ipl-logo

Democracy In Ancient Rome

845 Words4 Pages

It was not all democratic and republican in many ancient countries a long time ago. They had to go through a series of events to become democratic, and these events were not always good because some lost their live and some went into prolonged suffering. The Roman Empire was no different, for it to be democratic wars was fought and lives lost until they managed to make theirs a democratic empire that was strong and stood the history of time. According to Morey, (1901), for a person to be recognized in Rome they had to be linked to the old families of the three tribes from the three old communities that made up early Roman. So if one was not a member of the old families, they could not perform in the government, they therefore, did not have a say what so ever in the politics of the Romans. Only the members of the old families could vote and perform in the government and serve in the army. The old families and their descendents were known by the name …show more content…

Undemocratic rule (tyranny) by the last Tarquin led to the struggle for Roman liberty which meant abolishing Kingship. The Patricians and the Plebeians worked side by side to put an end to Kingship, but in the end the fruits of victory fell into the hands of the Patricians oblivious of the Plebeians effort. Rome did not become a democratic republic, it became rather more aristocratic. The plebeians still could not have higher status and positions. The war against Kingship left the plebeians, in very bad conditions, they were left in poverty and distress after their homes were destroyed and their families were destroyed and their families driven away while they were fighting for the country. This made the Plebeians more susceptible to debt and if they could not pay back they were arrested and forced into slavery. The Plebeians were also robbed of the full share of land they fought for because the Patricians used the land for their own

Show More
Related
690 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
544 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
515 Words | 3 Pages

Polybius goes on to say, “no one can say for sure whether the constitution is an aristocracy or democracy or despotism” in Document A. He then explains how the Roman Republic was each of them, an aristocracy, a democracy, and a despotism, for various reasons. One of these reasons was that, at times, the consuls, or the magistrates, and the Senate had more power than the Assemblies, but in different situations, it was the opposite. This shows that even Polybius, a man who was actually alive during the Roman Republic, didn’t know how to label

Read More
440 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
931 Words | 4 Pages

Romans were also not beasts for not participating in government unlike the Athenians who punished them. In document D it also states that they were “ ranked into distinct classes” which shows that they were put together and had their priorities straight. In document F it states “ senate had full governing power in Rome” which is better than in Athens where everyone kinda ruled, Rome was more of a democracy. This evidence all helps to show that Rome was better when it came to citizenship because they were more thought out and not all

Read More
736 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
972 Words | 4 Pages

In this particular chapter, Polybius contributes how the Romans were able to rise to power was due to the system of government that was in place. He goes into in-depth analysis of the flaws each system of government had in the past, from kingship, aristocracy, and democracy, as well as pointing out their strong points. He stated that “For it is plain that we must regard as the best constitution that which partakes of all three elements (kingship, aristocracy, and democracy)” (Polybius, VI. 3). He concluded with the idea of a mixed government, where each part of the government will serve as a check of balance to one another.

Read More
431 Words | 2 Pages

The idea of everyone voting, allows everyone to submit their opinions. The Roman Republic may have been democratic into some extend but we could say that it was not well

Read More
564 Words | 3 Pages

In 509 B.C.E. the Romans had taken back their own rule that the Etruscans had maintained for Decades(RR). A republic was formed after the Romans were in control again that gave the people a say in how the state was run(RR). Many countries had copied this form of government including the United States(RR). The Romans also had the three branches of government. The executive legislative, and judicial branch.

Read More
294 Words | 2 Pages

Was ancient athens truly democratic No they were not democratic because first the women,children,and slaves were not allowed to vote because they thought they had no right to vote and only men were allowed to make decisions. Second,the magistrates were elected by a lottery and not the people which meant that the people had no power and no say in who will be ruling them. Also since they excluded people from voting it was considered an oligarchy not democracy. Oligarchy means that a government has a small group of people that have the power to rule and control everything.

Read More
1489 Words | 6 Pages

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.

Read More
527 Words | 3 Pages

I believe that ancient Athens was not a true democracy. In a democracy all of the people are able to vote, and have a choice on who runs their city. In ancient Athens only the men were able to vote. Their government was Demokratia, and this excluded the women, the children, the metics, and the slaves. Even though their government was ran by the people themselves, only the men in the city could vote.

Read More
1512 Words | 7 Pages

The composition and the governing structure of the Roman republic was not uniform throughout its existence, but some of the fundamental elements of its government came into being in the immediate aftermath of the monarchy’s collapse. Therefore, it is unsurprising that many of these institutions were created in reaction to the monarchy and its failures, and thus were shaped by this relationship. For example, the fundamental opposition to monarchy and the rule of kings that came with the experience of the Kingdom of Rome, remained quite strong in the Roman mindset throughout the existence of the Republic and into the beginnings of the Roman Empire, and its influence can be seen throughout Roman political discourse especially in the discussion

Read More
693 Words | 3 Pages

The Roman Republic was an ancient Roman civilization that was created after the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom in 509 BC, and ending in 27 BC with the creation of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was created in order for the rich men named aristocrats to gain even more power by removing kings from the Roman government. Soon after, the Roman upper class turned politics into a violent competition in their strive for power. Gaius Marius’ creation of “client armies” led soldiers to become more loyal towards their commander than the republic. This resulted in a commander named Lucius Cornelius Sulla overtaking Rome with his client army and establishing himself as a dictator.

Read More
298 Words | 2 Pages

Democracy, a form of government, allows the people in their own nationality to vote for people in order for them to become representatives as a result to vote on new laws that would affect their own nationality. One of the many states of Greece, ancient Athens was indeed not truly democratic as a result of not inclusive, other than male citizens, to gain authority in ancient Athens, ¨Demokratia was ruled by male citizens only, excluding women, free foreigners(Metics) and slaves.¨(Document D), therefore ruling Athens was only accessible to male citizen since since women, free foreigners(Metics), and slaves were not allowed to rule as a result of not being male citizens. One of the many states of Greece, ancient Athens, was indeed not truly democratic as a result of not even using the essentials of democracy that is used today, “Thus, by our standards, it was oligarchy, not democracy.¨(Document D), therefore ancient Athens was not using democracy as their form of government, they were using oligarchy,another form of government in which a small group of people has power and control, as their form of government instead of democracy.

Read More

More about Democracy In Ancient Rome

Related Topics

Open Document