The Roman Empire was located in the Mediterranean, making the capital, Rome, a launch pad of sorts for all its expansionist ventures. Basically, Rome became wealthy by conquering its neighbors, taking back wealth to the capital where it was used accordingly to improve infrastructure, like roads, bridges, aquaducts and sewage systems. This infrastructure made travel easier around the empire, supporting the growth of trade and making conquest even easier. The booty that came back from sacking foreign lands also payed the soldiers' salary, and so the military became a means of earning wealth and status as one climbed the ranks. To continue to pay these soldiers, and to satisfy their ambitions for wealth and prestige that so came from war, Rome had to continue expanding, a lot. This contributed even more wealth to the empire (though later causing its collapse as over-expansion presented costly army maintenance fees and increased the length of the borders that needed to be defended, within and without). Beyond that, Rome's domination over the Mediterranean was good for trade and technological advances allowed for ships that could cross the Mediterranean sea, further stimulating trade. Controlling these trade routes also contributed to increased wealth that could be used for both internal growth and external expansion.
Answer: B. Andrew Carnegie
Explanation: Andrew Carnegie objected to U.S. intervention in Cuba.
Answer:
A obligarchie is a type of goverment. It is only ruled by a few wealthy people.
It is not true regarding Napoleon's invasion of Russia that "<span>c. Napoleon was defeated by the Russians at the battle of Waterloo," since this battle took place primarily between France and Great Britain. </span>
