# data[].attributes.body
Distinguishing power and authority: 13.4 Louis used power to unite people from spectacles/ Inca empire forced people to move to different regions and participate in a tribute system/ Mr. J established rules to gather people to surround him/ Inca had strict punishments/ disadvantage of authority: people don't agree with the rule or don't feel threatened by the rule/ 13.1 punishment of personal voice may result in rebels; showing wealth in 40 days showed people what they could get if they were following the rules. Comparing past and present: All rulers had absolute rule over their territories/ In U.S., people are not as afraid of the government and rulers as people were in the past/ Connection between politics and religion in the past, now religion doesn't affect elections or etc./ different types of violence (prison nowadays as supposed to corporal punishment in the past)/ Power is not passed down through family lines nowadays/ A lot are learned from trials and errors from the past (judicial system, Congress as supposed to a single ruler)/ Vote for government officials/ a variety of ways to select rulers in the present time/ the idea of Communism now is very different from the division of social classes in the past/ the royal family in U.K. respected by people even though they don't have any political power/ People were restricted in the past and now they have more access to outside information and have more chances to travel all around the world, still depending on where people live though/ Rulers can still control much of people see and have access to nowadays/ Incan empire would show their power and wealth while they were visiting other regions and kingdoms. Comparing the insiders and outsiders: those written by monarchs themselves only focuses on the good aspect even though they revealed the reasoning behind/ an outside view is more beneficial because they encompass multiple perspectives and also things from different times/ an outside view is more fact-based/ an outsider's view is stating things that are very obvious/ depends on who the source comes from/ Trade also becomes a way to show off.

# data[].attributes.body
Rinne Alt- Key Points-
Leaders establish credibility via statues, festivals, etc.

Luis was able to give goods and necessities to the people which benefited the way people saw him and acted. It is easier to get things done short term, though it is more difficult to follow through with long term plans. Buddhism was spread- the building of temples could not be interfered with. 13.4- Luis used his power to unite people through spectacles. The Incas tolerated conquered people's religion but also demanded the worship of the Sun God. Incas had strict punishment. People might fail to follow authority if they don't feel pressure or impending consequences put forward by authorities. All rulers in our 4 sources want absolute rule. current violence compared to past violence- prison vs. immediate pain and suffering to a person. lots of trial and error- we have learned to not let one person have complete power. inheritance of parental social status (class). communism seems ideal but most people are poverty stricken and the government system tends to backfire. comparison between spectacles and current presidential inauguration- more similar than we think. Inca Empire helped conquered people by still allowing them land and resources. Luis took into account that the common people were delighted by shows and spectacles. An outsiders view is more beneficial for a historians research. They can see multiple aspects of a situation compared to a biased account.

# data[].attributes.body
Main Points Discussed: (mia neal)

- using symbols and statues to legitimize authority and power

- using different authority tactics to control people without coercion (such as not forcing religions onto groups of people or by keeping the preexisting dominant rulers in places

- examples of power: regulations, allowing Buddhism to expand, protection around ruler, spectacles, utilizing power to gain authority over groups of people, language differences in the Inca Empire
- using the Sun as a representation could prove how he wants to legitimize and visualize his power (Louis)
- all rulers attempting to have absolute over their people, but now there's more flexibility around the amount of power that people can hold (can it be argued that maybe not every single empire mentioned wanted to have an absolute ruler and completely centralized power)
- use of violence: now we have places and establishments made for people to serve for wrongdoings, but also still forms punishments and violence towards people of different beliefs or ideals (even if indirectly)
- how many countries are merit-based rather than based on family ties, but many jobs and education opportunities can be based on your family/connections you have
- communism ideals can be seen in the Ottoman Empire, with no varieties and no one looking or dressing differently
- one example of a spectacle today is the royal family as they are a huge consolidating factor in the country without any true political power
- evidence of the government having great amounts of control over the people that they govern
- monarchies tend to write and reflect about all of the positives from their point of view without regard to those below them; more directly impacted by the issues and problems of their empire
- outsiders point of view: tend to steer towards their admiration to the systems set in place, why spending little no time talking about any of the empire's problems
- foreigners able to better state the obvious, which others may not think as significant, therefore making them somewhat more detailed in that sense

# data[].attributes.body
Tilley Kirkland (questions about what was said)

Why do you think such big shows of authority are so effective in keeping subjects in line?  Why waste money on show-y festivals?

Why do you think the Incans letting their subjects keep their own religions was a disadvantage? elaborate...

what is the difference between authority and power? Aren't they mutual?

^ What are some examples of how rulers used one to get the other?

Why is ruling with absolute control over a country less effective than if you were to spread the power out?

How does political power intertwined with religion still effect american politics today? Think national anthem, paper money/coins, the lack of distinction between church and state...

What are examples of totalitarian governments that still exist today and are technically successful?  Why do you think they work?

Do you think it's possible to have a society where birth status truly doesn't matter?  What about our society would need to change to make that possible?  Has a society like that ever been successful in history?

What is the difference in the role of a spectacle in a totalitarian government versus a government where the power is more balanced?

What are more examples of modern spectacles?  Are there any that aren't physically showing off, like the carousel?

How do you think your perspective as an american stilts your preference of government?

How is an outsider's perspective more valuable than an insider's perspective from a historian's standpoint?  Sure, it helps to have multiple viewpoints of a society, but what about an outsider not being able to see the true disadvantages in a society because they aren't truly immersed?

# data[].attributes.body
Eleanor Manning

3. Power and Authority

13/1- showed wealth/power and asserted authority through the coronation. power to throw elaborate festivals to gain approval and authority rather than violently doing so.  regulations showed power.

Ottoman empire- merit based leadership allowed for people to gain power and show authority with intelligence, rather than throwing elaborate events to do so.  their intelligence would be valued rather than their ability to throw gold and silk around

13.4- uniting people through spectacles, people come closer, not as much strife

In the long run, it has been seen that keeping wealth in your empire rather than excessively demonstrating luxury allows for more resources to be saved

Power--> guaranteed results (in the moment) but resentment builds (over time)

utilizing power to gain authority

People may not follow the authority or listen to it for they do not agree with the power

With no repercussions, they were more likely to disregard the regulations

4.  Past vs. Present (rule now vs. then)

Back then

people wanted to exercise their power everywhere, on person wanted all of the power.

religion based leadership

state based violence against others who believe differently

power/authority passed along through familial ties

rulers are merit based

inauguration celebrations are similar

states dictate the lives of citizens and what they can and cannot do, certain jobs were discriminated against (ottoman empire people dress the same)

(incas) traveling to other empires to show their wealth and parade their success

Now

we have checks and balances and power is spread among multiple people rather than one person

less state based violence (organized- trial--> prison)

rulers are merit based

inauguration celebrations are similar

we (people of modern society) are more dictated by society and social norms rather than state (technology and social media)  We have social media, other sources of information and inspiration for our culture, but back then they only had the influence of their state

in modern society it seems that our leaders (from my point of view) leaders compete on who has the greater society and country

5. Differences between Monarchies Writing and Outsiders Writing

Ottoman Empire- outside writer was admiring of their culture, was unable to see issues or imperfections for he was so in awe.  Also, it is unlikely for the locals to tell him of their flaws for they enjoy the admiration and do not want rivaling countries to know of their weaknesses

An outsider's view is beneficial in the sense of learning the aspects of the empire that were promoted or advertised to surrounding countries.  But their perspective would be a bit flawed for they would not know as much about the empire in total.  Monarchies would simply write about the positive aspects for they want others to see them more powerful than others

Monarchs would write about the details, but outsiders would state the obvious.  Outsiders would see the most common, apparent things rather than the Monarchs who are likely to overlook these things that they are used to (but some monarchs may be so proud that they would boast on as much as possible)

# data[].attributes.body
(Anna Marie Harding)

3. 13.1-- rules and regulations, used power to do this, based his power off of what his father did; authority was that he followed what his father put in place; rulers use power to gain authority.

13.2-- power to make subjects respect him, authority to be able to make subjects work hard through merit-based system.

13.3 -- Louis XIV w/ elaborate events to gain approval and establish dominance.

13.4 -- disadvantage- letting conquered peoples keep local traditions, might have hindered complete power and authority of Inca gov. -- also might be an advantage because conquered people might see that as  a reason the gov. is worthy of their cooperation, in the future won't rebel.

Power -- guaranteed immediate results, not as good in the long run w/ built up resentment, Jahangir w/ regulations, Sultan w/ protection, respect and control, Inca united people through spectacles-- power to tolerate others AND force them to participate in systems, move around and recognize parts of a core culture, strict punishments, Louis XIV w/ symbol of the sun.

Authority -- people might not oblige because they don’t feel the pressure; 13.1—might rebel because no repercussions w/in the law.

4. Then -- All rulers attempting to have absolute rule over their nations’ religion closely intertwined with government systems; punishments instead of prisons, rules to keep peace; Mughal -- sometimes hereditary rule; Ottoman – very bad succession system and merit-based selection process, people all the same; Inca – helped conquered people, allowed them to thrive through organization;

Now -- (US) one person doesn’t have all the power – different branches, checks and balances, people not afraid to oppose set beliefs won’t be punished for not abiding by a religion set by the government; religion now plays no part in presidential elections; Prisons, not as much state-organized violence. Power still plays important parts, rules to keep peace. Rulers aren’t hereditary, now have merit-based system for presidential election. Lots of aspects that used to be instilled in society are now not systematically a part of the state but still part of society. Spectacle is definitely still a part – the inauguration, Queen of England, royal families. Because gov. isn’t so absolutist, the government doesn’t touch the lives of the citizens so much (but very all or nothing, the people can’t “half-know” what’s going on in the world around them). (Cuba and North Korea) dictatorships still exist, people blocked from outside knowledge.

5. Monarchs -- good way to find out why certain things happened, only focused on good aspects, not on any repercussions, might ignore commoners, Louis XIV – talks about commoners, Jahangir – commoners shouldn’t suffer for petty crimes; depends on what is going on in the empire whether or not they share every little thing; trying to show off what they had, what they didn’t have.

Foreign observers – much more limited view of what actually goes on in the empires; more beneficial though – get to see multiple different perspectives; could be used as comparisons – where observer comes from and where they are visiting; state obvious things – daily occurrences; Ottoman – so admiring of culture, hard to see issues because not told about weaknesses because empire wants others to see them as strong and united.

# data[].attributes.body
Ryan Green                                                                                                                                                                      Question 3: Jahangir created different rules and laws that the certain classes had to follow. By doing this it stated his authority. He also held luxurious celebrations and festivals to state their wealth and gain approval of his citizens so they would choose to follow him instead of being forced of follow him. Lewi used his ability to grant items to those below him, which resulted them supporting him and granting him authority. In the Inca Empire, granting rulers of overrun civilizations their leadership roles granted the Inca Empire authority because they respected the Inca Empire. If they had just taken over and forced them to convert religions it could have resulted in rebellions, which would have weakened their authority. Jahangir stated power by giving classes roles they had to follow and prevented people from disrespecting the Buddhist temples. The Inca tolerated taken civilizations but still stated power by forcing them worship the sun god. Jahangir used his power to hold festivals and celebrations to increase his authority among his people. 13.1 No person was to be punished, this could weaken authority and lead to people breaking laws , however, this could increase authority because people might be thankful for the less strict laws and to follow Jahangir.                                                                         Question 4: All of these states strive to have a complete monarch, but today in the U.S. there are several branches to restrict one side from having too much power. Rulers back then authority and power was linked with religion so the ruler had more power. Today rulers are not linked with religion. Similarities are that we have set laws the people need to follow like these states. There is less state violence due to religion as there was back then. Power still plays a role in governments today. Power back then was passed down through family, however today it isn't passed down from family. North Korea still has a ruler and top of the government and there are still people below him like the these states. Classes still play a role in society today as it did in the states. Spectacles still bring nations together.  Dictatorships are still around today.                                                                                                          Question 5: The documents written by the monarch were written to show the good of the empires and why certain things were done. The disadvantages of documents written by the monarch don't display the bad side of the monarch and the lives of the other classes.  Outsiders view is more beneficial because it shows multiple perspectives of life and doesn't just focus on the good sides. The documents of the outsiders can act as a comparison between two states. Ex: the outsider that visited the Ottoman Empire wrote about how their people are seen as useless if they don't play a role in their community, while his people he wrote are lazy.  Outsiders write about things that people of that state might not focus on or write about due to that being normal.

# data[].attributes.body
(Emily Guo)  differences: Inca: conquer lands with peace(food), different cultures and languages, less violent, decentralized, tribute, religious tolerance, interaction among different groups, local chieftain, how much freedom they gave, large empire(it was hard to oppress rebellion), increase in connections and trade; 13.3: connect with the people, sun;                                                                                                  13.2: people were relatively equal(clothing), merit-based society, deadly succession system, military campaign, there was a monarch at the top but everyone below him was basically the same.                  13.1: regulations                                                                                                                                                          (People would  be more willing to follow the ruler who was benevolent to his subjects and had accumulated a great amount of wealth) Ottoman empire: similar to Mughal empire; French state: carousel - make people feel connected to him(affection) - similar to Inca; 13.2: spend on hospitals, roads, mosques, an elaborate coronation, impressed people to showcase his wealth; Inca empire: jewels, emperor traveled(horses, people came out to watch him pass, blessed him, he listened to the people who were talking to him, established connection)

# data[].attributes.body
Celia Funderburk 2. Purpose of: Mughal Empire - assert his dominance, "a show", very extravagant items displaced. Him showing everyone that he has the power and resources to do this. Flaunting the wealth - great for the economy, everyone will want the luxurious items they are showing. Didn't only flaunt wealth on himself, he did use some of his money to make things better for his people and unify (different than many Empires) Ottoman Empire - everyone is wearing the same thing, "opposite of being spectacle", did not waste on too luxurious goods. French - started as light source of entertainment, realized great opportunities, came to make a lot o f wealth. Purpose of spectacle was to strength bond/relationship with the French ruler. Inca - gave gifts and their own belongings back to people, small gifts to show their wealth and to make sure the new people know they are wealthy. Purpose was to integrate and use wealth to welcome them into their society. Still signs of wealth in capital, benefits of tribute were displayed in Cusco. Inca Empire traveled rode with tons of horses and ex
travagant items, people on the path he traveled blessed him and applauded his present. Established a connection between citizens, Inca ruler stopped along the path to talk to citizens. Large contrast to where they came from, tyranny.

# data[].attributes.body
Matthew Akin: Question 2: Mughal Empire placed focus on flaunting wealth while the Ottomans placed a focus on the Ottoman Empire. Purpose of the spectacle was to strengthen the bonds between ruler and citizens. Because the Incas left the power where it was there wasn't a drastic enough change to spark a rebellion. After they conquered land they would return gifts back to the people. The temples were furnished with gold and silver through collection of tributes so the benefits were shown in the capital slightly showing off their wealth. The Incas made an effort to establish a connection to their people.

# data[].attributes.body
Lesley Thomas- Question 2: (Mughal Empire- mostly about wealth, about asserting dominance and power/ displaying his dominance and power, great for economy due to the likelihood of wanting to trade, beyond the coronation looked towards the good of the people, Used to centralize people and unify people ) (Ottoman- more about military and merit, sees so much wealth although the not flaunted and shown) (French state- carousel *started as a light source of entertainment and wanted to strengthen the bonds between the  people and the king*) (Inca- the giving back of the resources of the land and more gifts, can be a slight display of wealth, without wealth could not be able to hand out the gifts in the land, spectacle could be a show of welcoming and acceptance into the culture of the Inca empire, wealth show throughout the capital of Cuzco *put into more permanent things*, As the Inca Empire traveled there was large shows of power, Showed a general concern and established a general connection between the rulers and who they ruled) Spectacle is seen as a very effective source in connecting and unifying the people in the last two sources. Positives of unity out weigh the negatives of exhausted resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1

The rulers opened up alternative direct lines of communication between themselves and citizens.

Challenges to imperial authority were varied but included incompetent, corrupt, or rebellious officials and army commanders. Religious or philosophical systems were also imbedded in society that had to be tolerated. In the Ottoman empire the succession of rulers was dangerous, brothers killed each other for the throne.

Rulers established relationships with subjects.

Rulers were tolerant of other religions and cultures to prevent rebellions.

Question 2

Ottoman man empire people did not spend money on frivolous things or garments. They all wore very similar clothing. The Turkish monarch, however, was very extravagant.

Louis XIV explains in explicit terms the role of spectacle, royal splendor, and public display in strengthening his authority

These displays sought to assert the ruler’s magnificence, power, and authority to both domestic and international audiences; These helped define the relationship between the ruler and subjects and bonds between ruler and subject were renewed or strengthened. For commoners to see the ing enjoying something they like make him seem more human and like them.

Inca-Gave prisoners of war back to their home. Gave fine jewelry and other goods to people they conquered. This helped the transition into the Inca empire easier. Temples showed the tributes and wealth the Incas had.

These actions in all societies were effective overall.

# data[].attributes.body
Matthew Akin -  Question 1: There was the difference in the way the  Ottoman Empire and the Inca governed the vast lands and how they governed them and the threat to authority. The demonstration of power and authority in 13.1 the emperor protected his trade without violence whereas 13.2 it is centered around violence and warfare. In doc 13.4 it talks about the problems with culture and diversity, there were a large group of people with different cultures and beliefs which caused conflict making ruling difficult. In 13.4 the Incas were not as violent in ruling and if they took over a large piece of land they would not take over more than they needed to compared to punishments of the other societies discussed. The Incas government was more decentralized compared to how Jeng was able to centralized his government further. There were also differences between the Incas and other societies in that they had a different outlook on religious freedoms. Diversity in the culture allowing leaders to not abandon their practice increased the unity among the Incan Empire. This allowed them to put them into a system where they would report to other subordinate rulers which strengthened all of their systems. By keeping those who are already in power and not taking away their power helped them avoid any violent clashes. Even if there were violent clashes these crimes were cut off immediately. The Ottoman were still equal despite the hierarchy that was in place due to things such as the way they dress. French empire and the Inca rules were much more benevolent and were very caring.

# data[].attributes.body
Mary Brown

Question 1

Challenge: how to govern and control land (Ottoman Empire)

Jahangir made himself central without violence, whereas the Ottoman empire was centered on violence (merit system)

Incas: variety of cultures = conflict = difficult rule

Incas weren't as violent in their conquest; once people were conquered, they allowed them food, booty, their leaders, their customs, etc.

More decentralized, especially compared to Jahangir -> showcasing wealth

Differed most from other documents in their relatively peaceful conquest  (or at least tolerant conquest)

Good at communication

Interactive empire

Administered justice -> unity

Empires with more tolerance were stronger (Incas, Mughal - Akbar)

Mughal empire used spectacle to placate subjects

Sultan instituted practices to clearly demonstrate power and position

All leaders emphasized their power in a variety of practices

Ottoman - different practice of determining who was subordinate

Busbecq - surprise at the demonstrated put-together-ness of Ottomans

Terrible succession system (future kings/sons/kings can't have brothers...and kill them) (different ideals across areas and time periods)

Benevolence of ruler - Sun King (Sun as a symbol)

Most rulers, benevolent or not, seemed capricious - allowed to be so due to their power

Consistent laws and rulers throughout the empires

Laws indicate problems - rules are enacted for reasons (Mughal Empire)

Question 2

Spectacle: display of wealth in some empires, display of status in others (Ottoman)

Showing off the ruler's power, wealth, etc.

Makes foreigners think highly of the empire, think their economy is doing well, and want to trade

Contrast of Busbecq - excessive luxury corresponds to weakness, whereas in the Ottoman Empire, luxury is not flaunted (frivolous) and leads to strength and unity

The leaders' spectacles served a greater purpose, to consolidate their authority, while the 'spectacle' Busbecq talked about among the normal people was pure selfishness and without purpose

Louis XIV's Carousel - establish and strengthen bonds with subjects

Make people easier to rule and to enact laws and unify the state etc.

Less spectacle from the Incas - more covered necessity

King did travel in riches to display wealth and administer justice and establish a connection to the people

Overall, spectacle is effective if it is enacted with a purpose

# data[].attributes.body
whoops

# data[].attributes.body
Celia Funderburk   1. Contrast - (government) 13.1 - Emperor demonstrated power by "boosting economy" he was central to how things were run 13.2 - government was centered around violence and personal accomplishments 13.4 Incas were more decentralized compared to Ottoman Empire 13.3 No caste system; metaphor of the sun, talks about representing monarchy with sun. (violence) 13.4 - Incas were not as violent as other cultures in their time period (uniting) 13.4 - Inca sent tribute and cared about those they took over, less violent because less crime due to knowing place in society. Actually helped the people they took over. Didn't make new people abandon their cultures and diverse beliefs. Kept local powers in place, allowed people to feel welcomed and citizens felt "less disrupted" 13.1 - Muslim principles being instilled, but promoted and accepting of traditional Hinduism 13.2 Ruler was more strict with his rules, but it helped to establish unity/peace (relationship to leaders) 13.3 - ruler was more focused on being affectionate and establishing a relationship 13.2 Everyone must respect the ruler, clear representation and actions to remind citizens that the Emperor is higher. Subordinates were all equal, clothing was same. New system of reaching a high status: based on your own accomplishments/merit and not birth. *commonality - all Emperors "demanded"/ deserved respect from their citizens*

# data[].attributes.body
Ryan Green- the way the Ottoman Empire and Inca Empire governed the vast lands. The Ottoman Empire used their military to state authority and how Emperor Jahangir stated authority by increasing trade and expressing wealth. The Incas differed the most from the three other states because they were able to conquer lands around them peacefully without violence. The Incas were less violent because everyone knew their place and what was wrong to do. Inca didn't force conquered people to convert, which led to adversity. This benefited the Inca Empire more than it hurt them due to increase in connections with trade and communication with others. Inca Empire allowed local chieftains to maintain in government, which strengthened their unity and decrease the reason to rebel against the Inca Empire. Due to the punishments and laws violence, threat and crime was cut off. While in the Ottoman Empire there was a clear divide of power (the king was above everyone), however, everyone wore the same outfits that weren't old and tearing. This showed there was a monarch at the top meanwhile everyone below him were the same. One of the biggest mistakes of the Ottoman Empire is their way of succession and how the sons would fight it out to see who would rule.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          The Mughal Empire talked about wealth, while the Ottoman Empire focused on their status system. The Mughal Empire mainly boasted of their wealth along with the Ottomans, which benefited their economy because it increased trade relations with others. The Ottoman Empire boast about how they are all unified,have prestigious horses, and luxurious foods. The purpose of the spectacle is to make the people feel connected to ruler and create a unified state. The Mughal Emperor took advantage of his wealth beyond others. He also built hospitals and grew the authority and commerce for the people. So even though he boasted he still supported his people, which resulted in more people following his rule and his laws. The Incas were more of overseers than supporters to result a change. Inca Empire still showed wealth with luxurious temples decorated with gold and precious items received from tribute. The Inca Emperor traveled with tons of horses that carried the most luxurious wood. The Inca Emperor established connections with his people, which is similar to the French State.

# data[].attributes.body
lesley thomas

# data[].attributes.body
Charlotte Munsey- What's Being Said In Discussion: Making Comparisons- difference in the way the different rulers governed and how they governed them the turks and the inca especially with the population number. demonstrating power and authority- how jahangir displayed his power by making the regulations by controlling trade and economy without violence and then how suleiman displayed his power with violence to keep state controlled to go along with violence in 13.4 with the incas they weren't violent in their means of control, if they were to take over a large piece of land they would be thoughtful and fair unlike in other areas where people's heads got cut off, another difference is how they governed themselves like how the inca wasn't as centralized like how jahangir was able to centralize everything and showed his wealth to subjects, incas differed the most from the other three documents because of the way they were able to peacefully take over and less involved in culture life but still tried to unite the community culturally- learning cuzco, but still believe and worship what you want but you still have to worship and talk how we do, options, less violent because everyone really knew their place, helped people that the inca took over; think that doing this made them stronger because the difference of people allowed cultural continuity isn't forcing muslim ideas on the state citizens. you can practice this, but still part of empire. people forming different groups and usually only interacted with their group but it was different in incan empire- everyone interacted together. reporting to subordinate rulers in incan empire helped to strengthen the empire- moving the power around helped avoid violence. people who punished the wrong doers- good system and easily seen that they were punished for what they did kept others from committing the crime. jahangir showed off his wealth to his people, suleiman wants to be affectionate towards his people (people kissing his hand obvious divide), all of the rulers demand respect. louis wants to connect with the people and the inca wanted to people helpful throughout the society but everyone wanted a name for themselves- in 13.2 everyone was wearing the same thing even though they were all wearing the same things. spent a paragraph talking about dress- surprised to what he's seeing. theme of having the ruler without a caste system (not unequal to many things) just because people are different and have different duties doesn't mean they are better or worse. most of rulers can be stealthy- I'm going to kill you because I'm having a bad day that can't happen people know how they are going to be punished merit based system. the ottoman empire succession system- whoever kills first will be the ruler it's a huge mistake looking on the contrary to the merit based system. not just the ottoman, but also other empires. connecting the killing of brothers to be king compared to how we live today different ideals based on society. incas were benevolent rulers to make sure that no one would want to do any harm to the empire.                                Assessing spectacle: Mughal empire- wealth is what is really talked about ottoman empire- military, merit system. purpose of mughal empire to assert his dominance somewhat like a show gotta show off everything the 40 days and 40 nights of super extravagance he has the thrown this is me i'm better than my father you can't compare me to him, why not do it. this display of wealth could be great for the economy and hearing about it will make people want to come and trade. busbeq compares austria to the ottoman empire and how they boast their wealth. comparing empires to how their people react to what they get and who gets what. the carousel- started as light source of entertainment  - spectacle of this is to strengthen bonds and make people feel like they are connected in some sort of way. lead to downfall of ottoman empire. spending money on hospitals and health to help the people - but his coronation was huge and if he was doing everything for the people he wouldn't have been as extravagant as he was . (jahangir) the time period of the empires no huge communication or transportation and everything was confined in a certain area, 13.2 the witness of the ottoman empire- if the king were as rich as they heard they will people more than happy to obey him gotta make sure the king is happy. inca- because they did provide goods and resources there was no big change that really sparked any rebellion, but after they conquered land and if there were any people prisoners and other stuff they would return all of it and give more gifts like gold or women not a huge spectacle but a slight way to show wealth and make a good name for themselves - to have people follow and respect them demonstrated wealth in a helpful way and spread it out evenly their spectacle was to integrate a have a token of welcoming- in capitals of the incan empire there were the temples that were nicely built and furnished with expensive things in cuzco to show a little bit of wealth, but not one big show everything was small not a 40 day festival when the incan empire traveled- finest wood, a bunch of people came out to watch the ruler pass they blessed him and he listened to the people who interacted with him the ruler having a genuine concern which makes people feel better similar to the french state with the carousel. emperors were originally tyrants (those from empires not in the documents) seeing all of this wealth made them feel more welcome. effective vs. ineffective- effective the second two sources had a purpose to unify the people and reason for showing off their wealth. you can see where using a spectacle can be a problem but these were positives for the empires outside perspectives

# data[].attributes.body
Matthew Akin -

# data[].attributes.body
Comparing insiders' & outsiders' accounts Question 5:  What differences do you notice between the two passages written by monarchs themselves & the two composed by foreign observers?  What advantages & limitations do these two types of sources offer to historians seeking to use them as evidence?

# data[].attributes.body
Comparing past & present Question 4:  It is important to recognize that early modern states differed in many ways from 20th or 21st century states.  How would you define those differences?  Consider, among other things, the personal role of the ruler, the use of violence, the means of establishing authority, and the extent to which the state could shape to lives of its citizens

# data[].attributes.body
Distinguishing power & authority Question 3:  Some scholars have made a distinction between "power," the ability of a state to coerce its subjects into some required behavior, and "authority," the ability of a state to persuade its subjects to do its bidding voluntarily by convincing them that it is proper, right, or natural to do so.  What examples of power & authority can you find in these documents?  How were they related?  What are the advantages & disadvantages of each, from the viewpoint of ambitious rulers?

# data[].attributes.body
Assessing Spectacle Question 2:  In what different ways was spectacle, royal splendor, or public display evident in the documents?  How would you define the purpose of such display?  How effective do you think spectacle has been in consolidating state authority?

# data[].attributes.body
Making Comparisons Question 1:  To what extent did these early 4 early modern states face similar problems & devise similar solutions? How did they differ?  In particular, how did the rulers of these states deal with subordinates?  How did they use violence?  What challenges to imperial authority did they face?