More handpicked essays just for you.
Athenian democracy and roman republic
Was ancient Rome truly democratic
Western civilization is forever indebted to the people of ancient Greece and Rome
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Athenian democracy and roman republic
Roman Republic Democracy
I believe the roman republic was very democratic because they would let all men vote and let people have a voice in the government. The Roman republic would let all men free,poor, and slaves vote. Thus having more democracy than greece. The only men who couldn’t vote were disqualified for many reasons.
The second reason it was a democracy was because they had three elements with specific jobs. The first were the Consuls, they’re job was to lead the military and they were the supreme masters of the government. The second were the Senate, they proposed laws and had control of the treasury. The last one the assemblies were the most important, the were the element left for the people, and they’re job was to grant office
Greece and Rome’s governments included many democratic aspects that continue to be used in modern
Rome was kind of a democy it had it’s flaws but by its voting system it makes it a democy. In document C only 2% of Roman’s voted and these votes by the people even though it was few that makes it a democracy. In document C you had to be in Rome to vote which is far because they wouldn’t want an outsider to vote on things that were going on in Rome. In document B poor rich and the freed slaves could vote and for it’s time that is amazing that the poor and the freed slaves could vote. Rome definitely had it’s flaws but for it’s time it was a good democracy but in our fews we don’t think the Rome Republic was a good democy at all.
The Political Decay of the Roman Republic The fall of the Western Roman Empire was the first example in history on the collapse of a constitutional system which was caused by the internal decay in political, military, economics, and sociological issues. The government was becoming corrupt with bribery. Commanders of the Roman army turned their own army inward towards their own Constitutional systems, fueled by their own ruthless ambition. This paper will talk about how the violence and internal turmoil in 133 B.C.-27 B.C. was what provoked the economic stagnation in the city of Rome and to the end of the Republic and the many corrupt politicians and generals who only thought of nothing more than personal gains and glory. The senate lost control of the Roman military and the reason they rose against the senate was because the senate were no longer able to help manage the social problems or the military and administrative problems of the empire.
The Roman Republic was an extraordinary civilization with an exceptionally complex political system that still impact governments today. The Roman Republic comprised of three sections. The most astounding being the Consul that was made up of two male individuals who are chosen every year. Furthermore, there was the Senate made up of elder statesmen that exhorted the Consul and lastly there was the Assemblies where people voted by groups on issues. A couple of their strengths of the political system was its citizen association, in spite of the fact that plebeians really didn't have much power. Another strength of the political system was that it was administered and in view of well spelt out laws to maintain a strategic distance from cases of dictatorship.
The Romans have had almost every type of government there is. They've had a kingdom, a republic, a dictatorship, and an empire. Their democracy would be the basis for most modern democracies. The people have always been involved with and loved their government, no matter what kind it was. They loved being involved in the government, and making decisions concerning everyone. In general, the Romans were very power-hungry. This might be explained by the myth that they are descended from Romulus, who's father was Mars, the god of war. Their government loving tendencies have caused many, many civil wars. After type of government, the change has been made with a civil war. There have also been many civil wars between rulers. But it all boils
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
If one were to make his way through the history of the world, he or she would learn about the many forms of government, and how they came to be. In the case of Rome, many historians would note it as having a period where it was a republic, and a period where it was an empire. When examined in detail, though, the Roman Republic fails to mirror a true republic. While it had republican qualities, it was ultimately set up to give the common people a false sense of security and power in the Roman government. The ancient city of Rome was never a true republic because its traits do not emulate the definition of a republic or the republics of other ancient societies, and because of its biased political system.
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
The Romans called their political system not democracy but republic. Republic is something that belongs to the people. In Rome the right to take part in the governing belonged only to the men and those who had the statute of being citizens. The differences of republic and democracy are because of the origin of the two terms Greek and Latin language. The ancient Greeks discarded the tyranny as well as the disorder. Plato as well as Aristotle stabilized the complete democracy which was not based on the laws, with the power of the crowd and considered it as a form of ruling based on the jealousy and sweet talk of demagogues. Both of them considered the democracy to be wrong kind of state governing. Plato considers the democracy as nice and various public orders but without the necessary governing. The main good of democracy is freedom.
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
On which they would scratch the name of the person that represented a threat.”(Doc E)This demonstrates why Athens was a democratic society since not only did civilians get to decide on who is in office and who is not. Furthermore, because democracy means rule by the people, and male citizens of ancient Athens voted laws and officials into place.(doc c) This exemplifies how salient the majority's opinion was instead of opinions of just a few rich men .In addition, Athens “....constitution favors many instead of few.”(doc a) Also Athenians had the freedom to do whatever they desire a long as they did not disrupt any other citizen or violate a law. “The freedom which we enjoy in our governments also to our ordinary life…...we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes. But all this ease in our private life does not make us lawless as citizens.”(doc A) Therefore, this exhibits that this is a democratic government because this is a characteristic that can be seen in democratic governments today. To summarize why Athens was a democracy.Citizens were free to do what makes them jubilant as long as it did not interfere with the laws or fellow citizens. Male citizens could vote and elect the rulers and vote laws into place. These aspects all demonstrate why Athens
The Roman Republic had an upstanding infrastructure, a stable social system, and a balanced constitution that solidified Rome’s greatness. Regardless of its achievements, however, the Roman Republic owes much of its success to classical Greek cultures. These cultures, in conjunction with the fundamental values of Roman society, certified Rome as one of the most significant powers the world has ever seen.
The term democracy is ambiguous, but Abraham Lincoln (1863) defines it as the “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This modern take of democracy should guarantee basic personal and political rights to every individual person, everywhere, every day. Josiah Ober (2007, p.4) points out that “the Greek word dêmokratia conjoins kratos, a term for ‘power’, and dêmos, a term for ‘the people’.” It therefore means ‘power of the people’. But the Athenians did not call it democracy at the time, “they called it ‘isonomia’ or “equality in law”, writes Bernard Randall (2004, p.86). The earliest forms of democracy were formed by the ancient Greeks around 510 B.C in Athens.
The Roman Republic began approximately around 509 B.C. when the nobles drove the King and his family out of Rome. This monumental incident helped shape the start to the transformation of the monarchy into a republican governmental system. This is known to have begun by that of the Roman nobles trying to hold their power that they had gained. The Republic was “[a] city-state [which] was the foundation of Greek society in the Hellenic Age; in the Hellenistic Age, Greek cities became subordinate to kingdoms, larder political units ruled by autocratic monarchs” (Perry 105)
The Roman Republic ultimately failed due to the lack of large-scale wars and other crises that had united the Roman populous early in the history of the Roman Republic. Roman leadership and honor became compromised. In the absence of war and crisis, Rome’s leaders failed to develop the honor and leadership necessary to maintain the Republic.