Maybe it means that there’s a difference between how much land they own or something. It says there was a difference between the amount of land they occupied and the amount of land they couldn’t control. So maybe they didn’t own/have a lot of land but there was a lot of land they couldn’t get to/take over etc. or maybe this situation could be vice versa so they have a ton of land but only a little isn’t “controlled” let me know if this helps sorry if it’s confusing I’m just guessing based on the context clues :)
Answer:
trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?
Explanation:
trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?
Answer:
In my own opinion, I'd say no and wait'til next time when you your perferences does aglin with the candidates.
Explanation:
The main reason is because you may vote for something that you may dislike later on. Your vote will just be biased, and just basing your vote on no actual fact. Your one vote can have a massive impact later on. Idk your choice man.
Answer:
Jonathan Blakely has not been living in the us for 14 years, assuming he is still living in france. Jonathan would also have no idea how to run vice president since he has never been vice president for United States.
Explanation:
Jonathan may have been born in the U.S. but he has not been living there for 14 years. France is his new hometown. (assuming he still lives there)
