1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
artcher [175]
2 years ago
11

What was one negative consequences of the British raj

History
1 answer:
timofeeve [1]2 years ago
5 0
Hamm what the question
You might be interested in
Define the term "graying of America"
Gwar [14]

Answer:

the U.S. population is increasingly consisting of more elderly citizens.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Why were loyalists willing to support continued British rule patriots was not
cupoosta [38]
Loyalists believed the British government protected their rights, but patriots disagreed. The patriots believed that obeying the british would undermine the potential that they could achieve. Meanwhile, most people who became a loyalists are the one that personally profited from british's rule.
8 0
3 years ago
What were the effects after Diocletian split the Roman Empire?
stealth61 [152]

Answer:

The Roman Empire was once a superpower. Back in the days of the early 2nd century, Emperor Trajan stretched the kingdom's territory to its maximum. After that, how to secure the frontier had become an issue that all the future emperors had to address. Because most of those emperors were not nearly as capable as Trajan, the Roman Empire was soon in trouble. By the 3rd century, the situation had grown so bad that this once formidable powerhouse was at the brink of self-destruction. During the period from 235 A.D. to 284 A.D. (often called the crisis of the third century, the military anarchy, or the imperial crisis), more than two-dozen emperors came and went. Out-of-control inflation brought the economy to its knees. And foreign tribes continued to harass the borders. Just as things could not get worse for the Roman Empire, relief finally arrived. In November of 284 A.D., Diocletian, a forceful Roman general, seized power and declared himself the new emperor. One of his earliest orders was to split the Roman Empire in two. He kept the eastern part and gave the western half to his colleague, Maximian.  Diocletian's decision was bold but practical. He figured that the Roman Empire had simply grown too big over the years to be managed effectively by a single person. In 285 A.D., he named his trusted military friend, Maximian, as a Caesar or a junior emperor, while he himself was named an Augustus or a senior emperor. The following year, Diocletian promoted Maximian to be his equal, so both men held the title of Augustus and ruled the split Roman Empire side-by-side. Diocletian chose the city of Nicomedia (modern day's Izmit, Turkey) to be the capital of his Eastern Roman Empire, whereas Maximian picked Milan to be the capital of his Western Roman Empire. With the kingdom broken into two, Diocletian and Maximian were each responsible for fighting the enemies in their respective territory. As it was no longer necessary to stretch the troops across the entire empire, it was much easier to put down the rebels. Diocletian's daring experiment paid off handsomely. By 293 A.D., Diocletian decided to go a step further and resolve the issue of succession once and for all. That year, both of the senior emperors handpicked their own Caesar. Diocletian chose Galerius, and Maximian selected Constantius. Galerius and Constantius were like apprentices. They did not sit idly waiting for the two senior emperors to die or to retire. Instead, they were each given a sizable territory and had their own capital. Galerius resided at Sirmium (in today's Serbia), and Constantius camped at Trier (in today's Germany). Diocletian called this new power structure tetrarchy or "rule by four."

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
'm an Athenian playwright who criticized many Athenian customs, especially the treatment of women, and wrote play such as The Tr
9966 [12]

Answer: my best answer is Sophocles (my answer is not a 100% right but i would get somebody else's opinion on this to) have a great day. :)

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Which is the best example of a primary source ducument useful in the study of history ?
emmainna [20.7K]

Answer:

Diary or personal account that was written during the time of the event, etc.

Explanation:

Without a set of options in front of me, my best guess would be something along the lines of my above answer. Primary sources are typically diaries, legal codes, and other firsthand accounts/sources of information. They typically provide the most accurate account of the event that occurred because they have not been interpreted further by any other people.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Brainly which of the following factors endangered the success of Johnson domestic policy
    7·1 answer
  • Identity the important eropa to the Chinese in the north
    15·1 answer
  • It say Select all that apply you only picked one
    11·1 answer
  • Study the image above. Which of the following would you place in the section labeled "A"?
    13·2 answers
  • Whats a skilled craftsperson called?
    8·1 answer
  • the conflict between king charles i and parliament was based a. on parliament's wish to increase the rights of the monarchy. b.
    14·2 answers
  • What kinds of changes have lobbyists for all the oil and mining industries brought about
    7·1 answer
  • What are some of the rights that the bill of rights guarantees to all americans?
    10·2 answers
  • If you were in the army, what would you look forward to doing when you retired?
    11·1 answer
  • Was our annexation of Texas justified? Explain why
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!