Student Analysis How do both maps of the Holy Roman
Empire compare at different points in
history? How do they differ?

The Holy Roman Empire, as an "empire", did not have a territory of its own. It must be understood in the context of feudalism: a number of princes/kings/bishops/whatever were tied, through sworn allegiance, to the elected Emperor. In a way, we can say that the Empire extended exactly as far as these constituent elements extended. On the other hand, the Emperor did not "own" these lands. In the vassal-suzerain relationship, the vassal owes support and a solid does of obedience, but is still the rightful owner of his lands (and in the feudal world, land ownership is merged with the judicial power). The Emperor could own some territories, not because he was Emperor, but through personal inheritance. The imperial crown did not come with a specific dedicated domain. This matters a lot from a strategic point of view: in Medieval times, the size of the army you could muster depended on your resources, i.e. the lands that you owned. The Emperor could, as the ultimate suzerain for all Empire territories, requests his vassals to provide for troops (that's what Frederick I did for the ill-fated Third Crusade), but in order to maintain order within the Empire (i.e. to keep his own vassals under his control), the Emperor had to rely on his own resources.

Explanation:

can i get brainllest

the greek gods were immortal and possessed powers beyond the average human. one of the most important aspects of ancient greek mythology was not how different the deities were from mankind, but how similar. in christianity, certain emotions are taboo: rage, jealousy; lust. however, in greek mythology.

hope this : )

the phenomenon that would be cited as evidence of increased economic interdependence between europe and the americas is  the development of mercantilism.

this theory suggests that the wealth of a country depends on its economic assets, or capital.

hope this : )