One similarity in the rule of Akbar the Great and <span>the rule of Elizabeth I is that both leaders implemented policies that encouraged religious toleration, but to different extents. </span>
Both the Southern and Middle Colonies had fertile farmlands, but only the Middle Colonies was able to provide trading opportunities, thanks to their coastal lowland and bay-provided harbors. Southern Colonies highly contributed to the rise of cash crops such as rice, tobacco, and indigo. Slaves cultivate huge tracts of land and plantations owned by wealthy aristocrats and large landowners. On the other hand, Middle Colonies were more suitable for growing grain and livestock, with its environment ideal for small to large farms. More diverse workforce also exists in the Middle Colonies, consisting of farmers, fisherman, and merchants. Another notable contrast between the two colonies is that, for the people of the South, life developed as rough and rural while people of the Middle countries are deeply connected to the Church and village community.
If you meant France then it'd be B
D they had some problems with the government being controlled by the local warlords
