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
umka21 [38]
3 years ago
13

How might The Prince be useful evidence in understanding how Machiavelli believed power is gained, maintained, and consolidated?

​
History
1 answer:
Tems11 [23]3 years ago
4 0

The Prince is the pragmatic doctrine of Machiavelli on statecraft and it contains his philosophy.

Explanation:

The pragmatism of The Prince is rather construing and hard hitting.

It often argues for striated measures and openly asks the Prince to be a dictator in the Italian city states to make them more prosperous

Now. this was evident in his way of consolidation of power and its maintenance.

Power if gained by war or diplomacy was to shift the ruling power of the place conquered and to unsettle it enough to not make it possible to revolt.

Cultural assimilation was the key to consolidate power.

You might be interested in
QUICK!!! 20 POINTS!!!!!!!!!!
MariettaO [177]
B. Mutations

Mutations are basically any changes in DNA, and they can affect some of an individual’s traits.
Since every individual has mutations, the finches are bound to be a bit different from each other biologically, but they will still MOSTLY look similar and behave in similar ways.
3 0
4 years ago
A supporting text
AleksAgata [21]

Answer:

B

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
ILL GIVE YOU BRAINLTIST IF RIGHT
telo118 [61]

Answer:

B

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
How did John Winthrop change the government of Massachusetts?
nevsk [136]
I think it is B, I hope it is help.
4 0
3 years ago
In your opinion, do you believe the
tekilochka [14]

Answer:

No, the Crusades weren’t justifiable. The Arab/Muslim conquest of the region centuries earlier wasn’t justifiable either. There were no good guys or bad guys in that conflict. Both sides were wrong.

From the perspective of Jews and Samaritans, it was really just two colonial powers (Crusaders and Arabs) fighting over a land that never rightfully belonged to either of them in the first place.

Explanation:

What is important today is to understand that the unjustified reaction of the Christian community to actions in the Holy Land can be compared to the reaction of people in the Muslim world to Western dominance. So, instead of something like the Crusades was seen as an acceptance by many Muslims of terrorism. If the Christian Crusades were bad, so is the Muslim acceptance for decades of terrorism, particularly towards Israeli civilians.

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • __________ rallied the french in defeating the english, in the 15th century.
    11·1 answer
  • What are the two events, one in Europe and one in the Pacific, that you feel where the turning points of the war with respect to
    5·1 answer
  • Do you think her feelinhs about working in the mill are typical?why or why not?
    5·1 answer
  • What technologis were used in world war 1
    10·1 answer
  • Cultural diffusion among early civilizations occurred through which conditions?
    6·2 answers
  • Which of the following benefited british exports to america?
    15·2 answers
  • Which statement about egyptian religion is false
    10·1 answer
  • What did Muhammad teach when he preached to the Meccans
    15·1 answer
  • Describe the new urban consumer society of the 1920s. How did advertising help shape it?
    12·1 answer
  • What gave the signers of the Declaration of Independence the authority to dissolve their status as a British colony and create a
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!