Answer: Because of the organization and capable leadership of the empire.
Explanation:
Byzantium did not survive by "mere luck." Byzantium has maintained thanks to capable leaders, an organization, skilled diplomats and an excellent military organization. True, he did not possess "that splendour" as the Western Roman Empire at its height, but it is wrong to think that thanks to luck, the empire was maintained for almost a thousand years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The great French Byzantologist and historian Charles Diehl says<em> "The Byzantine Empire was a captive of Christianity in the east, against the unbelievers it saved Europe in a few moments by its inferiority, in the Middle Ages ".</em>
it makes us a representative democracy
in a full democracy every single person must vote on everything so having the Electoral college represents the people
Answer:
The main difference is their view on who Muhammad's successor should/should've been.
The people that believed that anyone with the right qualifications could take over insisted that Muhammad's father in law and friend, Abu Bakr, success him and became known as the Sunni.
The people who insisted that only someone blood related to Muhammad could take over, they wanted Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib, to take over; and they became known as the Shi'ite.
They both follow the foundational practices and beliefs (Fice Pillars) of Islam though there are differences in the way they do some things and their views on the world. For example: Shi'ite Muslims complete all five daily ritual prayers but squeeze them into three sessions instead of five. Shi'ite Muslims also believe in the 'ten obligatory acts' in addition to the Five Pillars.
Hope this helps
Answer:
The Anaconda Plan
Explanation:
The Anaconda Plan was the Union's strategic plan to defeat the Confederacy at the start of the American Civil War. The goal was to defeat the rebellion by blockading southern ports and controlling the Mississippi river.
Answer:
There is no short answer.
Explanation:
The mentioned decision was about whether the corporations and unions can or can not contribute financially to the campaigns of the politicians they want to support as long as the corporations themselves are independent of the campaigns.
One of the strongest disagreements to this was that this action was going to allow the corporations to flood selected politicians' campaigns with money, maybe corporations outside of US.
One of the arguments that agree with the decision was that the corporations also have a right of free speech including supporting their chosen political candidates even though corporations are not individual people.
I hope this answer helps.
