Answer:
The "Dark Ages" is a historical periodization traditionally referring to the Middle Ages (c. 5th–15th century) that asserts that a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records). The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the "light" of classical antiquity.The phrase "Dark Age" itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.The concept thus came to characterize the entire Middle Ages as a time of intellectual darkness between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; this became especially popular during the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment. As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate. Petrarch's pejorative meaning remains in use,typically in popular culture which often characteristics the Middle Ages as a time of violence and backwardness.
Explanation:
I think this is the answer but i don't know.
Answer:
For a cure from Boredom
Explanation:
Why not I mean? They are many other things but that seems the most truthful to me. Let me know if it helps!
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be that there was a sharp decline in manufacturing, since more jobs in these sector were being "exported" overseas.</span></span>
Answer:
The biggest principle that the allies wanted to clean up after Napoleon was legitimacy.
Explanation:
Napoleon was a legitimate, recognized head of state, who everyone except England was allied with at one time or another. As a foreigner, they couldn’t execute the French head of state for acting on behalf of France. To just declare him a criminal and shoot him would have been admitting that the Czar of Russia and Emperor of Austria had been making deals with a criminal.
Also, some of the allies LIKED changes made by Napoleon and wanted to keep it. For example, Kings of the Confederation of the Rhine wanted to keep being Kings, not Grand Dukes or Electors. It was in their interest to not declare Napoleon an outright criminal.
Even the allies holding him on St. Helena wasn’t backed by law. How they were treating Napoleon had no legal precedence. They were making things up as they were going along. The reason why the British would never allow Napoleon to set foot on England was that Napoleon’s supporters would have filed a Habeas Corpus suit on behalf of Napoleon and make the British courts answer what law they were holding Napoleon under.
In the long run it actually played to the advantage of British that Napoleon was alive and under their control. Letting loose Napoleon was the ultimate political trump card they had against the Germans and the French.
