Yes, you can build a society without social hierarchy. Look back at villages with no mayor, or anyone really as the ‘leader’. Everyone was at everyone’s level, just trying to survive. But when people start to think they are better then everyone else, or they start to horde supplies for just themselves, that is when a social hierarchy starts to occur. So as long as that does not happen, you can create a society without a social hierarchy.
No, you can not build a society without a social hierarchy. A social hierarchy is the bones of society. Monarchy’s, Capitalism, Democracy, etc. they all have a social hierarchy in them. There is always the top dog, and there is always the smaller one. Think of all of the great empires and nations. England, the was a king/queen. Rome, it had emperors, and was also a republic. China, had emperors as well.
(Sorry but you are probably gonna have to fine tune the paragraphs. I made it so you can go either way, yes or no.)
Answer:
European Partitioning
Explanation:
I took this test well answer
The statement that accurately describes the relationship between guilds and feudal lords in the Middle Ages is option C: Guilds were groups of lords connected together in a fraternity.
<h3>
What do you mean by Feudal lords?</h3>
A Feudal lords in this order were were well known in ancient times, and has entitlement to allegiance and services in that hierarchy, whenever a battle surface, the Lord's will be called upon by their Baron to face it. They oversea things in that particular area.
The Feudal lords were in the position to grant charters to guilds, as well allowing them to regulate trade. However, the guilds paid taxes, helped raise armies, and provided other services for their lords, all these in return of chartered granted to them.
At the end, "The guilds paid taxes, helped raise armies, and provided other services for their lords." Guilds are connected with each other. Rest all options are incorrect.
Therefore, correct option is C.
Learn more about Guilds, refer to the link:
brainly.com/question/14256329
#SPJ1
This really depends on the year. Some African women would wear beads, to show their status. The royal women didn't really dress too differently from their citizens, although there may have been a significant difference between patterns on the fabric. I'd guess they had something ornamental upon their heads. I do recall learning that women who (Research this, because I'm not too sure) showed great warrior-ism wore golden neck rings, which they wore at all times. If they took them off, their head would be unsupported and they'd be paralyzed or die. Also, what is your book's genre? My book that I've written is fantasy.
It can delay the time for medicine or the right treatment to get to "said" patient. Potentially being a life threatening situation/ Long term issue. Due to human error, the patient wouldn't improve and possibly get worse, and the doctor might not notice till next meeting.
(That's in general what I thought the answer could be. Also heh, you from health science class as well?)
