Homer is the Greek blind poet is trought to have written the iliad and odyssey
i read all of the Odyssey
Answer:
1.Christopher Columbus was a fraud.2. He was indeed a brave and prolific explorer. 3.but he also was a brutal evil man who never even made it to the place that is now the United States.4. We all believe that Columbus is a villain than a hero.
5.First of all, according to Wikipedia, A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) is a person or main character of a literary work who, in the face of danger, combats adversity through feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength, often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good. However, based on what we have learned about Christopher Columbus, what he did has nothing to do with the definition of hero. His motivation to take the travel was to arrive in India, a country in east Asia, to obtain gold. From this perspective, his motivation was not noble. In addition, he did not arrive in India.
Secondly, he set a bad example to colonists came later. According to the article “Christopher Columbus: Hero or Murderer?” by Whitney DeWitt, it is said that “Columbus’s arrogance and exploitation regarding slavery began on his second voyage. Ferdinand and Isabella had ordered that the natives be treated kindly. In opposition to this order, Columbus began exporting slaves in great numbers in 1494.” His way to treat the native residents was improper and rude, which is bad model to colonists who came later. A hero is supposed to be a decent man who get rid of bad reputation. Columbus’ behavior did not conform to the standard.
Because of the reasons given above, it will be hard to classify Christopher Columbus as a hero. His motivation to come to American continent was not noble. He set a bad example to colonists who came later. In addition, his arrival caused a catastrophe to local residents. Therefore, he is more like a villain than a hero.
brainliest plz
<span>Religious beliefs have
highly influenced the political and hierarchical structures in both Ottoman and
Safavid Persia empires. Although both states were of Islamic religion, they
belonged to different branches, Sunni and Shia. These branches differ over the
choice of Muhammad's successor, which subsequently acquired broader political
significance, as well as theological and juridical dimensions. Sunni Muslims
believed that Muhammad didn’t clearly appoint a successor, which is why there
isn’t hereditary succession law in Ottoman Empire. This contrasts with the Shia
Muslims view, which holds that Muhammad appointed his son-in-law and cousin Ali
ibn Abi Talib to succeed him. They believed that the empire should be led by
direct successor of Muhammad’s line. Differences between these two branches
affected the politics, as Shia Muslims weren’t religiously tolerant to other
confessions and considered them for heretics, even the other branches of Islam.
This resulted in the besieged of Bagdad, which was followed by the massacre of
a large part of its Sunni Muslim inhabitants, as it was endeavored to transform
Baghdad into a purely Shiite city. The besiege of Bagdad was the event that led
to the Ottoman-Safavid war (1623–1639).</span>
Answer:
I'm not completely sure but i think it is true
Explanation:
I already learned this so... Hope this helps
At the end of the F & I War, Britain gained control of the Ohio River Valley. Colonists thought that this would allow them to more easily move west. However, the British government had decided to leave all lands West of the Appalachian Mts (according to the Proclamation of 1763) be given to the Indians. This would keep peace in the area and avoid another war between colonists and Indians. The colonists were very angry about this decision. They had fought and died for the land and now were being forced out.
