preview

The Roman Republic: A Comparative Analysis

Decent Essays

Carthage was run as an aristocracy, where the privileged and wealthy elite held most of the power. Like Rome, however, it had two chief magistrates and a senate. The two magistrates (called suffetes) had replaced the monarchy system that had been in place before. They collaborated with the senate on civil matters. The senate made decisions about war, peace terms, military support, and punishment of failed leaders. Additionally, the "hundred" council of elders was formed out of members of the senate. The council "convened to assess the military performance of commanders on completion of their campaign" and "was responsible for deciding the fate of generals and admirals who failed in a campaign" (Cartwright, 2016). All of Carthage's political offices were filled through the aristocracy, and citizens outside the ruling families did not play a part in the governing of the state. While the consuls would change from …show more content…

In likeness with Carthage, it began as an aristocracy with the patricians holding all of the power. After the plebeian revolts, however, the patricians and plebeians ultimately blended together and became one people, one republic. Like Carthage, Rome had two consuls. But instead of the consuls coming from an elite party, they were appointed by the popular assembly. The consuls commanded the army, ruled over the senate, and dealt with legislation. Rome also had a senate but it had limited legislative authority. Unlike Carthage, legislative authority was held by the popular assembly. The senate existed more for advisory purposes and discussing foreign policy strategies (Wasson, 2015). The main difference between the two powers was that Rome allowed its people to play a part in government and Carthage's political system was ruled by the elite. Carthage was great through its leadership, but Rome became great through its unity and the incorporation of its people into its ruling

Get Access