Heredity In Ancient Rome

In Rome they had a very uniform and orgainized voting system.In document C it stated that the ruin of Athens was that they did not let the foreigners vote and calling them aliens. They also

Romans were a civilization that originated after the Greek culture. They, like Greeks, saw an extreme significance in the idea of a love for one’s country and loyalty. The Romans, however, were more concerned with public affairs such as education, sanitation, and health. They held a strong connection with their ancestors and wished to imitate what the ancient Romans did. Although Romans rejected the idea of a Rex, or king, they favored the common hero. They wanted a leader who a “regular Joe”, someone who was average and could still led an average life after doing extraordinary things. The Romans also had a very defined government that was broken into consuls, senate, and assembly. There were two consuls who served in place of the king as the leaders of the Roman Empire. Next in succession was the senate, comprised only of patricians who debated and passed legislation. Finally, there was the assembly made for the plebeians to approve laws.

There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.

One of the most important things in a democracy is that everybody can vote, which is something the Roman Republic understood well. “Every adult male citizen, unless specifically disqualified, had a vote, and there was no formal exclusion of the poor. Free slaves could also vote…”. This means that almost everybody had say in the government, not just wealthy people with high social status. According to Fergus Millar, the Roman Republic was extremely democratic.

One of the most significant reasons that may prove that the Roman Republic is not a democracy is its system in which includes flaws that are not very democratic. In other words, the system can be viewed as rigged. According to Source C, one example of this was that all voting of the people was only held in Rome. This meant that citizens who were not very wealthy or had the ability to waste time

Unlike Athenian Democracy, Rome was ruled as a republic. “ Republic” was a government controlled by the people. It was not a democratic system, in the sense of Athenian democracy. Because political power in Rome was in the hands of wealthy aristocrats, the Roman Republic was best described as an elected oligarchy. The government of the Roman Republic comprised in three

From 509 BC to about 27 BC, Rome was considered a republic. During this time there was no single leader of Rome and the government was run by elected officials. The main leaders of the Roman Republic were the consuls. There were always two consuls in power at a time. Each year new consuls were elected to serve for a one-year term. This kept any one man from becoming too powerful in the government. At the time the Senate was the most powerful governing body in Rome. The Senate had control of the state’s finances and foreign policies. Senators were elected by the people to represent them in government. The Senate was made up of 300 of the most elite and wealthiest of the Roman Republic. One of the most important roles of the Senate to undergo the checks and balances of the Roman government. Checks and balances are the “principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power” (The Editors). The checks and balances of Rome helped to stabilize the government and allowed the power to be distributed somewhat equally between the consul, the Senate, and the people. However, the fall of the Roman Empire eliminated this type aspect of government in Rome (Kagan 101-103).

Most Romans had trouble with the idea of power to only a few people. The concept of power to the people settled well with many of the Romans. There were three main separate parts of the Roman Republic. These parts were the Consuls, the Senate, and the Assembly. A direct statement of their powers is given in document A by Polybius: “ The consuls (magistrates) lead the military and are the supreme masters of the government. They bring matters requiring debate before the Senate. They also call together the people’s Assemblies, and carry out whatever the majority of the Assemblies decide.” This similar to the style of the U.S democracy. Both have mass majority votes on various issues. For U.S democracy it is always for the election of someone to represent for the people. But in the Roman republic it was for people to vote directly on some issues among each other then elect someone to handle the issue in office for a

Another document that supports the idea that Rome’s system of how Rome controlled its citizens participated in government was better than Athens is Document D. In Peter Walsh’s book, he states that the level of a citizen’s political involvement was based on their moral fitness and administrative competence. Due to this, Rome made sure that the people who were chosen to serve in the Senate had good behavior and were the people most capable to help the government work. These two documents support the idea that Rome’s system of citizenship was better than Athens’ because of how the people participated in the

As mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire was initially being ruled by Etruscan kings and as many people were not in an accord in being ruled by a king, the last king called Tarquinius Superbus was thrown out through a revolt led by a man named Lucius Junius Brutus in 509 B.C and a new type of government had started. Like many countries today, The Roman government became a republic. In a republic, citizens in the empire vote to elect representatives to rule on their favor; this way, things were fairer in some ways. In the Republic, both men and women were considered citizens, however, only men could vote. Along the structure of the Republic were magistrates who were two consuls who worked together. These ran the government and led the army in wartime (Grolier Online). Consuls were selected every year in assemblies in which adult male citizens voted. There was also the Senate, which was made up of wealthy aristocrats, the heads of noble families, and hereditary priests (Ward). The Senate offered advise to the

The Roman government was democratic when it came to the citizens. The citizens could elect their own officials, and the officials were supposed to represent every level of Roman society. There were many types of officials. The two consuls were the chief officials of Rome. Once elected, they served for two years (Trueman, Chris). One of their most important powers was controlling the army (Government under Roman Republic). When they were unsure of a course of action, they were advised by the Senate, a council of around six hundred male citizens (Trueman, Chris). Those six hundred men were usually from wealthy patrician families and were the ones in charge of making the laws and controlling the spending. Contrary to the election of the other officials, the Senate was appointed by the current Consuls. Once they were appointed, they served for life. When one member died, another was chosen in their place (Government).

However, this influence that the Senate had on the magistrates and popular assemblies was meant to protect the Republic from “popular whims” or the stupidity of the commoner (Gwynn, 24) . Although one could argue this made Rome an aristocracy, this in no way downgrades the justice of the government. The system of checks and balances ensured that the Senate could never be in complete control. More importantly, “the People, who by their votes, bestow honors on those who deserve them” (Tingay and Badcock, 45). The Populus had the right to reject or pass laws or choose war or peace.

As opposed to Carthage which was ruled by two kings and a legislative assemble picked by these kings Rome was one of the world’s first republics, the same type of political system we have today.

Concomitant with the Athenian system, in the city of Rome popular government was introduced as well, albeit under a different name, respublica (from "res" – thing and "publicus" – public). Consequently the republic was similar with Greek demokratia. At the beginning only aristocrats or patricians were allowed to participate at the governing act, but "after much struggle the common people [….] also gained entry" (Dahl, 1998: 13). Only male patricians, later lower castes as well, were able to govern, meaning that women, same as in Athens, were denied any political rights. Starting as a city-state, the Roman Republic conquered territories far beyond its initial borders and gave Roman citizenship to the conquered people. Even though this system might seem sturdy, the impossibility to adjust the institutions of popular government to the increasing number of citizens and the ever-growing Republic is a major flaw. In order to exert their political rights, the conquered people turned into Roman citizens had to participate in meetings in the city of Rome, a tedious and expensive effort, which corroborated with the increase in

The major positions and bodies of the Roman include republican era, and imperial era. Republican era consist of executive power such as consul and dictator; legislative power such as senate and tribal assembly; veto power such as tribunes which voted and chosen by Roman citizens. Albeit there was Emperor who is the ruler of Rome during the imperial era, it is never a hereditary position. Those people who were Emperors, they were the war hero and military genius which mean knowing how to obtain the support from the army and Roman citizens. All these helped to set up the foundation of the Roman democracy. As the information provided, it reflects that ancient Roman already had a concept of voting the ideal people to represent them. If the government is not responding citizens’ appeal, they would refuse to participate in national military service and labor as to require the government to agree or response. This is very similar to strike nowadays. Workers united together as a way to negotiate with the boss. It can be considered as a phenomenon which often happens in a democratic