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 two heads of state were chosen exclusively from the Patrician class of wealthy land owners. This policy changed after 367 BCE, to allow members of the Plebeian class to be selected, and reinforced in 342BCE when one of the consuls was required to be Plebeian (Wasson, 2015).
These two oligarchies had different approaches to the power they held.

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

(Wasson,2015).
I return once again to the words of Polybius when he points out that every political system evolves through three stages: growth, zenith, and decay (Polybius, 1889, book 6.51). Considering this theory; the main differences between these two rival nations and possibly the deciding factor in their confrontations, was that Rome was in the peak stage of zenith and Carthage was declining in the stage of decay, when they clashed.
Conclusion
For the most part the two political systems had a lot in common, from the two heads of state to a consiliary assembly. Two fundamental differences stand out to me; the political philosophy, (commercial compared to military), and the differences in stages of development. I find myself in agreement with Polybius in that all great empires are born, grow and then die. Eventually Rome also reached the final stage of evolution and faded into history.