1. What Is The Difference Between A'smart '?

The fall of the Roman Republic occurred over the century from 133 to 27 BC and was marked by civil war, provincial uprisings, and internal crises among Rome's most powerful. In the current day and age, the United States Representative Democracy has been challenged by tumultuous elections, insurrection, voter suppression, and increasing polarization between political parties. The challenges that the Roman Republic faced caused its fall and now the challenges that the US currently faces creates the question of whether the US Representative Democracy, as we know it, has begun to collapse. The challenges that both the Roman Republic and the US Representative Democracy have and are facing seem to overlap and can be compared to one another. To specify

The fall of the Roman Empire was an ambiguous process that many historians still ponder, and the components that made up the deterioration of the Empire remain obscure. However, what many historians fail to realize that the decline of the Roman Empire was the epitome of cause and effect. Properly analyzing the history behind the process leads historians to realize that it was a chain of circumstances that began with the political corruption of the Western empire. It was the catalyst for many of the other principal reasons for Rome’s decline. Political corruption was a fundamental factor that led to economic failure and superfluous military spending, all which contributed to the fall of Rome. Document 3, Roman ambassador to the Huns, 449 CE, illustrates how political corruption tore apart

By 264 BCE the groundwork had been laid for an unprecedented empire to expand it’s reign across the Mediterranean. Ancient Rome is lauded for the strength of its republic and its unparalleled military prowess but the reason for its domestic and foreign success was the confidence Roman citizens had in their state. In order to determine why Romans had such a prolific faith we must look to the flexible political structure they developed during the early Republic. The governmental system they crafted was incredibly malleable and allowed for modification whenever it couldn’t meet the needs of the people it was designed to serve. Because of the Rome’s economic reliance on war, their need for soldiers, and the stratification of the patrician

The reforms instituted by Marius were designed as a way to strengthen the Republic by professionalizing the Roman military, but instead resulted in long term political consequences that contributed to the decline of the Republic and the creation of the Empire. In this report, the decline of the republic specifically refers to the loss of the Senate’s authority over Rome’s generals.

Despite the apparent connection between the fate of Rome and the future of the United States, some people still claim that we aren’t in a state of decline, but rather our government is better and therefore we can’t commit the same mistakes as the Ancient Romans. This is a faulty argument due to its very nature because it’s a non sequitur, as the conclusion “we can’t repeat the same mistakes” does not logically follow from “America is better than Rome”. However, if their intent is to say that Rome was less democratic because it had an aristocratic senate, then the critic has failed to evaluate the Roman political system. During the Roman Republic, the citizens directly elected two tribunes, who had vast amounts of power and whose only purpose

The decline of the city of Rome’s political power was another blow dealt to the Senate, which helped ensure the emperor’s power in the fourth century. From the days of the early empire, Rome had been its political heart, but by the fourth century it had grown too expansive and suffered too many external threats to allow Rome to remain the central seat of power. Instead, cities closer to the borders, and therefore areas of conflict, such as Trier, Milan, Antioch, and Constantinople became more influential as the political significance of Rome and its senators waned (Heather, 25). Imperial visits to the city decreased as time went on making it more difficult for the senators to exert what political influence they still retained. While this may seem

During this period the condition of much of Britain was incredibly poor and something desperately needed to be done. Reforms such as extending the franchise in 1884-85 meant a process was beginning that gave a larger majority a voice as to who ran the country but not as to what actually happened. The governments felt that they were improving conditions by introducing minor reforms however conditions had barely changed. Any reforms that involved the

The Second Triumvirate was a “formal magistracy legally appointed which could dominate the Senate and the State” (Scullard) and would prove to be the final straw in an already failed Republican system. The Roman Republic was ruled by a Constitution, which relied on a balance of three elements; The Senate; the Magistrates; the Assemblies. When the balance was upset either by ambitious magistrates, armies or tribunes then civil war was the result. The Senate proved ineffectual in preventing the Second Triumvirate from unbalancing this concept thus the played a significant role in the Republic’s fall. The Second Triumvirate, like those before them, had been able to take advantage of a vulnerable Senate to achieve their own personal aims in defiance of the Senate. The lack of faith in the Senate, which was present for this period of time, was what granted the Second Triumvirate to be the final push in the fall of the Republic. The Sullan legacy continued to be displayed in unlawful acts conducted by this three-man rule. Marc Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus all knew the significance of having an army at their hands and wealth that would ensure two things for them, power and civil war at the hands of conflict. It is therefor known that the Second Triumvirate played a significant role in the fall of an already fallen Republic.

* Consider how important were these reforms in maintaining and expanding royal power, esp. after devolution of royal authority under Stephen

Before the fall of Rome, an underlying change took place that transformed the original Republic into the mighty Roman Empire. Many factors directly and indirectly affected this shift in political leadership. By 509 B.C., the Romans established its own social and economic influence. They had overpowered the Etruscan kingdom and came to the realization that law and order was necessary to curb the ambitions of the powerful, whether they be enemies, or rulers of their own making. The Roman republic, therefore, developed under a system of government that divided the power among two consuls, the Senate and the Plebian Assembly. Through internal affairs, economic instability, Barbarian invasions, disease, and the spread of new religion, this form

The Roman Republic gave way to the Roman Empire in 27 B.C.E. for a number of reasons. Stewart Perowne notes that the inherent problem with any republic is whether a government of the people can sustain territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. A robust government may be too strong for the liberties of its own people, whereas a weak government may be unable to maintain its own existence. A group of discontented individuals, too few in numbers according to domestic law, can break up their government and for all intents and purposes put an end to free government. Many historians mark the end of the Roman Republic by four events; the rise of popular tribunes, the rise of private armies, the first triumvirate, and Caesar's dictatorship.

Wherever a Roman citizen might be, he must go to Rome to vote or to take part in the making of the laws. But when the citizens of Rome met together in the Forum, or on the Campus Martius, they made a large and unwieldy body, which could not do any important political business. Rome never learned that a democratic government in a large state is impossible without representation; that is, the election by the people of a few leading men to protect their interests, and to make the laws for them. Giving up on the policy of incorporation and the absence of the principle of representation were the two great defects in the Roman political

At the end of the monarchy in 509BC, Rome expelled the old kingship and introduced the new political system, the Roman republic. (Zetzel) argues that in a monarchy “there is no holy bond or trust” and because of the importance of popular sovereignty there was no appeal to maintain the monarchy and therefore resulting in the rise of the mixed constitution. The mixed constitution allowed a balanced government which resulted in the combination of the monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The constitution of the Roman republic was not a written document but rather a system of constant change, evolution and development (Lackoff). The Roman republic comprised of two classes: the patricians class who derived from their aristocratic families and the plebeians who were everyone else in the state. The combination of all three constitutions provided a share of power among both classes in order to lessen the difference of wealth between all the citizens in the Roman society (Lackoff). In this essay I aim to show who ruled the Roman republic by looking at the three most important institutions. Firstly, we will look at the importance of the legislative assemblies and how it relates to a democracy. Secondly, we will look at how the aristocratic senates play a major role in the ruling of the state and the influence they have within the mixed constitution. Thirdly, we will look at the highest ranked institution, the consul and see how they relate to the monarchy and the powers they possess as

The Roman Republic was a system that based itself on law and order. A complex and intricate constitution balanced out all the power, which was mainly held by the two consuls. These consuls held large amounts of power, but they could only serve one year and were each elected by a senate. In addition, each consul was subject to a veto from the other, so no consul with visions of absolute power could implement tyrannical laws. These checks and balances to prevent corruption and injustice were the foundation of Rome’s influence, greatness, and power.

It moved the Empire to a state of concern regarding the welfare of the less fortunate and of underrepresented groups. This shift would eventually lead to the political inclusion of people of all walks of life. It did not destroy the essence of what it meant to be British, as many of the Act’s opposers were afraid. Rather, it led to the culture of inclusion and tolerance which is modern Britain. However, the Act was certainly flawed. Although it helped to abate the growing fury of the populace, it did little in its time to substantially change the electoral process. The same types of people were still winning election almost invariably in districts which were still corrupt and open to bribery. With time and further legislation, these problems abated, but it took time which many people were unwilling to endure. Following the implementation of the Reform Act of 1832, the fight for meaningful change was far from over, but it had certainly begun to show signs of improvement. The long term effects of this controversial piece of legislation would prove to be more significant than the immediate benefits which it comported to the citizens, but it would prove to be a truly invaluable addition to British