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
Rudik [331]
3 years ago
13

Explain how the economic development of the colonies altered the patterns of social prestige and wealth

History
2 answers:
OleMash [197]3 years ago
8 0
At first, the clergy was the most respected group. As the colonies started developing, doctors and lawyers, as well as others who dealt with law issues, became more respected as they were mostly employed by the wealthy. This further increased the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.
ValentinkaMS [17]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:At first, the clergy was the most respected group. As the colonies started developing, doctors and lawyers, as well as others who dealt with law issues, became more respected as they were mostly employed by the wealthy. This further increased the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

Explanation:exactly what the other person said is 100% correct

You might be interested in
How did the industrialization and new technology affect the economy and society?
padilas [110]
The new technology made machines and that put many people nationwide out of jobs because machines were doing there jobs and doing them better
8 0
3 years ago
How did the americas get their name
Papessa [141]
Named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian explorer who helped out the then revolutionary concept that the lands that Christopher Columbus sailed to in 1492 were part of a diffrent continent.
8 0
3 years ago
In referring to the deportations during the Armenian genocide, what does correspondent Henry Wood say was the “terrible feature
Zepler [3.9K]
In referring to the deportations during the Armenian genocide, Henry Wood says the “terrible feature of this deportation” was that it was largely undocumented. 
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the make-up of the Roman Senate change over time?
vladimir1956 [14]

First it's important to think about the complications involved with the word “empire.” Rome was an empire (country ruling over other countries) before the first emperor, but the word derives from imperator, the name used by Augustus. But it meant “wielder of military power,” a kind of uber-general and was specifically not supposed to connote the idea of an emperor as we think of it today (the goal was to avoid being called a king or being seen as one). Earlier, Augustus was known as <span>dux </span>(leader) and also, later <span>princeps </span>(first citizen). As far as I know, in the days of the republic, Rome called the provinces just provinciaeor socii or amici, without a general term for their empire unless it was imperium romanum, but that really meant the military power of Rome (over others) without being a reference to the empire as a political entity. It didn’t become an empire because of the emperors, and the way we use these words now can cloud the already complicated political situation in Rome in the 1st century BC.

The point is this: the Roman Republic did have an empire as we conceive it, but the Senate was unwilling to make changes that would have enabled it to retain power over the empire. By leaving it to proconsuls to rule provinces, they allowed proconsuls, who were often generals of their armies whether they were actually proconsul at any given time or not, to accrue massive military power (imperium) that could be exerted over Rome itself. (This, by the way, is in part the inspiration behind moving American soldiers around so much—it takes away the long-term loyalty a soldier may have toward a particular general.)

So the Senate found itself in no position to defy Caesar, who named himself the constitutional title of dictator for increasing periods until he was dictator for life, or Octavian (later named Augustus), who eventually named himself imperator.

The Senate had plenty of warning about this. The civil wars between Sulla and Marius gave plenty of reason for it to make real changes, but they were so wedded to the mos maiorum (tradition of the ancestors) that they were not willing to address the very real dangers to the republic that their constitution, which was designed for a city-state, was facing (not that I have too many bright ideas about what they could have done).

To finally come around to the point, the Senate went from being the leading body of Rome to being a rubber stamp on whatever the imperator wished, but there was no single moment when Rome became an empire and the Senate lost power, and these transformations don't coincide.

For one thing, the second triumvirate was legally sanctioned (unlike the informal first triumvirate), so it was a temporary measure—it lasted two 5-year terms— and the time Octavian spent as dux was ambiguous as to where he actually stood or would stand over the long term (in 33 BC, the second term of the second triumvirate expired, and he was not made imperator until 27). When he named himself imperator, he solidified that relationship and took on the posts of consul and tribune (and various combinations of posts as time went on).

If we simplify, we would say that the Senate was the leading body of Rome before the first emperor and a prestigious but powerless body afterwards, though senators were influential in their own milieus.

One other thing to keep in mind is that Octavian’s rise to Caesar Imperator Augustus Was by no means peaceful and amicable. He gets a reputation in many people’s minds as dictatorial but stable and peaceful, but the proscriptions of the second triumvirate were every bit as bloody and greedy as those of Sulla. Ironically, it was Julius Caesar who was forgiving to his former enemies after he named himself dictator. Augustus did end widespread killings and confiscations after becoming imperator, but that was only after striking fear into everyone and wiping out all his enemies, including the likes of Cicero<span>.</span>

6 0
3 years ago
Please help me with this. Explain how Aztecs and Cortes interacted with each other, and what happened as a result of their meeti
marysya [2.9K]
Cortes showed up, the Aztecs welcomed him with open arms. They apparently thought he was a god. They gave him all the gold he could ever want, but he decided that that wasn't good enough and so he set up a meeting with Montezuma (their leader). He then captured Montezuma. The Aztecs realized their mistake and beat the Spanish back. 

<span>After a while, the Spanish enlisted the aid of oppressed tribes living under Aztec rule, and when they made a move on the Empire, they found most of the Aztec warriors dead or dying of diseases that THEY brought over from Europe. They then conquered everyone.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What were the influences of the roman republic on the us government
    8·1 answer
  • Why was Russia unhappy with the results of the Treaty of Versailles?
    5·1 answer
  • 8. In most cases, a majority of House members must be present for a bill to be
    5·1 answer
  • In the early 1800s, many people in the United States migrated westwards because
    6·1 answer
  • Why did the Church make sure to silence Galileo?
    9·1 answer
  • Explain why the Vietnam War was part of the Cold War?
    7·1 answer
  • I am the second largest of the three pyramids
    13·1 answer
  • Why did European explorers land in the Americas?
    12·2 answers
  • PLSSS HELPPPP I WILLL GIVE YOU BRAINLIEST!!!!!! PLSSS HELPPPP I WILLL GIVE YOU BRAINLIEST!!!!!! PLSSS HELPPPP I WILLL GIVE YOU B
    8·1 answer
  • During the Civil War women in both the South and in the north served as
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!