Settled in the end of the fifth century, two groups established themselves in what is now present day Cambodia. The Champa controlled the central and southern part of Vietnam and the Funan is the southernmost part Vietnam and present-day Cambodia. Influences from both China and India were obvious as dance and music spread throughout the area. Ruling on its own till 1864 when the French absorbed it into French Indochina Along with Laos and Vietnam. For nearly a century, the French exploited Cambodia
The Communist Party of Kampuchea, also known as the Khmer Rouge, took control of Cambodia on April 17, 1975, which lasted until January 1979. For their three-year, eight-month, and twenty-one day rule of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge committed some of the most heinous crimes in current history. The main leader who orchestrated these crimes was a man named Pol Pot. In 1962, Pol Pot had become the coordinator of the Cambodian Communist Party. The Prince of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk, did not approve of
at the same time has many inaccuracies. The Huns or the northern nomads from Mongolia attacked the Great Wall of China at nightfall. Referring back to the Disney movie, “The army list is in twelve scrolls, on every scroll there's Father's name.” This is showing that the empire is calling for men to serve in war. Historically backing this up, it is said that the Huns were around in the 400’s to 600AD and are located in Mongolia (Huns, 2017). Since the Huns are geographically in the same area as the
1. Attila the Hun, Genghiz Khan, and Tamerlane share the same reputation of brutal, blood-thirsty barbarians who were after nothing more (or less) but the destruction of the so-called civilized world. Do they deserve this reputation or a case can be made in defense of one or all of these leaders? Attila the Hun Attila the Hun and his brother Bleda became “joint leader” of the empire after their father Mundzuk was supposedly killed by his brother, who took over the empire but was exiled because they
Review Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun By: Wes Roberts Roberts starts the book out with his Author's notes here he describes how he came about the topic of the book and where he got his information. He then moves on the preface where he explains a little about leadership and how it is incorporated throughout the book in relation to Attila the Hun. The next part of the book Roberts calls the introduction. Here he gives you some history about the Huns and how they rose to power. Roberts also
The movie Mulan tells the story of the legendary Chinese woman warrior, Fa Mulan. In the Disney movie, Mulan is the only child of a disabled veteran. When the Huns invade from the north, the Chinese Emperor sets a conscription saying that every family must provide a son to be a soldier in the Chinese army. Fearing for her father’s life, as he is the only man in the house, Mulan runs away and joins the army in his place, even though it is against the law for her to do so. She almost fails in her mission
rude, coarse or brutal person"(Funk & Wagnalls 50). When one hears the name, Attila the Hun, one tends to think of him in such a negative way. Contrary to this popular belief, Attila the Hun was not a barbarian, but one of history's great leaders. The Hun kingdom was in modern-day Hungry. The Huns were a Turkish-speaking nomadic people. Attila and his brother Belda succeeded their uncle as leaders of the Huns in 434 A.D. Attila was in the junior role, until his brother's death 12 years later. It
Booker T. Washington once reminiscently wrote, "Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome" (Washington). Washington's conviction that success is to be defined by tenacity and achievements throughout one's lifetime directly corroborates David Brooks's credence that success derives from a sound work ethic and perseverance as demonstrated in his article, "A Nation of Grinders." The speaker, who is typified as philosophical
Attila, King Of Huns The Huns were a nomadic, multiracial and multilingual group of tribes from the European side of the Urals or from Turkic or Asiatic descent. Their warriors would lead the women who made their homes in skin covered chariots. These chariots were overrun with and whatever the warriors would plunder from villages they sacked. They ate raw meat that they made tough by carrying in pouches between their legs or between the flanks of their horses. The weapons that the Huns used were considered
Attila the Hun, one of history’s most successful barbarian leaders and often referred to as the “Scourge of God”. Attila was a ruthless and brutal leader who acquired power through blood and destruction. Attila kept many advisors and would often try to maintain his power by more conventional means such as trade, marriage or diplomacy, but more often than not, he would always return to what he knew best. When in doubt, Attila would kill and destroy. Attila would terrorize Asia, Eastern Europe, the
Leadership Secrets Of Attila The Hun – Wess Roberts Attila the Hun throughout history has been portrayed as a ferocious ugly little tyrant. The book describes leadership as the privilege to have the responsibility to direct the actions of others in carrying out the purposes of the organization, at varying levels of authority and with accountability for both successful and failed endeavors. Attila’s nation has long died out, and he is a most questionable role model for anyone to follow. However
Attila the Hun Although he reigned no more than 20 years as king of the Huns, the image of Attila in history and in the popular imagination is based upon two aggressive military campaigns in the last two years of his life which threatened to dramatically redirect the development of Western Europe. Attila and his brother succeeded their uncle as leaders of the Huns in 434, with Attila in the junior position until his brother’s death 12 years later. History has it that Attila killed him or
Attila the Hun is known as one of the most ferocious leaders of ancient times. He was given the nickname “Scourge God” because of his ferocity. During the twentieth century, “Hun” was one of the worst name you could call a person, due to Attila. The Huns were a barbaric and savage group of people, and Attila, their leader, was no exception. He was the stereotypical sacker of cities and killer of babies. The Huns lasted long after their disappearance in mythology and folklore, as the bad guy. Generally
The Huns were one of the most feared groups at the time as they as a group under the command of Attila the Hun, conquered almost all of Europe. Attila was seen as a vicious beast by the Church, a savage barbarian commander by the Romans but he was more than that. This essay will argue that the Huns can be credited for having no political opposition which left him unchallenged in Eastern Roman lands, achieving a formidable reputation; and finally, their tactics used in battle were unmatched against
In this essay I will discuss both Peter Unger’s ideas on the poverty problem from his book “Living High and Letting Die” and Martha Nussbaum’s critique of it in her article “If Oxfam Ran the World”, as well as my own view on their arguments. After I go over both of their basic ideas, I shall discuss Unger’s response to the review and his defence of his philosophies. Finally, I argue as to why I find Nussbaum’s reasoning more logical and persuasive. Peter Unger attempts to persuade his audience into
major oversight. In this case, using both the tools of HD and ED permits development practitioners to assess the situation on the ground in a more comprehensive manner and tailor programs to meet the needs of different groups. Cases like this abound; Sen (1999) presents the example of Kerala, which reduced income poverty with only moderate economic growth, owing to expansion of health care programs and more equitable land distribution (p. 31). Here, equal access to land, stimulates more opportunities
beings have (Nussbaum, 1997, p.273), capabilities realistically look at what opportunities individuals have and what they are actually able to do or be in their situations or contexts (Nussbaum, 1997, p.285; Whiteside & Mah, 2012, pp.923-4). Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum are the central pioneers of the capabilities approach (Alexander, 2004, p.451). The primary concept of the capabilities approach is that is asks questions about individuals situations and opportunities such as, “what is this person
In December of 1990, Noble-Prize winning economist, Dr. Amartya Sen wrote a ground –breaking article in the New York Review of Books entitled “More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing,” in which he summarized and publicized his thesis, that world –wide and especially in Asia, women are very neglected and decimated before birth, which reflect in the population’s total. He compared the ratios of women to men in Europe (1.06) and North America (1.05) with those in South Asia, West Asia and China (0
In “Mrs. Sen’s”, Lahiri portrayed Mrs. Sen as a cultural outsider to the American society and a cultural insider in her microcosm, that apartment she decorated to resemble India. Interestingly, Lahiri portrayed Eliot as a cultural outsider to Mrs. Sen version of “little” India and a cultural insider of the American society. In other words, both Mrs. Sen and Eliot are mirror images of each other as they were going through a very similar transformation process from a cultural outsider to a cultural
Alfred Marshall distinguished investment in human beings as the most valuable capital, and this view perhaps inspired the formal economic analysis of education not merely as a consumption good, but rather as a sub-division of neo-classical economics that had begun to place the individuals at the center of any developmental agenda (Chattopadhyay, 2012). The Human Capital theory, while marking a resurgence of the orthodox view, inspired an overt stress and predominance of education in public policy