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
Mandarinka [93]
3 years ago
6

What makes the aqueducts different from most Roman architecture?

History
1 answer:
OLEGan [10]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

They were primary built for functionality

Explanation:

<u>Aquaducts were Roman systems for water supplies, made so the water could be distributed to far cities and towns. They supported public baths, fountains, farms, and gardens.</u> Romans did build aqueducts all around Europe, and they have remained largely until today. However, they are not the only Roman architectural achievements that can be seen around Europe. What is unique to them is that they are not built for beauty or with much decoration purposes, but for functionality. Romans usually used architecture to show their wealth and art, which can be seen on the remains of the houses, baths, forums, etc. <u>Aquaducts were their purely functional invention.</u>

You might be interested in
The 3/5 Clause states that a slave can be considered three fifths of a person. True False
Masja [62]
True I think, black people were not considered fully people
6 0
3 years ago
"Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same
prohojiy [21]

Answer:

B is the answer God's purpose is not the purpose of man.

7 0
3 years ago
"And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation,
olchik [2.2K]

Answer:

The correct answer is that in this quote by John Locke  it edmonstrate the consitutional principle the founding fathers had on democracy.

Explanation:

As they were fighting the monarchy institution, the founding fathers of the nited States made it pretty clear that they would not be following hte same political system. They believed that the people had a say on who would represent them as that had also been a problem under the British rule.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The agreement to create a free-trade zone between the United States,
Ne4ueva [31]
The answer is C. NAFA
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What were the international implications of southern nationalism?
Zepler [3.9K]
This debate isn't merely historical. As could be gleaned from the flaps surrounding statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Interior Secretary Gale Norton during their confirmation periods, issues stemming from the Civil War go to the heart of many current political debates: What is the proper role of the federal government? Is a strong national government the best guarantor of rights against local despots? Or do state governments stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny? And just what rights are these governments to protect? Those of the individual or those of society? Such matters are far from settled.

So why was the Civil War fought? That seems a simple enough question to answer: Just look at what those fighting the war had to say. If we do that, the lines are clear. Southern leaders said they were fighting to preserve slavery. Abraham Lincoln said the North fought to preserve the Union, and later, to end slavery.

Some can't accept such simple answers. Among them is Charles Adams. Given Adams' other books, which include For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization and Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America, it isn't surprising that he sees the Civil War as a fight about taxes, specifically tariffs.

In When in the Course of Human Events, he argues that the war had nothing to do with slavery or union. Rather, it was entirely about tariffs, which the South hated. The tariff not only drove up the price of the manufactured goods that agrarian Southerners bought, it invited other countries to enact their own levies on Southern cotton. In this telling, Lincoln, and the North, wanted more than anything to raise tariffs, both to support a public works agenda and to protect Northern goods from competition with imports.

Openly partisan to the South, Adams believes that the Civil War truly was one of Northern aggression. He believes that the Southern states had the right to secede and he believes that the war's true legacy is the centralization of power in Washington and the deification of the "tyrant" Abraham Lincoln. To this end, he collects all the damaging evidence he can find against Lincoln and the North. And he omits things that might tarnish his image of the South as a small-government wonderland.

Thus, we hear of Lincoln's use of federal troops to make sure that Maryland didn't secede. We don't learn that Confederate troops occupied eastern Tennessee to keep it from splitting from the rest of the state. Adams tells us of Union Gen. William Sherman's actions against civilians, which he persuasively argues were war crimes. But he doesn't tell us of Confederate troops capturing free blacks in Pennsylvania and sending them south to slavery. Nor does he mention the Confederate policy of killing captured black Union soldiers. He tells us that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; he doesn't mention that the Confederacy did also.

Adams argues that Lincoln's call to maintain the Union was at root a call to keep tariff revenues coming in from Southern ports. Lincoln, he notes, had vowed repeatedly during the 1860 presidential campaign that he would act to limit the spread of slavery to the West, but he would not move to end it in the South. Lincoln was firmly committed to an economic program of internal improvements -- building infrastructure, in modern terms -- that would be paid for through higher tariffs. When the first Southern states seceded just after Lincoln's election, Adams argues, it was to escape these higher taxes. Indeed, even before Lincoln took office, Congress -- minus representatives from rebel Southern states -- raised tariffs to an average of almost 47 percent, more than doubling the levy on most goods.

7 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • Did Britain and France seem to view the Arab lands as colonies that they would possess—or as something else? What details suppor
    7·1 answer
  • What did Muhammad's first revelation instruct all Muslims to do
    12·1 answer
  • What “Wonder of the Ancient World” do some historians believe the ancient Hebrews might have had a role in building as slaves? S
    11·1 answer
  • In 1853, who commanded the fleet that arrived in Japan with a letter from President Fillmore?
    14·2 answers
  • One of the ways the senate and the house or representatives are different is that the
    11·1 answer
  • the province of quebec in canada is steeped in ___ traditions A. French b. English c.Spanish d.German
    9·2 answers
  • This city was located within the eastern Roman Empire
    14·2 answers
  • The right of accused people to not be forced by the government to give evidence against themselves exists in the
    7·1 answer
  • Which amendment set a maximum of two terms for the President of the United States? A 20th Amendment B. 21st Amendment C. 22nd Am
    13·1 answer
  • Do you agree or disagree with Jacob Riis? Can democracy survive in the slums?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!