Answer:
A
Explanation:
English Civil Wars, also called Great Rebellion, (1642–51), fighting that took place in the British Isles between supporters of the monarchy of Charles I (and his son and successor, Charles II) and opposing groups in each of Charles’s kingdoms, including Parliamentarians in England, Covenanters in Scotland, and Confederates in Ireland.
Answer:
The decline of the Roman Empire
Explanation:
The reason for the development of both feudalism and manorialism were both caused by the decline of the Roman Empire.
Manorialism and Feudalism are similar concepts based on land tenure system and land distribution among lord and vassal or subjects.
It was developed during the decline of Rome as an empire and at a time when countries were becoming more centralized.
Answer:
hope it helps...
Explanation:
.Mercantilism in Great Britain consisted of the economic position that, in order to increase wealth, its colonies would be the supplier of raw materials and exporter of finished products. Mercantilism brought about many acts against humanity, including slavery and an imbalanced system of trade.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached or further references or context, we can say the following.
Regarding the French debt, the costs that seemed justified were the French intervention in the Seven Years War, because France had a great rivalry against England, and France had to send troops to the North American territory and other parts of the European continent.
Another justified cost was the support the government of France offered the Continental Army when it was fighting against the British troops during the Revolutionary War of Independence. At that time, the United Kingdom was the natural enemy of France.
Now, the costs that seemed unjustified were the following. First the construction of luxurious buildings such as the Versailles Palace, in the outskirts of Paris. This was an excessive massive luxurious building in a time where most of the French people were very poor.
The other unjustified cost was the extravagant parties and luxurious lifestyle of the King of France Louis XIV and his wife Maria Antonieta. Fancy parties, fancy clothes, and fancy food, when the Third State in France was dying of hunger.
We then can say that a class conflict started the revolution.
The French Revolution began in 1789. The Storming of the Bastille started the hostilities in Paris, France. French people were tired of the tyranny of the monarch. The class system had produced social inequality and the tax burden on the thirds state (the commoners, the poor people) angered the French.
The rulers of the Soviet Union viewed empire and imperialism in ideological terms as ‘the highest and final stage of capitalism’.1 By this Leninist definition, the Soviet Union did not identify itself as an empire, and instead, its leaders vehemently denounced imperialism that was carried out by its enemies and competitors: the capitalist states. Despite its own anguish over being identified as an empire, the Soviet Union indeed was one. While the meaning of ‘empire’ has shifted over time, for the purposes of this paper the definition of empire is in the sense of a great power, a polity, ruling over vast territories and people, leaving a significant impact on the history of world civilizations.2 As the characteristics of the Soviet Union are examined, support for viewing the USSR as an empire grows.
The Soviet Union emerged after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Tsarist Russian Empire’s government was overthrown by the local soviets, led by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks attempted to replace the Russian empire with a communist one, in which socialism would make nationalismobsolete and in place there would be a supra-national imperial ideology.3 Still, coming back to the issue of ‘empire’, the Soviet Union clearly maintained a commanding control over multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic societies that surpassed the extent of the preceding Imperial Russia Empire. A question thus arises: was the USSR a Russian empire? The first aspect to consider is if the USSR was a continuation of Russian imperialist power or if an intrinsic distinction can be made between the two. What is notable to address is what is meant by ‘Russian’ identity and nationality, its formation, and reshaping through time. Once this will be accounted for, this paper will move on with an answer to the question: the USSR was indeed an essentially different empire from the one preceding it, and thus, the USSR was not a Russian empire.
