What were the maccabean wars about?
150749
:}\nJerusalem fell under the control of the Greek empire when conquered by Alexander the Great, After is death, the empire was divided into parts among his 4 generals. One of them Seleucid took control of Syria. One of the Greek-Syrian rulers Antiochus Epiphany  attempted to enforce the worship of Zeus the Greek God on the Jews. A revolt resulted led by Mattathias Maccabeus and his sons who eventually freed Jerusalem and the temple from Greek-Syrian control. The Jewish Holiday of  Hanukkah  celebrates that freeing of the temple and it’s rededication to the Lord
820762
1689—1763, the name given by American historians to the North American colonial wars between Great Britain and France in the late 17th and the 18th cent. They were really campaigns in the worldwide struggle for empire and were roughly linked to wars of the European coalitions. At the time they were viewed in Europe as only an unimportant aspect of the struggle, and, although the stakes were Canada, the American West, and the West Indies, the fortunes of war in Europe had more effect in determining the winner than the fighting in the disputed territory itself.\n\nTo the settlers in America, however, the rivalry of the two powers was of immediate concern, for the fighting meant not only raids by the French or the British but also the horrors of tribal border warfare. The conflict may be looked on, from the American viewpoint, as a single war with interruptions. The ultimate aim–domination of the eastern part of the continent–was the same; and the methods–capture of the seaboard strongholds and the little Western forts and attacks on frontier settlements–were the same.\n\nThe wars helped to bring about important changes in the British colonies. In addition to the fact of their ocean-wide distance from the mother country, the colonies felt themselves less dependent militarily on the British by the end of the wars; they became most concerned with their own problems and put greater value on their own institutions. In other words, they began to think of themselves as American rather than British.\n\nUsing trading posts and forts, both the British and the French claimed the vast territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi river, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Ohio Country. \nBoth European countries ignored Native American claims to the land in order to pursue their beaver pelt economies. \nThe British colonists feared papal influence in North America (New France was administered by French governors and Roman Catholic hierarchy and missionaries such as Armand de La Richardie were active). For the predominantly Protestant British settlers, French control over North America could have represented a threat to their religious and other freedoms that were provided by English law.
1156107
Origins\n \nBullfighting may trace its roots to Minoan Crete, where the bull-leaping ritual practiced by youths of both sexes is memorialized in the famous wall-frescos at Knossos. The wall murals show male and female acrobats confronting the bull, grabbing its horns as it charges towards them, and volt themselves over its back. This is known as "bull leaping". However, the frescos offer no hint of struggle or violence, and the Lunar Bull was a sacred animal commemorated in ritual and legends such as that of the Minotaur. Modern archaeologists tend to emphasize the danger involved in this athletic skill and may underestimate the extent to which the bull cooperated. A more likely explanation is found in the worship of Mithras in the pre-Christian Roman Empire. The killing of the sacred bull (tauromachy) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. Many of the oldest bullrings in Spain are located on the sites of, or adjacent to the locations of temples to Mithras.\n\nBullfighting is often linked to ancient Rome, when many human-versus-animal events were held as a warm-up for gladiatorial sports. Alternatively, it may have been introduced into Hispania by the Moors in the 11th century, although there are theories that it was introduced into Hispania a millennium earlier by the Emperor Claudius when he instituted a short-lived ban on gladiatorial games as a substitute for those combats. The latter theory was supported by Robert Graves. In its original Moorish and early Iberian form, the bull was fought from horseback using a javelin. (Picadors are the remnants of this tradition, but their role in the contest is now a relatively minor one limited to "preparing" the bull for the matador.) Bullfighting spread from Spain to its Central and South American colonies, and also in the 19th century to France, where it developed into a distinctive form in its own right.\n\nAnother belief is that bullfighting as is in present times has its roots based largely in wars that occurred between Iberians and Moors. As history has it, a common war strategy of the Moors was to set fire to the tails of bulls which would cause the herd to stampede into opposing armies in a frenzy. This tactic on the part of the Moors created a need to devise a way of overcoming the oncoming stampede on the part of the Iberian peninsula's previous inhabitants. What we see today in modern bullfighting, from swords, horses, Spanish style, muletas, facing the bull without weapons as is seen in Portugal's forcados, etc., was born from the necessity of survival in battles against the Moors.\n\nFrench ethnologist Dominique Aubier considers according to an espistemological study that there is no relationship between the Greek sacrifice which is an agricultural ritualistic celebration or the Roman Gladiators and the bullfight which is in Spain of pure paleontological hunting origins.Dominique Aubier explains that the corrida is a 20 000 year old primitive tradition, and that the theory of a so-called Arabic introduction of the corrida in Spain is an extravancy. In the 18th century, the Spanish introduced the practice of fighting on foot, Francisco Romero generally being regarded as having been the first to do this, about 1726. The modern style of Spanish bullfighting is credited to Juan Belmonte, generally considered the greatest matador of all time, who introduced a daring and revolutionary style which kept him almost constantly within a few inches of the bull. Although extremely dangerous (Belmonte himself was gored on many occasions), his style is still seen by most matadors as the ideal to be emulated. As bullfighting devolped, men on foot started using capes to aide the horsemen in positioning the bulls. This type of fighting drew more attention from the crowds, thus the modern corrida, or fight, started to take form. Today, bullfighting is now like it was since 1
509452
War, famine, pestilence, death.
1187252
Over the Centuries England has fought wars on nearly every continent and with nearly every race and religion.    As for the middle east, England's most notable conflict is probably "The Third Crusade" - specifically under King Richard I .   \n\nKing Richard "The Lionhearted" Plantagenet  spent most of his Reign (1189-1199) leading his soldiers in a crusade to reclaim the holy land... a battle agains the arabian people spanning lands from Egypt to Syria.
1165200
They fought, sewed clothes and took care of families and soldiers, and fought, respectively.  \n\nThis is a hugely broad question that entire books have been written about individually, so a little additional research might behoove you.
31298
They had 3 Punic Wars with Roman and lost every one.  Many Carthaginians died from starvation during the latter part of the siege, while many others died in the final six days of fighting. When the war ended, the remaining 50,000 Carthaginians (perhaps a tenth of the original pre-war population) were sold into slavery. \n\nThe city was systematically burned for somewhere between 10 and 17 days. Then the city walls, its buildings and its harbor were utterly destroyed and the surrounding territory was supposedly sown with salt to ensure that nothing would grow there again.
507014
I think what Shakespeare was trying to do, was to give the viewer/reader a sense of the characters in the play. Macduff plays an important part later on the play, so it's important that we see the character closely. The play is not ALL based on Macbeth, in fact it's about Macbeth's rise and fall, which occurs by the influence of other characters in the play such as his wife, Lady Macbeth, the 3 witches including Hecate..even King Duncan influences him into believing he can be king himself (complicated story). Look i can write a whole essay as to why Macduff is important in the play...have you read the whole play? do you know the end? maybe if you read the end then you'd know why introducing Macduff's character is important..so sorry for the long answer =/
472121
Actually, it was about neither. It was economics and social structure. You need to learn a LOT more about the haulocaust. Hitler was anti-religion. He made the Catholics of Germany burn their bibles, etc.
1224
Wikipedia is awesome.\n\n"In the 1st century, Zealots conducted a fierce and unrelenting terror campaign against the Roman occupiers of the eastern Mediterranean. The Zealots enlisted sicarii to strike down rich Jewish collaborators and others who were friendly to the Romans."
534953
They were the Cathars (correct spelling will help you search Wikipedia - I won't do that for you).  They were a heretic sect of Christianiity that became extrremeely popular in southern France.   They  suffered greatly at the hands of the Inquisition, and were finally supprressed brutally in the Albigensian Crusade.
532182
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/1066.html\n\nTry this link
196927
Hard to tell really, if it has ANYTHING to do with this particular Religion and Spirituality forum.\n\nThe closest, best-guess I can come up with is something about "1914" though... wasn't that when the leader/s of JW predicted the 'end of the World' the first time around and nothing happened?? And then there were two or three other later dates for the same cataclysmic event, but neither one of them panned out either?? LOL. I dunno! I don't see the connection between that and "wheat"...\n\nI give up. What's the Miracle Wheat Scandal of 1913??
16383
Overall this war was casued due to the economic policies of the British Empire.  \n\nThere are also political causes such as the feelings of a lack of political representation within the English Empire, which then resulted in the above said economic policies.  This argument would be disputed by historical materialists.
39895
Palestinan and Israel conflict.  Jews moved on their land during WW11.  Divided over who gets Jeruselem and holy areas.  Just an idea.
7224
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and revolutionaries within thirteen British colonies in North America. The war began largely as a colonial revolt against the economic policies of the British Empire, and eventually widened far beyond British North America, with France, Spain, and the Netherlands entering the war against Great Britain. Additionally, many American Indians fought on both sides of the conflict.\n\nThroughout the war, the British were able to use their naval superiority to capture colonial coastal cities, but control of the countryside largely eluded them. French involvement proved decisive, with a naval victory in the Chesapeake leading to the surrender of a British army at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognized the independence of the United States of America. Because a great number of colonists fled the thirteen colonies and settled in the north, the war also paved the way for the eventual creation of what would become Canada.
665065
Write about the 100 years war between France and England. It lasted from 1337-1453, or the Black Death(or Plague) which was from 1348-1349. Another suggestion is writing about Magellan going around the world from 1519-1522.