We consider that the ambassador's accusation was not an insult because it referred to a form of justice that existed in the Byzantine empire.
<h3>What is mutilation?</h3>
Mutilation is a term that refers to the action of violently cutting or tearing a limb or part of the body from a living being.
<h3>How did mutilation work in the Byzantine Empire?</h3>
Mutilation in the Byzantine Empire was a common method of punishment for criminals. On the other hand, it was also used by the emperor to marginalize political rivals because it was not allowed to have an emperor with missing body parts, so a mutilation completely removed him from the list of eligible to succeed the throne.
According to the above, it can be inferred that the accusation that in the Byzantine Empire they mutilated their captives was not an insult because it was a common practice that was not taboo at that time.
Learn more about Byzantine Empire in: brainly.com/question/2308264
#SPJ1
The amercianss and the britsh
Because white people are evil, no because frankly they just did not care. They felt that their parents were born here before the Revolutionary war, and that they had a right, Manifest Destiny, to spread however far West they should please. They spread all the way. They regarded the Natives as uncivilized murders and rapists. They were primarily ethnocentric and narcissistic.
The president that fought was James k. Polk
Answer:
He was the first writer to divide Indian history into three parts: Hindu, Muslim and British,[2] a classification which has proved surpassingly influential in the field of Indian historical studies, but which is seen in recent decades
