One major difference is that the Spartan government had two kings that came from separate royal families which tied back to their legendary founders (Agiads and Eurypontids). The government of Athens had no king. It is also worth noting that all Spartan male citizens were soldiers and equally shared right of fighting for Sparta unlike in Athens were there were male citizens who were land owners among other non-military wealthy Athenians. The also differ in that Athens was a very democratic society which also produced a lot of philosophers unlike Sparta that produced well trained soldiers and ruled by military dictatorship as opposed to the popular myth of Spartans being equal (socially and
Democracy can be demonstrated in many different ways, for the Spartan and Athenias this was the case. In all governments there must be someone in control of the people, but certain requirements must always be met in order to have a political influence. The everyday lives of citizens and non-citizens are directly influenced by the government that controls them. Although Athens was the first and most influential Democracy, Sparta was actually a Military Dictatorship. This made the two consequently different from one another, which makes their values and communities entirely different.
As far as democracy is concerned, critics of democracy, such as Thucydides and Aristophanes, both are pinpointing on that the demos in which that they thought that it could be too easily swayed by a good orator or popular leaders the firebrand and get carried away with their emotions. Democracy Democracy in Athens the government officials are chosen by sweepstakes and worked for 1 year for proposing and enforcing decrees but didn’t have much individual power. Democracy in Athenian government the way that the citizens pass a vote is getting done, in elected by the assembly annually for making decisions about military matters and by showing hands.
Monarchy as a form of government in Ancient Greece was the idea that a successor from a line of leaders and men in power could rule over the land. In the Greek world, however, monarchies were rare and were often only distinguished from a tyranny when the hereditary ruler was more benevolent and ruled in the genuine interest of his people
Carthage’s first conflict with Rome was due to the same kind of Government. Carthage has two magistrates called the Suffetes, and they were similar to Rome’s Consul. The council form of elders called the Hundred, that compared to Rome’s Senate. Their Assembly was called Comitia which was as much alike to the Romans, the only thing that separates their equivalent, was the way business was conducted in the government and economically (Morey, 1901). ROME AND CARTHAGE 3 ROME AND CARTHAGE Carthage real power was employed by the wealthy and prominent families and did not have a body of loyal citizens as Rome had.
After his death he would be succeeded by his eldest son, the prince. If there was no successor, his military advisors would usually battle amongst each other to ascend the throne. Monarchies eventually disappeared from Greek rule, and was replaced by a different system where a small group of people shared power and ruled as a group.
Sparta is a good example of this system. Though, I would not call it a monarchy because true power was in the hand of the Guerousia and the Ephors, which makes it more of an oligarchy. Later in the ages before the Archaic period, things started to change in city-states and few monarchies, and later most governments in Greek turned into oligarchies. An oligarchy is a type of government in which a very small group of people, determined by nobility, religiousness, or any other criterion, held the power and ruled the populace of the country or, in case of Greek, the city-state(Carr, 2017). The social, economic, and political changes in city-states kept showing and demonstrating the flaws in these ruling systems, and so city-states tried, or better yet,
Militarily Carthage was superior to Rome in the fact that the military was run by what I can only assume were professional generals, whereas Rome had its military in the hands of the consuls who were forever changing, so there was no continuity in the higher ranks of the Roman legions. Carthage was a major power in Africa and Sicily off the coast of Italy with their trading agreements. They were absolutely the commercial hub of the region, with an extremely powerful navy. This would have put them on a par with Rome in the most powerful empire in the region.
So, the Romans created a new form of government, called a democracy. In this form of government, the people vote for their own leaders. Every citizen could vote for a leader, but since the women, children, and slaves were not citizens, they could not vote. The Romans had three branches of government - the legislative assembly, the senate, and the consuls. The twelve tables were a large part of Roman rule of law.
Among the Ancient Greece polices there are two which mostly deserve the research of their history, namely Athens and Sparta. These city-states applies different approaches to the political organization, social structure and adoption of different cultural priorities. The abovementioned differences presuppose the unequal influence of these states on the development of ancient Greece and modern world in general. Within the sphere of political organization, the Athens are regarded to be the homeland of democracy, while Spartan society demonstrates the features of oligarchy.
Senators approve treaties since they have a bigger influence on foreign affairs then the other members of Congress. There members are less likely to be re-elected standing at only a 45% for re-election each term. People believe Senate to be more powerful of the two since it has a smaller party of people to agree. Concluding, that while they are in the same branch of government they are different in multiple
In the Athenian democracy, the power rested on the assembly of adult citizens. Meetings were held weekly, voting was usually by a show of hand and simply the majority determined the outcome. Most leading politicians were wealthy and well-educated aristocrats. However, Athens did not start out as a democracy; it had several stages of political growth, starting with monarchy which included oligarchy and
The stability of the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy is similar because they both had internal problems based on low income, yet the systems are different because participation in Rome was related to wealth, while participation in Athens wasn’t. To start, the stability of the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy was similar because they both had internal fights and reforms due to wealth. Specifically, the Gracchi brothers were a large part of the populares political group in Rome because of their efforts to redistribute land, set limits to the amount of land one can own, and make the state pay for military equipment, instead of the soldiers themselves. This represents how the Roman Republic had several problems regarding an unbalance in wealth. These were recognized by the Gracchi brothers, which led to such reforms.
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.
Keshaun Spruill 2/4/2016 MLA Format Professor Jones Western Civilization I What Made Rome Great Rome was made great and a strong civilization through the characteristics of its culture. Rome has a variety of views in their government and the way the culture changed. Aside from the political arrangement of Rome’s government there existed an extensive patronage relationship that gave benefits to both parties. Virtues were also an important aspect of Roman culture that many sought to keep alive. Citizenship for Roman citizens made it more beneficial to those with the capability to obtain it.