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?

To what extent did these four early modern states face similar problems and 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?

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 and authority can you find in these documents? How were power and authority related? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each, from the viewpoint of ambitious rulers?

To what extent did the Atlantic revolutions reflect the influence of early modern historical developments $(1450-1750)$ ?

It is important to recognize that early modern states differed in many ways from twentieth-or twenty-first 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 the lives of its citizens.

It is important to recognize that early modern states differed in many ways from twentieth or twenty-first 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 the lives of its citizens.

Some scholars have made a distinction between "power," the ability of rulers to coerce their subjects into some required behavior, and "authority," the ability of those rulers to persuade their subjects to obey voluntarily by convincing them that it is proper, right, or natural to do so. What appeals to "power" and "authority" can you find in these documents? How does the balance between them differ among these documents?

The peoples of India had only rarely experienced a political system that encompassed most of the subcontinent. Its vast ethnic and cultural diversity and the division between its Hindu and Muslim peoples usually generated a fragmented political order of many competing states and principalities. But in the early modern era, the Mughal Empire gave to South Asia a rare period of substantial political unity. Source offer excerpts from the memoirs of Jahangir, who ruled the Mughal state from $1605$ to $1627$ , following the reign of his more famous father Akbar. Written in Persian, the literary language of the eastern Islamic world, Jahangir's account of his reign followed the tradition of earlier Mughal emperors in noting major events of his lifetime, but it departed from that tradition in reflecting personally on art, politics, family life, and more.

Why do you think Jahangir mounted such an elaborate coronation celebration for himself?

Before entering an intersection, the safest searching process is to search ________.

• right, left, right, center
• left, center, right, left again
• center, right, center, right
• center, right, left, center again

Under Suleiman I (r. $1520-1566$), the Ottoman Empire reached its greatest territorial extent and perhaps its golden age in terms of culture and economy. A helpful window into the life of this most powerful of Muslim states comes from the writings of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, a Flemish nobleman who served as a diplomat for the Austrian Empire, which then felt under great threat from Ottoman expansion into Central Europe. Busbecq's letters to a friend, present his view of the Ottoman court and his reflections on Ottoman military power.

How do you think Busbecq's outsider status shaped his perceptions of Ottoman political and military life? To what extent does his role as a foreigner enhance or undermine the usefulness of his account for historians?

which of the following statements about good experiments is true

Some college campuses have started using "puppy therapy" to help reduce stress among students according to a USA Today article. Suppose you design an experiment to test the hypothesis that puppy therapy is an effective stress reducer for students, within the context of a 6-section introductory biology course at your school. Each section has 12 students. Students in three of the sections get to play together with a pack of therapy dogs for 15 minutes at the beginning of the section recitation (or "lab") meeting. The other three sections simply observe 15 minutes of quiet free time instead. Students rate their stress levels immediately after the 15-minute period. Then you measure the percentage of students that report being 'very stressed out" for each section, and you compare the average percentage between sections that played with puppies and those that didn't.

In your puppy therapy experiment, what is the experimental unit?

a. A single student

b. A section in the course

c. The entire course

Pedro de Cieza de Leon ($1520-1554$), a Spanish chronicler of the Inca Empire of the early sixteenth century, came to the Americas as a boy at the age of thirteen. For the next seventeen years, Cieza took part as a soldier in a number of expeditions that established Spanish rule in various parts of South America. Along the way, he collected a great deal of information, especially about the Inca Empire, which he began to publish on his return to Spain in 1550 . Despite a very limited education, Cieza wrote a series of works that have become a major source for historians about the workings of the Inca Empire and about the Spanish conquest of that land. The selection that follows focuses on the techniques that the Incas used to govern their huge empire.

How would you describe Cieza's posture toward the Inca Empire? What in particular did he seem to appreciate about it?

The experience of empire for conquered peoples was broadly similar whoever their rulers were. Does the material in this chapter support or challenge this idea?