There is only one sentance provided. If the question is, "What part", then the answer would be, "or give me death!". The reason being is that he is willing to die for liberty or "freedom" from the tyrannical government.
A Roman legion (from Latin legio "military levy, conscription", from legere "to choose") was the largest unit of the Roman army involving from 3000 men in early times to over 5200 men in imperial times, consisting of centuries as the basic units. Until the middle of the first century, 10 cohorts (about 5,000 men) made up a Roman Legion. This was later changed to nine cohorts of standard size (with 6 centuries at 80 men each) and one cohort, the first cohort, of double strength (5 double-strength centuries with 160 men each).
In the early Roman Kingdom the "legion" may have meant the entire Roman army but sources on this period are few and unreliable. The subsequent organization of legions varied greatly over time but legions were typically composed of around five thousand soldiers, divided during the republican era into three lines of ten maniples, and from about 100 BC into ten cohorts. Legions also included a small ala or cavalry unit. By the third century AD, the legion was a much smaller unit of about 1,000 to 1,500 men, and there were more of them. In the fourth century AD, East Roman border guard legions (limitanei) may have become even smaller.
For most of the Roman Imperial period, the legions formed the Roman army's elite heavy infantry, recruited exclusively from Roman citizens, while the remainder of the army consisted of auxiliaries, who provided additional infantry and the vast majority of the Roman army's cavalry. (Provincials who aspired to citizenship gained it when honourably discharged from the auxiliaries). The Roman army, for most of the Imperial period, consisted mostly of auxiliaries rather than legions. :) hope this helps you out
Answer:
Mark as brainliest
Explanation:
symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.
Issue Section:
Articles
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5
If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9
Answer:
The Roosevelt Corollary.
Explanation:
This policy declared that the U.S. was allowed foreign interference in Latin American countries in order to protect their democracy nd prevent other nations such as ones from Europe from going in and taking over or exploiting them.
The United States experienced major waves of immigration during the
colonial era, the first part of the 19th century and from the 1880s to
1920. Many immigrants came to America seeking greater economic
opportunity, while some, such as the Pilgrims in the early 1600s,
arrived in search of religious freedom. From the 17th to 19th centuries,
hundreds of thousands of African slaves came to America against their
will. The first significant federal legislation restricting immigration
was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Individual states regulated
immigration prior to the 1892 opening of Ellis Island, the country’s
first federal immigration station. New laws in 1965 ended the quota
system that favored European immigrants, and today, the majority of the
country’s immigrants hail from Asia and Latin America.
