Answer:
is this history or technology ??
.
...??
The correct answers are A) Hrothgar and his men. B) Beowulf and his men.
<em>The comitatus relationships that are shown in Beowulf are Hrothgar and his men and Beowulf and his men.
</em>
A comitatus relationship is an ancient term used for the first time in the epoch of the Roman Empire. It refers to the special relationship that rulers had with their servants that protected him. Later, in Anglo-Saxon stories, the term meant the respected relationships between the ruler and its thanes or personal guards, in Scotland. The relationship could be positive, instilling respect in people or it could be negative, instilling fear. In the case of Beowulf, the relationship is based on respect and honor.
It has become fairly common amongst colonial societies ruled by white European Imperialists. After the first flush of independent countries in South & SE Asia, there was a renewed awakening and zeal in Africa mostly, while 'IndoChina' took a different route to a bloody war (Vietnam) that gradually engulfed the whole of that region.
The revolution to achieve independence had riven the polity, ideologically in the middle, aided & abetted by the two ideological camps - Capitalism (free enterprise) & Communism. The resulting civil wars served as proxy wars for the Cold War enacted in Europe. As an ideal foil this obviated direct confrontation between the Superpowers. That is an aspect the world is thankful for.
But it cost Africa particularly in terms of reduction in populations ('lives lost' is too weak a term to describe it), human misery, politically unsettled condition that pauperised these countries even more, setting the clock back form development by several decades. There are too many case histories for me to take up here. The two groups - Communist against the erstwhile Colonial rulers, the 'free world' forces abetted by them and some splinter groups of neutrals & anarchists; while in the Middle East (apart form the 'Baath' faction in each country) there were various phalangist groups on ethnic-religious-social lines. Even after independence the populations & their animosities (mutual distrust) got congealed along these divisive lines making national unity in each of these countries a near-impossibility. This attitude non-participation didn't allow democracy to take to bud. The problem was because the European Imperialists drew the boundaries across ethnical polities, and it all led to ethnic cleansings later (Rwanda). Recent utterances by the Cambodian president, Hun Sen, blaming the French Imperialists of the past of creating border tensions with his neighbouring countries, sums it up.
Answer:
pretty sure the answer is C!
It was a "proxy war" because it was a conflict in which the United States did not directly engage in battle.
The USA and the USSR were on opposing sides, but it was not a direct war between the USA and the USSR. It was a "proxy war" within the larger Cold War situation.
Explanation:
The "Cold War" had that name because the two superpowers (the USA and USSR) did not fight a direct "hot" war against one another. They engaged in a protracted stand-off against each other, and had an arms race of nuclear weapons and military strength. They also supported "proxy wars" where they took opposing sides in conflicts happening in other parts of the world, such as the Six Day War in the Middle East in 1967, or the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s.
In the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), <em>GlobalSecurity </em>has reported: The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom in the 1980s - as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK." So it served as a proxy war in the larger Cold War conflict between the US and its allies over against the Soviet Union's sphere of influence.
