Bring your Scott Foresman Social Studies textbook home and find it out.
Jesus - although he never traveled to Rome and was not really part of Roman society he obviously was the ultimate source of ancient Christianity everywhere including Rome. ... alternatively you could name Paul - who was taken to Rome for trial an established the Christian Church there Constantine - the first "Christian" Roman emperor
Mrs. Maudie
In the king James version* Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. * Luk 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,The Roman Governor who tried Jesus on Pontious Pilot. Jesus was later crucified even though he did absolutely nothing wrong.The Roman official who tried Jesus was Pontius Pilate.Pontius Pilate was the Procurator of Judea. During his tenure there, he was faced with the problem of Jesus. The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem believed that Jesus was a false "God" and a danger to the Jewish establishment. They wanted him executed. In Judea, only a Roman governor or Procurator had the authority to pass a death sentence. Rather than having problems with Jewish leaders, Pilate relented and ordered that Jesus be crucified.
how did roman law protect the rights of an accused person?
An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.
It is primary because it was a Roman trial.
secondary because it tells you about what happened afterwards
If you are referring to sources, it is a primary source. Primary sources are form original documents. Secondary sources are form the books and articles written by modern historians.
If you know what a secondary source is, then you should know that everything is both a primary and a secondary source, but on what is always the question. So, if you are wondering if it is a primary source on the war crimes trials, then clearly it is not as Marrus was not there. But there may be primary source material used in the book.
court documents and trial transcripts
Journal and Ledger are the main source of Trial Balance
what is the primary determinant of human behavior
Trial of the product
District Court
Patient safety
Patient safety
Jesus was put on trial before the Roman governor Pilate.