Eastern and Western Roman Empire?
410340
1.) The Eastern Roman Empire, having Rome and Italy in it, necessarily had higher levels of corruption, and a lower percentage of citizens in the legions. \n2.) The Western Roman Empire, was effectively started by Constantine, who was the chief influence that caused the Roman Empire to take Christianity as its state religion.\n\nReligion played a huge role in both empires - in the East, successor states in the area generally did not survive unless they adopted Christianity (especially when powerful rulers such as Charlemagne specifically went around thumping pagans). In the West, the Roman empire became the Byzantine Empire (although it was never referred to as such by its denizens), and it's emperors often felt that they were the head of the Church. Byzantine Emperors went so far as to depose popes that got in their way (when they could).\n\nFor your questions:\n+ how did the differences in what happened bring them back together for the Crusades/How did the similarities:\n\nThe Byzantines and the European states worked together during the Crusades for differing reasons. As most of Europe was thoroughly Christianized, they ran into a paradox: Christian leaders weren't supposed to fight amongst one another, thus, they should be fighting infidels. This led to a lot of warriors going to Spain for the Reconquista, to the East to stomp Pagans, and to the Middle East for the Crusades. The Byzantines were desperately trying to reverse centuries of decline, especially after they lost large chunks of Anatolia (modern Turkey) to the Arabs.  Unfortunately, the differences in religion meant that after the Second Crusade (when the Byzantines had less apt rulers), the Europeans didn't care if they screwed their allies (a la the Sack of Constantinople in 1204) or left them to the wolves.\n\n+ why the Crusades were a turning point in history (consider the effects)\n\nFirst, the Crusades greatly broadened the horizons of the Europeans, giving them a new taste for foreign trade and travel. Second, the Crusades reversed the Arabs for quite a while - without the Crusades, Constantinople falls in the 1200's or 1300's to the Muslims instead of 1450. Third, the Crusades strengthened the Christian Church, setting up the events that would lead to Protestantism.\n\n+ how the effects of the Crusades can still be seen in our world today\n\nMany Muslims consider the Crusades proof that Christians are just interested in slaughtering them - they remember that the Crusaders were often merciless with the Muslims they fought (conveniently forgetting that the Muslims weren't all much better).\n\n+ the fate of the Western Roman Empire\n\nThe Western Roman Empire fell in the mid 5th century after Rome was sacked yet again by the Visigoths. The traditional date is September 4, 476 when Romulus Augustus, the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain.\n\n+ the fate of the Eastern Roman Empire\n\nThe Eastern Roman Empire fell on May 28th, 1453 when Sultan Mehmed II captured Constantinople. Emperor Constantine XI was killed in the final battle.\n\nHopefully, the terms and names given here are enough to spur extra research.
19407
We'll you'll find it all in Wikipedia.\n\n«Although surviving Latin literature consists almost entirely of Classical Latin, an artificial and highly stylized and polished literary language from the 1st century BC, the actual spoken language of the Roman Empire was Vulgar Latin, which significantly differed from Classical Latin in grammar, vocabulary, and eventually pronunciation. Also, although Latin remained the main written language of the Roman Empire, Greek came to be the language spoken by the well-educated elite, as most of the literature studied by Romans was written in Greek. In the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which became the Byzantine Empire, Greek eventually supplanted Latin as both the written and spoken language.»
998809
www.roman-empire.net \nwww.travelplan.it/rome_guide.htm
254427
Time to crack open the history books there...\n\nWhen the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion, they made it illegal to participate in any other religion (to control the population...that message of "render unto Ceaser..."). When new areas were conquered, the leaders, both secular and religious, were eliminated by conversion...accepting Christianity and the dominion of the Roman Empire, or dying. In order to control the conquered people, the old faiths were made illegal. \n\nNow, add in mysogeny. Males sought to control and enslave women. A woman who knew herbology and had a healing hand was a threat to male doctors' practice, or who was 'wise' was a threat to the role of the priests as givers of moral rules and advice, etc. Many of the old faiths were matriarchal, as well, and the knowledge of wise decisions, of herbology/medicine, etc. were passed woman-to-woman.\n\nWicca stems from European nature worship prior to the controls placed there by patriarchal Christianity introduced during martial conquests by the Romans (and their splinter kingdoms after the fall of the empire).\n\nAdd in the mistranslation of "do not suffer a poisoner to live" (in the Hebrew) with "do not suffer a witch to live" (that tie-in to herbology, again)...\n\nSo, modern Wiccans tap deep-rooted generational fears by Christians raised in the ancient prejudice against the "old ways." Part of it is the unfortunate choice of self-naming modern celebrants of ancient pre-Christian pantheons/nature awareness to call themselves witches.\n\nGood luck on your report!
1032261
Below is a wonderful resource for understanding the Roman Empire... specifically for children!\n\nBest wishes!
970271
Rome and Vactican City?
433485
The conflict between the Parthian ( 247 B.C. to A.D. 228 ) and Sassanid or 2nd Persian  (226 until 651) Empires and the Roman and Byzantine empires may be said to two main causes:\n1) Ideological - from the time of the first Persian Wars against Greece ( 492-449 B.C.) the "idea" of Persia in the "west" had been of an absolute and decadent monarchy/ empire trying to enslave the 'free" people of the west.  We can see this in Aeschylus' play about the war The Persians, and even more strongly in Alexander the Great's campaign and history about his war against Persia. Rome saw itself as the successor to the Greek city states in terms of maintaining personal freedom against the tyranny of "eastern" monarchs.  So when the Emperor Trajan ( (September 18, 53 – August 9, 117) set out to conquer the Parthians, he saw himself as the "new" Alexander.  This ideological component of freedom vrs. tyranny, becomes even more pronounced after the Emperor Constantine ( February 27, 272–May 22, 337) declares Christianity legal and then converts, and his successors make Christianity the religion of the empire.  Then the conflict with the 2nd or Sassanid Persian Empire (228 -6510 becomes even more ideologically based, as the Roman/Byzantines see themselves as crusaders against the heathens (the religion of ancient Persia was Zoroastrianism ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism )\n2) Economic - The Parthian and Sassanid empires occupy the strategic lands between the Mediterranean and India, so these empires were able to control and grow rich off the trade in spices and luxury goods between these two ancient trading areas.  Further more when the Han dynasty in China ( 206 BC–AD 220 ) extended its control into central Asia (136 B.C.) then the trade along the famous Silk Road also came under Persian control adding to their wealth.  This wealth attracted Roman military men.  Crassus, a roman politician and general in the Late Republic tried to invade Persia in order to gain limitless wealth, but he was defeated at the battle of Carrhae ( 53 B.C.) This defeat led to a desire for revenge (and for wealth) that affected such Roman leaders as Julius Caesar to the Emperor Trajan.  \nSo the battle between Persia and Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire) was a see-saw war back and forth over what we would now call the mid-East in a contest for wealth fueled by ideological differences.  The best lesson of this sort of useless warfare is that these two great empires spent their resources fighting each other to exhaustion, and when the Arabs united under the banner of Islam they conquer all of the Persian and most of the Byzantine empires in just 30 years (from 630-660,) and both of these empires just disappear into the pages of history.  An important lesson to any country, about wasting its resources in fruitless wars.
713800
There were hundreds during the history of both civilisations.
918871
I am not understanding your question entirely\nAre you asking about the relationship between the Pope and the Roman Emperor during the Byzantine era?\ntry reading reading the wiki article as a over view, look for the links that tell you what you are really looking for
683311
Based upon your own information and bias, the Mongols were the best in the steps and open ground where they could use their horses.  Indeed, the largest empire (land area) in human history was the Mongol empire.\n\nBased upon who they met and never conquered: the Norse (as the Russ, who traveled to Russia) and the Celts.  The Golden Horde stopped in Poland and Novgorod.\n\nIt was also the Celts who stopped the Roman army from expanding to the very coasts of Europe and the British Isles.
858430
The armies of the Goths defeated the western Roman empire. The Ottoman Turks defeated the Byzantine empire. The Mongols defeated the Chinese empire.
225273
Both were Greek city-states.  They fought wars against each other in the old Greek epics and histories.  Go to history.com and research it if you want more specifics.
523973
More=Rome\nPairs=Paris\n\nCant think of anything for the other 2 :(
57388
There is no west line.  East and west are relative terms.  North and south are obsolute terms, because they relate to absolute locations (the North and South poles, respectively).  East and west don't work like that.  They are like right and left--you could turn right infinitely and never reach a maximum state of rightness.
211029
North to South, religion and culture, as well as ethnic background. North is protostant and primarily Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Scandanavian and other Germanic tribes.  South is a mixture of those, plus Persian, Moorish, Greek and Roman, and Catholic.  East to West is seperated by history both recent and ancient.  West has a much greater integration historically, was technologically advanced early, democratic and capitalist. East was under the influence of Russia, is primarily Slavic, and for most of the last few hunderd years was feudal.
1183334
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches split in 1054 mainly over papal authority.\n\nAll basic Christian doctrines are fully agreed upon.\n\nWith love in Christ.
901128
NO.\nChristianity and other factors break down the roman empire