More handpicked essays just for you.
Roman forum republic
Democracy in ancient rome
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: Roman forum republic
Roman Republic
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.
Polybius states that no one really knows if the Roman Republic was an aristocracy or democracy
Now whether the change that this time period brought about followed the evolutionary line or a rapid outright contingent revolution can be debated for many time to come. To the political contemporaries of Augustus the transition of political pole from oligarchy to autocracy seemed almost smooth and predictable [2]- [4] Now this obviousness of Augustus’ rise of power was not due to intelligence of his political comtemporaries as such. The eminence of Augustus during the early principate evolved in due time with due measure. A situation is worthwhile to consider: After the Actium war, the final war o Roman Republic, which was against Mark Antony, Augustus (then known as Octavian) became the unprecedented head of Roman empire. He had control over sheering number of five hundred thousand legionaries [3]- [5]. And the recent seizure of Ptolemaic treasure trove. The total situation compelled Tacitus (one of the bitterest commentator of Augustus) to say- ‘Opposition did not
The roman republic came into existence at the termination of the Roman kingship in 507 B.C.E. The last king of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, was expelled by Collatinus and Brutus, as a result of his arrogance involving the matter of one of his relations raping the wholesome Roman matron Lucretia and her subsequent suicide. The rape of Lucretia was really a representation of the frustration that the roman citizens felt regarding the kingship. The later kings had little regard for roman values and the roman populus, which they used as something of a slave labor force. Brutus and Collatinus became the first Roman Consuls, elected by popular vote.
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.
Throughout time, history has proven that a great government style is the key for having a dominant and long lasting civilization. Without a solid government structure, a civilization is doomed to fail and will eventually fall into ruin. A republic is one of the styles of government that is beneficial to everyone who uses it. The republic style of government was created to benefit the common people and hard working citizens and reward them for their efforts. By using this republic, a civilization would thrive and be riddled with countless luxuries. The republic’s originated from the city of Rome. Therefore, the Romans used this new type of governing a country first, and gained tremendous amounts of benefits. The republic is praised so much that countries today have even taken parts of the set up of the republic and used it in their government. The Roman Republic revolutionized the Roman Civilization and has even played a minor role in the formation of the United States Constitution.
In 509 BC, the Tarquin line of kings was drawn from power and Rome began its stand as a Republic. The changes in the government and society of Rome were immense and were for the improvement of the city and its people. This aspiring new Republic did not flourish overnight into the perfect society; with the birth of the Republic came many new problems. Yet, it would be hard to imagine our modern society which we deem as democratic and just, not resting on the pillars and foundations that the Roman Republic gave us of their ideas on government branches with a system of checks and balances as well as the code of law created by the Romans.
In a document by Professor Alan Ward it goes into further depth how Rome wasn't truly democratic. The had disenfranchised,by places the poles farther so the people couldn't reach them. Voters could easily dominate sovereign popular candidates. Yet they did have forms of government in which citizens could directly
Rome was a so called Republic, But there were a few things that romans did that makes them a little bit of a democracy, along with things that make them very republic. My beliefs are that they were not really democratic but mostly a republic. Even though they may seem not as republican they really are.
Because aristocratic families in ancient Rome did not want a government dominated by one ruler, they overthrew the king to avoid losing their own power and established the Roman Republic in 509 B.C. In this new government, the idea was that an entire community of people would take part in the government. Though it was to include all citizens, it was dominated by the patricians: the elite, noble and upper class of Rome, with the plebeians (anyone who wasn 't a patrician) bringing up the rear. Structurally, this government consisted of patricians, who would be in the highest seats of the government, such as consuls and senators, and the plebeians, with a lesser say in government matters and banned from holding political office, were members of an assembly, effectively choosing the aforementioned consuls from the senate, leaving most of the benefits from this structure for the patricians.
The Roman Republic was not really democratic as we understand democracy today in the United States. Democracy is a government ruled by the people, not just for a small percentage of the wealthy and the privileged few. For example, what we learned from this class work is that only 2% of the entire population of the Roman Republic had the ability to vote.
According to this video (The Roman Empire. Or Republic. Or...Which Was It?: Crash Course World History #10), Rome had a government that worked for everyone because both the patricians (the wealthy families) and the plebeians (the commoners, mostly farmers and traders) had a say in the government at the height of the republic because all the parties were represented. The plebeians made up the assembly, the patricians made up the Senate, and the consuls were made up of one plebeian and one patrician. The consuls had to be nominated by the Senate and approved by the assembly. Any plebeian could be in the assembly, and any patrician could be in the Senate. Those who are opposed could say that Rome had a corrupt government because some generals took all the power and took sole control over the republic-turned-empire. Those who are opposed are wrong because as long as the government was good, no one had all the power. The Senate made laws, the assembly made sure the laws were in the good of the people, and one consul made sure Rome was sound domestically, and one consul led Rome in military campaigns. This means that no one could get much power due to the checks and balances of Rome.
The roman republic was kind of democratic.There are multiple reasons and pieces of evidence on why they were democratic,one of the reasons why was that the people had power,which meant that they had a say in weather if they would want certain law to be made or have a certain person be put into. Another reason why for the romans being democratic was that every adult male citizen was able or had to vote unless specifically,disqualified,also free slaves were also allowed.
The Roman Republic had a very democratic society. A majority of people that I have asked ,have made the assumption that the Roman Republic was not very democratic. A couple of the people I talked to said that they would only let the people vote in Rome itself and nowhere else. This of course was unfair to the people of lower class who could not afford to travel to Rome, although demokratia states that people should be equal and have the same rights to impact certain political events. Although it was inconvenient, the citizens of the Roman Republic were provided with free range to vote and have a say in their government.
Cicero claims, “People believe that strictness and good faith are not to be found in our courts . . . so we Senators are scorned and despised by the people of Rome”(Cicero 111). Cicero also accuses Verres by saying that he, “. . . takes enough for himself, his protectors, and his counsel, and the president of the court, and the judges”(Cicero 111). This shows the fall of Roman statesman’s morals by explaining why they are loathed by the people of Rome. Verres embezzles government money for his own use, and to avoid prosecution, bribes the court officials. Rome’s democratic values are declining because, Cicero says, the actions of Verres are not only happening in Sicily, but they are applicable to the rest of Rome. The ability of the citizens of Rome to control their government is minimized by the lack of control on the senators. The empire also could not possibly be democratic if its leaders are permitted to abuse their power. This directly contradicts Aristotle’s definition of democracy, which claims that a democratic leader must rule and be ruled in turn. While the Senators of Rome are ruling the people, they are failing to be ruled in turn and thus are not representative of a true
The Roman Republic did not have a pure democracy, but an alteration of it that provided those who had money with power, wealth, and land. While some parts of their government system contained what democracy offers, such as citizens voting to pass laws and deciding to have peace or war with another country, there were some components that were not democratic, such as citizens not being able to choose candidates for election, not being able to propose legislations, and only male citizens being able to vote, which amounted to being about two percent of the Roman population, only because the people who voted were in Rome, and several people did not have the time or the money to travel there.
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.