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
Leya [2.2K]
3 years ago
12

Please help me ! Due today

History
1 answer:
Nataly_w [17]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

the growth and expansion of the religion

Explanation:

1. a decrease in Mongol invasions: this option is not correct because Mongol did not invade main Europe

2. a population explosion caused by the Neolithic Revolution: this option is not correct because the Neolithic period was about 10,000 BCE, the Romans and Frankish have not been defined or in existence then, nor was there Christianity during this period.

3. an increase in the influence of prior civilizations on Mayan society: this is not correct because Mayan civilization was not in Europe but southeast Mexico and Central America, hence there was no connection

4. The growth and expansion of the religion: this option is CORRECT because the Romans and Frankish kingdoms were known to be majority Christians and helped spread the religion across the world.

You might be interested in
What is the iran-contra scandal
MrMuchimi

The Iran–Contra Scandal (Persian: ماجرای ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra affair, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.


The official justification for the arms shipments was that they were part of an operation to free seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The plan was for Israel to ship weapons to Iran, for the United States to resupply Israel, and for Israel to pay the United States. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the hostages.[4][5] However, as documented by a congressional investigation, the first Reagan-sponsored secret arms sales to Iran began in 1981 before any of the American hostages had been taken in Lebanon. This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior.[6]


The plan was later complicated in late 1985, when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council diverted a portion of the proceeds from the Iranian weapon sales to fund the Contras, a group of anti-Sandinista rebel fighters, in their struggle against the socialist government of Nicaragua.[4] While President Ronald Reagan was a vocal supporter of the Contra cause,[7] the evidence is disputed as to whether he personally authorized the diversion of funds to the Contras.[4][5][8] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on 7 December 1985 indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[9] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages.'"[9] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[10] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the affair were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[11] On 4 March 1987, Reagan made a further nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for the affair and stating that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages".[12]


The affair was investigated by the U.S. Congress and by the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither investigation found evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[4][5][8] In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[13] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been Vice President at the time of the affair.[14] The Iran–Contra affair and the ensuing deception to protect senior administration officials (including President Reagan) has been cast as an example of post-truth politics.[15]

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Who first applied the term muckraker to journalism?
lord [1]

Answer:

correct option is d

Explanation:

he popularized the term muckracker in a 1907 speech

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which is the BEST explanation for the geographic location of the these ancient Indian cities and towns? A) They were all located
Vladimir79 [104]

C) They were all located along the Indus river because of irrigation, trade, and transportation.   
Since you failed to actually mention which Indian cities or towns, I'll assume the rather generic answer world wide as to reasons that settlements tend to happen along rivers such as the Indus river. The usual reason is because of the river being a reliable source of water and provides relatively easy transportation of goods to and from the community. So with that in mind, let's take a look at the options and see what does and does not make sense.  
A) They were all located along the Indus for better trade with the Chinese. 
* This would be a good reason in and of itself. But it's not the only reason. So
this isn't a good choice.  
B) They were all located along the Indus river for military defense purposes. 
 * Military defense generally isn't the reason one would build cities near rivers. Rivers are effectively "nature's highways" and as such locations near a river are generally easily accessible. With that in mind, it's fairly common to build fortifications near the mouths of rivers in order to deny access to potential enemies, but this still isn't the best reason to build a city or two near a major river.  
C) They were all located along the Indus river because of irrigation, trade, and transportation.  
* This pretty much covers all the points. Irrigation because of the easy access to water. Trade because lots of cities tend to built near or on rivers and cheap, easy transportation.  
D) They were all located along the Indus to limit contact with and to stay away from other nations. 
* Let's reason this out. You wish to limit contact with other nations and groups of people. So you locate your cities in the locations that are most accessible. This doesn't even pass the giggle test. And it's definitely a wrong answer.
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Local unions are typically organized by ____________ . geographic area occupation affiliation with the international union affil
beks73 [17]
Local unions are typically organized by  geographic areas, a local union is a stable and permanent association of workers for the representation, defense and promotion of their economic and social interests, which has legal personality and capacity to act. Its purpose is collective self-protection of the general interests of salaried work - living and working conditions - in front of employers, their organizations and public authorities. These interests are professional, social, economic and, even, political.
8 0
3 years ago
Which of the following laws placed a restriction on trade after European ships harassed U.S. vessels? The Embargo Act The Judici
Rainbow [258]
The Embargo Act of 1807
4 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which of the following issues caused Roosevelt to seek a square deal for the environment in 1900
    11·2 answers
  • Did they speak latin during medieval times
    10·1 answer
  • Why was it custom to not enter persian kings inner court without being summoned?
    11·1 answer
  • How did the majority of lynching victims before 1890 differ from the majority after that year?
    9·1 answer
  • How did railroads impact commerce, immigration,growth of cities like Chicago, the environment, and the economy in both Europe an
    11·1 answer
  • What role did Stephen F. Austin play in the Revolution?
    9·1 answer
  • Which is not an effective organizing principle for the study of history?
    15·2 answers
  • How is the current Indian government organized?
    10·1 answer
  • What did the mexican army want to retrieve from the texans at gonzales?.
    11·1 answer
  • Which power serves as a check by the president on the legislative branch?
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!