Answer:
A (As far as my knowledge goes, I might be wrong)
Explanation:
A. Trade was increased, so this is the right answer
B. The European Christians did not win the Holy Land from the Muslims, so this is the wrong answer
C. Although art and music was inspired by the Crusades, it's subjective, and I'm assuming this isn't multiple choice.
D. The crusades was a fight over religion, this isn't even possible
The Mexican government contracted "empresarios<span>" which are land agents to aid the settlement of Texas. Each </span>empresario<span> agreed to settle a specific number of Catholic families on a defined land grant within six years.</span>
Explanation:
By the end of the seventeenth century, the Chesapeake area and the southern colonies, with their enormous rice plantations, developed an economic system wholly dependent on slavery.
Answer:
No, the Crusades weren’t justifiable. The Arab/Muslim conquest of the region centuries earlier wasn’t justifiable either. There were no good guys or bad guys in that conflict. Both sides were wrong.
From the perspective of Jews and Samaritans, it was really just two colonial powers (Crusaders and Arabs) fighting over a land that never rightfully belonged to either of them in the first place.
Explanation:
What is important today is to understand that the unjustified reaction of the Christian community to actions in the Holy Land can be compared to the reaction of people in the Muslim world to Western dominance. So, instead of something like the Crusades was seen as an acceptance by many Muslims of terrorism. If the Christian Crusades were bad, so is the Muslim acceptance for decades of terrorism, particularly towards Israeli civilians.
C that was one of the reasons why they needed more representativ government
