Pa sagot po plss plss​

freeborn women in ancient rome were citizens (cives), but could not vote or hold political office. because of their limited public role, women are named less frequently than men by roman historians. but while roman women held no direct political power, those from wealthy or powerful families could and did exert influence through private negotiations. exceptional women who left an undeniable mark on history range from lucretia and claudia quinta, whose stories took on mythic significance; fierce republican-era women such as cornelia, mother of the gracchi, and fulvia, who commanded an army and issued coins bearing her image; women of the julio-claudian dynasty, most prominently livia (58 bc-ad 29), who contributed to the formation of imperial mores; and the empress helena (c.250–330 ad), a driving force in promoting christianity.

women in the ancient greek world had few rights in comparison to male citizens. unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children. this, though, is a general description, and when considering the role of women in ancient greece one should remember that information regarding specific city-states is often lacking, is almost always from male authors, and only in athens can their status and role be described in any great detail. neither are we sure of the practical and everyday application of the rules and laws that have survived from antiquity. we do know that spartan women were treated somewhat differently than in other states. for example, they had to do physical training like men, were permitted to own land, and could drink wine.

the supreme court plays a big role in government. the constitution gives them ability to check the president and the congresses actions and dictate if their actions are allowed by the constitution or not.

hope this .

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals