The answer to your question is B. However the troops were eventually withdrawn from Vietnam due to disagreements from the American people.
Answer:
I think Living and Non living components .
Explanation:
Hope this will help you . Mark me as brainleast answer .Please gollow me .
The correct answer for this question is D.
Around this time, Feudalism WAS being used in this area, so that statement is false.
Answer: C. An autocracy keeps power in the hands of one person, and a direct democracy does not.
Explanation:
Both autocracy and direct democracy are political systems, or a system of government, however, both systems are very different from each other.
An Autocracy is a political system where government decisions are made by a single person. This person can make all the decisions of the country, from enacting laws to imposing punishments.
Direct democracy is one in which people directly elect their leaders. An example of direct democracy is when a group decides by raising its hand.
I hope this information can help you.
This is definitely a “History” or “Politics & Government”” question, not “Travel” and I agree with Sue, you’re avoiding doing your own homework. I’m not going to do it for you, but I’ll try and put you on the right track.
The “Roman” institutions (caro amico napoletano, il ragazzo sta parlando della Roma antica, anzi di Bisanzio, che aveva un principio legislatvo ben diverso dal nostro, uno che “funzionava” per essere chiari) definitely influenced the Founding fathers. Some aspects are obvious (The Senate, Governors of Roman Provinces/US States, Ethics) others are less obvious (Representation, civil Rights of citizens, Fiscal system).
The basic differences are of “anglo saxon” inspiration (Pursuit of happiness, Common law, Inviolability of office).
The end result is a very interesting combination of both, which should make US citizens proud of their constitution and system of Government.
Compare Obama’s political platform with the Gracchi brothers, and both Bushes with the Dictator Sulla. You should get quite an interesting result.
The Justinian Code came very late in Roman History, when “Rome” had ceased to exist, and it’s spirit continued to live in Byzantium, in a very watered “Greek” community. In terms of law making, it is certainly interesting, because it is an attempt to sum up all that was positive in the “inherited system”, but it should not be taken out of it’s Historical context, unless you believe the US has reached the same stage of “decline”, which I don’t.
Stricter laws in Roman times? I would say more Draconian, according to the times.
Look up a description of Gibbons’ “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and you should have enough background data to write your paper.