1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
stiks02 [169]
2 years ago
13

Why does australia had the highest of marsupials in the world ?

History
1 answer:
hichkok12 [17]2 years ago
8 0

Answer: it's unclear why marsupials thrived in Australia. however one plan is that once times were powerful, marsupial mothers might jettison any developing babies they'd in their pouches, whereas mammals had to attend till gestation was over, defrayment precious resources on their young, Beck said.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
How many states are needed to ratify an amendment to the constitution?
faust18 [17]

Answer:

3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment (37.5 states which rounds up to 38 states needed)

8 0
2 years ago
Why were the colonists upset about the proclamation of 1763
Helga [31]

Answer:

Te proclamation of 1763 by the British parliament was aimed to create a separating line between the Native Americans and white settlers and Appalachian Mountain was set as the separating line. They called all the white settlers west of the mountain to move East and to pay for the war debt of the French and Indian war. These efforts to tighten their control on the white settlers and to tax them for the war dept resulted in the resentment of the colonists and later for revolution.

4 0
2 years ago
Which of these is not something soldiers were expected to do when they were not fighting or migrating to another location?
seraphim [82]

<em> A.) Improving Roman infrastructures.</em>

<em>When they were moving to another location Roman soldiers did not have to improve on other Roman infrastructures they came upon along the way, because the building of the infrastructures was not organized by the Roman troops, more so they were organized by an architect and the architect's workers.</em>

<em>The reason I also chose A was because the Roman troops traveled in their groups and whenever they were injured it was up to them to man the camp hospitals to heal the wounded. Also recruiting more soldiers along the way was also very helpful to the Roman legion and allowed a much broader amount of soldiers that could be used for taking over land. Not to mention that soldiers (traveling strictly inside their troops) were responsible for feeding themselves (what I'm saying is that the troops were responsible for cooking and feeding each other I just used "themselves" as the word to describe it).</em>

<em>Since Roman soldiers traveled in groups they did not (I'm assuming here I don't know for sure) take women or other people along with them and they only took the amount of soldiers that were assigned by their higher ups. In other words Roman soldiers were really only expected to do as they were ordered to (in modern times any disobedience to what they were ordered to do would have resulted in them having it put on a disaplinary record, but they did not do that sort of thing during Roman times meaning that they punished the soldiers in ways that I don't factually now about). Basically the key importance in the Roman soldier was to carry out the order he received and complete the order quickly and efficiently. However, they did recruit soldiers along the way as they were instructed and that was to help them benefit for taking over land. The commanding officer was the one who told the Roman soldiers what to do when they were traveling (simple tasks, not the task assigned by the current ruler) and the soldiers were expected to complete it. A few of the tasks assigned by the commanding officer could have been to cook, preform healing measures, and recruit more soldiers.</em>

<em>Hope this helps.</em>

<em>-Northstar</em>

5 0
2 years ago
11.The Erie Canal and the
jok3333 [9.3K]

Answer:

i think it is D) moving people easier and cheape

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the Hundred Years' War affect the king of England? The king removed Parliament. O The king lost power to Parliament. O T
Ronch [10]

Answer:

The king lost power to the parliament I took the test  and It was in my notes to

Explanation:

trust

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What did the New Jersey plan suggest?
    8·1 answer
  • What should i do for a project about revolutionary war
    5·1 answer
  • Spanish women who moved to the colonial cities like mexico city in the sixteenth century
    7·1 answer
  • What did gandhi refuse to accept about the english in india?
    12·1 answer
  • What areas in North Africa have mountains
    9·1 answer
  • Populist movements are concerned with increasing access to political power for _____?
    8·1 answer
  • In the Election of 1800, the vote in the Electoral College ended in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, the republica
    14·1 answer
  • Which of these was a result of the Second Great Awakening?
    7·2 answers
  • What problems did Bolivar face in Peru after his military victories
    6·1 answer
  • Which of the following is true of the
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!