Please keep in mind that the website link doesn't work....
Right
away we can toss out D, as the patriots primarily consisted of local
militia with little training. We can also toss out C, as our new
country did not have any manufacturing capabilities (at least not for
weapons). The war was fought with weapons provided by other countries
and weapons that people brought from the original European homes. We
can also dismiss A. as we did not have a larger population than England.
The result is B. Washington was a skilled general who fought in the
French-Indian Wars.
The kings had the most power in feudal. They controlled all the lands, they had the power to distribute land to nobles.
Answer:
See the explanation below.
Explanation:
According to me, if we use Military history to learn about leadership and study the commander's mind then it will be the more constructive approach towards the subject. We can keep our focus on military affairs which have large impact on our society.
Military history as a discipline record the armed conflict in the history of humanity and tries to assess it's impact over economies, societies, culture, etc. which in result lead to changes or development in local and international affairs. It also help us to study about military strategy adopted by each side and help in assessing how these tactics and technologies have changed with time, for example, it tries to explain that how warfare led to the development of weapon and with time how emerging technologies have shaped these weapons.
I believe B. A judge presided over the proceedings