The term Roman Curia usually refers to the administrative apparatus of the Catholic Church. The name Curia comes from the institutions of ancient Rome. The Roman curia intended as the administrative apparatus of the Catholic Church was the product of evolution, rather than a creation by someone. Right from the early days the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) was assisted by a college of priests to run his diocese. This was expanded into a College of Cardinals which administered the Catholic Church as a whole, rather than just the diocese of Rome. The consistories (formal meeting of the Sacred College of Cardinals) became more and more frequent. Innocent III (1198-1216) held consistories three times a week. Specialised committees of cardinals were also established. They started with temporary mandates and then became permanent bodies and the College of Cardinals became more of a bureaucratic body. The term Curia first appeared in a papal document in 1089, under Urban II (1088-1099).
In ancient Rome there were two types of curia. One was an administrative division and an assembly. The other was the senate house.
The curiae (plural of curia) were administrative divisions created by Romulus, the founder of Rome and its first king. He divided Rome into three administrative divisions, the tribes which were subdivided into 10 curiae, giving a total of 30. Each curia provided 100 soldiers to make up an army of 3,000. To decide on the succession of Romulus, the Assembly of the Curiae (comitia curiata) was created. It elected new kings. It is often translated into assembly of the people. Whilst this translation reflects the fact that the people elected the king through this body, assembly of the constituencies would be more accurate. Each curia was like a constituency. It met to vote separately from the other curiae and the vote of a single curia counted as one vote. The final decision was reached through a majority of the votes of all the curiae. It is not clear whether this assembly voted on other matters, besides electing the king.
The role of the comitia curiata changed when the fifth king of Rome, Servius Tullius (reigned 578 - 535 BC) created two new assemblies: the Assembly of the Soldiers and the Assembly of the Tribes. The latter was composed of 35 tribes which were administrative divisions, not ethnic ones, which included the areas which Rome had conquered around Latium (land of the Latins) and aimed at integrating their peoples into the Roman state. The functions of these two new assemblies during the monarchy (753-509 BC) are not known. It is known that the curiae lost its role of recruiting soldiers, which was taken over by the state. It is also known that in the Republic (590-27 BC) other assemblies took over the roles of the Comitia Curiata and that the latter decayed.
The curia as a senate house started with the third king, Tullius Hostilius (reigned 673 BC - 642 BC) who built the first one. Prior to this the senators met outdoors. This building was named Curia Hostilia. This building was demolished by Lucius Cornelius Sulla in 80 BC to build a larger one because he doubled the number of senators. The new building was named Curia Cornelia. Julius Caesar started the construction of a new senate house because he increased the number of senators by one third. This work was completed by Augustus in 29 BC. It was named Curia Julia and it is still standing in the Roman Forum.
Alexander The Great
In general Caesar's troops respected and were loyal followers. This is because Caesar would many times personally lead them in battle, especially if the lines were faltering. His personal courage inspired them. He would also walk along with his troops rather than ride his horse or sit in a carriage. Caesar was also unique, in that he always had centurions present at his planning meetings. As the centurions were the actual battle leaders, he liked to get their opinions on his plans. Generally speaking a general leading Roman legions to successful war campaigns were popular with the army and the citizens of Rome. Caesar was assigned to go to Spain. He led brilliantly fought battles against Spanish tribes who fought hard to keep their independence from Rome. Caesar brought back to Rome enough spoils of war to enrich the Treasury of Rome and as could be expected in those days, his legions shared in the booty from the military campaigns. The Senate was so pleased that they voted him a triumph.
The Roman armies were aware of the administrative accomplishments of Caesar in Rome. His proposal as example to distribute land to 20,000 poor Roman citizens was to the legions a sign of good policy. What ever the strength of the legions, knowing that their general was a generous leader helped them to see Caesar in a good light. In 56 BC Cicero convinced the Senate to reward Caesar's armies in Gaul a substantial amount of wealth. Once again, if the legions were enriched because they were loyal troops to Caesar, this Senate award only increased the army's loyalty to Caesar. Caesar's successful campaigns in Gaul drew vast resources to Rome and more spoils of war to Caesar's legions.
However this is not to say that he had no trouble. He had a couple of mutinies to put down, but overall, the army viewed him as a leader who would bring them victory and the spoils that went along with the victories.
At the age of 18, in 44 BC. After he heard of the killing of Caesar he returned to Rome. There he learned that Caesar had him adopted by will post mortem and had made him heir of 2/3 of Caesars private assets.
Octavian established the principate, established the Pax Romana, reformed the army, rebuilt the city of Rome, established a firefighting/police force, appointed new members into the senate, and secured the empire's borders.
In Latin, "Caesar" means "hairy" or "having a full head of hair". It was an ironic surname for Julius Caesar who was half bald.
If the word "emperor" were part of the Roman vocabulary, Augustus would have refused it because it's meaning was too close to the meaning of king. During his reign, Octavian was known also as First Citizen and later added Caesar. He took the neutral title Augustus to avoid any suggestion of kingship - it was Julius Caesar's taking the Dictatorship-for-life which brought out the knives, so Octavian and his successors stayed well away from any absolute ruler title.
Incidentally, the term emperor was never used in Roman times. It is a word/title that we use today. The closest thing to the word that the Romans had was the title "imperator" which was an honorific voted by a general's troops after a victory.
Not at all. He was a formidable soldier and had overborne all the political traditions of Rome to become its absolute ruler.
Julius Caesar was a good fighter in his wars because he was a good strategist and used rapid troop movements as one of his tactics. He was also a man of personal courage and when he saw that his troops were falling back, he would not hesitate to admonish them and personally lead them into battle on foot. This was how he gained the loyalty of most of his troops. As most military leaders don't personally fight on the field, Caesar did due to his huge amount of experience in combat from a mere officer to Dictator for life.
Caesar represents an attitude to governance which the conspirators, especially Brutus, want to eliminate. Like many another revolutionary, Brutus believed that if once Caesar were eliminated, the Roman Republic would return to the virtuous and noble style of government which it enjoyed in the time of his ancestor. Unfortunately the factors which led to Caesar's success would not die with him. They could kill Caesar but not the style of governance which he represents; that is carried on by Antony and Octavian, who ends up perfecting it.
Julius Caesar was valiant and courageous. He was a great solacer. He was not ambitious, nor was he superstitious. Brutus was a type of person who was easily influenced by his friends. Moreover, he was superstitious.
Porcia was born between 73 BC and 64 BC, and is recorded that she committed suicide in 42 BC, reputedly by swallowing live coals. So she must have been between 31 and 22 years old.
After the collapse of the Roman Empire it fell into disuse and disrepair, though still standing. During the Middle Ages it was used as housing and for churches. During the Renaissance it was pillaged by the good citizens of Rome who stripped it to use the marble on their own homes.
The upper part of the southern side of the Colosseum collapsed in an earthquake in 1349 because the soil under that side is less stable.
Yes. He had 2 sisters both named Julia, the youngest was the grandmother of Octavian.
Marc Antony, at the time of his involvement with Cleopatra, was a Roman triumvir. He had supreme Roman authority in the East. He came east to settle border disputes and to stabilize the area for Rome. He also planned to carry out Julius Caesar's war against the Parthians. He kept this authority all through his affair with Cleopatra which is why old Cleo snuggled up to him.
Recently scientists in Italy and with some help from the United States, disproved the 23 stabbings of Caeser. Scientist's now say Caeser was stabed anywhere from 4 - 9 times. Either way he was dead.
No, Augustus was Caesar's nephew. Octavian ( before he was Augustus ) was the adopted son of hid uncle, Julius Caesar.
Augustus (Octavian), Julius Caesar's son.
Ancient Rome was not a democracy as we would understand the term. An aristocratic elite, the Patricians, formed the senators from whom the leaders (consuls, quaestors etc.) were chosen. The less aristocratic Plebeans had a separate council presided over by the Tribunes. The powers of the Tribunes and the senate were balanced against each other in a complicated and even convoluted way. People who did not own land did not have a say of any kind.
This system evolved over time and had reached the above stage by the time of Caesar. Within 100 years of his death, the powers of the senate and the tribunes were all vested in the person of the Emperor.
The answer in drama is different from the answer in history.Answer 1:23 times. According to the historians Suetonius, Appian and Plutarch, he was stabbed 23 times in total. According to Suetonius, only one wound, the second one was fatal. Casca struck the first blow and Brutus the last. This is the right answer if you are talking about the historical figure. Answer 2:33 times. According to Octavius in the play by Shakespeare (Act V Scene 1), Julius Caesar was stabbed 33 times. Casca was the first to strike and Brutus the last. This is the right answer if you are asking about the character in the play. Answer 3:41 times. Julius Caesar went to a dinner with his friends, hoping that he would have a good feed and be able to discuss future matters of Ancient Rome. But his friends were worried about his leadership so they stabbed him 41 times in the back.
This story does not have any basis either in Shakespeare's play or in the Latin historians, who are universal in saying that Caesar was murdered in the Senate house, and died at the foot of Pompey's statue. Basically, this story is apocryphal nonsense.
Julius Caesar admired very few people in his lifetime. Among them was Alexander the Great and his great nephew Octavian. He did admire things or qualities. For instance he admired the city of Alexandria and he admired the courage and abilities of his men.
There were 60 conspirators, led by Brutus, of which at least 23 stabbed him.
Julius Caesar was murdered by Brutus, Cassius, Ligarious, Metallus, Casca, Trebonius, and Cinna. Studies have shown that he was left with 37 wounds
Julius Caesar had a lot going for him that made him a great commander. He had a good grasp of strategy and the Roman determination to succeed at all costs. He took chances and won. The most important element he had was his rapport with his men. He was known to march on foot right along with them and to personally lead them in battle. He used the experience and wisdom of his centurions, in battle conferences, which other commanders never did. He liked to move and strike quick.
Modern research thinks it's doubtful that Caesar had epilepsy. After studying Caesar's symptoms and his lifestyle, the consensus is that he suffered from hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. The symptoms of low blood sugar mimic those of epilepsy. As the ancients were not familiar with hypoglycemia, but were familiar with epilepsy, they naturally assumed that he was an epileptic.
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.