Throughout history, many incredible civilizations have risen and fallen. Among them was Ancient Rome. The Roman Republic started in Italy in around 800 BC, and became a grand and powerful civilization. It was ruled by the people and they voted for leaders. Ancient Rome would go on to dominate much of the Mediterranean. Although the Roman Republic was a magnificent place, it didn’t always meet the common good. In order to meet the common good, a few things it would have to do are provide public services, promote the rule of law, and prepare for a common defense. Overall, the Roman Republic somewhat met the common good.
The Roman Republic government contributed to the development of the democratic principles because the romans developed and its government eventually dividing into three branches. The Roman Republic had three main groups, patricians, Magistrates/Consuls Censors/praetors. The three main groups were like the democratic principle separation of powers. The Roman Republic had its “Rule of Law”, but the Romans called it the Twelve Tables. The democratic principle Representative government was also in the Roman Republic government, but was differently portrayed. The Plebeians did not have any say in the government but the consuls and the upper class
There are many similarities between the Roman Republic senate and the United State senate. We can begin with both the Roman Senate and U.S. Senate. Members of opposing parties’ debate in chamber. They both have a two party system. For the Roman republic the parties were Popular and Senatorial parties. The United States parties are the Republican and Democratic parties. Both use filibustering to delay legislative action. There is no time limit placed on filibustering. Roman votes couldn’t be taken without a quorum of minimum number of members to conduct business. This is also true in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. requires a majority of members present to conduct business. The Roman Senate had the power to pass laws, appoint ambassadors,
Rome had seen many leaders step up to the plate in order to rule over Rome with absolute power. There were many who only wanted to exercise their power over the people, those who only wanted the army’s strength, and those who only wanted to advance the senate and laws than help the people or watch the army. However, there were a few emperors who were able to rise above these issues and bring about a seemingly peaceful time in Rome. I have chosen the three, in my opinion, best emperors of Rome, who were able to take command of Rome and make a huge impact. The three emperors that I chose were Trajan, Hadrian, and last but not least Augustus.
1. The idea of citizenship, or a status given by a government to its people, emerged in approximately 500 BCE. Citizens were responsible for playing significant roles in the life of the state or nation, but in turn were able to possess and benefit from certain rights. Compared to Athens, the Roman Republic's system of citizenship was better in the fact that it was more generous, although careful, in granting citizenship in which rights made the government much more organized.
Corrupt leaders often put their own interests above the citizens interests and many of them would spend numerous amounts of money on personal luxuries while Roman citizens faced possible slavery for not paying taxes. During the Roman Republic, a few hundred years before, the lower class could participate in government and had many rights. However, towards the end of the Roman Empire, corrupt leaders had increased the disparity between the rich and poor by making laws that benefitted the wealthy. This caused many Roman citizens to hate their government, which ultimately weakened the nation. Also, another reason public distrust of leaders contributed to the fall of Rome was that people become violent when they have a corrupt ruler. Rome had, had a long history of emperor assassinations, including the murder of Julius Caesar, Caligula, and Domitian. The common assassinations led to many short-lived emperors who could not effectively rule the empire in the short time that they were ruler, contributing to the fall of Rome. Lastly, distrust from Roman citizens hurts the empire because corrupt and unfit rulers create programs that benefit Romans for a short period of time. Although these programs, like grain handouts and excessive government-funded entertainment, benefitted the Romans temporally, they drained the treasury of Rome and led to its downfall.
In the United States, all people in government positions have been voted into office by all United States citizens, not just the wealthy like in ancient Rome. Also, the Constitution is not against women and non-citizens like the Twelve Tables. Citizens in the United States have more rights than some of the citizens in ancient Rome, hence the United States government is more democratic than the ancient Roman
Imperial Rome had a democratic government, where the people voted for everything. They had two classes, the patricians and the plebeians. The Plebeians had all the control over the Senate and the Consuls for a while. Eventually, the plebeians were given control over the Tribunes to give them a voice. The patricians were the wealthy, land owners, and the upper class citizens. They had all the control over the religion and the government. The plebeians were everybody that wasn’t a Patrician. They had little to no voice throughout imperial Rome’s history. In both classes the oldest male was the head of the families. Women had no rights during this time and the people were Christian.
During the ancient era of Han China and the early classical era in Athens both societies have a similar but different political system that was used to create an organized society. The systems in both societies differ, for instance the Han dynasty the emperor was chosen through Mandate of Heaven whereas in Athens they were a democracy and the citizens elected their leader. On the contrary both societies shared similarities such as both societies didn’t select government officials based on wealth. In addition, both societies had restrictions on women, women had little to no say on politics.
Citizenship is a status given by a government to some or all of its people. Being a citizen means not only meeting certain responsibilities, but also enjoying certain rights. In the U.S. today, many of our governmental institutions are based on concepts of the Ancient World. Citizenship in the United States resembles the concepts of citizenship in both Ancient Athens and Ancient Rome.
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.
Roman citizens had come to consideration that they, indeed, did have a poor government. The Roman government gave an unjust life to people based on their social rank (Document E). This led to the citizens not appreciating the government as well as the Empire. Most of the emperors in Rome were assassinated so it gives the citizens the intention that if you did not like the emperor you can just kill them (Document A).This tells the reader that it was hard to govern Rome because they constantly kept replacing emperors.Considering that Rome did not have a stable ruling system, citizens of Rome began to doubt and not depend on their government.
Ancient Rome had a well organized government that had many purposes that helped them create an amazing civilization. I studied 5 difference purposes of government to learn more about Ancient Rome. Those were the following: public services, protect rights, rule of law, prepare for a common defense, and support the economic system. The Roman Republic had amazing features.
During the decline of the Roman Republic , the Senate became the effective governing body of the Roman State. A certain circle of powerful or wealthy families, which consisted of patricians and plebeians, controlled the Senate. The patricians were a group of people who were known to be the wealthiest and most favored by the kings. The plebeians, on the other hand, were people who were typically poorer, but in some cases gained more wealth than the patricians. Cicero, a man also known as a “novus homo” or “new man”, was a patrician. Catiline, on the other hand, was a man who came from a long established family, meaning his family had wealth for all of his life, which also was a common trait of those within the Senate. This paper will prove the actions of both Cicero and Catiline through the use of examples from Cicero’s Orations Against Catiline.
Upon becoming dictator in ?? BC, Caesar had various powers and honours bestowed upon him, including life consulship, and imperium (source 12). Suetonius claims that as a ‘mere mortal’, Caesar should have refused these powers (source 12). Although, this stance most probably represents the adverse views from primary sources, such as Cicero, Suetonius would have based his authorship on. Furthermore, beholding these authorities was crucial for Caesar to implement the measures Rome required to achieve stability. Caesar himself documented a letter in 46 BC, stating his political aims to achieve ‘peace for the provinces, and security for the Empire’ (source 11). Although possibly serving as propaganda, Caesar essentially represents himself as champion of Rome. This did indeed occur, as Caesar established stability by establishing a uniform system of government among the provinces, and also reforming the tax system in order to reduce corruption (source 9). In addition, measures were passed in order to relieve debt and stabilise the economy, while the amount of senators was increased to 900, simultaneously increasing the number of praetors, questers and aediles (source 9). By increasing the number of senatorial positions, essentially, Caesar was transferring power to the plebeians, which is an obvious contradiction to claims Caesar was merely seeking personal glory, as his power was used to enhance