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
hichkok12 [17]
2 years ago
13

How does the role of the Russian nobility in government during the 18th century compare to that of the French nobility in the 17

th century?
Russian nobles were forbidden from taking positions in government, while French nobles were encouraged to take active roles in government.
In both France and Russia, nobles dominated the government, weakening the power of the monarchy.
In France, nobles were removed from a role in government, while in Russia they were employed in government.
In both France and Russia, nobles were excluded from government, which was administrated by commoners.
History
2 answers:
nikklg [1K]2 years ago
6 0

Answer:

I just took the test its B "In both France and Russia, nobles dominated the government, weakening the power of the monarchy."

Explanation:

becasue it is

Mekhanik [1.2K]2 years ago
4 0
The best option from the list would be that "<span>In both France and Russia, nobles dominated the government, weakening the power of the monarchy," although this was more so the case in France. </span>
You might be interested in
How were the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 similar?
Nat2105 [25]
They both extended slavery. They both freed enslaved people. They both united the thirteen states. They both encouraged settlement. They both ordinances set aside plots of land for educational purposes. Hope this helps!!!
3 0
2 years ago
When did the kingdoms of Ghana and Mali flourish?
Sergio [31]
B. 400-1400, during the era when the Roman Empire declined, the Byzantine Empire flourished, and Islam was founded
6 0
3 years ago
1. How does the author characterize the
nexus9112 [7]

Answer:s the United States enters the 21st century, it stands unchallenged as the world’s economic leader, a remarkable turnaround from the 1980s when many Americans had doubts about U.S. “competitiveness.” Productivity growth—the engine of improvement in average living standards—has rebounded from a 25-year slump of a little more than 1 percent a year to roughly 2.5 percent since 1995, a gain few had predicted.

Economic engagement with the rest of the world has played a key part in the U.S. economic revival. Our relatively open borders, which permit most foreign goods to come in with a zero or low tariff, have helped keep inflation in check, allowing the Federal Reserve to let the good times roll without hiking up interest rates as quickly as it might otherwise have done. Indeed, the influx of funds from abroad during the Asian financial crisis kept interest rates low and thereby encouraged a continued boom in investment and consumption, which more than offset any decline in American exports to Asia. Even so, during the 1990s, exports accounted for almost a quarter of the growth of output (though just 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product at the end of the decade).

Yet as the new century dawns, America’s increasing economic interdependence with the rest of the world, known loosely as “globalization,” has come under attack. Much of the criticism is aimed at two international institutions that the United States helped create and lead: the International Monetary Fund, launched after World War II to provide emergency loans to countries with temporary balance-of-payments problems, and the World Trade Organization, created in 1995 during the last round of world trade negotiations, primarily to help settle trade disputes among countries.

The attacks on both institutions are varied and often inconsistent. But they clearly have taken their toll. For all practical purposes, the IMF is not likely to have its resources augmented any time soon by Congress (and thus by other national governments). Meanwhile, the failure of the WTO meetings in Seattle last December to produce even a roadmap for future trade negotiations—coupled with the protests that soiled the proceedings—has thrown a wrench into plans to reduce remaining barriers to world trade and investment.

For better or worse, it is now up to the United States, as it has been since World War II, to help shape the future of both organizations and arguably the course of the global economy. A broad consensus appears to exist here and elsewhere that governments should strive to improve the stability of the world economy and to advance living standards. But the consensus breaks down over how to do so. As the United States prepares to pick a new president and a new Congress, citizens and policymakers should be asking how best to promote stability and growth in the years ahead.

Unilateralism

6 0
3 years ago
The type of leader who came to power in greece around 600 BC was? a. an ephor b. a democrat c. a tyrant d. an oligarch
kicyunya [14]
The type of leader who came to power in Greece around 600 BC was called an ephor. This was one of 5 senior Spartan magistrates. The correct answer is A, an ephor. 
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
NEED HELP NOW <br> Choose ALL correct answers
Olenka [21]
Demand in Europe for Asian goods is all I know
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • The mean is defined as the
    10·2 answers
  • How did gunpowder technology affect politics in the ottoman empire?
    8·2 answers
  • What obstacles did john <br> f. kennedy need to over come?
    15·1 answer
  • Which of the following groups of people was the square deal not intended to benefit? A.laborers B.big bussiness trusts C. Farmer
    9·1 answer
  • 50 POINTS How were Carl Vinson and Richard Russell alike?
    9·1 answer
  • What was The Long March and what were it's results.<br> Pls hurry
    10·1 answer
  • I need help with this
    12·2 answers
  • 5.) Other than being written by the colonists, are there any other explanations as to how the words
    5·1 answer
  • Which of the following states the purpose of the 1962 Second Vatican Council? to bring about an end to slavery to spread the Cat
    5·1 answer
  • Based on the map which statement is true
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!