The answer is C. she was the protector of the city of Athens. I hope this helps!
Answer:
Because the company promoted a biased description of virgins by establishing only the good points about it, while Smith and Frethorne's accounts were more realistic and impartial.
Explanation:
The company promoted a description where it only addressed the qualities of Vírginia. This was done to help settlers and show the state as a wonderful and flawless earth. In fact, Vírginia had advantages, but the description of the company was completely biased and incomplete in many factors. John Smith and Richard Frethorne, on the other hand, presented more complete reports, as they were indeed familiar with the territory. They presented a more impartial report, describing the state as it really was, without alleviating possible defects.
Even is he existed, he is dead for centuries.
Explanation:
- The lack of credible material and written sources related to the narratives of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table might suggest that historical Arthur did not even exist.
- Yet, the prevalence of Arthurian legends in European culture require particular caution from historians who address the issue.
- Depending on what attitude historians have about oral tradition, its significance and role, different, sometimes even completely opposite, answers are formed to the question of whether or not legends are based on truth.
- Some historians still deny the existence of King Arthur today, while others emphasize his enormous role in sixteenth-century British history.
- The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between, so today is the most accepted viewpoint that speaks in favor of the existence of Arthur, but only as a warlord or local lord of some of the disparate areas inhabited by the Celtic tribes - the Britons.
Learn more on King Arthur on
brainly.com/question/558817
brainly.com/question/2673644
#learnwithBrainly
