<span> basically, it was so environmentally hazardous
that they had to move</span>
I made the tenchen of the war with both side go up.
Answer:
see below the con and pros
Explanation:
pros
in the modern-day city of Istanbul which was Constantinople, now its Istanbul, not Constantinople. Which provided the inspiration for a song made famous by They Might Be Giants.
cons
the fall of Byzantine empire, the question of what life would be like, if it hadn’t, will never be answered. Sure, there might be some alternate reality where the Byzantines are alive and well. Aspects of string theory certainly suggest so. But who knows what the modern political landscape might look like with the formal existence of the Byzantine?
pros
The fall of the Byzantine empire is part of the history of the world, as we know it. We might wear hats on our feet for all we know. What might the world look like if the empire had not fallen?
cons
Fall of the Byzantine empire led to an abundance of knowledge that is lost forever, think about that forever. The loss of “Greek Fire” is definitely a drag. Greek Fire was an incendiary weapon used by the Byzantine navy, and could burn on water. No one knows just what went into that technological advantage possessed by the Byzantines.
<u>This portion of the text shows Hobbes supported an absolute ruler:</u>
- <em>Men are continually in competition for honour and dignity . . . and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, envy, and hatred, and finally war. ... No wonder if there be somewhat else required, besides [contract], to make their agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the common benefit.
</em>
- <em>
The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another . . . is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.</em>
Further detail:
Thomas Hobbes published a famous work called Leviathan in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes' view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). Hobbes' view of the natural state of human beings without a government held that people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. And so people willingly enter a "social contract" in which they live under a government that provides stability and security for society.
Answer:
Incomplete question there is a passage to be read.
Passage
About the hour of ten o’clock, the whole plain was crowded with horsemen, horsewomen, and foot-passengers, hastening to the tournament; and shortly after, a grand flourish of trumpets announced Prince John and his retinue, attended by many of those knights who meant to take share in the game, as well as others who had no such intention.
The answer is option C
A powerful monarch backed by a noble fighting class.
Explanation:
It is already describe in the passage how the fighting class were loyal to their nobles, as well as the culture from before was derived of the people in the passage. Monarch is a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor.
Nobility is a social class normally ranked immediately under royalty and found in some societies that have a formal aristocracy. Nobility possesses more acknowledged privileges and higher social status than most other classes in society.
