0
Did distinctions of wealth and status widen or narrow as the 17th century drew to a close?
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why did people move from the country to cities in western Europe in the 19th century?
Large farmers made small farms move to the city for wealth because they took all the wealth.
Why are patricians rich?
Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.Patrician is a class connotation, not necessarily a wealth connotation. True, at the beginning of the city, the patricians were the wealthy class, owning most of the land and the wealth the land generated. However over the years many patrician families lost their wealth, the dictator Sulla, being a prime example. Julius Caesar himself, although a patrician, was not a wealthy man at the start of his career. In the class conscious Roman society, if you were born into a patrician family, you were a patrician, no matter what you financial status happened to be.
In what ways were the roman social classes unequal?
Patricians, in the early days of the city, had most of the wealth and most of the government positions. The Plebeians were the downtrodden and the working class until they revolted and gained their civil rights. There were other classes of people besides the patricians and plebeians. The class of the person depended a great deal upon the wealth of the person. The more wealth/money a person had, the higher his status. A person's wealth also gave him the option of entering a higher class if he could meat the financial requirements.
How are the serfs and freemen similar?
both were born in there social status 2nd answer: Slavery did exist in the middle ages, particularly in the early middle ages, but it steadily decreased over time, primarily due to the influence of the church, which opposed enslaving Christians. It had largely disappeared, at least in Western Europe, by the 13th century. Serfs were not fully free individuals, but they were not chattel slaves. Serfs owed labor to their lord, but they also worked their own lands and animals. If fortunate or shrewd a peasant family could acquire more land and move from subsistence to generating a surplus for cash sale. Some serfs were able to hire other to do their required labor for them. They might also have hired men to assist with their farm work, and in some cases even had household servants. A very few acquired enough land to have tenants of their own, essentially becoming minor gentry landlords. Also, not all peasants were serfs, some were free men. The status of serf or free did not always correlate to wealth. A free man might be a poor cottager, and a serf, despite his unfree status, might have considerable wealth.
Who gained most of the wealth from the many mines in the west?
Stockholders of large corporations, many of whom had never seen a mine, made the most share of wealth.
Were distinctions of wealth and status widening or narrowing as the seventeenth century drew to a close?
During the seventeenth century, distinctions of wealth and status were typically widening. The rise of capitalism and colonial expansion led to the accumulation of wealth among the merchant and mercantile classes, creating larger disparities between the rich and poor. Additionally, the introduction of new luxury goods and consumer culture further accentuated social stratification.
What was the relationship between social status and wealth in early American history?
In early American history, social status and wealth were closely intertwined. Wealth was a key factor in determining one's social standing, with individuals of higher wealth generally holding higher social status and influence. Social mobility was limited, with class distinctions often aligning with economic disparities.
Compared with the seventeenth century American colonial society in the eighteenth century showed?
c. greater gaps in wealth and status between rich and poor
The social order which ranked people according to occupation and status in the 18th century?
Began to break down in the early 1800s and was replaced by an order based on wealth.
What was the social order in Latin America during the 19Th century?
During the 19th century, the social order in Latin America was typically structured along hierarchical lines influenced by colonial legacies. It was characterized by a rigid class system with distinctions based on ethnicity, race, and social status. At the top were the elite landowners, followed by the mestizos (mixed-race), indigenous peoples, and enslaved Africans at the bottom. This social structure often led to deep inequalities and disparities in wealth and power.
How did prosperity lead to social class?
Prosperity can lead to the creation of social classes as individuals accumulate wealth and resources unequally, resulting in some people having more power, status, and influence than others. This economic disparity can create divisions within society based on wealth and privilege, establishing hierarchies and reinforcing social class distinctions.
How has jewelry benefited your society?
It can show social status It can show wealth and much more It can show social status It can show wealth and much more
What was the main purpose of Roman art?
To indicate wealth and status
How were some attitudes towards marriage in the 19th century different to today?
In the 19th century women married rich men with the intention of having wealth and status so it was almost like a business deal and today, many people marry for love and not for their own benefits
What is the status of wealth and material goods as compared with knowledge in Islam?
it is as dung
What is the word origin of Swank?
"Swank" originated in the early 18th century, deriving from the Old Norse word "svangr," meaning "narrow." Over time, it evolved to convey a sense of ostentatious display or showiness, reflecting wealth or elegance.
What was a sign of wealth in 19th century England?
umbrella
