I think the answer to this is B
Answer:
During the reign of Philip II, Spain reached the height of its influence and power, and remained firmly Roman Catholic. Philip saw himself as a champion of Catholicism, both against the Muslim Ottoman Empire and the Protestants.
As the Spanish Empire was not a single monarchy with one legal system but a federation of separate realms, Philip often found his authority overruled by local assemblies, and his word less effective than that of local lords.
When Philip’s health began failing, he worked from his quarters in the Palace-Monastery-Pantheon of El Escorial, which he built with Juan Batista de Toledo and which was another expression of Philip’s commitments to protect Catholics against the raising influence of Protestantism across Europe.
Philip’s foreign policies were determined by a combination of Catholic fervor and dynastic objectives. He considered himself the chief defender of Catholic Europe, both against the Ottoman Turks and against the forces of the Protestant Reformation.
Wars with Dutch Provinces, England, France, and the Ottoman Empire all had the undermining religious aspects of protecting Catholicism in increasingly Protestant Europe or protecting Christianity against Islam.
Because Philip II was the most powerful European monarch in an era of war and religious conflict, evaluating both his reign and the man himself has become a controversial historical subject
Hope this helps!
The 15th Amendment<span> to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the </span>United States<span> to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the </span>United States<span> or by any </span>state<span> on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."</span>
The middle ages in Europe were pretty terrible. Politically, kings ruled directly over groups of people, or over whole countries. The kings answered to the Pope generally. Economically, the kings and their nobles owned most of the profits of hard labor, while the townspeople after were treated to low wages. A sizable gap between classes was seen economically, and there was little room for changes in a persons economic class. Socially, the structure went like this: beggars and thieves, serfs (or non land owning peasants), knights, nobles and bishops, kings, the Pope.
A leader.
However, the phrase “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” always applies to war. We were a leader to the Americans however I’m sure the opposing side saw us as a bully
