Comparing Citizenship Concepts: Rome versus Athens

587 Words2 Pages

Imagine, that only people in your family were permitted to vote and other people couldn’t, and where people required citizenship. Following citizenship comes with tons of responsibilities and rights. For an example, Rome and Athens both had their concepts of citizenship, they were the first to have a system for citizenship. Well, Rome had this concept called ‘inherited seats’ . Where only people in the family of the senate could become the next senate. On the other hand, Athens had a completely different concept, they decided they should use by lot to select their officials and it would be fair. Rome and Athens had different types of citizenship. They had different concepts and thoughts. In the next few paragraphs, The next few paragraphs will explain why Athens’ citizenship was superior. Athens was superior because they had ostraka(exiles the most powerful person per year) and they used by lot to …show more content…

Athenians passed this law to prevent people from destroying the democracy (Doc D). This way, no one can get too powerful and amalgamation. Every citizen could write a person’s name and can determine who to ostraka (Doc D). That means every citizen is part of the ostraka and every citizen can express their opinion privately. In conclusion, the ostraka is a good system of Athens that can protect them from destruction.

Nevertheless, the Athenian System of citizenship is superior to Rome’s system of citizenship because they operated by lot to select their officials. Due to that, poor people could be elected as officials (Doc B). This means the system gives the poor a chance, and it’s not based on wealth. It attaches the poor people with the wealthy people (Doc B). Word had passed down, that the poor people were the most significant part of Athens and this way it involves the poor people into the system. As a result, using by lot it includes the poor people and adds them

Open Document