Answer:
C, and E
Explanation:
C and E are definite answers and A and B are definitely not. I suspect D isn't either but in one phase of the Korean war UN troops which were largely American pushed the North Koreans back across their own border. However I would stick with C and E.
The Kings was at the top of that Hierarchy in Medival European Society.
the hijra, Muhammad's journey from Mecca to Medina in the year 622. It is after this event that jihad begins to become an issue. The new Muslim emigrants to Medina needed a way to maintain their livelihood. They pursued the most expedient course, and began raiding the caravans of the Meccans.
In the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive. Muhammad cannot have failed to realize that, even if the raids were only slightly successful, the Meccans were bound to attempt reprisals. In these little raids, then, he was deliberately challenging and provoking the Meccans. In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor.
<span>A special court tries cases involving offenses against the military law which is the highest court to which these cases can be appealed to the Supreme Court itself. The answer to the following given statement above is the Supreme Court. </span>
Answer:
Explanation:
Rome became a democracy about the year 133 BC. Later, the Romans ruled the world. Even the voting mechanism was rigged to give the votes of the rich more weight. When Augustus, the first emperor, died in 14 AD, public elections had all but vanished. This was a revolution, brought about by a century of civil conflict and, at times, outright combat. The important turning point, according to many Romans, was in the year 133 BC. The sequence of events is rather obvious. In the process, he removed another tribune who was opposed to the distribution and claimed that his reforms should be paid for with money from the newly established Roman imperial province of Asia. The land measure proposed by Gracchus was approved. Gracchus' motive is a little more hazy. Whatever his motivations, his work crystallized many of the basic concerns that would underpin revolutionary politics for the following century. Rome's expanding empire had far-reaching implications. Tiberius' plan to utilize Asia's income for land distribution was a bold declaration, implying that both the affluent and the poor should benefit from Rome's conquests. However, Tiberius' decision to run for a second tribunate prompted concerns about personal political power. This became an increasingly pressing issue as leaders in the first century BC, such as Julius Caesar, were occasionally given tremendous powers to cope with foreign military challenges to Rome, only to refuse to relinquish those powers when they returned to civilian life. Following the events of 133 BC, a succession of escalating crises ensued. Gaius Marius, a spectacularly successful soldier, vanquished adversaries in Africa, Gaul, and eventually Italy, when Rome's allies in Italy rose against her at the close of the century. He held the highest state post, the consulship, seven times, achieving an unprecedented level of long-term political domination. Marius subsequently clashed with Lucius Cornelius Sulla, another Roman warrior, who, following successes in the east, marched on Rome in 82 BC and declared himself 'dictator.' This was an ancient Roman post created to grant a powerful politician temporary powers in the event of an emergency. Sulla, unlike Julius Caesar, who would become dictator 40 years later, resigned from his position and died in his bed. Violence in the city, as well as fighting between gangs backing competing politicians and political programs, characterized the middle years of the first century BC. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (nicknamed 'Pompey the Great' after Alexander the Great) and Julius Caesar were the two main characters. Pompey enjoyed the backing of the traditionalists, while Caesar pushed radical measures in the style of Tiberius Gracchus. Historians in both the ancient and modern worlds have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how these two individuals ended up fighting in civil war. But the reality is that, given their respective levels of strength and ingrained rivalry, war was nearly unavoidable. There wasn't going to be much 'liberty' after that. Instead, another decade of civil war ensued, as Caesar's followers first fought his assassins, then fought amongst themselves when they were dispatched.
