Charles X became king of France in 1824
Answer:
The end of the Peloponnesian War did not bring the promised “…beginning of freedom for all of Greece.”[1] Instead, Sparta provoked a series of wars which rearranged the system of alliances which had helped them win the long war against Athens. A peace conference between Sparta and Thebes in 371 ended badly and the Spartans promptly marched upon Thebes with an army of nine thousand hoplites and one thousand cavalry. Opposing them were six thousand Theban and allied hoplites and one thousand cavalry.[2]
Over generations, the Thebans had been increasing the depth of their phalanx, generally given pride of place on the right wing of coalition armies, from the traditional eight men, to sixteen, then twenty-five and even thirty-five ranks. As the Spartan and Theban armies maneuvered toward the plain of Leuctra, the brilliant Theban general Epaminondas devised a new tactic which would use the deep phalanx to destroy the myth of Spartan superiority.
Over the generations, the citizens of Thebes had developed a reputation as tough, unyielding fighters. Epaminondas had witnessed the power of the deep Theban phalanx at previous battles, and increased the depth of the phalanx to fifty ranks, but only eighty files wide. But Epaminondas’ true innovation was to position the deep Theban column not on the right, where it would have clashed with the Spartan’s weaker allies, but on the left, where it would attack the main phalanx of the Spartan “Peers” led by King Cleombrotus, arranged only twelve ranks deep. In other words, Epaminondas was concentrating his fighting power at the critical point in the evenly-spaced, less concentrated Spartan phalanx. Finally, he arranged the Theban’s allies on his right would advance “in echelon”, each poleis’ phalanx staying slightly to the rear of that to its left, so that the allied right would protect the Theban’s flank, but not initially engage with the enemy (see Leuctra map – ‘Initial Situation’). When asked why he positioned the Theban phalanx opposite the Spartan king, Epaminondas stated he would “crush…the head of the serpent”.[3]
Women's lives did not improve at all if anything they were worsened. Rich woman during the renaissance had very little say in anything and was taught to help their husband run a business and take care of him and the house. The poor woman had no say in anything they only had to choices at life, they could either be a housewife and take care of the kids and the house ore they had to become a nun. The poor woman could not be single or have any rights.
The role of women was very scarce. Women were supposed to be seen and not heard. Rarely seen at that. Women were to be prim and proper, the ideal women. Females were able to speak their minds but their thoughts and ideas were shaped by men. Mostly everything women did had input given by men. Women were controlled by her parents from the day she is born until the day she is married, then she would be handed directly to her husband so he could take over that role. In the time of the renaissance, women were considered to legally belong to their husbands. Women were supposed to be typical ‘housewives.'
Though women were inferior to men, women in different classes had different roles. Low-class women were expected to be housewives and take care of everything to do with the house. The expectation of working-class women was a little bit different. These women were expected to work for their husbands and help them run their business. They would work alongside their husbands and then go home and take care of the household. Upper-class women may have had servants and workers working for them but the women were still expected to take care of the household.
Women could not work by themselves. Neither could they live alone if they were not married. If a woman was single, she was made to move in with one of her male relatives or join a convent and become a nun. There was no other option at this time for women.
In conclusion in different classes of women, the only women that were allowed to express themselves were upper-class women, but not sufficiently. The existence of women was there but it was a marginal existence. Very rarely would a woman of less than upper class be seen or heard expressing herself. It was unheard of. When women did express themselves, what they would express was tainted by male influence.
this is the citation I already put it through citation machine Gender Roles of Women in the Renaissance, www2.cedarcrest.edu/academic/eng/lfletcher/shrew/acloud.htm#:~:text=Mostly%20everything%20women%20did%20had,legally%20belong%20to%20their%20husbands.
Explanation:
please make mine the brainleist answer so i can get 19 more points. thank you
Which is the following buddy i don't get it. Anyways i know napoleon Bonaparte gained kingship over France Started a lot of wars. He was at war with old time Russia & Great Britain. He foolish invaded Moscow in the winter same as Hitler (different war lol!!) both failed. He was over thrown and deported into an island. He later escaped the island and became king again. But he was stopped and died somehow.. Hoped i helped you know a little more about him.
