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
Lunna [17]
3 years ago
15

How did the concept of the polis affect the growth of greek colonies

History
1 answer:
n200080 [17]3 years ago
4 0
The organization of the city. A polis controlled itself, be it through a king,<span>despot, democracy or whatever. A colony did not, it was ruled by another city.</span>
You might be interested in
What does Lynn Novick mean by "sell their story" and "modulating their message?"
steposvetlana [31]

What Lynn Novick means by sell their story is to make the story go public in a way that it reaches a lot of audience as well as influencing the story.

<h3>The filmmaker Lynn Novick</h3>

This film maker said this due to the fact that she was working on a movie called the Vietnam war.

She was taking on President Nixon who had said that he was modulating the message that he was telling about the events.

Read more on the Vietnam war here

brainly.com/question/182779

6 0
2 years ago
Consumers should be concerned about high interest rates because high interest rates __________.
son4ous [18]
Consumers should be concerned about high interest rates because high interest rates make it harder and more expensive to pay back loans and debts, since the banks charge more interest that is often compounded monthly or yearly. 
8 0
3 years ago
Explain MacMillan's conclusion that Wilson "remained a Southerner in some ways all his life." Describe how Wilson's background a
Murljashka [212]

Answer:

paki basa nalng .

Explanation:

On December 4, 1918, the George Washington sailed out of New York with the American delegation to the Peace Conference on board. Guns fired salutes, crowds along the waterfront cheered, tugboats hooted and Army planes and dirigibles circled overhead. Robert Lansing, the American secretary of state, released carrier pigeons with messages to his relatives about his deep hope for a lasting peace. The ship, a former German passenger liner, slid out past the Statue of Liberty to the Atlantic, where an escort of destroyers and battleships stood by to accompany it and its cargo of heavy expectations to Europe.

On board were the best available experts, combed out of the universities and the government; crates of reference materials and special studies; the French and Italian ambassadors to the United States; and Woodrow Wilson. No other American president had ever gone to Europe while in office. His opponents accused him of breaking the Constitution; even his supporters felt he might be unwise. Would he lose his great moral authority by getting down to the hurly-burly of negotiations? Wilson's own view was clear: the making of the peace was as important as the winning of the war. He owed it to the peoples of Europe, who were crying out for a better world. He owed it to the American servicemen. "It is now my duty," he told a pensive Congress just before he left, "to play my full part in making good what they gave their life's blood to obtain." A British diplomat was more cynical; Wilson, he said, was drawn to Paris "as a debutante is entranced by the prospect of her first ball."

Wilson expected, he wrote to his great friend Edward House, who was already in Europe, that he would stay only to arrange the main outlines of the peace settlements. It was not likely that he would remain for the formal Peace Conference with the enemy. He was wrong. The preliminary conference turned, without anyone's intending it, into the final one, and Wilson stayed for most of the crucial six months between January and June 1919. The question of whether or not he should have gone to Paris, which exercised so many of his contemporaries, now seems unimportant. From Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta to Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton at Camp David, American presidents have sat down to draw borders and hammer out peace agreements. Wilson had set the conditions for the armistices which ended the Great War. Why should he not make the peace as well?

Although he had not started out in 1912 as a foreign policy president, circumstances and his own progressive political principles had drawn him outward. Like many of his compatriots, he had come to see the Great War as a struggle between the forces of democracy, however imperfectly represented by Britain and France, and those of reaction and militarism, represented all too well by Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany's sack of Belgium, its unrestricted submarine warfare and its audacity in attempting to entice Mexico into waging war on the United States had pushed Wilson and American public opinion toward the Allies. When Russia had a democratic revolution in February 1917, one of the last reservations that the Allies included an autocracy vanished. Although he had campaigned in 1916 on a platform of keeping the country neutral, Wilson brought the United States into the war in April 1917. He was convinced that he was doing the right thing. This was important to the son of a Presbyterian minister, who shared his father's deep religious conviction, if not his calling.

Wilson was born in Virginia in 1856, just before the Civil War. Although he remained a Southerner in some ways all his life in his insistence on honor and his paternalistic attitudes toward women and blacks he also accepted the war's outcome. Abraham Lincoln was one of his great heroes, along with Edmund Burke and William Gladstone. The young Wilson was at once highly idealistic and intensely ambitious. After four very happy years at Princeton and an unhappy stint as a lawyer, he found his first career in teaching and writing. By 1890 he was back at Princeton, a star member of the faculty. In 1902 he became its president, supported virtually unanimously by the trustees, faculty and students.

6 0
2 years ago
One of the goods the Songhai empire exported was
Rasek [7]
The answer is Gold.                 
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
2. Read this passage and then explain the difference between causation and correlation.
djverab [1.8K]

Answer:

The difference between causation and correlation, is that causation is when one event causes another one to happen. Correlation is not causation because two events can correlate, but that doesn’t mean that they caused each other. One example of causation could be because there was a large  run of salmon, he got the most he has ever caught. One example of correlation is that there was a large run of salmon, and coincidently the new mayor is a great fisherman. There being a large run of salmon did not cause the new mayor, who is a good fisherman, to be elected. That’s a little confusing, you may have to read it more than once.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • After a coup d’etat in Spain overthrew the government, Augustin de Iturbide proclaimed
    8·2 answers
  • What was the federalist mayor arguments? (NOT ANTI)​
    10·1 answer
  • When he took office in 1980, what action did president reagan take regarding the Cold War
    6·1 answer
  • What is the name of the “lost” Inca city located high in the Andes Mountains that is one of the few completely surviving Inca cu
    13·1 answer
  • Two warnings in Washington’s Farewell Address.
    10·2 answers
  • What was Marco Polo's role in China?
    13·1 answer
  • Not sure what answer is correct
    14·1 answer
  • Under the feudal system, what was the role of peasants? *
    11·2 answers
  • Katia was born on a cruise ship while it was docked at a port in Puerto Rico.
    6·1 answer
  • How were aristocratic women of Ancient Egypt portrayed in the art of the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!