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
Phoenix [80]
3 years ago
11

Which statement accurately analyzes how federalism changed over time in the united states

History
1 answer:
jonny [76]3 years ago
6 0

the correct answer would be the letter choice A




You might be interested in
Which is the best explanation for the population decline shown in this graph
WITCHER [35]
<span>D.) millions of Indians were killed due to illnesses and diseases of the Spanish </span>
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
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
How were Christians treated during the first few centuries AD of the Roman Empire? A)The Roman Empire was indifferent toward Chr
Elodia [21]
It would be C. the roman empire persecuted christians
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
______ said that Im about to be ______ so have some ____ _____ Bye!!!!
3241004551 [841]

Answer:

Ty! :D

Explanation:

- Eijiro

5 0
2 years ago
How can nationalism can lead to political conflict ?
statuscvo [17]

Answer: Nationalism can lead to political conflict that if someone from a different country has pride in their country but someone doesn't like that country that the other person has, this can cause political conflict and wars.

Explanation: For example, in a historic time person A likes and has pride in country A. Person B disagrees and likes and has pride in country B. If person A and B doesn't agree with either country A or B, it can result in political conflict and cause war. Either person A wins or person B wins.

7 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Need help with 7 plz!!! NEED ANSWER NOW BEEN ASKING FOREVER
    15·1 answer
  • What create tension &amp; civil war?
    14·1 answer
  • I just need to know if this sentence makes sense for a summery im writing...
    9·2 answers
  • The aim of the ___ was to limit the Soviet Union’s power and influence and to stop the spread of communism.
    15·2 answers
  • Why do colonies exist in mercantilism?
    10·1 answer
  • Which now means of sending messages long distance put the Pony Express out of business after just 18 months
    15·2 answers
  • What did the North African traders do?
    14·2 answers
  • Mercantilism. Which of these statements is NOT true?
    6·1 answer
  • 10. What natural resource must the United States import to meet its needs?​
    5·2 answers
  • Choose one new mode of communication and explain how it reduced the problem of geographic distance
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!