1. What was Justinian's major goal as ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire? 2. What were some of the not-so-great tactics and methods he used in trying to achieve that goal?

3. What do you think about the way Justinian responded to the Nika Riots? Was it the smart thing to do politically? Was it the right thing to do ethically?

4. What is your opinion of Empress Theodora, the wife of Justinian?

5. Do you think Justinian should be blamed for the deaths from the plague? Why or why not?

6. Overall, do you think Justinian should be remembered as Justinian the Great or Justinian the Terrible? Explain the basis for your opinion.

1. He wanted to retake the west

2. Though not directly, he definitely made liberal interpretations of things like treaties and alliances

3. It was definitely the smart thing to do politically, assuring that no other challenges to his rule would arise in his lifetime. Ethically... maybe letting half the city burn and slaughtering the entirety of the rioters in the stadium was wrong? I think killing people like that is wrong.

4. She was a brilliant political thinker and an integral part of Justinian's rule. Without her advise he probably woulda been deposed during the Nika Riots, or perhaps not managed to maneuver his way into all of the legal reforms he managed to institute

5. Not... really, while his wars certainly helped spread it, trade was an essential part of life and the plague would have ravaged the people anyways.

6. Justinian's ambition and drive, as well as his frankly herculean efforts to make the roman empire a lustrous figure again make it hard not to think of him as anything other than the great. That said don't slaughter people in a stadium, it's a bad look.

Explanation:

You underpaid me, you scrotal follicle.

your answer is c

explanation:

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!