Introduction Ancient Rome was a very powerful society. The Romans were tired of being ruled by a king, they fought againsest their last king and made a republic. The republic was where the people choose their leaders. The republic is a democracy and wanted to meet the common good for everyone. The Roman republic was somewhat meeting the common good. Usually only the higher class people were the ones benefited, and the slaves did most of the hard work and didn’t have any rights. It wasn’t very fair for lower class people. There were five main purposes of government which were promote rule of law, provide public services, support the economic system, protect rights, and prepare for a common defense. Each part of the government was important …show more content…
This part of the government would probably earn a C as a grade. The citizens of Rome would vote for their leaders, but only free adult men were citizens. Women, children, and slaves couldn’t vote and weren’t citizens. They tried to make the laws apply to all citizens, no matter if they’re poor or rich. They put the laws on tablets called the twelve tables so everyone can see it. Some of the laws included, that if you were called to court and you didn’t show up, then you would either be arrested or forced to go. Also, once every three days you could stand in front of someones house and scream at how they weren’t doing their duty as a citizen if they refused to be a witness in court. Additionally, Anyone that died had to be buried or burned outside of Rome. If you were rich you couldn’t marry someone that was poor. Citizens were always innocent until they were proven guilty. Those were some of the laws that they had in ancient Rome. The Roman legal system spread as they conquered the Mediterranean. The judges would base their decisions on, common sense, individual rights, and fairness. The laws didn’t protect and apply to slaves and non-citizens. There were two parts written and unwritten laws. Most laws were verbal until later written down. The slaves were considered property and could become free by their owners but it wasn’t common. They could be freed if their owner died, they became too expensive to feed, or the slaves could buy their own freedom. The Romans would earn a higher grade if the laws protected people that weren’t citizens and also slaves. There weren’t many citizens and it wasn’t always fair. If they made the laws apply to everyone in Rome, then they would’ve probably gained an A or
The Roman Republic was often known for its lasting influence for the development of Western political governance and ideals and is often hailed as a beacon of democracy in ancient history. But an in depth look reveals it to be more complex. While the Roman Republic held democratic elements that allowed citizen participation and representation, its political structure was ultimately characterized by a significant concentration of power among the elite and few for the average person. This essay will explore the extent of democracy within the Roman Republic, analyzing key aspects such as the electoral system, legislative bodies, and social hierarchy and the democratic nature and the implications it had on the overall governance of the state.
Polybius was a renowned Greek historian, known for his historical objectivity and unbiased truth, notable for his work The Histories that described the rise of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean world. He was born around 200 BC in the city of Megalpolis and was the son of Lycortas, a leader of the Achaean League. When Lycortas was killed, Polybius was taken as a hostage in Rome. However, Polybius’ cleverness and political perceptiveness managed him to be acquainted with Scipio Aemilianus, the leading general at that time. His friendship with Scipio allowed him to travel around the world, seeing pivotal landscapes, interviewing veterans, and visiting archives to later aid him in keeping his objectivity as he wrote about Rome’s history.
Ancient Rome DBQ Many people argue that the culture of the Ancient Romans reflect that of the United States today. While there have been many advancements over the course of the years, a few basic principles still apply and can be seen in the United States today. Although there a few key differences that can be seen between the two cultures, it is important that one focuses on similarities to see how the United States has developed as a whole. Roman culture was similar to what the United States is today by the form of government and types of entertainment.
The Roman Republic lasted from 509 B.C.E to 27 B.C.E. The Roman Republic was democratic, but not always. Such as when the wealthy took over, it was more difficult to become a Roman citizen, and there was a lot of division in the society. However it was still democratic because they let the majority of legal men vote, even the free slaves later on, the people had a voice, and everyone mainly had a job to do in order to help the community. The Roman Republic tried to be democratic, but then it led to it just being an aristocracy.
Like all societies with inequality, this issue was the center of the conflicts that existed. The population was divided in two: those of the upper class and those of the lower class. The Upper-class was based on patricians, senators, and equestrians. The patricians were the descendants of the first founders and were the only ones accepted in the Senate, they practically monopolized the highest positions. The senators were part of Senate, were those Upper-class Romans who came from the royal and the Roman political families, they don't have jobs because they were responsible for governing others.
As a Roman citizen, your citizenship varied. Some Roman citizens were full citizens, others had limited rights. Examples of citizen rights would be the right to vote, hold government careers, and indulge in business. However, this varied depending on the citizen. The Roman Republic is further demonstrated by the fact that becoming a citizen and enjoying the privileges that go along with it were more of a privilege than a fundamental human right.
Democracy is what we call a formation of government where citizens and group of people can vote on laws. The Roman Republic did not have a well developed formation of their government but it did have the qualifications of democracy. There were pros and cons of voting in the Roman times such as anybody can vote. According to Professor Millar, he says, “Every adult male citizen, unless specifically disqualified, had a vote, and there was no formal exclusion of the poor. Free slaves could also vote.”
Forcing a system on the people may have seemed like a tyrannical move, but if he did not do that then Rome would have been in complete anarchy. Brutus was very adamant about not letting another king rule in Rome, due to fear of another Tarquin being in power. The people were allowed to choose the consuls, so if the consuls then did not serve the people, it would be somewhat the people’s fault for choosing the consuls. With the system of the monarchy, the people had no input on who would be the ruler, so the king would face all of the blame. This system gave no power to the people, whilst under Brutus’s new republic (which was referred to as the Roman Republic), the people actually had a say in what was happening in their town.
Rome granted citizenship more freely than Athens. Citizenship was granted to free, native-born adult males and females as well as their children and the sons of freed slaves (doc A). Although many people were granted citizenship, not all were given equal rights. For example, foreigners in conquered lands could be given “full or partial citizenship”, and citizens of states with treaty obligations were given “limited rights in return for performing military service” (Doc C). The government in Rome was divided into three different branches: the Consul, the Senate and the Assembly (Doc F).
(Crystalinks Rome Law). That is why I gave the Roman Republic an A for meeting the common good for the rule of
Introduction Are the Romans meeting the common good? Common good is when everything is fair to everyone. They could either meet the common good, somewhat meet the common good, or not meet the common good. Lets see if the Romans did a good job meeting the common good. Promoting The Rule Of Law When it comes to promoting the rule of law
How Democratic was the Roman Republic? Though, the Romans made undemocratic decisions, they still included the people in a lot of executive decisions. The Assemblies carried out the majority of what the people wanted and what they decided. Therefore, Rome allowed their citizens to help make important decisions about government, which made them democratic.
The Roman Republic greatly influence the many forms of government that came after it, its many contributions to government significantly impacted modern day governments of today. Yet to understand it we must first find knowledge to how the Roman Republic came to be. The answer is fairly simple, due to the harsh rule of the Etruscan they were kicked out of Rome and the Romans formed the Rome Republic. Yet, the Rome Republic developed over time, it when through refinements as time passed. Such things as the Senate, magistrates, tripartite, checks and balances are some of the examples that the Roman Republic influenced on modern U.S. government.
• Rome had censors: people who were elected to give ranks and classes to people, based on certain criteria. Document E explains how the two empire set up power and what happens. Rome had people called censors who’d give social classes and ranks to everyone [they had to follow a certain criteria based on their aspect of life]. Depending on their condition they may rise or be degraded. Athens governments get a survey from its citizen and they write the person’s name of who they think has the most power.
3. Compare and contrast the idea of democracy in Ancient Greece and Rome. Which system was more democratic and why? Democracy is the modern day standard for governmental systems. However up until 500 BCE, the concept of Democracy was a foreign concept, and the great civilizations of that era were run by monarchs, aristocrats, and religious leaders of sorts.