Example of the Scene :
-"THEY DID WHAT !??"
- There're no way we could ever predict that they have the guts to this, sir
- "SHUT THE HELL UP !!", "Prepare my Horses !" i will personally end this myself
hope this helps
Answer:In other words, what parts of the old Roman Empire based in Italy did the Byzantine Empire keep?What parts of the Byzantine Empire were different from the western (Italian) Roman Empire?THINGS THAT STAYED THE SAME:1.Byzantine leaders saw their Empire as simply a continuation of the old Western Roman Empire.a.Beginning date for the Byzantine Empire is 330 C.E. when Roman emperor Constantine makes a new capital, Constantinople, out of the old Greek city of Byzantium.b.At the end of the century, the Roman Empire was formally (in writing and law), divided into two halves – eastern and western. The Byzantine Empire was the eastern half.c.The western half, based in Italy, collapsed in the fifth century.d.The eastern half (Byzantine Empire), kept buzzing along for another thousand years.2.Many leaders of the Byzantine Empire hoped to revive the glory and power of the Roman Empirea.Emperor Justinian(ruled 527-565 C.E.) led this revival.b.He preserved the old Roman system of law.i.He ordered his scholars to collect the laws of the Roman Empire.ii.He put them together (codifies them) into a book called The Justinian Code.iii.This Justinian Code formed the basis of Byzantine law.iv.The Code preserved the idea that people should be ruled by laws, not the whimsof leaders.v.Old Roman Law/Justinian’s Code forms the basis of English civil law, one of the world’s major legal systems.3.Much of the Western Roman Empire was adopted and persisted in the eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium/Byzantine Empire.a.Roman roadsb.Roman taxation systemc.Roman military structuresd.Roman lawse.Roman imperial courtsf.Roman centralized administration
Explanation:
Answer:
<h3>B.</h3>
Explanation:
https://www.historyhit.com/1963-kenyan-independence/
This link has some great info, specifically the section "Mau Mau Uprising" read about all the death and I think it makes sense. The other very plausible option could be D. but I don't think it was classifiably an "armed revolution"
A) Both armies resorted to brutal and extreme measures, not even close to a negotiation
B) In the second paragraph it states that Britain had an imperial branch controlling this
C) So many people dies in this, far from peace
D) While it could be this one I feel it more organized than simple and "armed revolution"