How did are movements change after the renaissance

1 answer:

7 0

Crucially!
To all that was written by Alexander I would like to add that people eat badly in the Renaissance, I mean the rich and wealthy people. Tables them were full of food, it was all terribly kalloriynym, fatty, salty, sweet, and so on. D. Lots and lots of alcohol, rather the water while almost no drinking, right from the morning began to drink "El" (a sort of light beer) and adults and children and men and women. We ate hands, wiped mostly about himself, immediately behind the screen on the eyes and ears on all types emptied in buckets ... phew! I'm going to be sick! In general, so they (the rich and wealthy) naturally suffer from any intestinal diseases, I think it was not a few deaths ... the food was terrible indeed. Dirty and smelly young days. in general, the lack of Hygiene, not dieting. In late already began to appear cutlery - as exotic, forks, spoons, knives ... health ... culture ...

You might be interested in

Make a list of the major grievances of the colonists under british rule

kiruha [24]

Answer:

Taxation without representation

Heavy taxes

Quartering act

Explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

A group of nomads have stopped moving to follow herds of deer because they have figured out how to farm and grow crops. They wil

Anestetic [448]

Answer:

The answer is C

Explanation:

This is their next step on their journey

4 0

3 years ago

In ancient greece, the olympic games

12345 [234]

D) All of the choices are correct

4 0

3 years ago

what were powerful new trading cities along existing trade routes, and how was their growth related to participation in the silk

cupoosta [38]

Trans-Saharan trade routes promoted the growth of powerful trading cities in the time period because they traded valuable items like slaves, gold, and salt, which increased the net worth of the cities and allowed for economic growth that way. Because of the trading, the Trans-Saharan cities could grow

8 0

3 years ago

Why did everyone in the north believe that southern secession was going to be a temporary, fleeting development?

Vilka [71]

Both the North and the South thought the war would only last a few weeks to months. The North thought that as soon as the South saw the devastation of the battle field they would give up because they wouldn't want to lose so many men. The giving up slavery would be worth saving thousands of lives. The SOuth thought they could wait out the North. Between having the North tire itself out and key battlefield victories, they thought that the popularity for the war would wane and the North would simply give up. Neither side was correct and both were set in the idea that they would be free or bring the nation together. No matter the cost in human life.

5 0

4 years ago