Carthage And Roman Government Essay

Comparing Carthage and Roman Governments
Introduction
As pointed out by the historian Polybius, (c.200-c.118 BCE), when he compared Rome and Carthage; the framework of the two republics was similar (Polybius, 1889, book 6.51). In this discussion I will be looking at what aspects were different between the Carthage and Roman governments and heads of state.
Discussion
In Carthage the two heads of state known as “suffets” were chosen by the assembly from the wealthy class of citizens (Carthage, 2008). Politicians were not paid, therefore it was not possible for a poor man to rule, for he had no leisure time to commit to politics (Aristotle, 1944, book 2, 1273b). The Roman system of selecting consuls was also an oligarchy, prior to 367 BCE

The Roman nation was run on the basis of military conquest, as long as the military was successful the nation prospered. The Carthaginians of the other hand ruled with power in the hands of ship-owners and mine-owners, the county was run as a business. As long as trade was good the populous was satisfied and the nation prospered (van Loon, 2006).
The suffets of Carthage wielded power over civil duties but held no direct power over the military (Aristotle, 1944, book 2, 1273b), which was run by professional leaders. Where as the consuls of Rome held both political and military control over the country (Wasson, 2015).
Both Polybius and Aristotle mention that the people of Carthage had power over what affected them (Polybius, 1889, book 6.51), with the right to speak-up against any decisions made (Aristotle, 1944, book 2, 1273b). Although I was unable to find any details as to how this was done. Romans on the other hand were able to challenge decisions judicially, I do not think they were able to question the laws or legislation themselves. The Roman consuls were held accountable to the assembly for actions taken after their one year term expired