The two were not comparable. Rome during the republican period did not have a centralised government like a cabinet. It has five types of officers of state who acted independently within the remit of their executive offices. These offices were elected annually, apart for the censors whose term of office was 18 months.
Rome had three popular assemblies in which citizens voted directly. The Romans did not elect representatives of MPs. The Assembly of the Soldiers voted on war and peace, elected the senior officers of state and until 81 BC acted as a court of appeal for capital punishment cases. The Assembly of the Tribes elected the junior officers and acted as a court of appeal for other cases, also until 81 BC. In 81 BC all appeals were transferred to a special jury court.
Originally the consuls (the two annually heads of the Republic) proposed bills for the vote of the Assembly of the Soldiers. Later the plebeian tribunes proposed bulls for the vote of the Plebeian council (this is the origin of the word plebiscite)
The senate was not an elected body. Senators were members of the aristocracy and former officers of state. It was not a legislative body either. It was an advisory body for the consuls. However, it could issue decrees. Over time it became the most important political body. It supervised the quaestors (the treasurers) and with imperial expansion it became responsible of the administration of the provinces (conquered territories).
When the republic was replaced by rule by emperors, the emperor became an absolute ruler. He had a centralised imperial bureaucracy and the senate was turned into an instrument for his rule. The plebeian council was scrapped and the proceedings of the other two popular assemblies became mere formalities.
The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.
One of the differences is that the US is not an empire, it is a country. An empire is a region ruled by an emperor. The US doesn't have an emperor. Yet.
The republic was run by a coalition of citizen assemblies and senate, the empire by a coalition of emperor and senate.
Bug
No similarities whatsoever.
The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.The central government of the Roman empire was located in the city of Rome.
The Western half of the roman empire is a bla bla civilization The Eastern half of the roman empire is a bla ba dee bla civilization
One of the differences is that the US is not an empire, it is a country. An empire is a region ruled by an emperor. The US doesn't have an emperor. Yet.
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.
Rather superficial. Officially the religion was Roman Catholicism, but the rulers largely did what they wanted.
it united its territories under a central government
it united its territories under a central government
The unicorn they ride is different, the Republic has magic white ones.
How shud i no
The republic was run by a coalition of citizen assemblies and senate, the empire by a coalition of emperor and senate.
They weakened Roman law and government
The Roman Empire.