Kings were chosen by the warriors. The king would be the leading warrior
In Germany, people would refer to it as "Drittes Reich", which is translated in English to "Third Reich" - and I think this is the answer you are looking for, it's very widely used.
Reich means "Empire" , so it could also be translated to the "third empire" but this is not usual.
Through much of the nineteenth century, Great Britain avoided the kind of social upheaval that intermittently plagued the Continent between 1815 and 1870. Supporters of Britain claimed that this success derived from a tradition of vibrant parliamentary democracy. While this claim holds some truth, the Great Reform Bill of 1832, the landmark legislation that began extending the franchise to more Englishmen, still left the vote to only twenty percent of the male population. A second reform bill passed in 1867 vertically expanded voting rights, but power remained in the hands of a minority--property-owning elites with a common background, a common education, and an essentially common outlook on domestic and foreign policy. The pace of reform in England outdistanced that of the rest of Europe, but for all that remained slow. Though the Liberals and Conservatives did advance different philosophy on the economy and government in its most basic sense, the common brotherhood on all representatives in parliament assured a relatively stable policy-making history.
Sorry it's so long but that's the answer toy your question...Hope this helps:)
<u><em>Hey there!</em></u>
<u><em>Your answer is Moss.</em></u>
The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, and less power to the states.
This would make the answer “the Constitution would make states less powerful”
