1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Mars2501 [29]
3 years ago
6

With what you know about the Roman Republic, why would people want to live under the rule of the Roman Republic rather than a mo

narchy? Think about everything you have listed above. Then write 100 to 150 words describing the reasons people would choose to live under the republic government of Rome.
History
2 answers:
ANEK [815]3 years ago
8 0
Living under a republic means more freedom. Under the rule of a monarchy would mean that to would have to be under the rule of one person and wouldn’t have voting rights and all the freedom you would have under a republic would be gone. In a republic, you can vote on laws and who you want to be a leader in the country. The power of a republic is separated into three different parts to ensure that one of the branches cannot hold more power than the other. In monarchy the next leader would depend on the next family member of the previous leader. In a republic you can choose the leader who you believe should be a leader.
Harman [31]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

They would want to live in the Roman Republic because it's a republic, Meaning they can vote and come up with their sort of own rules. In a monarchy the rules are pretty much decided for the people. In turn a republic, in this case the Roman Republic, would be more appealing to a citizen.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
What are some supposed enemies that the United States has today?
Veseljchak [2.6K]

Answer:

China

Explanation:

Trumps bias against Kim jung un

4 0
3 years ago
Why did Roosevelt move so quickly at the beginning of his term to propose legislation to establish new agencies and programs?
ivolga24 [154]
The correct answer would be A
8 0
3 years ago
Jesus taught that everyone must give up all riches.<br><br> true or false
Charra [1.4K]

Answer:

“Money and possessions are the second most referenced topic in the Bible – money is mentioned more than 800 times – and the message is clear: Nowhere in Scripture is debt viewed in a positive way.”

7 0
3 years ago
What did Abraham Lincoln mean when he said, "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces..."?
Marrrta [24]
He would sometimes use a translated version of the bible, in this case, he did. This speech is an allusion to his bible, and he means that slave owners get labor produced yet it is not from their own work. Thus it was from the sweat of other men that that they obtained there "bread". There bread symbolizes all of their wealth. 
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which statement is not true about the Plessy v. Furguson case? A. It promoted the creation of Jim Crowe laws B. It paved the way
gayaneshka [121]

Answer:

The correct answer is B. It is not true that the Plessy v. Ferguson case paved the way for the Little Rock 9 to attend Central High School.

Explanation:

Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court in 1896 that ruled on the constitutionality of the right of the states of the Union to impose racial segregation in public places under the "separate but equal" doctrine.

The court decided, by 7 votes to 1, to declare that segregation in the southern states did not violate the Constitution (in particular the 14th Amendment which stated that all citizens were equal before the law). Judge Henry Billings Brown, speaking for the majority that approved the decision, said that the segregation done in the state of Louisiana did not imply inferiority, in the eyes of the law, of African Americans and that the separation by race in public places and services was a mere political issue. The dissenting voice within the Court, Judge John Marshall Harlan, strongly condemned his colleagues and said that this decision would be as negatively striking as the "Dred Scott Case". He added that the law of the United States did not state that the country had a caste system, that the constitution did not see the color of its citizens' skin and that everyone was equal under the law. Several jurists agreed with Harlan and the nation was divided over it. The southern states, however, rejoiced that their system of segregation by race now had a legal basis to support itself.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • 11.(02.02 HC)
    13·1 answer
  • The split that resulted after the excommunication of the Byzantine emperor was a dispute over the pope’s
    15·1 answer
  • How did the spanish american war lead to the united states having more colonies overseas?
    9·1 answer
  • Would the U.S government be better if it were a more direct democracy?
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following documents was responsible for limiting the power of King John in 1215? A. the Magna Carta B. the English
    12·2 answers
  • Describe the key features that you would find in a democracy.​
    9·1 answer
  • According to their journals, how did Lewis and Clark honor President Jefferson and other government leaders?
    9·1 answer
  • Plz do❤️ At least some of them
    6·1 answer
  • 1.) The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery everywhere in the US,
    7·1 answer
  • On the east side of a town, there are multiple fast-food restaurants. On the west side of town, there is only one fast-food rest
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!