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
BlackZzzverrR [31]
3 years ago
13

Which African kingdom was famous for trade with the Middle East and India?

History
1 answer:
lakkis [162]3 years ago
7 0

The correct answer is Aksum

The history of the kingdom of Aksum is related to that of the civilizations that developed in Africa, below Egypt. That is, in the old regions of Nubia and Ethiopia. The vestiges of this kingdom date from the 5th century BC, but its heyday occurred around the middle of the 4th century AD, when the Axumites (name for the inhabitants of Axum) brought their rival Kush kingdom to ruin.

During the 3rd and 4th centuries, Axum conquered territories in the Arabian Peninsula, Northern Ethiopia and part of ancient Persia, becoming one of the most powerful empires of the transition from the Ancient Age to the Middle Ages. Still in the 4th century, the Axumites destroyed the city of Meroe, capital of the Kush empire, fragmenting this ancient political center in southern Egypt. From the defeat of Kush three different kingdoms were born, Nobatia, Makuria and Alodia, which were all under the influence of Axum.

With the vast territory conquered, the kingdom of Axum came to dominate all trade routes that passed through the southern Arabian Peninsula and southern Arabia, through the region of Nubia and Ethiopia, that crossed the Red Sea. He also obtained fertile land that allowed agriculture and grazing for some cattle. To manage and control the trade flow of this region, the kingdom of Axum coined its own currency as well, even establishing trade with India and China.

You might be interested in
5. What happens if a ship heading for Cuba does not stop?
vladimir2022 [97]

Answer:

One of the earliest signs of the Soviet military buildup in Cuba was the increase ... Not all of those ships were owned by the Soviet Union. ... And when the crisis broke, cutting off the flow of Soviet ships arriving in ... To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military

7 0
2 years ago
while this country never formally joined to Axis Powers or joined World War ll, it did form an alliance with Germany and did in
Otrada [13]

Axis would have probably wiped out most of its West-European enemies. Canada would probably have tried to fight against America and failed, getting its armies crushed, or stayed on the defensive. Hitler would probably have had more troops and peace of  mind tromping around around the Soviet grounds, and would have lost a lot less manpower than when the US actually went to war in the real WWII. Since I'm assuming that in this hypothetical scenario, the US was allied with Japan, Pearl Harbor never happened. Japan and America would both have undisputed hold of the Pacific, with America's (unsunken) battleships and aircraft carriers along with Japanese suprbattleships like the Yamato, and dual force garrisons on the pacific islands. America might have invaded the lower Americas as well, if it didn't stop at securing the border. Mexico might have joined in to help the Axis powers. Then Hitler would still turn on Stalin, still loose an ungodly portion of his army in Russia, get driven back, and start losing the war in the European theatre, at least until axis forces come to back him up, primarily in the form of American Axis soldiers. Then America would lose many men in the Russian front, until it finally invaded Russia somehow (probably after many years and the combined nuclear armaments research being conducted by the US and Nazi Germany.) After invading Russia, Hitler will grow pompous and attempt to invade America with his already weakened force. He would attempt to destroy the remaining American troops in the European/Asian Theatre. America and Japan would probably ally with each other to maintain their hold of the Pacific, and fight back, with a smaller scale D-Day happening (Only made up of Americans) being launched from the invaded and annexed New American Britain or New German Britain or whatever. America would invade Germany, while Germany cannot invade America (see other Quora posts for explanations on why it is virtually impossible to invade America). America ends up with territories and troops spread all across the Pacific, Africa, Russia, Europe, and Asia, with probably troops in Canada and Mexico as well. Consequently, the troops will be brought down through the freedom fighters and rebellions that will ultimately pop up. Hitler shoots himself in the bunker as well.

Lots of bloodshed. Thank god it didn't happen this way! A lot of countries would be utterly in ruins after this version of the World War, not just Poland and Germany and England and Russia and Korea and China (etc.), but who knows how many more countless places. Not to say that I am okay with WWII happening how it did anyway, since it was extremely bloody as well, but... the real WWII was a giant bloody clash of death. This hypothetical one wouldn't have been a clash. It would have been a giant cluster that resulted in possibly twice or three times as many deaths, mostly more civilian deaths in general.

5 0
2 years ago
Identify the characteristics of two landmark nineteenth-century Supreme Court cases.
Alex

Answer:

1- McCulloch v. Maryland:

-The Second Bank of the  United States was involved  in the case .

-The Supreme Court ruled  that a state could not  tax a federal institution

2- Gibbons v. Ogden:

-The state of New York was  involved in the case.

-The Supreme Court ruled that  a state could not regulate  commercial activities  between states .

-A state granted one company  exclusive rights over the  Hudson river .

Explanation:

got it right on a test

7 0
3 years ago
Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of loose constructionism?
Tasya [4]
QUICK ANSWER

A loose constructionist views the U.S. Constitution as a document whose interpretation should change as society changes, according to Cornell University Legal Information Institute. A Supreme Court Justice with a loose constructionist view analyzes cases under the context of the current societal standards.


3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the nature of the aztec administration of subject territories?
Whitepunk [10]
Conquered territories were often left relatively unchanged under their old rulers as long as they recognized Aztec supremacy and paid tribute.
Hope this helps

7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • A 2-column table with 4 rows. The first column is labeled Planet with entries A, B, C, D. The second column is labeled Distance
    9·2 answers
  • The historic mabo case in australia established _______ land rights.
    5·1 answer
  • The plantation economy in the south produced
    7·2 answers
  • What is the purpose of a dialogue?
    5·1 answer
  • Why did people come to the New World from England?
    14·1 answer
  • Ellis's emphasis on education directly helped many Georgians...
    8·2 answers
  • PLEASE ANSWER ASAP!!!
    7·2 answers
  • PLEASE
    9·1 answer
  • What was an agreement made by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference?
    5·2 answers
  • Plz help asp I need a
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!