How did the nile shape ancient egypt

Explanation:

The Nile River shaped ancient Egypt in that it provided a waterway for trading, a means of defending against enemies, and a water source for agriculture. ... This caused silt deposits to develop and made the land fertile for agriculture. Wheat and papyrus were important crops in ancient Egypt

Explanation:

The Nile was a big impact on shaping Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt was one of four advanced river-based civilizations. The Nile has a length of about 6,695 kilometers. The Nile cut directly in half the Egyptians civilization. This meant they would have few attacks from other civilizations.  The Nile provided transportation for economics. The Nile provided a waterway for trading, and a way to defend themselves against  enemies, and gave them a water source for agriculture. Agriculture was also provided by the Nile River.  The Egyptians grew a variety of crops. The Nile impacted religion in Ancient Egypt.  

The Egyptians were able to trade, have jobs, and transport goods do to the presence of the Nile River. They did not need to build roads to travel around their empire, nature had already provided them with a superhighway the Nile River.  Ancient Egypt was able to import and export goods. They used the Nile to transport obelisks used to build temples, which are transported by barge. According to document C, large sailboats transported supplies, wood, and food. The Egyptians became experts at building boats and navigating the river.  Early Egyptians learned how to make small boats out of papyrus plant. These boats were easy to construct and worked well for fishing and short trips. Document C states, the 5 occupations in Egypt that depended in some way on the Nile River included crop irrigation, bathing and drinking water, fish for food, and the reeds growing there furnished materials for building and paper.

on the whole, dickens has shown the french revolution and its this site might you. good at his job, and the subject matter he chose, 

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.