How many times was john smith held as someone's prisoner?

Answers

Answer 1
Answer:

The correct answer is - twice.

John Smith was held as prisoner twice during his life. The first time he had been captured and held as prisoner by the Ottoman Turks, while the second time he was kept as prisoner by a Native American (Indian) tribe, and he was able to escape with the help of a girl named Pocahontas (allegedly).

Considering his life, it is even weird that he has only been captured and held as prisoner so few times. He was a man that loved traveling and was an explorer, and a soldier, so he was getting himself in a very dangerous positions more often than not. He was also a colonial governor of the Jamestown colony, as well as Admiral of New England. Smith also is regarded as an author, though his credibility from historic point of view is very often disputed.


Related Questions

The background of game parks and how they operate
Gorbachev pursued glasnost and perestroika reforms in part because
Which was an important part of new england's economy by the 1669s
Opponents of minimum wage say that it causes a job _____, which can increase unemployment.
3. Who was the strongest god/gods in norse mythology ?

What side is better union ir donfederancy?

Answers

The Union is the North and tge confederacy is the South. You cant really say which is better because thats king of offending. But most likely everyone would tell you Union because they won the war. Also they had better food, clother, and power.
The union is better because they support equality and freedoms

The strange thing about Engels' writings is that, although they spoke of the uprising of the common worker, his writings were used by some of the most -------------- governments of the last century.A. Oppressive
B. Democratic
C. Liberal
D. Conservative
E. Benevolent

Answers

Answer:

The correct answer is A. Oppressive

Explanation:

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels point out that the first step in the workers' revolution is the transformation of the proletariat into the ruling class and the conquest of democracy.

It is only through political domination that the proletariat can take all capital from the bourgeoisie and centralize it in the hands of the state.

At this point Lenin comes to the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", considered by the Bolshevik leader as one of the most remarkable and important ideas of Marxism as far as the state is concerned.

The state would become the proletariat organized as a ruling class.

Lenin, against the heterodox Marxists, points out that the proletariat only needs a state that will become extinct.

In other words, it is the proletariat that must constitute itself as the ruling class and use state power to suppress the last vestiges of the exploiting class.

But in order to organize a state "without a state" Lenin looked at the Paris communes of 1871:

The Commune first abolished the standing army to replace it with the armed people.

Secondly, the Commune was made up of municipal councillors elected by universal suffrage in various districts of the city. These officials were responsible and subject to recall at any time, and most of their members were workers or recognized representatives of the working class.

Third, the police were stripped of their political attributes and made into an instrument of the Commune.

Fourthly, those holding public office were to receive workers' salaries, thus eliminating vested interests and the expenses of representing high state dignitaries.

Fifth, the Commune was to destroy spiritual coercion or repression, the power of the priests. For Lenin, Marx's description of the organization of the Commune represented the implementation of democracy in its most complete and consistent form imaginable. For Lenin, bourgeois democracy was transformed into a proletarian democracy, and the state was transformed into something that was no longer a proper state.

All these facts explain that the idea of communism was a failure because those elected to government positions applied the rules without regard to their own status, so that they repressed the proletarian masses instead of defending them.

Ahuramazda and AhrimanSelect one:
A.represented good and evil.
B.were the two largest satrapies in the Persian Empire.
C.represented peace and war.
D.were the most influential disciples of Zoroaster.
E.were the largest temples in all of Mesopotamia.
e.

Answers

I think the answer is A. Represent ad good and evil.

What evidence is there that the bond between lord and samurai in Japan was strong?

Answers

Yes, because the bond was said to last 3 lives. The past life, the present life, and the future life. So, technically, their bond would last forever and forever.

Hypocrite hysterical do these words have the same meanings

Answers

Hypocrite hysterical words have different meanings.

What do you mean by Hypocrite ?

A hypocritical person is called Hypocrite. The person who conceals their true thoughts, attitudes, or sentiments by acting in a specific way. A person who claims to care about the environment yet consistently litters is an example of a hypocrite. They live a double standard life.

Hypocrisy is the act of engaging in the same conduct or activity for which one blames another or the act of professing moral principles or views while acting in a manner inconsistent with those principles. It is the failure to uphold one's own declared moral standards and values, according to moral psychology.

What do you mean by Hysterical ?

Hysterical means unable to control the emotions or actions due to excessive fear, anger, excitement, etc. A long period of time spent laughing, weeping, or finding something incredibly humorous is an example of being hysterical. The phrase "a hysterical child" refers to a youngster who has been sobbing for hours and is an example of the adjective "hysterical" in usage.

To learn more about Hysterical refer

brainly.com/question/14304732

#SPJ2

no hypocrite is a person who indulges in hypocritesy
and hysterical is someone who has extreme emotions i hope this helps

How was the treatment of slaves different in West African cultures than in the Atlantic slave trade?A. In West African cultures, slaves were considered the upper class, while in the Atlantic slave trade, they were the lower class.
B. In West African cultures, slaves were constantly whipped, while in the Atlantic slave trade, they were given more care.
C. In West African cultures slaves were treated like people, while in the Atlantic slave trade they were treated like property.
D. In West African cultures, slaves were allowed to eat with their masters, while in the Atlantic slave trade, they were not.

Answers

The treatment of slaves were different in West African culture than in the Atlantic slave trade and it can be understood from the fact that in West African cultures slaves were treated like people, while in Atlantic slave trade they were treated like property. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the third option or option "C".

Answer:

In West African cultures slaves were treated like people, while in the Atlantic slave trade they were treated like property.

Explanation:

APEX Verified