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
Marina86 [1]
3 years ago
6

Where did friars live​

History
2 answers:
natulia [17]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Friars are different from monks in that they are called to live the evangelical counsels (vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience) in service to society, rather than through cloistered asceticism and devotion. Whereas monks live in a self-sufficient community, friars work among laypeople and are supported by donations or other charitable support.[2] Monks or nuns make their vows and commit to a particular community in a particular place. Friars commit to a community spread across a wider geographical area known as a province, and so they will typically move around, spending time in different houses of the community within their province.

Explanation:

mr Goodwill [35]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

They have experienced growth in this century throughout the world. They are located in Italy, the United States, Canada, Australia, and throughout Latin America, and Africa.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
How was Nazi Germany defeated during World War II?
Yanka [14]

Answer:

After the Allied invasion of France, Germany was conquered by the Soviet Union from the east and the other Allies from the west, and capitulated in May 1945. Hitler's refusal to admit defeat led to massive destruction of German infrastructure and additional war-related deaths in the closing months of the war. so it should be either b. or d.!

Hope this helps!!

8 0
2 years ago
How did the rulers/leaders of Mali gain stature among Arabic states?
vlabodo [156]

Answer: Mali’s rulers adopted the title of ‘Mansa.  Mali’s founder, Sundiata, firmly established himself as a strong leader in both the religious and secular sense, claiming that he had a direct link to spirits of the land, thus making him the guardian of the ancestors. His empire extended from the fringes of the forest in the southwest through the grassland country of the Malinké to the Sahel and Southern Sahara ports of the Walatta and Tandmekka, and Arabic scholars estimate that Sundiata ruled for about 25 years and died in 1255.

Despite the great extent of the Empire of Mali it was often plagued by insufficient leadership. Yet Sundiata’s son Mansa Wali, who became the next King, is considered to have been one of the most powerful rulers of Mali.  Mansa Wali would, in turn, be succeeded by his brother Wati, who was succeeded by his brother called Kahlifa. Kahlifa was seen as a particularly bad ruler, and some chroniclers describe how he would use bows and arrows to kill people for entertainment. Because of his misrule, Kahlifa was deposed and replaced by a grandchild of Sundiata named Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had been adopted by Sundiata as a son, although he was a grandchild and the son of Sundiata's daughter, which would have greatly strengthened his claim to the throne.

The leadership trouble in the Malian Empire would continue after the ascension of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was deposed in a coup by a man named Sakura, who was either a slave or a military commander. The low stature of Sakura perhaps implies that the royal family had lost much of its popularity amongst the common people. Sakura’s reign, however, would also be a troubled one; after he had converted to Islam, Sakura undertook a pilgrimage to Mecca but was killed by the Danakil people during his return journey while in the city of Tadjoura. It is disputed why Sakura was in Tadjoura, as it was not a natural route to take when returning from Mecca to Mali, and also for what reasons he was killed. Some suggest that he was killed because the Danakil wanted to steal his gold.

Sakura’s rise to power also shows us that the ruling family, and the Mansa, had limited power in the Empire of Mali and that the officers of the court wielded significant power in comparison. The Empire of Mali was organised into provinces with a strict hierarchical structure [xxxviii] in which each province had a Governor, and each town had a mayor or mochrif. Large armies were deployed to stop any rebellions in the smaller kingdoms and to safeguard the many trade routes. The decentralisation of power to lower levels of government bureaucracy through court officers, together with a strict hierarchical structure, was part of why the Malian Empire was so stable despite a series of bad rulers. Despite squabbles within the ruling family, the devolution of state administrative power through lower structures meant that the Empire could function quite well. In times of good rulers, the Empire would expand its territory, rendering it one of the largest Empires in West African history.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Why did Italy and Germany allow fascist leaders to take power?
beks73 [17]
Because they wanted to make other countries go into war
3 0
3 years ago
Identify and explain one thematic cause for the plague described by ibn khaldun which visited eurasia between 1331 and 1347. saq
Gwar [14]
<span>The one topical reason for the plague portrayed by ibn khaldun which visited eurasia between the time period of 1331 and 1347 is that the rats, bugs, microbes, military clash in Caffa, as well as financial exchange or economic trade interfaces between Afro-Eurasia.
</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How were the sophists different from the other philosophers of ancient greece? explain ur answer
lilavasa [31]

Both sophists and philosophers were well trained and highly educated, but the main difference was that a sophist taught others and they got paid for that. It is said that their own wealth was their only goal.

Philosophers, such as Socrates, refused to get paid.

Throughout history, the sophists have had a reputation as professionally amoral, . They would help people to attain any goal,  regardless of what it was. They would take any case, promote any cause, and empower any person, if the money was right.

Philosophers, for the most part, have walked on the side of the angels. They may sometimes have had reputations as prolix and obscure, complex and abstract,  out of touch, but they have, for the most part, seemed to be purer souls in their focus and work.

In other words, the sophists were much more concerned about how than about why. The philosophers have always been more cautious.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • HELPP ASAP WILL REWARD!! How did the republic of virtue impact the french revolution, France's identify, and the entire world?
    5·1 answer
  • Analyze the similarities and differences of the Jefferson ideals about expansion to the Jacksonian ideals about expansion
    9·2 answers
  • How you think Kennan May have influenced the Truman doctrine
    5·2 answers
  • One of Lyndon B. Johnson’s best-known early leadership characteristics was his _____________.
    8·2 answers
  • Which of these best describes Oliver Cromwell?
    8·1 answer
  • Why did Americans first travel across the Great Plains? They were passing through on their way to the West Coast. They wanted to
    10·2 answers
  • I need help in history on these 2 questions . Pls help me
    13·1 answer
  • What did the romans do when the zealots rebelled against their rule in 66 C.E
    8·1 answer
  • 8. Which of the following is a possible contributing factor to Custer's loss at Battle of Little Big Horn?
    11·1 answer
  • English colonists tried to stop enslaved Africans from gaining their freedom
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!