The Vietnamese Ly dynasty did not conquer the Burmans, the Japanese, or the Khmer. They had significant interactions and confrontations with the Cham people.
The Vietnamese Ly dynasty, which reigned from 1009 to 1225, did not historically conquer the Burmans, the Japanese, or the Khmer. However, historical records suggest that the Vietnamese Ly dynasty had significant interactions and confrontations with the Cham people, a civilization based in what is now modern-day Vietnam. The history of the Vietnamese Ly dynasty is marked by various conflicts and relations with neighboring states and peoples, including the Chinese, from whom the Vietnamese sought to assert their independence.
#SPJ3
The Vietnamese Ly Dynasty did not conquer any of the peoples mentioned - the Burmans, the Cham, the Khmer, or the Japanese, according to current historical consensus. Their relationships were more characterized by trade and cultural exchange than conquest.
During the Ly Dynasty in Vietnam, significant conflicts, conquests, and territorial expansions occurred. However, the historical evidence primarily indicates that the Ly Dynasty didn't conquer the people groups mentioned in the question (the Burmans, the Cham, the Khmer, or the Japanese).
Notably, one ancient nearby group that had interactions with the Ly Dynasty is the people of Champa. They had differing cultures from Vietnam, but their relationship was more characterized by trade and cultural exchange than outright conquest. The Burmans and the Khmers had made their home in the Mekong River delta, but no clear evidence suggests that the Ly Dynasty conquered these groups. As for the Japanese, there's no historical consensus showing that they were conquered by the Ly Dynasty.
#SPJ12
Answer:
Federal republic
Explanation:
the country is not being rule by any kings or queens they are being ruled by the elected leader by the public
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Immigrants coming to America were seeking a new life, and they needed jobs to support their families. Many European immigrants, especially immigrants from Ireland, found jobs building the railroads.
that his First Amendment rights were being violated.
Gitlow was arrested for spreading socialist ideology and suggesting people should strike and overthrow the government. He was convicted under an anarchy law in New York for suggesting people should overthrow the government. Gitlow argued his First Amendment right was violated because no actions occurred as a result of his pamphlets or speeches. Therefore he was punished for his words.
The Supreme Court decided with New York and upheld their anarchy law as a reasonable limit on the First Amendment. The Court cited the Schneck v. US case as a precedent that a person could not incite citizens against the government and be protected under the First Amendment.
Gitlow's argument in the case of Gitlow v. New York was that his First Amendment rights were being violated.
The Supreme Court ruled against Gitlow in this matter because they claimed that there were limits to the First Amendment and one such limit was inciting a rebellion.
In conclusion, option A is correct.
Find out more on the limits to the First Amendment at brainly.com/question/510240?source=archive.
Answer:
Hideki Tojo
Explanation:
Answer:
Hideki Tojo
Explanation:
He was a strong supporter of the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany and Italy.