Both Sargon and Hammurabi were leaders of the Mesopotamia. According to legend, the mother of Sargon abandoned him in a basket in a river; as a man he worked in Kish, a Sumerian city-state, which he took over and later created an empire which he ruled for over fifty years. Similarly to Sargon´s accomplishments, Hammurabi also took over an important city, Larsa; he later took the whole of Mesopotamia; he is best known for his creation of a Law Code.
Answer:
1. Roman slavery was not based on race so sometimes it was hard to differ if someone was a slave or not (everyone looked similar).
2. Both roles are pretty similar except for the fact that slaves are forced into labor work and freed men work on their own free will and are treated better.
3. Slaves are abused and treated badly and freemen aren't.
4. Slaves were used in all forms of work except for public office.
5. Often times employed men and slaves would work together except that the free employed men would get paid and the slaves wouldn't (this usually happened when one cannot find enough slaves to work and can only conclude to using paid workers so that's when they end up getting mixed together).
The role of slaves and freemen seem very similar in a lot of aspects (despite the fact that slaves cannot work in public office) but they are ranked by their parents (if your parents are slaves then you're born a slave) and slaves can also be chosen out of something like a battle. If they lose they are taken in as slaves. What I'm trying to say is that freedom was not a right but a privilege for people in the Roman Republic. Things like battles were used to justify and confirm superiority over the losers and gave the winners divine right to rule over the losers (slaves) and treat them badly. At a point the slaves were practically invisible.
Explanation:
ik know i already answer this one but can you give brainlist again
Part of the debate over rights in the 18th century involved the prerogative of kings to remove and appoint judges upon their ascension to the throne. Liberal thinkers believed that lifetime appointments would scale back the power of the king, and therefore represented social progress. If a judge was sure of his seat, he could vote according to his own judgment, despite the wishes of the king. The Whigs in Britain actually won this right, though whether it really served their cause or their government is anyone's guess.
Answer: It was the result of a grassroots movement rather than efforts by powerful politicians.
Explanation:
