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
Verdich [7]
3 years ago
7

Aside from convenience for the lord and his family, what is the most likely reason a church was part of a manor?

History
2 answers:
Korvikt [17]3 years ago
4 0
<span>The answer is B. The lord could have reasoned his power as stemming from a divine source, so it is only just that his followers should worship God. God gave the lord and his family power and it was only through their grace that the vassals were given work and a place to live.</span>
Cloud [144]3 years ago
3 0
Correct Answer choice is :

C) The peasants were required to attend church with the lord.

Majority of the farmers weren't free, however rather were <span>agricultural laborer bound by the feudal system</span>. They were supposed to stay in the land and had to figure many days every week for the lord of the manor. There have been some free peasants, however, most didn't leave their lord.
You might be interested in
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
1 year ago
What were some problems encountered by African Americans in northern cities after moving there?
jekas [21]

Answer:

Idk ask Google

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which title best describes the list below? Dry climate,Mountain,hiking,Small population,High elevation
Nonamiya [84]

A. Social Activities of the Coastal Plains B. Economic Factors of the Central Plains C. Characteristics of the Mountains. D. Basins Climate of the Great Plains ​

C

7 0
3 years ago
How does that emphasis on nature reflect the everyday life of the people
RideAnS [48]
People are nature. Whether you realize it or not, Nature is all around you. Nature is you and your entire life. Sorry if this confused you.
6 0
3 years ago
Name two ways that Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles
AnnyKZ [126]

Answer:In 1936, Hitler introduced conscription, and war-tested his armed forces in the Spanish Civil War. In 1936, also, Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles by moving troops into the Rhineland demilitarised zone. Hitler also broke the Treaty of Versailles in 1938 bye invading Austria and declaring Anschluss.

Explanation:

Hope this helped have a grate day

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • _____ is Gross Domestic Product divided by a country's population.
    10·2 answers
  • Match the vocabulary word with its meaning. 1. nationalism policy extending political, economic, or military rule over another 2
    6·2 answers
  • From which group did andrew jackson received the most support in the election of 1828
    6·1 answer
  • Question 5 (1 point)
    9·1 answer
  • Which of the following situations is the best example of voluntary migration?
    10·1 answer
  • Which type of interaction defines other groups as morally or intellectually inferior? Defensive othering Oppressive othering Tra
    7·1 answer
  • 50 Points plz help
    9·1 answer
  • Ano ang tawag sa matigas at mabatong bahagi ng planetang daigdig
    5·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes the change in the role of women and the structure of the family
    12·1 answer
  • how westward expansion is similar or different to immigration of people since the 2000s began ( 10 sentences ) HELP NOW = Brainl
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!