Answer:
1. He wanted to retake the west
2. Though not directly, he definitely made liberal interpretations of things like treaties and alliances
3. It was definitely the smart thing to do politically, assuring that no other challenges to his rule would arise in his lifetime. Ethically... maybe letting half the city burn and slaughtering the entirety of the rioters in the stadium was wrong? I think killing people like that is wrong.
4. She was a brilliant political thinker and an integral part of Justinian's rule. Without her advise he probably woulda been deposed during the Nika Riots, or perhaps not managed to maneuver his way into all of the legal reforms he managed to institute
5. Not... really, while his wars certainly helped spread it, trade was an essential part of life and the plague would have ravaged the people anyways.
6. Justinian's ambition and drive, as well as his frankly herculean efforts to make the roman empire a lustrous figure again make it hard not to think of him as anything other than the great. That said don't slaughter people in a stadium, it's a bad look.
Explanation:
You underpaid me, you scrotal follicle.
Answer:
The accused receives a public trial before a jury of peers.
Explanation:
i did the test lol
B. Through a return to community service
edge 2022
The relationship between imports and exports in a mercantilist economic system is that one superpower dominates the imports and exports of another country. To further explain this, here is an example: when the British still held control over the American colonies they only let the colonies import from Great Britain and export to Great Britain, so that Britain was the only country to gain from this while the other European superpowers and the colonies were halted from making economic gains.
