1. The Roman soldier and farmer both respected similar virtues. The two understood the value of routine. The Roman soldier understood that routine is a part of discipline, while to a farmer, routine describes his life. The farmer contributes to the cycle of seed time, growth, and harvest each and every year. Secondly, the farmer depends on the aid of forces that he can neither understand nor control to make his yield of crops favorable. The soldier is also mindful of invisible forces such as destiny or fortune. Both the farmer and the soldier live on the land, and are both eager to protect and secure the land they reside on. The soldier and the farmer emulate self-reliance and have practical skills born from experience. Thus, because the Roman soldier and farmer both are so similar, the Roman mind lends both to the soldier and farmer. 2. In a general sense, mores matorum includes the political constitution and legal framework of Rome. In a more personal sense, mores matorum, or the Roman outlook of life, binds together the unwritten rules of duty and actions, a …show more content…
The Romans and Athenians were not alike because they had different forms of government, relied on different types of militaries, and respected different values. The Roman government was a Republic while the government in Athens was a Democracy. The Roman Republic consisted of elected officials: the consuls, men who were in charge of executive duties and the army, the Senate, which consisted of representative patricians, and the Tribunes, which included representative plebeians. The Roman Republic was also a system of checks and balances. On the other hand, the government of Athens was a democracy where the citizens ruled. The Romans had a powerful army consisting of many legions while the Athenians relied on their powerful navy. The Athenians also valued philosophy, art, humanism, idealism, and expression. In Rome, there is no significant evidence that imagination, intellect, or beauty held
In document E and F you learn that Athens follows this basic idea, while Rome strays from it. Document E states that Athens allows for all of its citizens to participate and hold a seat in its assembly. One the other hand, Document F explains that Roman Senate did not allow the public to attend, and the seats were inherited, making the entire system corrupt. Athens citizens were more involved in the government than Rome’s citizens, making Athens government more effective for everyone to be able to voice their
Brutus, Honorable Man Brutus, an honorable conspirator? Honorable is defined as genuine, truthful and displaying integrity, while a conspirator is defined as one that engages in an agreement to commit an illegal or wrongful act. Anyone can clearly see that these two words do not belong together. There are also other reasons why Brutus should not be considered honorable. In the play, three distinct acts can be recalled.
In comparing the Ancient Athenian system of government, and the Modern Day American political system, there are many similarities. In Ancient Athens, democracy was developed in response to a long history of oppressive rulers who used their position of power for their own benefit. Ancient Athenians sought a government where all citizens were considered equal under the eyes of the law, and all had a fair say in the running of their country. Following a series
The governments of these two city-states were not alike in many ways. “It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands, not of the few, but of the many,” (Document 3). Athens’ government was what we would consider today a direct democracy. This means that their government was run by the people, or in other words “the many”, rather than a couple government officials, or “the few”. Although Athens was running their city as a government by the people, Sparta had a different form of government. “it is made up of oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy,
The roman republic constitution was a set of guidelines and principles passed down through precedent, the roman republic instead of creating a democracy such as that the Athenians created, a monarchy which was previously being used by previous roman rulers and an aristocracy which Sparta used, the Constitution combined elements of all three of these governments to create a combined government known as “Senatus populusque que romanus” (S.P.Q.R) this meant “the senate and the roman people”. The Roman magistrates were elected officials during the period of the Roman kingdom, the ‘king’ (although the Romans preferred not to be called a king and instead a rex) of Rome was the principal executive magistrate, his power was absolute similar to that of a tsar
Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
Horatius Cocles demonstrates Roman values with his readiness to assert himself for the good of the community despite any ramifications. He even attempts to advise his men in the direction of virtue by claiming “that it was vain for them to seek safety” (Livy, 20). These men appear to follow standards typical of the Greeks, as their personal motives guide their actions instead of the needs of others. Their lack of concern for the entire state of the Republic is an example of what individuals were not to do. The success of the individual, in this case Horatius, is a victory in Rome, which contrasts the idea of individual arete, valued by the Greeks. The greatest honor for a Roman was saving the life of another Roman whereas in Greek culture, an individual displays excellence in competition (Burger 91). For the Greeks, an individual may achieve honor at the cost of defeating another. In contrast, Romans sought to achieve honor by protecting what was best for all. Therefore, Romans valued self sacrifice while Greeks appear more self-centered (Burger 91). Horatius Cocles demonstrates the values of the Roman society in his steadfast opposition to the enemy. He is a model to the state for his courage in adversity.
Athens government and military is considerably different from their neighbors. According to Pericles, Athens government is not a copy of our neighbors...
As shown in Document A, most of the people in Rome had citizenship. But, the people of Rome got citizenship in measured amounts, instead of getting full citizenship. In contrast, Athens granted full citizenship only to those who were fully qualified. As outlined in Document A, “Free, native-born adult males in Rome had citizenship. Free, native-born adult females had citizenship in Rome. Free, native-born children (male and female) also had citizenship, along with the sons of freed slaves.” This means that Rome was more generous when giving citizenship, whereas Athens was more careful about who qualified as a citizen. According to Emperor Claudius (Emperor of Rome in 48 CE), what contributed to the downfall of the Athens was that its leaders
...picture, that on the verge of its collapse the Roman Republic, was a society composed of internal flaws. The Republic namely submitted to its own internal divisions, on multiple levels, from the divisions inherent to any society based on a slave economy, to divisions within the proto-democracy of the Senate itself. Inequalities between the haves and the have nots, as well as inequalities and struggles for power and control on the very highest level of Roman society created a general instability of the Republic, thus making its collapse not a miraculous or shocking event, but almost something to the effect of the removal of an illusion. With the collapse of the Republic, the internal tensions and conflict that constituted Roman life on multiple levels merely finalized themselves, taking a new political form that followed the same path as previous the political form.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
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.
While the Aeneid does outline the future of Rome, it also highlights the pains of war, and also exposes his audience to a culture of violence, which they may be unfamiliar with. The act of balancing one’s duty towards others and his or her personal desires was a conflict that many people struggled with. By presenting the struggle between balancing inner desires and and personal responsibilities, Virgil offers his audience a framework that enhances their overall understanding of the poem.
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
Eventually, however, the Greek government became democratic. Rome, on the other hand, was a republic that elected its officials, and common citizens were not allowed as many opportunities as Athenians to participate in matters of the state. While Greece had branches of government to represent citizens, Rome implemented branches of government to represent different components of society. For example, Rome had authorities to supervise public works projects, administer justice, supervise recreational activities and conduct a census (text). Rome, who, like Greece, was a polytheistic society, also appointed a priest for life who was in charge of the entire state's religion.