We consider that the ambassador's accusation was not an insult because it referred to a form of justice that existed in the Byzantine empire.
<h3>What is mutilation?</h3>
Mutilation is a term that refers to the action of violently cutting or tearing a limb or part of the body from a living being.
<h3>How did mutilation work in the Byzantine Empire?</h3>
Mutilation in the Byzantine Empire was a common method of punishment for criminals. On the other hand, it was also used by the emperor to marginalize political rivals because it was not allowed to have an emperor with missing body parts, so a mutilation completely removed him from the list of eligible to succeed the throne.
According to the above, it can be inferred that the accusation that in the Byzantine Empire they mutilated their captives was not an insult because it was a common practice that was not taboo at that time.
Learn more about Byzantine Empire in: brainly.com/question/2308264
#SPJ1
The answer is A) People began to apply Christian principles to the social ills of society.
Governments provide the parameters for everyday behavior for citizens, protect them from outside interference, and often provide for their well-being and happiness. In the last few centuries, some economists and thinkers have advocated government control over some aspects of the economy.
They did not have ask much rights as other man hope these helps
Akbar was one of the most religiously tolerant Islamic leaders because of his policy of mutual understanding and reconciliation of different faiths.
Explanation:
- During his rule, he abolished Jazia and other taxes imposed on the Hindus.
- Through matrimonial alliances, he established a deeper relationship with Hindu families.
- By providing employment to Hindus at higher posts, he emphasized equal treatment of all religions.
- He introduced a religion called “Din-i Ilahi” combining elements from all religion.
