Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
Under the kings there was a rule by one person. Under the republic, the people elected their representatives and had a say in the making of the laws.
because Romans have republic government.
because Romans have republic government.
tibet is under a democratic republic.
Argentina operates under a republic government that's technically all you had to say
a republic
"A republic, if you can keep it."
The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.
The best description of the government created under the constitution is that it was a federal republic.
new york is under the republic form of government
The Roman Empire started during the Roman Republic, that is under a republican government. The Republic was then replaced by the absolute rule by emperors.
a Republic
Yes, France is a republic