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
laiz [17]
4 years ago
14

In the sixteenth century, what changed in the study of philosophy

History
2 answers:
Neko [114]4 years ago
3 0
When einstein came and changed the world
marusya05 [52]4 years ago
3 0
The reason for this sudden change<span> is not only the growing influence of thinkers ... from 1974, 21–22, the </span>change<span> in introductory books for the </span>study<span> of grammar</span>
You might be interested in
Write your 500-word, narrative-style legend of a Native American tribe of your choosing here.
bazaltina [42]

Answer:

The Cherokee were the mountaineers of the South, holding the entire Allegheny region from the interlocking head-streams of the Kanawha and Tennessee southward almost to the site of Atlanta, and from the Blue Ridge on the east to the Cumberland range on the west, a territory comprising an area of about 40,000 square miles, now included in the states of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Their principal towns were upon the headwaters of the Savannah, Hiwassee, and Tuckasegee, and along the whole length of Little Tennessee to its junction with the mainstream. Itsâtĭ, or Echota, on the south bank of Little Tennessee, a few miles above the mouth of Tellico River, in Tennessee, was commonly considered the capital of the Nation. As the advancing whites pressed upon them from the east and northeast the more exposed towns were destroyed or abandoned and new settlements were formed lower down Tennessee and on the upper branches of the Chattahoochee and the Coosa.

As is always the case with tribal geography, there were no fixed boundaries, and on every side, the Cherokee frontiers were contested by rival claimants. In Virginia, there is reason to believe, the tribe was held in check in the early days by the Powhatan and the Monacan. On the east and southeast, the Tuscarora and Catawba were their inveterate enemies, with hardly even a momentary truce within the historic period; and evidence goes to show that the Sara or Cheraw was full as hostile. On the south, there was hereditary war with the Creeks, who claimed nearly the whole of upper Georgia as theirs by original possession, but who were being gradually pressed down toward the Gulf until, through the mediation of the United States, a treaty was finally made fixing the boundary between the two tribes along a line running about due west from the mouth of Broad River on the Savannah. Toward the west, the Chickasaw on the lower Tennessee and the Shawano on the Cumberland repeatedly turned back the tide of Cherokee invasion from the rich central valleys, while the powerful Iroquois in the far north set up an almost unchallenged claim of paramount lordship from the Ottawa river of Canada southward at least to the Kentucky River. On the other hand, by their defeat of the Creeks and expulsion of the Shawano, the Cherokee made good the claim which they asserted to all the lands from upper Georgia to the Ohio River, including the rich hunting grounds of Kentucky. Holding as they did the great mountain barrier between the English settlements on the coast and the French or Spanish garrisons along the Mississippi and Ohio, their geographic position, no less than their superior number, would have given them the balance of power in the South but for looseness of tribal organization in striking contrast to the compactness of the Iroquois league, by which for more than a century the French power was held in check in the north. The English, indeed, found it convenient to recognize certain chiefs as supreme in the tribe, but the only real attempt to weld the whole Cherokee Nation into a political unit was that made by the French agent, Priber, about 1736, which failed from its premature discovery by the English. We frequently find their kingdom divided against itself, their very number preventing unity of action, while still giving them importance above that of neighboring tribes.

Explanation:

this is 571 words. hope this helped you.

6 0
3 years ago
Kudavolai system was followed by<br>(a) Cheras<br>(b) Pandyas<br>(c) Cholas<br>(d) Kalabhras​
AnnZ [28]

Answer:

i belive its answer c dhdh

7 0
3 years ago
What effects did U.S. foreign policy have on Latin America?
Anna71 [15]

Explanation:

U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America in the 19th century initially focused on excluding or limiting the military and economic influence of European powers, territorial expansion, and encouraging American commerce. These objectives were expressed in the No Transfer Principle (1811) and the Monroe Doctrine (1823). American policy was unilateralist (not isolationist); it gradually became more aggressive and interventionist as the idea of Manifest Destiny contributed to wars and military conflicts against indigenous peoples, France, Britain, Spain, and Mexico in the Western Hemisphere. Expansionist sentiments and U.S. domestic politics inspired annexationist impulses and filibuster expeditions to Mexico, Cuba, and parts of Central America. Civil war in the United States put a temporary halt to interventionism and imperial dreams in Latin America. From the 1870s until the end of the century, U.S. policy intensified efforts to establish political and military hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, including periodic naval interventions in the Caribbean and Central America, reaching even to Brazil in the 1890s. By the end of the century Secretary of State Richard Olney added the Olney Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (“Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition . . .”), and President Theodore Roosevelt contributed his own corollary in 1904 (“in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of wrongdoing or impotence, to exercise an international police power”). American policy toward Latin America, at the turn of the century, explicitly justified unilateral intervention, military occupation, and transformation of sovereign states into political and economic protectorates in order to defend U.S. economic interests and an expanding concept of national security.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Can the supreme court strike down an unconstitutional law
Irina18 [472]
Yes, in fact that is pretty much the reason why we have a supreme court!
4 0
3 years ago
Who first despised the Christian movement but then later traveled to preach Jesus’s message?
velikii [3]

The answer is paul.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What made many people in rhode island colony rich
    10·1 answer
  • How might a victory at Gettysburg have benefited the Confederacy?
    12·2 answers
  • Who are the Seminoles? Why would settlers want them out of Florida? <br><br> Please Help!
    9·1 answer
  • John Locke baron de Montesquieu and jean Jacques Rousseau all we’re
    8·1 answer
  • What type of climate by the Norwegian​
    15·1 answer
  • Which city did trade to Eastern EUROPE PASS THROUGH?
    7·1 answer
  • Who where the tuskinene air men
    7·1 answer
  • How is this photograph connected to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882?<br> 1 Paragraph
    14·1 answer
  • In the circular flow of economic activity this is where employers bargain with employees
    10·2 answers
  • Why do you think the Great Serpent Mound has maintained its shape?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!