Answer:
Roman eperors held events like those to get rid of slaves, traitors, and evil people. The best answer that I can give you is they prevented revolts.
Explanation:
Answer:
Steel
Explanation:
And welcome to the U.S! I hope you like it hear
<span> The answer is Rizal was killed by Filipino soldiers! Lower rank soldiers who were the Filipino soldiers killed him because if they won't, higher ranking Spanish soldiers who were at their back will shoot them instead.
hopes this helps u ;)</span>
Answer:
Transcendentalism focuses on the development of the individual. How do you express your individuality in thoughts and actions?
Transcendentalists are nonconformists. Therefore, they do not ascribe to religious, political, or social constructs to inform their behaviors and choices. Do you think it's good or bad to conform to these norms? Do you consider yourself a nonconformist? If so, how? If not, what constructs do you conform to and why?
Do you believe that people should free themselves from social constructs and live by their individual principles? What effect would this have on society?
What is the goal of individualism in the transcendental ideal society? Do you think that all people can follow their own standards and maintain a peaceful society? Why or why not?
Idealism is the belief that there is an ideal world in which all can live in harmony. Do you think this is possible? Why or why not?
Explanation:
Answer:
An arms race denotes a rapid increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military power by rival states in peacetime. The first modern arms race took place when France and Russia challenged the naval superiority of Britain in the late nineteenth century. Germany’s attempt to surpass Britain’s fleet spilled over into World War I, while tensions after the war between the United States, Britain and Japan resulted in the first major arms-limitation treaty at the Washington Conference. The buildup of arms was also a characteristic of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, though the development of nuclear weapons changed the stakes for the par
Over the past century, the arms race metaphor has assumed a prominent place in public discussion of military affairs. But even more than the other colorful metaphors of security studies–balance of power, escalation, and the like–it may cloud rather than clarify understanding of the dynamics of international rivalries.
An arms race denotes a rapid, competitive increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military or naval power by rival states in peacetime. What it connotes is a game with a logic of its own. Typically, in popular depictions of arms races, the political calculations that start and regulate the pace of the game remain obscure. As Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., has noted, “The strange result is that the activity of the other side, and not one’s own resources, plans, and motives, becomes the determinant of one’s behavior.” And what constitutes the “finish line” of the game is the province of assertion, rather than analysis. Many onlookers, and some participants, have claimed that the likelihood of war increases as the accumulation of arms proceeds apace.
Explanation:
