0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ross
Beau
Coach
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Did plebeians get the right to veto?
The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.The plebeians had the power of the veto in ancient Rome. Their tribunes were plebeians.
How did the struggle between the patricians and the plebeian affect roman government?
The Roman government broadened its scope after the struggle. The Plebeians received attention from the government and enjoyed the protection of their civil rights. The government revoked the patriciansâ?? sole right to serve in the government.
What was the the name for the smaller groups that the centuries split into in the roman army?
The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.The century was the smallest fighting group in the Roman army. The smaller groups into which a century was divided was called a contubernium. However this was not a fighting group. It was a tent group consisting of eight (and later ten) men who shared a tent on the march or a barrack room in a fort. They were not a unit as we think of a military unit today, and they didn't always share the same jobs.
Why were Romans consuls awarded the power of the veto?
The power of veto was not just restricted to the consuls. All officers of state (consuls, praetors, censors, aediles and quaestors) had the power of veto. Officers of the same rank could veto each other and officers of higher rank could veto officers of lower rank. The tribune of the plebeians, who was the representative of the plebeians (commoners), but not an officer of state, also had to power of veto. The power to veto the actions of officers of state was the Roman system of checks and balances of power. It was meant to reduce the chance that the officers would abuse their power. The power of veto of the tribune of the plebeians was also meant to prevent the abuse of the commoners by the state.
What rights did plebeians gain?
The plebeians had the rights of a Roman citizen. The law gave all Roman citizens the same rights. Social inequality was not based on the law. It was determined by differences in wealth and status.
