What were key characteristics of Athenian democracy?



Choose all answers that are correct.


Though all citizens were equal, only the wealthy and well-born were likely to serve as jurors or council members.


Paid juries of citizens heard legal cases and made decisions.


Power was in the hands of the people and all citizens were equal before the law.


Ten elected generals were responsible for carrying on the work of the Assembly and Council.

It is true that when my lava flows… is the correct set of underlined sentences because it shows that lava appears to be a problem but it actually creates new paths

One reason that an author may choose to relate events in memoir form is to to tell significant stories from their life.

Answer:

Hes important because he founded the state of Rhode Island

Explanation:

brainliest pls

Answer:

He's important simply because he found the state of Rhode island.

Explanation:

he's brainliest.

Answer: B. The soil was frozen all year so there weren't many plants.

Explanation: Inuits live very close to the Arctic, where the ground rarely thaws enough to allow plants (let alone crops) to grow, so their diet consists mostly of meat.

B. The soil was frozen all year so there weren’t many plants

1)They respect human rights and values
2)The entire country have the right and duties.

They uphold morals and ideals, and The entire nation has rights and obligations are two important characteristics about the Mughal Empire.

What was India called during the Mughal period?

The Mughal Empire referred to its territory as "Hindustan." The nation was never referred to as being "Mughal" in the traditional sense. "Hindustan" expanded along with the empire. In addition, Baburnama and Ain-i-Akbari use the term "Hindustan" to refer to the entire Indian subcontinent.

Even though Turkish was the Mughals' native dialect, they utilized Persian so frequently in daily life that they became fluent in it and created some of the best Persian literature, including works of poetry by Babur, Humayun, DaraShukoh, and Zaib-un-Nisha, among others.

Thus, They uphold morals and ideals, and The entire nation has rights and obligations.

For more details about India called during the Mughal period, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/883313

#SPJ5

Answer:

the answer is d: 310

Explanation:

d . 310 ! hope this helps

Lyon represented Vermont in Congress from 1797 to 1801, and represented Kentucky from 1803 to 1811. ... His tenure in Congress was tumultuous. He brawled with one Congressman, and was jailed on charges of violating the Sedition Act, winning re-election to Congress from inside his jail cell.

Matthew Lyon is an important figure in American history because,
He brawled with one Congressman, and was jailed on charges of violating the Sedition Act, winning re-election to Congress from inside his jail cell. Lyon's trial, conviction, and incarceration boosted his status among the fledgling Democratic-Republican Party as a free-speech martyr.

Under federalism, power is divided between national and state governments. Both levels have their own agencies and officials, and pass laws that directly affect citizens. This was devised because the people were afraid to give all the power to a central government, federalism offered a middle ground on the subject. Montesquieu believed in a separation of powers consisting of three branches, the federal government consisting of a legislative, executive and judicial branch. Each philosophy further separated the power of the federal government, making it so that each branch keeps the other in check, as with each citizen keeping the government under check. Montesquieu balanced the branches, the separation of power balance the government

What is the relationship between the principles of Federalism and the separation of powers as suggested by Montesquieu and detailed in the Constitution? Answer: Under federalism, power is divided between national and state governments.

control of all discover lands

control of land because the discovered land was reserved for spain and the rulers of england.

Explanation:

The development of such major Sudanic kingdoms and empires as Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the Hausa states, and Kanem-Bornu along the southern fringes of the Sahara had a number of important consequences for the history of western Africa as a whole

The precise term Sacrum Romanum Imperium dates only from 1254, though the term Holy Empire reaches back to 1157, and the term Roman Empire was used from 1034 to denote the lands under Conrad II’s rule. The term “Roman emperor” is older, dating from Otto II (died 983). This title, however, was not used by Otto II’s predecessors, from Charlemagne (or Charles I) to Otto I, who simply employed the phrase imperator augustus (“august emperor”) without any territorial adjunct. The first title that Charlemagne is known to have used, immediately after his coronation in 800, is “Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.” This clumsy formula, however, was soon discarded.

Holy Roman Empire
Holy Roman Empire
Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, 10th century; in the treasury of Hofburg palace, Vienna.
Erich Lessing/Magnum
These questions about terms reveal some of the problems involved in the nature and early history of the empire. It can be regarded as a political institution, or approached from the point of view of political theory, or treated in the context of the history of Christendom as the secular counterpart of a world religion. The history of the empire is also not to be confused or identified with the history of its constituent kingdoms, Germany and Italy, though clearly they are interrelated. The constituent territories retained their identity; the emperors, in addition to the imperial crown, also wore the crowns of their kingdoms. Finally, whereas none of the earlier emperors from Otto I had assumed the imperial title until actually crowned by the pope in Rome, after Charles V none was emperor in this sense, though all laid claim to the imperial dignity as if they had been duly crowned as well as elected. Despite these anomalies and others, the empire, at least in the Middle Ages, was by common assent, along with the papacy, the most important institution of western Europe.


Theologians, lawyers, popes, ecclesiastics, rulers, rebels like Arnold of Brescia and Cola di Rienzo, literary figures like Dante and Petrarch, and the practical men, members of the high nobility, on whom the emperors relied for support, all saw the empire in a different light and had their own ideas of its origin, function, and justification. Among these heterogeneous and often incompatible views, three may be said to predominate: (1) the papal theory, according to which the empire was the secular arm of the church, set up by the papacy for its own purposes and therefore answerable to the pope and, in the last resort, to be disposed of by him; (2) the imperial, or Frankish, theory, which placed greater emphasis on conquest and hegemony as the source of the emperor’s power and authority and according to which he was responsible directly to God; and (3) the popular, or Roman, theory (the “people” at this stage being synonymous with the nobility and in this instance with the Roman nobility), according to which the empire, following the tradition of Roman law, was a delegation of powers by the Roman people. Of the three theories the last was the least important; it was evidently directed against the pope, whose constitutive role it implicitly denied, but it was also a specifically Italian reaction against the predominance in practice of Frankish and German elements.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.
Subscribe Now
It is also important to distinguish between the universalist and localist conceptions of the empire, which have been the source of considerable controversy among historians. According to the former, the empire was a universal monarchy, a “commonwealth of the whole world, whose sublime unity transcended every minor distinction”; and the emperor “was entitled to the obedience of Christendom.” According to the latter, the emperor had no ambition for universal dominion; his policy was limited in the same way as that of every other ruler, and when he made more far-reaching claims his object was normally to ward off the attacks either of the pope or of the Byzantine emperor. According to this view, also, the origin of the empire is to be explained by specific local circumstances rather than by far-flung theories.

Load Next Page
Hope this helps !