1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Molodets [167]
4 years ago
14

What wouldve happened if john burgoyne didnt surrender ?

History
1 answer:
finlep [7]4 years ago
7 0

He would've Died or killed so to speak

You might be interested in
Why is sub-Saharan Africa's cultural unity less apparent than its cultural diversity
Brrunno [24]
Cultural unity was less apparent than its diversity, Africa is home to 2000 distinct languages.
8 0
3 years ago
Please answer this question
charle [14.2K]
Hello! The correct answer is: Guam.



I hope this helped you! c:
7 0
3 years ago
By 1526 the __________ Empire ruled almost the entire Indian subcontinent.
Dmitrij [34]
<span>Mughal empire ruled almost the entire indian subcontinent.

</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following is not a reason European nations started colonies?
son4ous [18]

Answer:

Alliances with natives

Explanation:

The Europeans started off colonies because of numerous reasons, with the biggest being the wealth and territory. In order to get to more wealth, the Europeans had to find new routes and markets first, and they did lot of exploration about this, eventually resulting in discovering and colonizing of new territories. The natural resources and raw materials that these places offered gave the Europeans the basis for making lot of wealth out of them, and so they did. The religion was also an important factor, as it was important for the Europeans to spread it out because of bigger influence, but also gaining of new followers. Alliances with the natives were not really a reason for colonization, and considering the manner in which the Europeans treated the natives, it is the total opposite.

6 0
3 years ago
How were monks and friars similar? How were they different?
oee [108]
A monk is a person who practices religious asceticism, living either in solitude or among other monks. A monk can either devote his life completely to other beings or lives his life through prayer and contemplation, but lives in mainstream society. A friar is a type of monk who is of the Christian order, who depends on charity for a living. A friar and a monk can be similar, because monks can be like friars who depend on charity for living but since some monks live in the mainstream society, who rely more on praying than actively living in a convent, this is how monks and friars differ.
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What innovation allowed henry ford to make cars available to americans for a lower cost
    6·1 answer
  • A current is the movement of water on the surface of the ocean moving in a particular direction
    12·1 answer
  • ASAP MULTIPLE CHOICE WILL MARK BRAINLIEST
    13·2 answers
  • Why were African American voters more likely to vote Republican in the late 1800s?
    13·1 answer
  • When would historians use a calender and timelines
    6·1 answer
  • How did the Industrial Revolution help develop imperialism?
    7·2 answers
  • What did Woodrow Wilson hope his Fourteen Points would accomplish?
    15·1 answer
  • 2 reasons for pollution in cities during the late 1800s
    9·2 answers
  • Which of the following gave the United States the most new territory?
    6·2 answers
  • Prompt
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!