Answer:
After the Punic Wars, the Roman Republic is on the verge of constantly being taken over by dictators. Why? What social, economic, and/or political changes led to this instability?
Explanation:
The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between Rome and Carthage from 264 BCE to 146 BCE. After the final Punic War, which ended in 146 BCE, Rome emerged as the dominant power in the Mediterranean. However, the victory in the Punic Wars did not bring stability to the Roman Republic. The social, economic, and political changes that occurred during this time period contributed to the instability of the Republic and the rise of dictators.
One of the main social changes was the increase in slavery. Slavery was an integral part of the Roman economy, and the conquests during the Punic Wars led to an influx of enslaved people. The wealthy elite used this cheap labor to increase their profits, while the poor and middle-class citizens suffered from unemployment and a lack of opportunities.
The economic changes during this time period also contributed to the instability of the Republic. The rise of latifundia, large estates owned by the wealthy elite, led to the displacement of small farmers. This led to a decline in the number of citizens who could serve in the military, which was a requirement for holding political office.
Politically, the Republic became increasingly corrupt and ineffective. The Senate, which was supposed to be the governing body of the Republic, became dominated by wealthy landowners who used their power to further their own interests. This led to a decline in the power of the plebeians, or common people, who had once been able to influence the political process.
All of these changes contributed to the instability of the Republic and the rise of dictators. The people of Rome were looking for strong leaders who could restore order and stability to the Republic. This led to the rise of powerful generals such as Julius Caesar and Pompey, who used their military power to gain political control. Eventually, this led to the downfall of the Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.
Some historians argue that alliances caused World War I. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary caused alliances to declare war on each other. The assassination was done to free land from Austria-Hungary. Serbs living in Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted to rule themselves. Because of this assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia was an ally of Serbia. Germany was an ally of Austria-Hungary. The two mutual-defense alliances were now at war.
Which statement best identifies the reason Franz Ferdinand was assassinated?
Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted self-rule.
Austria-Hungary decided to declare war on Serbia.
Russia was an ally of Serbia and wanted to stop Austria-Hungary.
Mutual-defense alliances wanted to start a war in Austria-Hungary.
Answer:
Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted self-rule.
Explanation:
The others are a result of the assassination, not a cause.
Do the 14 points help ensure this will be the war to end all wars?
Answer:
Do the 14 points help ensure this will be the war to end all wars?
Explanation:
The 14 points, a set of principles outlined by US President Woodrow Wilson for peace negotiations at the end of World War I, aimed to prevent future wars by promoting diplomacy, disarmament, and international cooperation. While the 14 points were intended to create a lasting peace, they ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak of World War II and subsequent conflicts.
One reason for this failure was the reluctance of some European powers to embrace Wilson's vision of a new world order based on cooperation and collective security. Additionally, the harsh terms imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, which followed the 14 points, contributed to the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of World War II.
Therefore, while the 14 points represented a significant step towards preventing future wars, they ultimately fell short of achieving this goal.
How was the Montgomery Bus Boycott an influential part of the Civil Rights Movement?
Responses
It brought the leadership of Thurgood Marshall to national attention.
It led to the desegregation of interstate transportation.
It demonstrated the effectiveness of nonviolent protest.
It resulted in the integration of the city’s schools.
Answer:
C) It demonstrated the effectiveness of nonviolent protest.
Explanation:
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was an influential part of the Civil Rights Movement because it was a successful example of nonviolent resistance. African Americans in Montgomery, Alabama, boycotted the city's buses for over a year to protest the segregated seating policy. The boycott was led by Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activists, and it showed that peaceful, nonviolent protests could be effective in bringing about change. The boycott also gained national attention and inspired other similar protests across the country. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that segregated seating on buses was unconstitutional, and the boycott marked a significant victory for the Civil Rights Movement.
1. what were the reasons for the emergence of a new form, modern dance, very early in the 20th century.
The emergence of modern dance can be attributed to a combination of various cultural and societal changes, including the search for new forms of artistic expression in response to industrialization and the growing influence of Eastern spirituality.
Other reasons -Additionally, the ideas of some key modern dance pioneers, such as Isadora Duncan, Ruth St. Denis, and Martha Graham, paved the way for a new form of art that embraced movements of the body rather than relying on classical music and ballet-based steps.
Modern dance is often seen as a rejection or defiance of classical ballet, but historians suggest that socioeconomic changes in both America and Europe ushered in changes in the dance world.
To know more about modern dances -
https://brainly.in/question/26529497
#SPJ1
