What effect did the Crusades have on trade? Trade throughout the Mediterranean was destroyed.

Trading cities became more important.

Italian merchants saw their fortunes ruined.

Europeans began to sell their own spices.

Please help me with History anyone

Option D

Explanation:

The Crusaders was one of the most important and significant events of European history and the Middle East which was various religious wars fought during the middle ages between the Christians and Muslims. Both parties had considerable victories but the effect of the war was both negative and positive. For instance, Crusades proved to be beneficial in more than just winning wars, one of the earlier impacts that crusaders made was the direct interaction with the Middle East which create lasting trade links to the Levant.

Until the Crusades, the only access had by Europeans to Trade was through the Western merchants; Italian merchants traded across the Mediterranean. However, the pilgrimage of thousands of Europeans to the Holy Land created direct new routes for trade which leads to boost for merchants to meet the needs of traveling crusaders and new vendor venture into the trade because of the direct opened trade with the Middle East

The effect that Crusades had on trade was that it opened up new trading markets, new ideas to Europeans; Europeans began to sell their own spices by trading with middle East without middlemen, this strengthening its economy.

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.  

explanation:

what are the statements? are there any examples?