Dukes and duchesses ruled areas called "duchies". These duchies were rarely their own countries, and usually parts of a larger sovereign country ruled by a king and queen. So there would be one king and one queen ruling a country, for example, but there could be several dukes and duchesses ruling smaller territories of the country. Dukes and duchesses are always lower than kings and queens.
Barons and baronesses are the lowest ranking of the nobles. I'm not certain what power they had but I'm pretty sure the title was mostly honorary.
A basic hierarchy would look something like this:
Emperor/Empress
King/Queen
Archduke
Grand Duke
Prince/Princess
Duke/Duchess
Marquess/Marchioness
Earl
Baron/Baroness
I'm pretty sure I left a few titles out, but hopefully that answered your question.
The correct choice is of course <u>to </u><u>determine </u><u>the </u><u>most </u><u>important </u><u>facts </u><u>and </u><u>information.</u><u>.</u><u>. </u>
Answer:
I think it would be the third one, when you read it aloud it sounds the most natural.
Explanation:
Answer: There are many possible lenses through which to view the Russian Revolution of 1917. During the Cold War, it could have been seen as a “dangerous and frightening success”, rather than a failure. Referencing historian Crane Brinton, Fitzpatrick noted that through the Revolution, “what we’ve discovered is what does not work” as the 1917 events ultimately resulted in a system of dictatorship. It could also be characterized, according to Fitzpatrick, as the “initiation of a cycle of violence that lead to the horrors of Stalinism.” While a plethora of definitions exist as to what the Revolution ultimately signified, all historians admit the importance of the event. It shaped the 20th century and “made the dichotomy between capitalism and socialism its dominant paradigm.” Fitzpatrick continued by considering the Revolution within the success/failure framework. The notions of revolutionary “success” or “failure” each possess many nuances and therefore perhaps are insufficient as characterizations of a single event. Does “failure” imply non-achievement of revolutionary goals? How do we judge what the goals of a revolution are and what constitutes failure? Moreover, judgments in choosing the “right” story to tell are inherently subjective. According to Fitzpatrick, the specific revolutionary goals of a particular period would determine the definitions of success and failure. For the Bolsheviks, egalitarianism, end of exploitation and overthrow of capitalism constituted these goals, none of which were entirely successful. So where does that leave us? The Revolution represented a major point of discussion in 2017 conferences throughout the U.S, in commemoration of the centenary. While the Revolution’s failure to create freedom for the people emerged as a major theme, women’s emancipation during this period was barely addressed. According to Fitzpatrick, this disregard can be attributed to scholars’ focus on the failures of the event. “Socialism” is also a term whose meaning sparks great disagreement among scholars. Considering socialism from the practical perspective of state-run industrialization, the system could be said to have succeeded, at least to some extent. Nevertheless, while Soviet economic development might have appeared impressive in the 1930s-60s, the system’s inability to compete with capitalism, particularly in the wake of the information revolution, ultimately led to its demise. Socialism quickly turned into “yesterday’s notion of modernity.”
Explanation:
Answer:
With evidence.
Evidence can be quotes and facts