Why was succession a problem for the Roman empire?

2 answers:

7 0

Since the Roman Empire was new at the time of the Julio-Claudians, it still had to work out issues of succession. The first emperor, Augustus, made much of the fact that he was still following the rules of the Republic, which permitted dictators. ... Instead, the Romans had to work out the rules of succession as they went.

faltersainse [42]3 years ago

6 0

Answer:

The succession problem has two components: skill succession and power succession. In public discourse and political thought we have tried to solve either power succession or skill succession under different names. We seamlessly switch between two separate fragmented states of mind depending on which facet of the problem is in front of us without even noticing. Please give me the brainliest answer?

:) Hoped this helped!!! Have a good day!!! <3

You might be interested in

The speed of a sound wave varies as it travels through different substances. Which factor will most affect the speed of a sound

Licemer1 [7]

B is your answer it's the source that made it

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The European Union was created specifically for what purpose?

son4ous [18]

The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace.

8 0

3 years ago

Why were the European countries eager to explore different routes?

Nimfa-mama [501]

Answer:

Easier trade.

Explanation:

Any route to make trade easier helped with Europe/s trading system. Making it faster and more reliable to get goods.

7 0

3 years ago

What differences do you find in the social condition of nepal at present and that of medivial period?

postnew [5]

Answer:

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

4 0

2 years ago

Which U.S. Supreme Court case condemned using psychological coercion, engaging in trickery or deceit, holding a suspect incommun

sergey [27]

Miranda v. Arizona is the U.S. Supreme Court case that condemned using psychological coercion, engaging in trickery or deceit, holding a suspect incommunicado, or making promises that can't be kept.

The Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court ruling (1966) ruled that arrested persons have rights to self-discrimination and lawyers under the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights against defense counsel and self-incrimination before cross-examinating police.

the majority opinion by Earl Warren. Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment requires law enforcement authorities to advise suspects on their right to remain silent during police detention interrogations and to consult lawyers.

Learn more about Miranda v. Arizona here: brainly.com/question/1307890

#SPJ4

8 0

2 years ago