From Wikioedia...
“With MODERN republicanism, it has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and therefore a modern republic has no monarch as head of state.”
So the differentiation between a republic and a monarchy is of recent origin (comparatively speaking).
Back in Roman time what they called a republic was definitely not what we think of a republic today. There was no voting by the public in general.
In fact even in the US, right after independence only land-owning white males could vote.
Just think how many times the voting rules have changed just within the short history of the US. And they continue to change - not for the better I might add.
But wait, there is more. Early roman emperors were elected.
“The legitimacy of an emperor’s rule depended on his control of the army and recognition by the Senate; an emperor would normally be proclaimed by his troops, or invested with imperial titles by the Senate, or both.”
In ancient republics the form varied. Athenian citizens (so, no slaves, no women) who showed up could vote, similarly to the colonial American villages (and in my home town, right up into the 1960s), with someone to preside over the meetings (whatever they had before Robert's Rules of Order) and sgt-at-arms equivalent to toss the unruly, drunks, etc.
It definitely works, but not indefinitely. The Athenians, for all practical purposes, voted themselves right out of power with their idiotic adventure in Syracuse, Sicily.
Early Roman emperors wound up following the consular form, where two consuls ruled jointly, with veto power over each other's decrees -- but the one year limit became null and void, and the consular partner was typically someone else in the ruling family. Also, the Senate approval was generally purchased, or arose as a matter of self-preservation. Senators had to worry as much about rival senators as they did about the emperor.
When Nero was struck by the Senate, he was taken by surprise (being pathologically self-centered, and having rid himself of everyone in his life who would have backed him in any way).
Nero was succeeded by the last of the old-line families' military leader, who didn't count on getting hacked to pieces by troops upset about not getting a big raise. His successor was rigged into power by his own eventual successor, who was then disposed of by Vespasian, founder of the short Flavian dynasty. Besides being a great general, he was politically nimble, which one would have to have been to survive the volatile Nero.
Why would you ever want to use Wikipedia as a reference to anything.
Wikipedia was Woke before it was even cool for liberalism.
Wikipedia is useless, since they remove anything that does not support the powers of the left.
Wikipedia = historic revisionism
It’s like using using Snopes.com to prove a point.
Worthless, and until conservatives stop using them, we will not win I. We need to shed the light of truth, not spread their lies which only sheds darkness.