1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
algol [13]
3 years ago
13

Why do you think spain joined with venice and other italian states in the battle of lepanto?

History
1 answer:
MariettaO [177]3 years ago
4 0

because they wanted to prevent the Ottoman empire from taking over the region. The Ottomans posed a threat to European control of the region, an outcome that both the Spaniards and the Italians considered undesirable aligned as they all considered the region critical

You might be interested in
What challenges did judaism and christianity bring to the roman empire?
Tju [1.3M]
Christianity became a tool of the Roman Empire fairly early on in it's spread. 
<span>Religion and politics were inseparable in the ancient world, kings usually represented incarnate manifestations of their gods on earth. Polytheistic believers across the ancient Levant were accustomed to their political leaders telling them what gods were to be venerated during their rule and which deity their ruler was representative of in human form. Adding a new deity or giving a new name to an ancient deity whose belief was already established was how the conquering peoples assimilated their conquered. Tanakh recorded that any time such a practice of a Jewish king telling the Jews that they were to worship a foreign deity, the entire Jewish people suffered and did so at the very hands of the people whose deity they had left God to serve. That lesson is told right in our Jewish Bible in several dramatic narratives, the same one the Christians have as an adaptation of their Old Testament, yet they rarely see this in the story because their New Testament does not focus on the contextual meaning of the narrative, but imposes redefined meanings to support it’s dogma, often using topsy-turvy meaning to words and changes translations of phrases in a number of other places. </span>
<span>Early Christian leaders did not want their flock to know the Paschal lamb represented a false man-god of Egypt, so they changed it into a sacrifice for sin to justify human sacrifice (or deicide depending on whether or not they are calling Jesus God in human form). Sin sacrifices are explained in detail in many places, and having nothing to do with the Passover sacrifice. Exodus makes no reference to the use of the Paschal lamb’s blood for expiating sin. Rather, it describes the blood on the door as an act of defiance to false gods and allegiance to the God of Israel. The sacrifice to God showed the Egyptians that the life force (blood) representing their deity was spilled by the Hebrew slaves and their god was powerless over the God of Israel to do a thing about it. It was an act of rejection of the gods of Egypt and alliance to the God of Israel, and that’s in the Torah in Exodus in context. Rather than show that Isaiah was slamming a man for calling himself a man/god representing Venus, Christian dogma personifies and makes a proper name from their Latin translation's word for star and turns that story into something about a fall of angels (no where mentioned in that narrative at ALL) to create giving of the "name" Lucifer for a demon-god of their underworld hell. Every aspect of Jewish belief is given a new spin. Hellenized Jews already apostate to Judaism after four centuries of their occupation and Roman citizens of Judea and the Galilee, desired to entice other Jews to worship as the Greeks that they believed superior in philosophy and knowledge. Jews had laws forbidding these concepts outright so they created texts that tried syncretism, their efforts to claim ,see this is what it was supposed to have been all along. However, the reality remains that those beliefs of incarnate savior deities and human sacrifice are identical to the beliefs and practices that the Torah demonized.Tammuz/Adonis (melded in Roman occupied lands along with and became Mithras worship) were incarnate sacrificed savior deities who had followers of apostate Jews in the North (Galilee) and areas of Paul's travels. Tammuz and the Romanized version of the Zoroastrian Mithras were both born of virgins (a concept having nothing to do with the Davidic Messiah or Tanakh) and their death was said to have brought their people reconciliation to their *sinful natures*. Being born with a burden of sin is a belief of the pagan peoples surrounding Judea and the Gallilee, and contradicts the Torah notion that humans may master evil inclination ( from Genesis) Tammuz was said to die and be reborn each spring. Tammuz worship had become widespread even before the destruction of the First Temple, and had so many apostate Jews as followers, it was condemned in Tanakh in the book of Ezekiel.  hope it helped :)</span>
6 0
3 years ago
Will give 100 points
olga2289 [7]

Answer:

If there is one type of clothing that has had a rich history through the ages, it is most definitely the skirt. From the straw-woven skirt dating back to 3900 BC in Armenia up to the array of maxis, midis and minis (and everything in between) available nowadays, skirts have dominated women’s wardrobe. Despite starting as a standard garment for both men and women in all ancient cultures such as Asia and Egypt, the skirt went on to become a wardrobe essential for women in Western Europe and the Americas. Here we take a deeper look at the fascinating history of skirts – from their early beginnings to the styles that have become firm favourites among women of all ages.

6 0
2 years ago
By 1960, the debate over integration continued in Georgia. Which of the following MOST directly supports the efforts of the Sibl
Gnesinka [82]

Answer:

B

Explanation:

Sibley Commission recommended that local school systems be allowed to decide if they would act by a probable court order to integrate public schools or if they would close them.

5 0
3 years ago
Which of the following best describes both Thoreau’s and King’s attitudes toward government and civil disobedience?
sergij07 [2.7K]

The one that best describes both Thoreau’s and King’s attitudes toward government and civil disobedience is: B. a belief that an individual should disobey unjust laws

In the past , the civil disobedience that conducted by Thoreau is caused by his unwillingness to participate in tax payment that was allocated to fund united states' war. The civil disobedience that conducted by King is caused by racial injustice that occured in united states.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is the Voting Rights Act PLEASE DONT TAKE THE POINTS WITHOUT AN ANSWER
Whitepunk [10]

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 removed barriers to black enfranchisement in the South, banning poll taxes, literacy tests, and other measures that effectively prevented African Americans from voting.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How many original amendments to the Constitution were added and ratified by 1791? A. 25 B. 10 C. 5 D. 15
    6·2 answers
  • What battle was a major turning point in the war in Europe?
    9·1 answer
  • Did the bible say the earth was the center of the universe
    5·1 answer
  • How did the westward expansion fuel the argument over slavery in the United States?
    5·1 answer
  • The_____were early Mexicans who where known for their Temples.
    7·2 answers
  • The French helped the Patriot war effort by
    9·1 answer
  • Which letter on the map identifies the Mexican Plateau
    9·2 answers
  • What is the Indian Ocean trade network?
    12·2 answers
  • Identify whether each statement describes the Torah or Talmud
    9·1 answer
  • Select the correct answer.
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!