Want this question answered?
They could not vote or hold government office.
The ancient Roman republic was, on paper, a government where power was shared. The Roman republic was about the best that could be accomplished at that juncture in human history. Their republic was full of faults, however, the "balance of power concept" was a model that could be reworked to attain a more advanced form of government. It could be developed into a system where where the people had a direct voice in how the government should operate. The offshoot of this was the US republic. Flawed as it was, it was a unique and progressive form of government.
true
The United States has three branches of government and so did the Roman Republic. One big difference is, the Roman Republic could appoint a dictator in times of crises. This is something the US cannot do.
The government officials of the Roman republic are starting from the top: Consul--top man, two of them Praetor--mainly a judge, but had other duties as well. Number changed over time Quaestor--treasury offiial, number changed over time Aedile--in charge of public works. Number changed over time. Censor--oversaw the rolls of citizenship every five years. Could remove people from the senate, if deemed unworthy. Tribune--plebeian official who had power of veto over everyone except a dictator. Originally two, but grew to ten.
It was an experiment in the greatest sense. Nothing was like it in 1789. Countries were ruled by kings and the population had no say in the government. Here, was a government that stated that people formed government so they could have a say in it.
They could not vote or hold government office.
They could not vote or hold government office.
The ancient Roman republic was, on paper, a government where power was shared. The Roman republic was about the best that could be accomplished at that juncture in human history. Their republic was full of faults, however, the "balance of power concept" was a model that could be reworked to attain a more advanced form of government. It could be developed into a system where where the people had a direct voice in how the government should operate. The offshoot of this was the US republic. Flawed as it was, it was a unique and progressive form of government.
true
While some could argue that the US has not kept the republic because of undue influence in government from the wealthy or military officials, the US has kept its republic through granting all citizens the right to vote and participate in government.
There could be a number of answers to this; however, the general answer would be a "Republic".
The United States has three branches of government and so did the Roman Republic. One big difference is, the Roman Republic could appoint a dictator in times of crises. This is something the US cannot do.
The government officials of the Roman republic are starting from the top: Consul--top man, two of them Praetor--mainly a judge, but had other duties as well. Number changed over time Quaestor--treasury offiial, number changed over time Aedile--in charge of public works. Number changed over time. Censor--oversaw the rolls of citizenship every five years. Could remove people from the senate, if deemed unworthy. Tribune--plebeian official who had power of veto over everyone except a dictator. Originally two, but grew to ten.
Well..im from Dominican Republic..just like him and most Dominicans really love Baseball..I could be wrong but you could tell that he's a active person that's into baseball
Well one of many things. It could be the ending of the Republic by Julius Caesar. Or the invasion by the Gauls. It could also be the sack of Constantinople by the Turks
anyone who's name started with a "r" and was a man could be thought of as powerful