Aztecs should be your answer
hope this helps
Answer:
This study offers a comparison of the differing architectural styles and forms in the Norman Kingdoms of Sicily and England, exploring what exactly differed, as well as attempting to determine why such differences exist in each area. In the Kingdom of England, the Normans largely imported their own forms from Normandy, incorporating little of the Anglo-Saxon architectural heritage. There are in fact examples of seemingly deliberate attempts to eliminate important Anglo-Saxon buildings and replace them with structures built along Norman lines. By contrast, in the Kingdom of Sicily, buildings erected after the arrival of the Normans feature a mix of styles, incorporating features of the earlier Islamic, Byzantine and local Italian Romanesque, as well as the Normans' own forms. It is difficult to say why such variance existed, but there are numerous possibilities. Some result from the way each state was formed: England had already existed as a kingdom when the Normans conquered the land and replaced the ruling class, while the Kingdom of Sicily was a creation of the Norman conquerors; furthermore, the length of time taken to complete the conquest contrasted greatly. Another reason is that the pre-conquest cultural situation varied, as England was overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon, in juxtaposition to the Italian, Byzantine and Arab elements in the Mezzogiorno and Sicily. Additionally, the cultural and trading influence of the Byzantine Empire and Islamic nations may have contributed to the eclectic architecture found in the Kingdom of Sicily. Other forms of cultural and artistic expression in the Kingdom of Sicily likewise show a cultural blend absent in England. Finally, there will be a brief look at the political and social situation in the two realms, in order to understand if these cultural expressions are representative of dissimilar societies and models of government. In the Kingdom of Sicily, a number of non-Normans rose to prominence, and some families which had held power before continued to do so. In England, the Norman nobility was much larger and held far more high-ranking positions. Architectural differences are therefore somewhat symbolic.
Answer:
During the Middle Ages, there was an economic and political system in Europe called FEUDALISM, that used a hierarchical system of land ownership. At the top were THE LORDS who were members of the highest social class. They controlled small districts of land that they leased to tenant farmers called VASSALS. These tenant farmers were stuck in their lower social class. The entire system eventually faded as INDUSTRIALIZATION caused a middle class to grow.
Explanation:
Feudalism is a hierarchical social system built around grants, estates and privileges, sometimes hereditary, which the monarchy gave to a ruling class as a reward for services. Feudal rights were held only by vassals and nobility in feudal society. This means that they had a monopoly on mills, wine presses, ovens, hunting and fishing as well as the highest offices in society. The concept of feudalism also includes the feudalist society where vassals, kings and peasants lived.
Feudal society has sometimes been portrayed as a pyramid, where the king had the greatest power. Under him were great vassals who obeyed and were given land by the king. Sub-vassals who obeyed the great vassals could, for example, be knights and soldiers. Further down there were self-employed farmers. Under them were the homeless, such as crofters, farmhands and maids, day laborers, backstug sitters, and maids, many of whom lived in conditions reminiscent of servitude. In medieval Europe, agriculture was the dominant industry.
In 2000, Green party candidate Ralph Nader forced more attention on environmental issues and drew away a small percentage of votes from Al Gore.
