QUICK PLEASE I NEED THIS NOW DOES ANYONE KNOW PLS HELP How did Pericles differ from earlier Athenian leaders?

History

1 answer:

stellarik [79]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

Pericles was a prominent and influential Greek statesman, orator and general of Athens during its golden age – specifically the time between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars. He was descended, through his mother, from the powerful and historically influential Alcmaeonid family. Pericles had such a profound influence on Athenian society that Thucydides, a contemporary historian, acclaimed him as "the first citizen of Athens". Pericles turned the Delian League into an Athenian empire, and led his countrymen during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War. The period during which he led Athens, roughly from 461 to 429 BC, is sometimes known as the "Age of Pericles", though the period thus denoted can include times as early as the Persian Wars, or as late as the next century.

You might be interested in

Why the inspector unable to impose the penalty he asked for?

kramer

Answer: because he cant

Explanation: because he cant

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Evidence obtained unlawfully by the police cannot be used in an American

julia-pushkina [17]

Answer:

D. Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

Explanation:

4 0

1 year ago

? Drag the items on the left to the correct location on the right

natta225 [31]

Answer:

push: political and religious persecution

pull: open immigration policies

push: overpopulation

pull: moneymaking opportunities

push: lack of economic opportunities

pull: the "American Dream"

Explanation:

5 0

2 years ago

How Mahatma Gandhi became a leader while having a poor family and how he got all knowledge?

Vinil7 [7]

Answer:

Gandhi came from a poor family, and he had dropped out of the cheapest college he could afford. Mavji Dave Joshiji, a Brahmin priest and family friend, advised Gandhi and his family that he should consider law studies in London.

3 0

3 years ago

Did the supreme court decisions under john marshall's leadership extend federal power too much? is it appropriate that someone w

mash [69]

The supreme court decision under John Marshall leadership have extended federal powers, but not too much in the sense of destroying the federalist idea that brought the United States together. Marshall was guided by a strong commitment to judicial power and by a belief in the supremacy of national over state legislatures. His judicial vision was very much in keeping with the Federalist political program in line with the constitution.

It can be argued that someone not elected should not have power to shape government and law through the Expansion of the Judiciary in 1801, but the Marshall Court, and this decision in particular, established the principle of "judicial review" whereby Congressional laws and executive actions may be judged by the Supreme Court to be within the bounds of the Constitution.

It is definitely not appropriate that a political party ideology is implemented through the judiciary, however, In keeping with John Marshall's Federalist views, they generally favored strong government action and especially supported the supremacy of the federal government over state authorities as long as it was constitutional.

7 0

3 years ago