The nobility, such as the barons, would be the ones responsible for ruling different regions of the country
So we can learn about the past and make sure today’s society doesn’t repeat those mistakes
In the 1980s, as the practice of Indian secularism was eroded, India's claim to Kashmir on the grounds of secularism largely came apart. Today their respective claims are mostly on the basis of statecraft.
The Catholic church in Italy was controlled by the medieval popes, and the bishops were often worldly figures to nobles. The controversy of lay investiture was initiated by a decree from Pope Gregory VII in 1075, ended in an 1122 compromise called the Concordat of Worms. Pope Innocent III, in the 1200s, used tools such as spiritual to bring the church to the height of its political power.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Unfortunately, you did not attach the options for this question. Without the options, we do not what was not an advantage held by the Spaniards over the Native Mesoamerican people.
So the only thing that we can do for you is to answer based on our knowledge of this topic regarding the advantages that the Spaniards indeed had over the indigenous people.
The Spanish conquistadors had metal weapons, fire weapons, armors, and horses, that represented major advantages against the primitive weapons of civilizations such as the Aztecs.
Let's have in mind that in Mesoamerica there were no horses. It was the Europeans who brought horses to America. Natives such as the Aztecas have never seen a horse and they compare it to something similar they had seen before, a deer. Horses for the Spaniards represented an advantage in the purposes of conquest because horses can carry a heavy load and were used in battle.
And regarding fire weapons, native Indians could not compete against that powerful weapon.
