Why did the Hittites and others migrate from Central Asia to Mesopotamia?
A- They needed more land for growing populations
B- They were enlarging their empires
C- The Persian army drove them out
D- Climate change brought a mini ice age to Asia
I think A. Please verify
I got a 100%/100%
The answer was: They needed more land for growing populations.
Thank you! :)
Thank you for posting the answers. And congratulations on getting 100%. I'm sorry I was wrong about your question. But I'm glad you stood your ground and went with your best idea.
You're welcome.
Right.
Thank you so much! :)
No.
From your book:
"The Hittites
Sometime before 1700 B.C., the warlike Indo-Euro-
pean tribe, the Hittites, migrated into Asia Minor
and built their capital in the highlands. They knew
how to make iron, a secret they guarded closely
because it gave them a technological advantage
over their rivals. With their iron weapons, the Hit-
tites could win most battles. Hittite warriors drove
horse-drawn two-wheeled chariots, each of which
could carry three soldiers into battle—one to drive,
one to fight, and another to fight or shield his
comrades. Most chariots of this time carried only
two soldiers, so the Hittites had an edge.
In the sixteenth cen-
tury B.C., Hittite soldiers
marched to Babylon and
plundered the city. Later,
they built an empire
between the Black Sea and
the Syrian coast.
The Hittites were great
cultural borrowers. From
earlier inhabitants of Asia
Minor they learned to make
ceramic vases shaped like animals. From the Sumeri-ans they borrowed cunei-
form, which they adapted
to their own written lan-guage. They developed a
code of laws similar to Ham-murabi’s. Like the Mesopota-
mians, they decorated their public buildings with
rows of figures carved into rock. They worshipped
hundreds of gods because they accepted all the
local deities they came across.
Around 1275 B.C., the Hittites’ aggressive
empire building faltered when they battled to a
standstill against the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II. "
I do not understand why my answer is wrong.
Look at these excerpts from your book:
" the warlike Indo-Euro- pean tribe, the Hittites, "
"With their iron weapons, the Hit-
tites could win most battles."
"Hittite soldiers
marched to Babylon and
plundered the city. Later,
they built an empire "
"Around 1275 B.C., the Hittites’ aggressive
empire building faltered when they battled to a
standstill against the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II. "
Which passages do you find to support the idea that they needed more land for growing populations?
You and Writeacher may be right regarding the original reason for the migration of the Hittites. However, not all empires are built because of not enough land for the population. I'm pretty sure your question refers to the emphasis upon warlike and empire discussed in your book.
In the other section I posted it said:
Migrations are usually caused by what historians
call
push
and
pull
factors. Push factors drive people
away from a place. Pull factors are what attract
them to another place.
The pull factor for the Indo-Europeans
became the wealthy cities of the settled south.
What was the push factor? It probably wasn’t some sudden catastrophe, since these migrations con-
tinued for about two thousand years. More than likely it was due to increasing population.
Instead of competing for pasture for their
herds, some clans roamed away in search of new
grazing grounds. They moved rapidly and far
because they may have been the first people to
domesticate and ride horses, perhaps as long ago
as 3500 B.C.
Some of the Indo-European groups migrated
south and east. One group, the Aryans, settled in
present-day Iran. Later, some of the Aryans broke
away and migrated farther east, to India. Other
Indo-Europeans migrated west, toward Europe.
Among them were the Hittites, who settled in Asia Minor. Another group, the Celts, kept mov-
ing through western Europe until they reached
the British Isles. The Irish of today are descended
from the Celt