlemagne's death. The Roman Empire was not revolving around personality of one individual, which is one of the reason for such long, and lasting presence. It was build upon institutions dedicated to the free citizens of Rome. Lacking influential builders prevent the empire collapse after numerous crisis for very long time, until the final decades of its existence. Rome was also multinational, multicultural, and religious diverse society. It flourished various religions, cultures, languages, rites, and customs as long as they obeyed the Roman rule. The Frankish empire was much regressive, where only Catholic Christianity was allowed, where Irish, Arian, Greek, and Slavonic christian rites were suppressed. Culturally, Frankish empire paled behind the cultural, philosophical, and artistic achievement of the Antiquity. It controlled area that was in majority run by Germanic nations that were on very low level of development in comparison with the Byzantine empire and this had a profound effect how the state functioned. Illiteracy was a problem for the state to have a successful bureaucracy, so it forced Charles the Great to fund education at least centered around monastery. Roman Empire did not have such problem, and its bureaucracy was not matched until much later by medieval China. Since Frankish empire was fraction of the Roman, it also had effect on the economical development of the state and the western civilization. Since the core of the state was in present day France, Frankish government turned the once backyard of the Roman Empire into successful medieval state that provided a copy for the rest of Europe. The feudal economy achieved agricultural output that was able to feed population that was twice that of the Roman's Gaul (from 4.5 to 8 mil), but the urban life suffered. The Frankish empire did not have prominent urban centers like was Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Cordoba, or Alexandria, which gave this state more provincial feel and outlook.
He's known as a The Crocodile Hunter, so it could be said that he could be a "leader" in his field of expertise.
The Romans could not stop Attila from attacking the part of the empire in the Balkan peninsula by crossing the river Danube. Attila did this several times and extracted heavy ransoms. The Romans managed to stop Attila from invading Gaul by assembling an army made of Romans and their Visigoth and Frankish allies. Soon after this Attila died and the Hun empire collapsed.
It eliminated the leader of the Persian Empire, brought disputes amongst his potential successors, and left Alexander facing uncoordinated resistance from the eastern peoples of the Persian Empire, which he could defeat one by one..
Many empires fell in very short times because they were basically organized around one strongman leader or his family. When that individual or dynasty ended, the empire fell apart. The prime example of this is he case of Alexander the Great. He conquered a vast territory and could have established an empire, but, failed to plan for succession.
The Franks could form one, Catholic kingdom. (By Solomon Zelman)
Babylon does not exist today as a city or empire. The ruins are located in southern Iraq. So now you could look up politics in Iraq.
Europe could not have had one leader because it was a group of independent countries. If they had had one leader there would not have been a war. Some European leaders were Hitler in the German Empire, Churchill in Britain, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, Petain in France and Stalin in Russia.