Question: In what year did Francis, Duke of Anjou leave the Netherlands?

Answer: 1583

<hl> In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583 , the duke left the Netherlands again. <hl> After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in <hl> 1583 <hl>, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in <hl> 1583 <hl> , the duke left the Netherlands again.


Question: When was William of Orange assassinated?

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Answer: 10 July 1584

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. <hl> After the assassination of William of Orange ( 10 July 1584 ), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. <hl> However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (<hl> 10 July 1584 <hl>), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

After the assassination of William of Orange ( <hl> 10 July 1584 <hl> ), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty.


Question: Who agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England?

Answer: Elizabeth I

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. <hl> After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. <hl> However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and <hl> Elizabeth I <hl> of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.


Question: In what year did the United Provinces become a confederacy?

Answer: 1588

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. <hl> This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. <hl> The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in <hl> 1588 <hl> the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.


Question: What events created the Batavian Republic?

The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created the Batavian Republic. During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to France, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.

Answer: a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795

<hl> The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created the Batavian Republic. <hl> During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to France, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.

The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until <hl> a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 <hl> created the Batavian Republic. During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to France, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.


Question: The republican forces fled to which country?

Answer: France

The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created the Batavian Republic. During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. <hl> The republican forces fled to France , but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. <hl> After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.

The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created the Batavian Republic. During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to <hl> France <hl>, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.

The republican forces fled to <hl> France <hl> , but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic.


Question: The Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland replaced which republic?

Answer: the Batavian Republic

<hl> The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created the Batavian Republic . <hl> During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to France, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.

The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created <hl> the Batavian Republic <hl>. During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to France, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.

The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created <hl> the Batavian Republic <hl> .


Question: In what year did the Netherlands gain independence from France?

The Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813. In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" were used. In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.

Answer: 1813

<hl> The Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813 . <hl> In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" were used. In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.

The Netherlands regained independence from France in <hl> 1813 <hl>. In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" were used. In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.

The Netherlands regained independence from France in <hl> 1813 <hl> .


Question: What names were used in the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814?

Answer: "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands"

The Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813. <hl> In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" were used. <hl> In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.

The Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813. In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names <hl> "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" <hl> were used. In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.


Question: The Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed by which countries?

Answer: Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège

The Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813. In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" were used. <hl> In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. <hl> After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.

The Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813. In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" were used. In 1815 it was rejoined with the <hl> Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège <hl> (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.


Question: The Dutch Republic dominated world trade during what time?

During the Dutch Golden Age in the late 16th century onward, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of any nation. The County of Holland was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world.

Answer: the Dutch Golden Age

<hl> During the Dutch Golden Age in the late 16th century onward, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of any nation. <hl> The County of Holland was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world.

During <hl> the Dutch Golden Age <hl> in the late 16th century onward, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of any nation. The County of Holland was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world.


Question: What was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world during the 17th century?

Answer: The County of Holland

During the Dutch Golden Age in the late 16th century onward, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of any nation. <hl> The County of Holland was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world. <hl>

During the Dutch Golden Age in the late 16th century onward, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of any nation. <hl> The County of Holland <hl> was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world.


Question: When was the stock exchange founded in the Netherlands?

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.

Answer: 1602

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. <hl> The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. <hl> While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in <hl> 1602 <hl> by the Dutch East India Company. While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.


Question: Which city in the Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange?

Answer: Rotterdam

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. <hl> While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. <hl> Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. While <hl> Rotterdam <hl> has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.


Question: The Dutch East-India Company inhabited how many cities?

Answer: six

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. <hl> While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. <hl> Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in <hl> six <hl> different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.


Question: Which city did the Dutch East-India Company decide to reside in after a court decided they could legally only operate in one city?

Answer: Amsterdam

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. <hl> Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. <hl> While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.

The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so <hl> Amsterdam <hl> is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.


Question: The Dutch had one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world during what time?

Answer: 1590–1712

<hl> Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient, as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific. <hl>

Between <hl> 1590–1712 <hl> the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient, as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific.


Question: The Dutch operated a slave trade from which locations?

Answer: Africa and the Pacific

<hl> Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient, as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific . <hl>

Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient, as well as a lucrative slave trade from <hl> Africa and the Pacific <hl>.

Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient, as well as a lucrative slave trade from <hl> Africa and the Pacific <hl> .


Question: What was one of the conquests of the Dutch Navy?

Answer: breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient

<hl> Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient , as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific. <hl>

Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including <hl> breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient <hl>, as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific.

Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including <hl> breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient <hl> , as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific.


Question: The Dutch Republic consisted of how many provinces?

The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:

Answer: seven

<hl> The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. <hl> The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:

The republic was a confederation of <hl> seven <hl> provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:


Question: Who were the Generality Lands governed by?

Answer: the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government

The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. <hl> The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government . <hl> The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:

The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. The latter were governed directly by <hl> the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government <hl>. The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:

The latter were governed directly by <hl> the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government <hl> .


Question: The States General was made up of what?

Answer: representatives of each of the seven provinces

The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. <hl> The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces . <hl> The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:

The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of <hl> representatives of each of the seven provinces <hl>. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:

The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of <hl> representatives of each of the seven provinces <hl> .


Question: What was the 8th province of the Dutch Republic?

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

Answer: the County of Drenthe

<hl> In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe , but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. <hl> Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

In fact, there was an eighth province, <hl> the County of Drenthe <hl>, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

In fact, there was an eighth province, <hl> the County of Drenthe <hl> , but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General.


Question: Why was the County of Drenthe denied representation by the States General?

Answer: this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes

<hl> In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. <hl> Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but <hl> this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes <hl> and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.


Question: The main executive official of the Provincial States was called what?

Answer: raadspensionaris

a raadspensionaris .

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was <hl> a raadspensionaris . <hl> In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a <hl> raadspensionaris <hl>. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.


Question: Who had more power during times of war than the raadspensionaris?

Answer: the stadtholder

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. <hl> In times of war, the stadtholder , who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris. <hl>

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, <hl> the stadtholder <hl>, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

In times of war, <hl> the stadtholder <hl> , who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.


Question: Who commanded the army?

Answer: the stadtholder

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. <hl> In times of war, the stadtholder , who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris. <hl>

In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, <hl> the stadtholder <hl>, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

In times of war, <hl> the stadtholder <hl> , who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.


Question: Who appointed the stadtholders?

In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province. However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland.

Answer: the states of each province

<hl> In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province . <hl> However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland.

In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to <hl> the states of each province <hl>. However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland.

In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to <hl> the states of each province <hl> .


Question: Who were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces?

Answer: the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent

In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province. <hl> However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent , were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. <hl> Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland.

In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province. However, in practice <hl> the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent <hl>, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland.

However, in practice <hl> the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent <hl> , were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces.


Question: Which states had the same stadtholder as Holland?

Answer: Zeeland and usually Utrecht

In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province. However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. <hl> Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland. <hl>

In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province. However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. <hl> Zeeland and usually Utrecht <hl> had the same stadtholder as Holland.


Question: What group of people supported the stadtholders, particularly the princes of Orange?

There was a constant power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the Republicans, who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure.

Answer: Orangists

<hl> There was a constant power struggle between the Orangists , who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the Republicans, who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure. <hl>

There was a constant power struggle between the <hl> Orangists <hl>, who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the Republicans, who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure.

There was a constant power struggle between the <hl> Orangists <hl> , who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the Republicans, who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure.


Question: Who wanted to replace the stadtholders with a republican structure?

Answer: Republicans

<hl> There was a constant power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the Republicans , who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure. <hl>

There was a constant power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the <hl> Republicans <hl>, who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure.

There was a constant power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the <hl> Republicans <hl> , who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure.


Question: Several border territories were designated to the United Provinces after what?

After the Peace of Westphalia, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715).

Answer: the Peace of Westphalia

<hl> After the Peace of Westphalia , several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. <hl> They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715).

After <hl> the Peace of Westphalia <hl>, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715).

After <hl> the Peace of Westphalia <hl> , several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces.


Question: The border territories assigned to the United Provinces were known as what?

Answer: federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden)

After the Peace of Westphalia, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. <hl> They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden) . <hl> They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715).

After the Peace of Westphalia, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. They were <hl> federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden) <hl>. They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715).

They were <hl> federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden) <hl> .


Question: What were the names of the border territories assigned to the United Provinces?

Answer: Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715)

After the Peace of Westphalia, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). <hl> They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715) . <hl>

After the Peace of Westphalia, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). They were <hl> Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715) <hl>.

They were <hl> Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715) <hl> .


Question: Who was in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC)?

Answer: The States General of the United Provinces

<hl> The States General of the United Provinces were in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), but some shipping expeditions were initiated by some of the provinces, mostly Holland and/or Zeeland. <hl>

<hl> The States General of the United Provinces <hl> were in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), but some shipping expeditions were initiated by some of the provinces, mostly Holland and/or Zeeland.


Question: Some shipping expeditions were mostly initiated by which provinces?

Answer: Holland and/or Zeeland

<hl> The States General of the United Provinces were in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), but some shipping expeditions were initiated by some of the provinces, mostly Holland and/or Zeeland . <hl>

The States General of the United Provinces were in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), but some shipping expeditions were initiated by some of the provinces, mostly <hl> Holland and/or Zeeland <hl>.

The States General of the United Provinces were in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), but some shipping expeditions were initiated by some of the provinces, mostly <hl> Holland and/or Zeeland <hl> .


Question: Who was influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces?

The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by James Madison, shows. Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war." Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.

Answer: The framers of the US Constitution

<hl> The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by James Madison, shows. <hl> Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war." Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.

<hl> The framers of the US Constitution <hl> were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by James Madison, shows. Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war." Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.


Question: Who described the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war."

Answer: James Madison

<hl> The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by James Madison , shows. <hl> Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war." Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.

The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by <hl> James Madison <hl>, shows. Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war." Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.

The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by <hl> James Madison <hl> , shows.


Question: The American Declaration of Independence is similar to what?

Answer: the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces

The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by James Madison, shows. Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war." <hl> Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces , but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent. <hl>

The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by James Madison, shows. Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting "Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war." Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to <hl> the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces <hl>, but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.

Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to <hl> the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces <hl> , but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.


Question: What granted Holland and Zeeland the right to accept only one religion?

In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.

Answer: the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579

<hl> In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579 , Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). <hl> Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.

In <hl> the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579 <hl>, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.

In <hl> the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579 <hl> , Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism).


Question: What did the Union state that every person should be free to choose?

Answer: personal religion

In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). <hl> Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. <hl> William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.

In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of <hl> personal religion <hl> and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.


Question: Who was a strong supporter of freedom of religion and wanted to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union?

Answer: William of Orange

In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. <hl> William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. <hl> In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.

In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. <hl> William of Orange <hl> had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.


Question: What was forbidden in all provinces?

Answer: Catholic services

In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. <hl> In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic. <hl>

In the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, <hl> Catholic services <hl> in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.


Question: What did any person who wanted to hold public office need to conform to during the Republic?

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.

Answer: the Reformed Church

<hl> During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. <hl> The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to <hl> the Reformed Church <hl> and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.


Question: The degree to which different religions were persecuted depended on what?

Answer: the time period and regional or city leaders

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. <hl> The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders . <hl> In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on <hl> the time period and regional or city leaders <hl>. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.

The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on <hl> the time period and regional or city leaders <hl> .


Question: What was the punishment for people who opened their homes to Catholic services during 17th-century Leiden?

Answer: fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. <hl> In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city . <hl> Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be <hl> fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city <hl>. Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.

In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be <hl> fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city <hl> .


Question: What was one reason for the large amounts of immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe?

Answer: personal freedom of religion

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. <hl> Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe. <hl>

During the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. Throughout this, however, <hl> personal freedom of religion <hl> existed and was one factor – along with economic reasons – in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.


Question: What was the main subject of controversy that arose within the Reformed Church during the beginning of the Republic?

In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of predestination. This has become known as the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants. In 1618 the Synod of Dort tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith.

Answer: predestination

<hl> In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of predestination . <hl> This has become known as the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants. In 1618 the Synod of Dort tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith.

In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of <hl> predestination <hl>. This has become known as the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants. In 1618 the Synod of Dort tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith.

In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of <hl> predestination <hl> .


Question: The controversy surrounding the subject of predestination is known as what?

Answer: the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants

In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of predestination. <hl> This has become known as the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants . <hl> In 1618 the Synod of Dort tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith.

In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of predestination. This has become known as <hl> the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants <hl>. In 1618 the Synod of Dort tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith.

This has become known as <hl> the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants <hl> .


Question: What led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith in 1618?

Answer: the Synod of Dort

In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of predestination. This has become known as the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants. <hl> In 1618 the Synod of Dort tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith. <hl>

In the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of predestination. This has become known as the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants. In 1618 <hl> the Synod of Dort <hl> tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith.


Question: When did the active persecution of religious services become more of a restricted tolerance?

Beginning in the 18th century, the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, as long as their services took place secretly in private churches.

Answer: in the 18th century

<hl> Beginning in the 18th century , the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, as long as their services took place secretly in private churches. <hl>

Beginning <hl> in the 18th century <hl>, the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, as long as their services took place secretly in private churches.

Beginning <hl> in the 18th century <hl> , the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, as long as their services took place secretly in private churches.


Question: Religious services for other religions were tolerated as long as they adhered to what rule?

Answer: as long as their services took place secretly in private churches

<hl> Beginning in the 18th century, the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, as long as their services took place secretly in private churches . <hl>

Beginning in the 18th century, the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, <hl> as long as their services took place secretly in private churches <hl>.

Beginning in the 18th century, the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, <hl> as long as their services took place secretly in private churches <hl> .


Question: What language does the word "symbiosis" come from?

Symbiosis (from Greek σύν "together" and βίωσις "living") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens. In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."

Answer: Greek

<hl> Symbiosis (from Greek σύν "together" and βίωσις "living") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. <hl> In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens. In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."

Symbiosis (from <hl> Greek <hl> σύν "together" and βίωσις "living") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens. In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."


Question: What type of organism did Frank apply the term "symbiosis" to?

Answer: lichens

Symbiosis (from Greek σύν "together" and βίωσις "living") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. <hl> In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens . <hl> In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."

Symbiosis (from Greek σύν "together" and βίωσις "living") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in <hl> lichens <hl>. In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."

In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in <hl> lichens <hl> .


Question: What nationality was Heinrich Anton de Bary?

Answer: German

Symbiosis (from Greek σύν "together" and βίωσις "living") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens. <hl> In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms." <hl>

Symbiosis (from Greek σύν "together" and βίωσις "living") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens. In 1879, the <hl> German <hl> mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."


Question: How long did it take for scientists to stop using the narrow definition of symbiosis?

The definition of symbiosis has varied among scientists. Some believe symbiosis should only refer to persistent mutualisms, while others believe it should apply to any type of persistent biological interaction (in other words mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic). After 130 years of debate, current biology and ecology textbooks now use the latter "de Bary" definition or an even broader definition (where symbiosis means all species interactions), with the restrictive definition no longer used (in other words, symbiosis means mutualism).

Answer: 130 years

The definition of symbiosis has varied among scientists. Some believe symbiosis should only refer to persistent mutualisms, while others believe it should apply to any type of persistent biological interaction (in other words mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic). <hl> After 130 years of debate, current biology and ecology textbooks now use the latter "de Bary" definition or an even broader definition (where symbiosis means all species interactions), with the restrictive definition no longer used (in other words, symbiosis means mutualism). <hl>

The definition of symbiosis has varied among scientists. Some believe symbiosis should only refer to persistent mutualisms, while others believe it should apply to any type of persistent biological interaction (in other words mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic). After <hl> 130 years <hl> of debate, current biology and ecology textbooks now use the latter "de Bary" definition or an even broader definition (where symbiosis means all species interactions), with the restrictive definition no longer used (in other words, symbiosis means mutualism).


Question: What is the type of symbiotic relationship where two organisms can't survive without each other?

Some symbiotic relationships are obligate, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. Others are facultative (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.

Answer: obligate

<hl> Some symbiotic relationships are obligate , meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. <hl> For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. Others are facultative (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.

Some symbiotic relationships are <hl> obligate <hl>, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. Others are facultative (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.

Some symbiotic relationships are <hl> obligate <hl> , meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival.


Question: What is the type of symbiotic relationship where the symbionts can live together but can also survive alone?

Answer: facultative

Some symbiotic relationships are obligate, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. <hl> Others are facultative (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism. <hl>

Some symbiotic relationships are obligate, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. Others are <hl> facultative <hl> (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.


Question: What is an example of an obligate relationship?

Answer: lichens

Some symbiotic relationships are obligate, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. <hl> For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. <hl> Others are facultative (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.

Some symbiotic relationships are obligate, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. For example, many <hl> lichens <hl> consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. Others are facultative (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.


Question: What is an example of ectosymbiosis?

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called disjunctive symbiosis.

Answer: mistletoe

<hl> Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe ), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). <hl> Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called disjunctive symbiosis.

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as <hl> mistletoe <hl>), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called disjunctive symbiosis.

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as <hl> mistletoe <hl> ), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals).


Question: What is it called when the organisms are not physically joined?

Answer: disjunctive symbiosis

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). <hl> Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called disjunctive symbiosis . <hl>

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called <hl> disjunctive symbiosis <hl>.

Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called <hl> disjunctive symbiosis <hl> .


Question: What is it called when one symbiont lives within its partner?

Answer: endosymbiosis

<hl> Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other ( endosymbiosis , such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). <hl> Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called disjunctive symbiosis.

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other (<hl> endosymbiosis <hl>, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called disjunctive symbiosis.

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other ( <hl> endosymbiosis <hl> , such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals).


Question: What do bacterial endosymbionts give necessary nutrition to?

Endosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects.

Answer: insects

Endosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. <hl> Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects . <hl>

Endosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of <hl> insects <hl>.

Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of <hl> insects <hl> .


Question: What is the name of a bacteria inside of tree roots?

Answer: Frankia

Endosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. <hl> Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia , which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects. <hl>

Endosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called <hl> Frankia <hl>, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects.

Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called <hl> Frankia <hl> , which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects.


Question: What endosymbionts live in coral?

Answer: algae

Endosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. <hl> Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects. <hl>

Endosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled <hl> algae <hl> inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects.


Question: What organisms are described as living on the surface of whales?

Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice, commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.

Answer: barnacles

Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. <hl> Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice, commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish. <hl>

Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice, commensal ectosymbionts such as the <hl> barnacles <hl> that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.


Question: Name a parasitic ectosymbiont.

Answer: lice

Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. <hl> Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice , commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish. <hl>

Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. Examples of this include ectoparasites such as <hl> lice <hl>, commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.

Examples of this include ectoparasites such as <hl> lice <hl> , commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.


Question: What is another name for ectosymbiosis?

Answer: exosymbiosis

<hl> Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis , is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. <hl> Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice, commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.

Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as <hl> exosymbiosis <hl>, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice, commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.

Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as <hl> exosymbiosis <hl> , is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands.


Question: What is another term for mutualism?

Mutualism or interspecies reciprocal altruism is a relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit. In general, only lifelong interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.

Answer: interspecies reciprocal altruism

<hl> Mutualism or interspecies reciprocal altruism is a relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit. <hl> In general, only lifelong interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.

Mutualism or <hl> interspecies reciprocal altruism <hl> is a relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit. In general, only lifelong interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.


Question: Of what duration are symbiotic relationships?

Answer: lifelong

Mutualism or interspecies reciprocal altruism is a relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit. <hl> In general, only lifelong interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. <hl> Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.

Mutualism or interspecies reciprocal altruism is a relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit. In general, only <hl> lifelong <hl> interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.