Mary Brown 

Question 1 

Question 2 

 

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.

 

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. 

- 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 

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.