Answer:
Both? here let me explain...
Explanation:
If you want to get technical, once the President assumes the Role of Commander in Chief of the United States Military he has control over all military action while congress; per the original intent of the constitution, has control over starting war and ending it. If you really had to choose one or the other the Commander in Chief has in most occurrences decided how war ends. I really hope this helped, if not my apologies and if you need any more elaboration please let me know down in the comments and I will do my best.
<span>The biggest problem with this system is that the senate didn't set up any controls on the tax farmers. While most Romans were willing to pay taxes, and even allow the tax farmer some profit, many of the tax farmers went way beyond what people expected. Under Roman law you could pay someone to vote for you.</span>
<span>If you mean the first one, corruption was one reason. The Chinese navy and military were incredibly corrupt (as was the government) -- funds meant to buy ships and ammunition were often embezzled by officers for other uses.
</span><span>Pay in the army was low, morale was low, compared to the Japanese military which was also modernized but based on Western principles and proven tactics. </span>
1) they all spoke in a different language & a majority Have perished so you can’t tell a story if you can’t read or understand it because of the language . 2)the confederacy was basically a pact made by the Iroquois Indians of every tribe stating that regardless of they like each other or not (which in most cases each tribe had an issue with one another) they vowed to all put their differences aside to fight their enemy if attacked. Basically come together to fight their enemy . Teamwork . It was pretty much an alliance they made in order to ensure their safety because they knew they were stronger together .
The Ottoman Empire captured Constantinople
