The better system for citizenship between Athens and Rome was the Romans system. In Rome it didn't matter what gender you are you were able to be a citizen. If you were a slave then you couldn't be a citizen no matter what. In Athens the only way you could have been a citizen would be if you are a native adult. People in Athens had a hard time becoming citizens and if they weren't they had to be slaves or work for others. In Document B it states that “it is the poor which mans the fleet and has brought the state her power, and the steersmen and the boatswain's and the shipmasters and the lookout-men and the shipwrights – these have brought the state her power much rather than the … best-born”. That means to me that if you weren't born into royalty you were doomed for the rest of your life to work for someone, or to be a slave. It also helps my claim by stating in Document A that you could be a citizen in Rome no matter what you were a male,female, child, or etc. you could become a citizen and live a normal right. If you weren't in the wealthy class the whole place pretty much forgot about you …show more content…
In Document D it states that “And the law is as follows: Each citizen wrote the name of the man who in his opinion had the greatest power to destroy the democracy; and the man who got the largest number of ostraka was obliged to go into exile from his native land for a period of ten years”. I think that if you were guilty and no one voted for you then you were a free man and the non guilty was sentenced. That justice system is messed up because if people hated you then they would say it was you maybe because of a personal vendetta. Also in Document C it stated that “In other words, the Athenians were more stingy with their citizenship. The Romans more freely gave it away. But they gave it away in measured amounts”. The Romans did give citizenship to a lot of people, but they only gave out a