1. Was Rome's political system in fact as democratic as it was portrayed by Polybius?
Rome's political system was in fact as democratic as Polybius portrays it to be. Rome's political system was divided into "three elements" that had separate powers and could check and balance the actions of each other. Similar to the United States three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), Roman government consisted of a mixture of three types of governments: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The Consuls are considered the monarchy branch of Rome's government because they are the "supreme masters of the administration". In matters of war, they "impose on the allies levies", "appoint Military Tribunes", and gather up troops for war. The Senate, on the other hand, is the aristocracy part of Rome's government. They controlled "the treasury" and made decisions concerning foreign countries. Lastly, the democracy branch belonged to the citizens of Rome. They are the ones who elect government officials, have "the absolute power of passing and repealing laws", and made decisions whether to declare "peace or war".
…show more content…
When the Roman Republic began to expand and gain new territories, this provided a challenge for the Romans to control the people who inhabited these lands. Therefore, they settled in creating "provinces" and appointed governors to run them. The numerous wars of the third century left many farmers financially ruined, thereby forced to sell their lands to the patricians, who "established vast plantations" called latifundia. Consequently, this lead to a growing gap between the rich and poor. Another cause of instability is the increased political corruption in the Senate. Many patricians bought their way into the Senate or bribed Senators to pass laws favoring their