Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Roman republic
Roman republic
Romans comparison to usa republic democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Roman republic
The Roman Republic had a very democratic society. A majority of people that I have asked ,have made the assumption that the Roman Republic was not very democratic. A couple of the people I talked to said that they would only let the people vote in Rome itself and nowhere else. This of course was unfair to the people of lower class who could not afford to travel to Rome, although demokratia states that people should be equal and have the same rights to impact certain political events. Although it was inconvenient, the citizens of the Roman Republic were provided with free range to vote and have a say in their government.
The people of the Roman Republic had an impact on whether or not they go into war. Not only that but the citizens also
had a say in what laws were passed and what laws were not passed. The Roman Republic had a lot of the same aspects and rules our society has today and we are considered a democracy. Another reason people would argue about democracy in the Roman Republic was because statistics showed that only 2% of the population in the Roman Republic voted. This did not mean that it was not a democracy. Professor Alan Ward explained that the Roman Republic was said to be a direct democracy nugatory, or in other words “meaningless democracy”. This meant that the people of the Roman Republic were given the rights and freedom of a democratic society but did not use it to their advantage which rendered it meaningless.
Athens was not truly democratic because there is evidence in both Document C, Document D and Document E to support this claim. Athens was not truly democratic because not everybody had the choice to vote. In Document C, it states "Percentage of Population Able to Vote: 12%." This shows that since only adult male citizens who were over the age of eighteen could vote, which left 88% of the population unable to vote. Democracy is when every citizen has an equal right to vote and takes part in government. This is not the case in ancient Athens, as shown in Document C. Document D states, “It is less democratic by narrowing down the concept of demos to mean the adult male citizens in assembly.” Demos means the
Rome was kind of a democy it had it’s flaws but by its voting system it makes it a democy. In document C only 2% of Roman’s voted and these votes by the people even though it was few that makes it a democracy. In document C you had to be in Rome to vote which is far because they wouldn’t want an outsider to vote on things that were going on in Rome. In document B poor rich and the freed slaves could vote and for it’s time that is amazing that the poor and the freed slaves could vote. Rome definitely had it’s flaws but for it’s time it was a good democracy but in our fews we don’t think the Rome Republic was a good democy at all.
The Roman Republic was a political system which was stamped and swayed, but it was not by parties and programmes which we are so familiar with which is a modern and parliamentary variety. And it was not swayed even by the powerful opposition between Senate and People, Optimates and Populares, nobiles and novi homines. The main locomotive force of politics was the strife for power, wealth and glory. (ref: Syme, Ronald 1960 The Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press) [1]
Did you know, the Roman Republic had a tremendous influence on the United States government? By studying how the past connects to the present, one learns how many things have changed and stayed the same. Without the Roman Republic, the United State’s government, might not have the structure and organization it has today!
The Political Decay of the Roman Republic The fall of the Western Roman Empire was the first example in history on the collapse of a constitutional system which was caused by the internal decay in political, military, economics, and sociological issues. The government was becoming corrupt with bribery. Commanders of the Roman army turned their own army inward towards their own Constitutional systems, fueled by their own ruthless ambition. This paper will talk about how the violence and internal turmoil in 133 B.C.-27 B.C. was what provoked the economic stagnation in the city of Rome and to the end of the Republic and the many corrupt politicians and generals who only thought of nothing more than personal gains and glory. The senate lost control of the Roman military and the reason they rose against the senate was because the senate were no longer able to help manage the social problems or the military and administrative problems of the empire.
The Romans have had almost every type of government there is. They've had a kingdom, a republic, a dictatorship, and an empire. Their democracy would be the basis for most modern democracies. The people have always been involved with and loved their government, no matter what kind it was. They loved being involved in the government, and making decisions concerning everyone. In general, the Romans were very power-hungry. This might be explained by the myth that they are descended from Romulus, who's father was Mars, the god of war. Their government loving tendencies have caused many, many civil wars. After type of government, the change has been made with a civil war. There have also been many civil wars between rulers. But it all boils
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
The Roman Republic had an upstanding infrastructure, a stable social system, and a balanced constitution that solidified Rome’s greatness. Regardless of its achievements, however, the Roman Republic owes much of its success to classical Greek cultures. These cultures, in conjunction with the fundamental values of Roman society, certified Rome as one of the most significant powers the world has ever seen.
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
The Roman republic at first tried to protect itself from foreign enemies, not by being defensive, but by going on the offensive and destroying those that had any possibility of threatening the young republic. Once this started it was hard to stop the citizen army’s consisted of hop-lite phalanxs from continuing on with what they were good at; War. With each successful campaign came the spoils of victory, conquered land, expansion, new ideas, art, technology, religion, and so forth. All of these spoils added great wealth and power to the republic, most likely encouraging it in to becoming a empire.
...onquer the world; similarly the Romans fought belligerently to conquer all the land they could. Strategies play a key factor in winning Risk and the Roman Republic used a myriad of tactics to gain power and land. To conclude, the Roman Republic thrived during its time, and its important to know what the Romans did during their republic because still to this day similarities are being made to it.
Throughout history, no other era was more significant than that of the Roman Empire. The power and influence of the Roman government and it=s rule over the world was accomplished by the Roman Army. The Roman army was the ultimate weapon of war because of the well trained men, their effective weapons and their brilliant battle tactics.
The Roman Republic began approximately around 509 B.C. when the nobles drove the King and his family out of Rome. This monumental incident helped shape the start to the transformation of the monarchy into a republican governmental system. This is known to have begun by that of the Roman nobles trying to hold their power that they had gained. The Republic was “[a] city-state [which] was the foundation of Greek society in the Hellenic Age; in the Hellenistic Age, Greek cities became subordinate to kingdoms, larder political units ruled by autocratic monarchs” (Perry 105)
The War with Veii played a significant role in the expansion of the Roman Empire. The war, which ended in 410 B.C., set in motion an entirely different Roman army. No longer was the army a volunteer militia, instead it became a paying and contractual organization. The “Roman victory brought an end to Rome’s most threatening neighbor and began its rise to prominence in the central Italian peninsula” (www.warandgameinfo.com).
Ultimately, the Roman Republic’s downfall lay in its lack of major wars or other crises, which led to a void of honor and leadership. War united all of Rome’s people, and provided the challenge to its leaders to develop honor and leadership by their causes and actions. The lack of war allowed the Roman Republic to stagnate and become self-indulgent. By the end of the Punic Wars, which combined these elements, Rome was sure to fail. Without a common thread uniting its society, the Roman Republic unraveled because it had nothing left holding it together.