In the unit review, you wrote a statement in which you explained whether you considered government under the roman republic or government under the roman empire to be more successful, and why. elaborate on that statement by writing an essay in which you evaluate the successes of the roman republic and the roman empire. provide at least two ways in which you consider each type of government to have been successful and two ways in which you consider each to have been unsuccessful. in your conclusion, propose one change for both the republic and empire, which would have fixed the problems of roman society. be sure to use examples from what you learned to justify your response.
both roman empire and the roman republic had periods of instability and definitely caused their demise. they all lasted for the same amount of time. it will be difficult to ascertain which one is successful than the other. if we consider the extent of the roman empire and how it continued from byzantium this was after the collapsing of western empire then we will say that the empire was more successful than the republic. roman republic came into conflict with the phoenicians after it controlled the italian peninsula which sooner spread to the mediterranean. roman won in the three punic wars and those who fought in the war were forced to abandon their farms and homes which were disrepair and the cost had been expensive. they lost their right to vote and sold all their firms to wealthy citizens. the result of it all was a civil war and later they became slave led by spartacus and it ended with private armies which were generally arising. among them was gaius julius caesar. republic ruled for short time by triumvirate whereby sooner they collapsed and empire did not last more than the republic but their territorial gains were considered extensive while republic limited itself to mediterranean and peninsula. extend of empire resulted in the division. the two divisions were western and eastern empires. western empire fall in 476 and eastern empire continued and got successful until the fall of constantinople to turks in the year 1453.
i hate to be a bother but i was wondering if you ever got the answer for this? i need !
hope this : )
Some of the major upsides were that if the emperor was competent and capable, the entire country flourished as his rule to make the entire country more capable and overall better. of course, on the opposite end of this, the if the emperor was incapable of leading the country well, it could cause major issues, as noone really had any power to stop him from what he felt was correct. as well as this, the emperor had final say in the matters of the empire. this meant he was allowed to make sweeping decisions which would effect everything in the empire, and would be reinforced. this to lead the entire group of rome to be aware of what had to be done, due to its incredible amount of land it spanned. however, with all the power, many people felt that they had no say in the empire, and for the most part, they didn’t. the decisions that were made fell solely on the emperor and the rest of the aristocracy, meaning that if the lower classes in rome needed something, they had to rely on the good graces of the emperor to allow them it, otherwise, they would not have it. hope this .
- Which synonym best describes the role of a mentor? - January 26, 2023
- Which aphorism from poor richard’s almanac best reflects the virtue of industry? - January 25, 2023
- How do you pronounce Akhal Teke? - January 25, 2023