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
kow [346]
3 years ago
7

What shows that religion was important in the lives of Roman families?

History
1 answer:
loris [4]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

Roman familles prayed around shrines at home each day.

You might be interested in
How did the make-up of the Roman Senate change over time?
vladimir1956 [14]

First it's important to think about the complications involved with the word “empire.” Rome was an empire (country ruling over other countries) before the first emperor, but the word derives from imperator, the name used by Augustus. But it meant “wielder of military power,” a kind of uber-general and was specifically not supposed to connote the idea of an emperor as we think of it today (the goal was to avoid being called a king or being seen as one). Earlier, Augustus was known as <span>dux </span>(leader) and also, later <span>princeps </span>(first citizen). As far as I know, in the days of the republic, Rome called the provinces just provinciaeor socii or amici, without a general term for their empire unless it was imperium romanum, but that really meant the military power of Rome (over others) without being a reference to the empire as a political entity. It didn’t become an empire because of the emperors, and the way we use these words now can cloud the already complicated political situation in Rome in the 1st century BC.

The point is this: the Roman Republic did have an empire as we conceive it, but the Senate was unwilling to make changes that would have enabled it to retain power over the empire. By leaving it to proconsuls to rule provinces, they allowed proconsuls, who were often generals of their armies whether they were actually proconsul at any given time or not, to accrue massive military power (imperium) that could be exerted over Rome itself. (This, by the way, is in part the inspiration behind moving American soldiers around so much—it takes away the long-term loyalty a soldier may have toward a particular general.)

So the Senate found itself in no position to defy Caesar, who named himself the constitutional title of dictator for increasing periods until he was dictator for life, or Octavian (later named Augustus), who eventually named himself imperator.

The Senate had plenty of warning about this. The civil wars between Sulla and Marius gave plenty of reason for it to make real changes, but they were so wedded to the mos maiorum (tradition of the ancestors) that they were not willing to address the very real dangers to the republic that their constitution, which was designed for a city-state, was facing (not that I have too many bright ideas about what they could have done).

To finally come around to the point, the Senate went from being the leading body of Rome to being a rubber stamp on whatever the imperator wished, but there was no single moment when Rome became an empire and the Senate lost power, and these transformations don't coincide.

For one thing, the second triumvirate was legally sanctioned (unlike the informal first triumvirate), so it was a temporary measure—it lasted two 5-year terms— and the time Octavian spent as dux was ambiguous as to where he actually stood or would stand over the long term (in 33 BC, the second term of the second triumvirate expired, and he was not made imperator until 27). When he named himself imperator, he solidified that relationship and took on the posts of consul and tribune (and various combinations of posts as time went on).

If we simplify, we would say that the Senate was the leading body of Rome before the first emperor and a prestigious but powerless body afterwards, though senators were influential in their own milieus.

One other thing to keep in mind is that Octavian’s rise to Caesar Imperator Augustus Was by no means peaceful and amicable. He gets a reputation in many people’s minds as dictatorial but stable and peaceful, but the proscriptions of the second triumvirate were every bit as bloody and greedy as those of Sulla. Ironically, it was Julius Caesar who was forgiving to his former enemies after he named himself dictator. Augustus did end widespread killings and confiscations after becoming imperator, but that was only after striking fear into everyone and wiping out all his enemies, including the likes of Cicero<span>.</span>

6 0
3 years ago
The Lapita culture developed great skills to overcome the difficulties of which of the following?
Tema [17]
Lapita culture or the prehistoric Pacific ocean people have developed skills in building crafts to sail the seas.
Their greatest obstacle are the miles of water separating islands. In order to reach different land masses, they have develop skills to sail and navigate the seas.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Question 1 (MC) What is the function of the verbal in the sentence? My goal is to skydive over the Grand Canyon. It is used as a
max2010maxim [7]
The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one: "It is used as a adverb." The sentence <span>My goal is to skydive over the Grand Canyon, the 'to skydive' is an an adverb that modifies the linking verb 'is'.

The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one: "</span><span> It is an infinitive functioning as an adverb. "</span>
3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Expansionist justified the idea of manifest destiny and the acquisition of new territory because they were spreading what?
Usimov [2.4K]
Expansionist justified the idea of Manifest Destiny because they said they were spreading democracy. They wanted everybody to be live like they do and to be democratic and what better way to do that than by spreading the word to the people living on the land that they already conquered.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
One of the observations that led to people to think that life could arise from nonliving things was that
vova2212 [387]
The correct answer is <span>fish appeared in ponds that had been dry the previous season

This is according to the spontaneous generation idea which is opposite of the biogenesis idea which states that all living things come from other living things. The idea of spontaneous generation is mostly obsolete nowadays and no serious scientist has adopted the idea of it since the middle of the 19th century due to evidence of biogenesis. </span>
8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • When was the last time the indians were in the world series?
    5·1 answer
  • Which statment reveals the extent of William M. “Boss” Tweed’s influence over New York City government in the late 1800s?
    10·2 answers
  • William Shakespeare built on the literary traditions of
    11·1 answer
  • What happened to La Lupe at the end of her life? Explain in two or three sentences.
    11·1 answer
  • - criminal trespass
    6·2 answers
  • How did merchanalism operate as a push factor for some European states during the Age of Exploration?
    7·1 answer
  • For early Christians, following church teachings and not involve observance of the holy sacraments. True or false
    13·2 answers
  • This my homework solve it and get all points​
    7·1 answer
  • When was the kyoto p0rotocol adopted? when did it go into effect?
    7·1 answer
  • Bobo kaba di ka ata nag aaral pag aralang mo para matunan kaya nga ikaw ng aaral
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!