The correct answer is A. The division ultimately weakened the empire and led to its decline.
Explanation
By the year 285 a. C. The emperor Diocletian decided to divide the Roman Empire into two halves. The eastern part would have its capital in the city of Byzantium (later Constantinople) from where it would be governed and the western part would continue to be governed from Rome. After this division the Roman Empire was weakened by internal causes such as the corruption of its rulers and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion; and external causes such as confrontations against Germanic tribes and the loss against the Barbarians in the East. Therefore, the correct answer is A. The division ultimately weakened the empire and led to its decline.
False the attack was on december 7, 1941
Answer:
Explanation:
Massacre: an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.
“an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people” Many is of course “A large quantity”. So there we have it, certainly more than a couple but if it gets to be say 100,000, which is definitely a large number, I suspect that might be encroaching into the realms of genocide.
OK so if you happen upon a car crash and there are bodies spread over the scene, 2 from each of the 2 cars, then you would immediately spot, just by looking there were 4 people involved, but if it was a pair of coaches each with 52 passengers and they were all spread around the scene you wouldn’t be able to put a number to it by just sweeping your eyes across the mess, perhaps then it is getting to be a massacre. Could that be a useful definition? If the number slaughtered is more than you can estimate merely with a look? I also think it needs to be within a definable area, like a football field, or a stadium or perhaps a town. If it involved a whole region of a country then it becomes Genocide, maybe.
Could it be then The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of more people within a definable area than you can estimate readily with a sweep of your eyes.
Just a suggestion, so go gently on me ………….
The idea of the social contract theory comes from Jean Jacques Rousseau's book the Social Contract but one of the most prominent philosophers that discussed the idea was Thomas Hobbes who describes social contract as a contract between the individuals and the government, whose authority comes from the people. The people would cede some of their rights to the government for protection and the sovereign is bound by the wishes of the people as it is they that govern his decisions.
So the question of John Stuart Mill relate to the theory of the social contract very much. The main issue is exactly how many rights would the people have to cede and what would be the right balance between the independence and the obedience to the social contract. That is a very thin and tricky line to navigate.
Treason, bribery, or other high crimes
