Answer:
There are differing responses to this question, depending on which character provides the answer. Casca explains to Brutus and Cassius that, in the arena, Caesar refused the crown every time Antony offered it because each time he refused, the crowd responded uproariously. Casca observes that “he would fain have had it,” implying that Caesar’s refusal was, essentially, theater and that he was simply pandering to the crowd. On the other hand, Antony uses the same incident to reveal that Caesar refused the crown because he was not ambitious or power-hungry. However, it’s more likely that Caesar’s motivations were as Casca implies: Caesar theatrically refused the crown to further secure the hearts and minds of the people, and he fully intended to accept the crown when the senate officially offered it to him.
Explanation:
Answer:
Sectionalism
If it's right please mark brainlyest
The answer in the space provided is practical intelligence.
This is where specific learning is introduced with the use of having to use
operating styles where it led people know about information by having to exert
efforts such as by doing it and later be helpful in his or her life.
If you view states as unitary actors, you assume competing national interest groups have to work to create a unitary national interest.
Answer: Option A
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The unitary entertainer presumption treats states as a solitary element that attempts to boost national interest, extensively characterized. Hence, can find the political separation between the leaders and the citizens.
(Along these lines, "national interest" could mean the states are exceptionally big-hearten). While such cleavages surely exist, they will exist at the same time with the issues and so many problems
.
