“The Portuguese now ruled the Indian Ocean. . . . The consequences reached around the world. Much Italian splendor had been based on the wealth of the East pouring through Venice and Genoa. Now the traffic in Asiatic treasure—spices, drugs, gems, and silks—would no longer come through the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Levant, but on Portuguese ships around the Cape of Good Hope to Atlantic-facing Europe. . . .The Egyptian-Venetian trade was destroyed. The wealth of Asia, the fabled treasures of the Orient, were flowing west. The new Age of the Sea moved . . . commerce . . . from the coasts of a finite body, the closed Mediterranean . . . to the shores of the open Atlantic and the boundless world-reaching Oceans.” —Daniel Boorstin, The Discoverers, 1983

According to Boorstin, why did the Portuguese establish control over trade in the Indian Ocean?

What trading powers lost power and wealth because of the new Portuguese trade routes?

How would future international trade be different because of Western European countries developing new trade routes?

1. nitial success came to the Portuguese because they had been shrewd enough to develop a strategy of divide and conquer.

2. The control of sea trade, the chief source of Portuguese wealth in the East, was assured by the defeat of Muslim naval forces off Diu in 1509. Almeida’s successor, Afonso de Albuquerque, conquered Goa (1510), which he made the seat of Portuguese power, and Malacca (1511); sent two expeditions to the Moluccas (1512 and 1514); and captured Hormuz in the Persian Gulf (1515).

3.Europe’s trade relationships with the developing world are up for review, but policymakers are failing to seize the opportunity. In February 2020, the Cotonou Agreement—an aid, trade, and political partnership between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries—will expire, paving the way for a new regional cooperation model.

Explanation:

answer; ///i do believe that the correct answer for the above is ( which states would be free and which states would have check first good

in 'popular history' of europe in america it's common to blame the rise of the nazis (and of coursewwii, too) mainly on the treaty of versailles. despite the harshness of the treaty and despite the inflation of 1919-23 germany did benefit from the economic buoyancy of the roaring twenties. in the general election in 1928, the nazis only managed to get 12 (out of about 584) seats in the reichstag. the nazis were widely seen as a laughing-stock led by a funny little man given to yelling and wild gesticulation. of all european countries, none was hit harder than germany by the stockmarket crash of october 1929. germany had borrowed very large sums from american banks, with much of the money repayable either on demand or at short notice. these loans were of course recalled, and bankruptcies in germany rose sharply from the start of 1930 (or earlier). unemployment rose sharply, too. the german constitution of 1919 contained much that was utopian, including the right to paid employment. the realities of the situation made a mockery of the weimar constitution. one of german's great weaknesses at the time was the lack of a broadly based, popular right-wing party comparable to, say, the republicans in the us or the conservatives in britain. the obvious candidate, the german nationalists (the dnvp), had lost its grip and was hopelessly out oftouch with many of its supporters especially in rural areas. germany became increasingly hard to govern.

from about the middle of 1930 onwards the new chancellor, br�ning, had to govern by decree. in the absence of mainstream right-wing party, the nazis - who ruthlessly exploited genuine grievances - suddenly became the largest single party in the reichstag. with the growing effects of the great depression, unemployment reached about 27% (or more) in 1932. acting on bad advice (from the dnvp) hindenburg dismissed brüning in july 1932. in the general election that followed, the nazis won 37% of the seats. the other party that did well was the communist party (kpd) with 14%. fresh elections were held in november 1932: the nazi vote fell slightly, but the communist vote rose to 17%. in the streets of berlin and other major cities violence between left and right and their paramilitary wings grew. by late 1932, the effects of the great depression in germany had passed their peak, but this wasn't obvious at the time. the steady rise in communist vote triggered panic among most of the mainstream parties. after trying various solutions to the political crisis, hindenburg again took very bad advice - again from the dnvp. on the basis of this advice, he appointed hitler reichs chancellor on 30 january 1933 who promised to form a coalition with the german nationalists (dnvp). he did so, but at the same time almost immediately unleashed the sa (stormtroopers) who started a reign of terror within two months germany became a dictatorship, complete with concentration camps. joncey

explanation: