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
iren2701 [21]
3 years ago
12

Peter the Great and Catherine the Great were examples of the positive uses of absolute monarchy. Do you think that they could ha

ve accomplished the same things in a constitutional monarchy?
History
1 answer:
Neporo4naja [7]3 years ago
3 0
I don't believe they could have. In order to accomplish what they did, they needed full control of the situation, without fun control, they would not have made things better for their kingdom.
You might be interested in
What did Jim Bowie do as mexican soldiers started arriving at the Alamo?
stellarik [79]

Answer: C

Explanation:

He left the Alamo to try and find more food and supplies.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following best describes King Philip's War?
sashaice [31]

The correct answer is: D.

It was an uprising led by the Chief of the Wampanoag against white settlers.

King Phillips War occurred after the death of the Chief of the Wampanoag friendly to the English settlers and the built up anger at the settlers abusing their guest rights.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Roman Tuscan order is a variation of which Greek order?
Sidana [21]
Roman Tuscan order is a variation of the Greek Doric order
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Where bible leter of the law sprit of the law?
Olin [163]
<span>The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
How was the US expansion justifiable in the 1800s give three reasons that are both justifiable and unjustifiable next question h
AnnyKZ [126]
<span>This is of course somewhat of a subjective question, but in general most would agree that in general expansion was not justifiable since the Mexicans and Natives were doing nothing to provoke the US. One could argue it was justifiable since Americans needed more land. </span>
8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Congressional grants paid for ________ percent of the development of an interstate highway system after world war ii.
    14·1 answer
  • How has Juché influenced North Korea’s relationship with the United States?
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following was a goal of the Progressives ? to increase manufacturing to decrease land for faming to grant women the
    6·1 answer
  • Plaseeeeeee help asaappppppp
    10·1 answer
  • Which European country originally settled the colony that would later become known as new York?
    8·1 answer
  • What impact did the establishment of French and Dutch colonies in North America have on native americans?
    10·1 answer
  • How was Britain able to promise Jews a national home in Palestine?
    11·1 answer
  • History question own below
    7·2 answers
  • What was Sam Houston's position on Secession?
    14·2 answers
  • 1. Based on document 1, why would the acquisition of New Orleans be significant to the United States?
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!