United Kingdom and Brazil
Answer:
The correct answer is B, <em>they struggled for control of the Middle East</em>.
Explanation:
The history of the relationship between the Ottomans and Safavids is mainly characterized by their conflicts for the control of different regions of the Middle East. All the other options don't correctly describe this history.
However, because both societies were Muslim according to Islam they couldn't war against each other unless it was for religious reasons.
Thus in the early 1500s Selim I, sultan of the Ottoman Empire consulted his scholars and decided that the Shah Ismail of the Safavids preached heresies against Islam. He then persecuted internal supporters of the Safavids which intensified the rivalry between the two empires.
The conflict between Ottomans and Safavids was fought also through trade embargoes in the 1500s. Ottomans imposed trade embargoes against the Safavids but they only worked until the early 1600s. In the 18th century, they would start to see themselves all parts of the same faith but still fearing each other.
Answer:
the answer is social because i learned it like two days ago. this was kinda easy tho
Explanation:
Answer: Ineffective Generaling
Explanation:
According to John Green in the series, <em>Crash Course US History,</em> the North lost several battles during the beginning years of the Civil war due to ineffective leadership from the Union Generals. A term he called <em>Ineffective Generaling</em>.
This was in reference to the ineffectiveness of leaders such as Maj. Generals Benjamin Butler, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside and even the overly indecisive and cautious George McClellan all of whom allowed the Confederacy to gain an advantage in battles against the Union which was larger and better equipped.
