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
geniusboy [140]
2 years ago
13

Which of these regions of Africa had the most contact with the wider world before European

History
1 answer:
kirill115 [55]2 years ago
7 0

The Southern Africa was the region of Africa that had the most contact with the wider world before European Imperialism.

<h3>What was the European Imperialism in Africa?</h3>

The European Imperialism was when major power like French, Great Britain, Portugeuse etc dominated the African countries

The Portuguese were the first European to enter Southern Africa while finding their way around the African coast and finding a sea route to the riches of India.

In conclusion, the Southern Africa was the regions of Africa that had the most contact with the wider world before European Imperialism.

Read more about European Imperialism

<em>brainly.com/question/15017149</em>

You might be interested in
HELP
kotegsom [21]

Answer:

B C I think

Explanation:

Because a is wrong u don't have any citizen with power d is not because in a dictatorship it called dictator it either b or c I think B because they already have power

6 0
3 years ago
How does the USA patriot act relate to the immigration debate?
mojhsa [17]

It allows government officials to retain and hold foreign nationals were considered threats to national security.

3 0
2 years ago
Need a little help please
WINSTONCH [101]

Answer:  the county of Edessa (1097–1150); the principality of Antioch (1098–1287) this is for number 2

1. When Pope Urban had said these and very many similar things in his urbane discourse, he so influenced to one purpose the desires of all who were present that they cried out, ‘It is the will of God! It is the will of God!’’’

So wrote the monk Robert of Rheims in his Historia Hierosolymitana (‘History of Jerusalem’) during the early 1100s. Some years earlier, on 27 November 1095, Urban II preached a public sermon outside the town of Clermont in central France, summoning Christians to take part in the First Crusade, a new form of holy war. It was a carefully stage-managed event, in which the pope’s representative, the papal legate Adhémar of Le Puy, supposedly moved by the pope’s eloquence, tore up strips of cloth to make crosses for the crowds. Urban had been travelling through France accompanied by a large entourage from Italy, dedicating cathedrals and churches and presiding over reforming councils, and his proposed crusade was part of a wider programme of church reform. In March that year, at the Council of Piacenza, a desperate Byzantine emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, had pleaded for western help against the Seljuk Turks, whose conquests were decimating Byzantium and preventing Christians from reaching pilgrimage sites. Urban wanted to extend the hand of friendship to the Orthodox church and to heal the schism with Catholicism, which had gone from bad to worse since the time of his predecessor Leo IX.

We have a number of accounts of Urban’s speech, contemporary and later, although they differ somewhat in what they record. Yet we know that he called on knights to vow to fight in a penitential pilgrimage on Christ’s behalf, in a war to defend the Holy Land from Muslim oppressors, and that he used the Christian symbol of the cross as an emotive sign of commitment to the enterprise. Urban promised the crowds that crusading would not just benefit the church and European Christian society but their own souls, since all sins, past and present, would be wiped away through his dramatic promise of the ‘remission of sins’.

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
What was the source of conflict between the British and the Indian people
o-na [289]
That would depend on the time period. There was conflict between India and Britain, ranging from 1700 to 1798, so if you could specify a time period, I could help more. 
5 0
2 years ago
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What outcome did France want for the peace treaty being negotiated at Versailles?
    12·2 answers
  • Why is the French and Indian War considered one of the causes of the American Revolution?
    11·1 answer
  • How did the pharaoh fulfill the Egyptians’ desire for unity?
    15·1 answer
  • What role did religious fundamentalism play in the 1998 American embassy bombings?
    6·2 answers
  • 25 POINTS PLEASE HELP Which form of democratic government does Canada have?
    12·2 answers
  • 3. Why do you think Mrs. Emerson didn't give the Scotts their freedom herself?
    12·1 answer
  • What is a scapegoat and which groups do you think a re scapegoats for today's problems?​
    12·1 answer
  • The purpose of amendments to the United States Constitution has generally been to
    13·1 answer
  • How was World War 1 a Total War?
    15·2 answers
  • what happened when the colonists that were fed up with british taxes and rough handing began to protest in Boston?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!