How Japanese Castles are similar to European Castles
1.They had large and tall walls for protection
2. They often had moats around them to discourage the digging of tunnels
3. They had narrow and steep stairways to make assault difficult
4. They had portholes for guns and for arrows
5. They often had a main gate area that could be used as a trap
6. They almost always had concentric rings of walls to give them multiple layers of protection
7.They capitalized on terrain features - often the best placement was at
the top of a hill or small mountain. This gave a very advantageous
position and view
DIFFERENCES
Unlike European feudalism Japan’s feudalism system did not have a true
pyramid form with the monarch presiding over the less important nobles.
First, the authority in Japan was much less centralized than it was in
the nation-states of Europe. Even though most of the local aristocrats
paid lip service to the emperor, the rugged terrain of Japan made it
very difficult for the emperor to fully control the local aristocracy.
Therefore the local aristocrats had much more power in Japan than they
ever had in France, Britain, or any other European country.
Secondly, even though the lower nobility in Japan (the samurai) swore
fealty to their local lords, the local lords didn’t give the samurai any
land of their own. When the European nobility receives land in exchange
for their military services, the samurai did not join a landowning
hierarchy. Instead of that they were given an independent income from
their local lord based upon what that lord’s lands produced.
In contrast, European knights usually had their own serfs to work the
land the knights received from their lord. While a Japanese samurai
might have had servants, these servants did not work the land the way
they would have done in Europe.
Answer:i honest just looked them up just so i dont you know give you the wrong answer
Part A: 22nd Amendment
(Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution sets a limit on the number of times an individual is eligible for election to the office of President of the United States, and also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their .
Part B: Electors now cast one vote for president and one vote for vice president.
In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause
of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank
of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacked the power to
tax the Bank. Arguably Chief Justice John Marshall's
finest opinion, McCulloch not only gave Congress broad discretionary
power to implement the enumerated powers, but also repudiated, in
ringing language, the radical states' rights arguments presented by
counsel for Maryland.
At issue in the case was the constitutionality of the act of Congress
chartering the Second Bank of the United States (BUS) in 1816. Although
the Bank was controlled by private stockholders, it was the depository
of federal funds. In addition, it had the authority to issue notes
that, along with the notes of states' banks, circulated as legal tender.
In return for its privileged position, the Bank agreed to loan the
federal government money in lieu of taxes. State banks looked on the
BUS as a competitor and resented its privileged position. When state
banks began to fail in the depression of 1818, they blamed their
troubles on the Bank. One such state was Maryland, which imposed a
hefty tax on "any bank not chartered within the state." The Bank of the
United States was the only bank not chartered within the state. When
the Bank's Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax, Maryland sued James
McCulloch, cashier of the branch, for collection of the debt. McCulloch
responded that the tax was unconstitutional. A state court ruled for
Maryland, and the court of appeals affirmed. McCulloch appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1819.
Answer: The Cambrian Period
Explanation:
