The Roman Republic had a better system of citizenship for three reasons. First Rome allowed more diversity. Second, the citizens enjoy better rights. Third Rome was all around kinder to it’a citizens. For a bit of background Rome’s citizenship system allows for all free native born peoples to become citizens this includes men, women, children, and children of free slaves. Rome also allowed peoples of these categories in conquered territories to become citizens. However Rome did not allow slaves or freed slaves to become citizens. Athens on the other hand allowed for free adult males to become citizens additionally every adult male who wanted citizenship had to also be born in Athens, complete the education, and serve two years in the military. …show more content…
While some may argue that this is an entirely subjective argument i say that this can be measured by how citizens were treated under the laws of their respective governments. Rome for example treated its citizens with the utmost respect it is even stated in books that when a criminal was apprehended if he could prove citizenship would be immediately be treated much better than a non citizen. There is also proof that any Roman citizen could commute even death sentences for those of exile unless convicted of treason and if a citizen was accused of treason then they had the right to be tried in Rome. Outside of criminal trials the typical Roman male was expected to exceed his father 's accomplishments in some way shape or form. If he accomplished this task he could expect to lead a life that even Donald Trump may become jealous of. However those who did not were not necessarily outcasts they were still bodies with a vote and were respected of high human beings. Athenian citizens were treated well too, assuming they voted and were really nice people. The Typical Athenian citizen will have just gotten off military duty and will be looking forward to a life of leisure and happiness, or not. Athenian citizens were expected to vote if they didn 't they were considered little better than dogs. The good news would be that they could hold public office right? Wrong winning office was not so much as an election as a lottery so being popular would count for nothing. However if that person managed to grab power by lottery then they might have to live in the constant fear of exile. Every year the Athenians would hold a vote to decide who to exile from Athens, so if he was not liked he would not have a fun time. This all points to another tally for Rome bringing the tally up to three for Rome and zero for
In reference to Rome, Athens’s citizenship system was less accepting by only allowing free, native born males to nationalize. While this aspect was considered a drawback by the Romans, truthfully it is actually a major tradeoff by Athens. As shown in Document A, Rome was more lenient to upcoming citizens. Although this adds to the power and development of the empire, it also creates holes in its security. Citizens with non-native origins are free to express their hatred and idea of change to the Roman government, by creating a negative cultural diffusion, and contributing to the downfall of Rome. On the other hand, Athens was free from any possible revolts and riots from any non-native Athenians.
“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” –Marcus Garvey. The U.S. is a combination of many cultures and influences over the centuries and because of this we are alike to many of them. We could name many of these influences: the Greeks, the Chinese Dynasties but the Romans were particularly like us. We might see them as barbaric is some ways but the reality is that the U.S. takes pages from many areas of the Romans, and comparisons could be drawn between both of us. Examples include government, our religions, and in some ways entertainment. The U.S. is much like the old Roman Empire was more than a millennium ago
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.
“Romans are a people made, not born”, this idea was a common mindset held by the people of the Roman Republic (Burger, 98). The phrase applies primarily to citizenship in the Republic, yet Horatius Cocles proved that displaying virtue demonstrates this idea. In a momentous act of bravery, Horatius Cocles earned his status as a Roman, despite any connection by blood to the empire. Horatio Cocles was an exemplar in respect to Roman ideals and his actions reveal the differences between Greek and Roman principles.
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
When one takes a closer look into the lives of the Romans, government and all, it would be safe to assume that the life of the Romans were much like the life that is seen in the United States today. The United States has several attributes in comparison to Rome but unlike many other areas around the world. The people of Rome were not oppressed, had a say in certain aspects of the government, had a mighty military and the economy seemed to flourish. All in all it would seem that the life of the Roman Republic was a rather appealing and pleasant one.
According to Scipio’s definition of a republic, Rome was never a true republic not because of how it conducted its affairs, but rather because of how it ran their people. Scipio’s definition of a republic can be found in The City of God, where St. Augustus explains, “. . . if we are to accept the definition laid down by Scipio in Cicero's De Republica, there never was a Roman Republic; for he briefly defines a republic as the weal of the people. And if this definition be true, there never was a Roman Republic for the people's weal was never attained among the Romans. For the people, according to his definition, is an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of right and by a community of interests. And what he means by a common acknowledgment of right he explains at large, showing that a republic cannot be administered without justice. Where, therefore, there is no true justice there can be no right. . . justice is that virtue which gives everyone his due” (Augustus XIX). This quote refers to Rome’s disregard for th...
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
They were originally established with the intent to give most of the power to the people. The power to vote for the leaders and settle issues professionally. Both forms of governments had senates, which represented the people and helped the nations succeed, by not allowing one person to gain complete power like a king or emperor would. They both did not want kings ruling the entire kingdom, so they gave the people more power by allowing them a voice with some form of voting. Power was also given to representatives and officials in the republic and democracy. The Athenians were able to vote for legislation and bills, while the Romans elected officials to vote on the people’s behalf. The Roman’s established an aristocratic republic controlled by only wealthy people, so the power was not shared equally in society. On the contrary the Athenians allowed anyone to be in government as long as they were a male citizen. A form of the executive branch emerged from both systems; Rome had two consuls elected by council and Athens had a council of five hundred men. They both had different regulations on who was able to be a citizen. The Athenians only granted citizenship to native born males, while the Romans gave half citizenship to Italians allowing them to have full rights, but were not able to
It was the senate that gave Augustus his power and many titles, yet he managed to manipulate them from the outset, on 16th January, Octavian was given the title Augustus, the revered one. Augustus wanted to convince the people that he was merely the first citizen at a free community. Augustus form of government is now known as the principate. The roles and responsibilities of the senate 1have amended overtime.
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 government of Ancient Rome, the Roman Republic, has influenced American government. The Roman Republic influenced the laws, republican form of government, branches of government, and balance of power. However, the Republic was different from American government. For instance, the Romans had two leaders as consuls of the empire. What was taken from Rome to America, was the idea of a ruling senate that controlled what laws were passed. Consuls had supreme power in both civil and military matters. In the city of Rome, the consuls were the head of the Roman government. They would be the head of the senate and the assemblies. The republic was a large democratic system structured under the rule that no one could hold too much power. Also, people's assemblies were elected by the people to represent the lower classes of Rome. The military was controlled by elected officials. Their terms only lasted for one year! However, it was not a perfect democracy. The Romans did not have a sense of human rights. The city held m...
“He is said to have been tall of stature… except that towards the end.” What was it that really led to the fall of the Roman Republic? There are a lot of different factors to consider when trying to determine what caused the collapse. By examining The Rubicon, The Life of Julius Caesar, and some accompanying handouts from class, this paper will discuss how the Roman Republic did not collapse because of one factor. The collapse of the Roman Republic was like that of a game of Jenga. Factors were pulled out of the Republican system just like a game of Jenga until the Republic could not stand anymore.
Jan Peter Balkenende said that “Our society is the product of several great religious and philosophical traditions. The ideas of the Greeks and Romans, Christianity, Judaism, humanism and the Enlightenment have made us who we are.” Religion has been very important in society, and in the human’s life as a belief in a god or in many gods. For Romans, the religion was the belief of many things as gods, sects, taboos, superstitions, rituals, and traditions, which were created by themselves that means that Roman religion was polytheistic. In addition, the thought of roman about religion was less spiritual than humanity to command their being and security. As a result, some Romans believed the religion was a public institution, but for others it was a part of their life. The Roman religion was divided in two different classes: the state