I think the answer you are looking for is yes :)
Answer:
Alexander was “great” because he easily conquered a lot of land and established prominent societies, like Alexandria.
Alexander wasn’t “great” because he was egotistical in naming a city after him and conquering land just for greed.
Alexander was “great” because he was smart enough to cross the river and use Porus’ own elephants against him.
Alexander was not “great” because he tricked a ruler and killed many men in war only because he was greedy and wanted more land.
Alexander was most likely very religious, and it seems that in Ancient Greek anyone seeking refuge in a temple should be shown mercy. Also, if Alexander had killed everyone in the city than there would have been no point in conquering the city except for land.
The conclusion of “Narrative Of The Life Of Frederick Douglass” focuses on the hardships of Douglass’ life as he enters adulthood, and his eventual escape from slavery as he heads north. The final two chapters and the appendix show a huge difference when compared to the first few chapters of the story. In Chapter X, we see Douglass go from a passive observer of violence to experiencing the violence first hand. Mr. Covey’s actions of whipping and kicking Douglass are one of the first in
Answer:
False; it is cartography.
Explanation:
<span>The early Hebrews were Mesopotamian nomads who were influenced by surrounding Sumerian City - states, but who favored monotheism. It was after the age of Moses that the religious beliefs of the Iraelites developed along increasingly distinctive lines. The Hebrews also identified many of the same Gods as their Mesopotamian neighbors.</span>
