Governments typically had been either unitary or confederated. Or another way to say that is that they either focused on centralized power (in someone like a king) or particularized power -- the power in the parts of a kingdom rather than at the center.
So, for instance, in France (prior to its Revolution), all the power in the kingdom centered in the hands of the king. For 175 years, they didn't even have a meeting of the Estates General which was their version of a representative body. And the power of nobles on their lands was reduced while the king's power grew.
Meanwhile, in the German territories, there was a loose confederation called the Holy Roman Empire. One of the kings or princes held the title of "emperor," but he really had no imperial power. The confederated German states retained control over their own kingdoms or territories.
The American experiment mixed something of the best of both approaches. There would be strong central power in the federal government, but putting checks and balances on that power by retaining certain aspects of control in the hands of the states within the union.
Southern Africa is the answer to the question for sure.
The Parthenon is a (former and destroyed) temple in Athens, which is today a museum. It was built during the height of Athenian civilization and was dedicated to Athena.
One is right and one is wrong
Answer:
trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?
Explanation:
trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?trade policies in order for a city-states to have a strong economy?
