Answer:
Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for centuries, but by the 300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the Empire's borders From then on, no Roman emperor would ever again rule from a post in Italy.
Explanation:
Answer:
C.)
Explanation:
In the rule of law, everyone has to follow the same laws without exceptions. Anarchy and oligarchy are not based on the rule of law by definition, because anarchy implies lack of organised society and oligarchy is governing for only the advantage of the wealthy. Although monarchy can be constitutional, in monarchies, the monarch can be both above the law and able to enact laws, preventing the rule of law. The same applies to democracy, with the exception that instead of the monarch, the majority of poeple enacts laws. Only the republic is intrinsicially based on the rule of law: in an ideal republic, the the law is above the interests of any particular societal group, but is enacted to safequard the rights of all groups, who are all obliged to obey it.
A republic. It later became a dictatorship, but it was founded a republic.
Answer:
Dissatisfaction from the Spanish rule and treatment
Explanation:
Latin America, in general, was under the rule of the Spanish crown. The Spanish didn't really do anything in particular to develop their colonies, but instead they started to stagnate, while the majority of the people were living in bad conditions, and they were also treated very badly by the Spanish authorities. This started to revolt the people, so once they had proper leaders, and Spain was not in the best situation to be able to resist their revolutions, they revolted. The revolutions were successful, and one by one the Latin American colonies gained independence, ruining the Spanish empire in meantime.
If I understand the question right, it would be showing bias in favor of the military, because of his location and the fact that he's talking about being supportive about the military.
