Which statement accurately differentiates the historical outcomes of the roman empire and han china following periods of major change and conflict?
a. han china grew too large to govern effectively, but the roman empire held a more manageable amount of territory.
b. the roman empire grew too large to govern effectively, but han china held a more manageable amount of territory.
c. han china became permanently divided and dissolved, whereas the roman empire collapsed but was eventually reunified under new leadership.
d. the roman empire became permanently divided and dissolved, whereas han china collapsed but was eventually reunified under new leadership.

The correct answer is D) The Roman Empire became permanently divided and dissolved, whereas Han China collapsed but was eventually reunified under new leadership.

The statement that accurately differentiates the historical outcomes of the Roman Empire and Han China following periods of major change and conflict is "The Roman Empire became permanently divided and dissolved, whereas Han China collapsed but was eventually reunified under new leadership."

The Roman Empire couldn't control its vast territory, and although Emperor Diocletian opted to dive the Empire for better control, it ended up being conquered by the Barbaric German tribes. After the fall of Rome, the Byzantine Empire and it's capital Constantinople, continue to exist for a thousand more years. The Han China ruled the country from 206 BC to 220 BCE. It allowed trade with Europe using the Silk Toad. A civil war conflict marked the end of the Hang Dynasty in 220 BCE. It was the Yellow Turban Rebellion.

isolationism is a doctrine practiced by the united states for much of its history with the aim of not intervening in external affairs that did not pose a real threat to their country. the united states managed to maintain a state of political isolation throughout the nineteenth century and the first part of the xx. few nations have been able to maintain such a position for such a long period of time. historians argue that it is largely due to geographical reasons, given the physical distance between europe and the usa. uu the venataja of this situation is that the national state can spend its resources in satisfying all the needs of its inhabitants, without the need to invest in armament and equipment for a war that does not directly affect the country.

internationalism is a political and cultural movement that advocates for greater political and economic cooperation among nations for mutual benefit. this novimiento was transformed over time, today it includes military intervention in international conflicts with the objective of maintaining peace. the advantage of this move is in the international contacts and the influence developed by the country that carries it forward.

between the two modes of relations between states, i prefer the first, since i believe it is of the utmost importance to satisfy the needs of citizens and work for their development and as a last option to act on the international level.

the law supported victims of political persecution.

explanation: