Comparing Athens and Rome could also be thought of as comparing a flea, and an elephant. They have many differences, but are also surprisingly similar. So, who had the better system? The Roman Republic had a more established government, because citizenship was based on behavior, people had more liberties and freedoms, and Rome had a more secure government. Rome had a more established system of government because, their citizenship was based on how someone acts around and towards others, and their property. According to the background essay “ … a Roman citizen was judged more by how he behaves with his family, his neighbors, and his property.” This means that instead of doing work and manual labour to become a citizen, you simply had to respect and honor each other and their space. However, this thought can be countered by saying that instead of simply respecting one’s space, you should have to endure military training, and prove that you respect your country. But, if you have a disability, or are unable to serve, that would mean that you can’t become a citizen. Therefore, Rome had a better government system. …show more content…
They were more generous with granting freedom to newcomers. However, there were limits. They did not simply “handout” equal freedoms to whoever they please. Their responsibilities and rights were limited. According to Document C, when the Romans conquered Gaul, instead of forcing them away, and making them find new land, they gave them limited citizenship, in order to form allies, and to build their city-state by gaining strength in numbers. But, limited rights could also cause conflict. This is because some may believe that having limited rights is discrimination against certain people. But, limited rights could actually benefit the Roman economy, as it would help people learn where they stand in society, and there would be many more jobs