Answer:
Both Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin were the main liberators of the Spanish colonies in South America.
It's D
Explanation:
-Jose de San Martin was an Argentine general and the first leader of the southern part of South America who succeeded in achieving the independence from Spain, having participated actively in the independence processes of Argentina, Chile and Peru.
-Simon Bolivar was is a Venezuelan general and statesman. He is an emblematic figure, with the Argentinian Jose de San Martin and Bernardo O'Higgins of Chile, of the emancipation of the Spanish colonies in South America in 1813. He participated decisively to the independence of current Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela. Bolivar also participated in the creation of Gran Colombia, which he wanted to become a great political and military confederation grouping all of Latin America.
Answer:
Question needs more context, what is the text message?
Explanation:
The British news oscillated the American public opinion(s) in favor of the Allies. They also had like cultural 'bonds' too.
Similarities:
Both empires emerged in the 14th and 15th centuries as postclassic civilizations building on the innovations of earlier political powers but expanding to greater extents
Both empires were entirely infantry, but well supplied, well-organized, and extremely aggressive and militaristic. Javelins, slings, spears and maces were used in battle.
Both empires had inherent instabilities
Both empires were fueled by corn.
Both empires have little to no seafaring, and instead stuck to the mountains and valleys in the center of the region.
Both empires conquered hundreds of cities in the region that resented their rule and taxation
Both empires were ended by Spanish invasions that capitalized on native divisions, introduced disease, and Spanish technology of guns, horses, and steel.
Both empires are misnamed-the Inka was the ruler of Tawantinsuyu, and the Aztecs adopted the name Mexica.
Both empires provided public education
Both Atahualpa and Moctezuma decided against confronting the Spanish militarily, allowing for the Spanish to take the Emperors hostage.
Attempts to restore the monarchy came after the capture and death of the emperor, but were too late.
Differences:
The Incas were bronze age, Aztecs were stone age
THe Incas assigned governors and shuffled conquered peoples around. There was a greater centralization than in Mexico
The Aztecs were a tributary empire, not a direct one.
The Aztecs had writing, while the Incas used Quipu
The Aztecs still had many rivals left unsubdued
The Inca used mostly potatoes while corn was far more dominant in Mexico.
The Inca had llamas, small but important livestock that made transport easier
The Inca had a sophisticated courier system of Chasquis along state-maintained roads
The Inca used bronze axes and halberds, with slings and maces as their main weapons alongside spears. The Aztecs used obsidian swords and glaives instead for close combat, and used javelins far more. Likewise, while Inca military relied on the unit’s experience and officer corps for their quality like the Romans, the Aztecs instead had a feudalistic division between the elite knights and commoners, with advancement by taking captives.
The Inca allowed women into their schools but not commoners. The Aztecs prohibited women but allowed for peasant men to also gain an education.
The diseases that destroyed the Incas came before the Spanish actually arrived in Peru, while the Spanish had been in Mexico for months before the plagues killed the emperor and populace.
Moctezuma’s mistake was trying to use generosity to awe the Spanish and try to coax them on his side, while Atahualpa’s was trying to awe them with his army rather than actually using it.
The Inca political crisis was a civil war between two brothers, while the Aztec’s was a three way duel between the King, the Priests, and the Aristocracy and military.
