How democratic was the Roman Republic? Polybius is a Greek historian, he admired the Romans and he wanted to write how Rome came to dominate the world, he wrote much about them and their Roman republic. The Roman republic was kind of democratic , one reason is because all of the voting was done in Rome. Most people didn't have enough money to go to Rome and vote, about only 2% of Roman citizens usually voted, and most of the people weren’t able to vote because at that time the males were the only ones allowed to do it but they had to be a citizens , with the males only being able to vote it prohibited women, children and non-citizens from voting. In document C confirms , if the citizens have already elected
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.
Claudius was a significant ruler of the early Roman imperial era. He reigned from AD 41-54. He was easily influenced by those with questionable agendas, such as his last two wives and his freedmen, yet his principate was deemed successful. His expansion of the empire, his new reforms and his control over the senate were all beneficial to the state and and his rule was one which paved the way for those who ruled after him.
His character traits are listed in three main accounts by authors A.J. Koutsoukis, Erik Hildinger, who are both current impartial historical non-fiction writers and, Plutarch. Plutarch was a Greek historian, biographer and essayist, who is most famous for his work Parallel Lives, where he focuses on all of the contributing rulers of the Roman Republic. Plutarch is very even handed and focuses on the influence of character and moral lessons that can be learned from these emperors, good or bad.
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.
1. The document Procopius, The Secret History, is about the Byzantine society. This document was wrote by Procopius a historian. It was wrote in the six century and takes place in Byzantine. He wrote this, because he was disgusted by the emperor and his wife Theodora.
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.
In Titus Livius’, The Early History of Rome, Livy takes on the task of documenting Rome’s early history and some of the famous individuals who help contribute to the ‘greatness’ of Rome. Livy dedicates an entire portion of his writing to describe the reigns of the first seven kings of Rome; all who influence the formation and governance of Rome in some way. However, of the seven kings in early Roman history, King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius achieved godlike worship and high esteem from their fellow Romans. While both highly important and respected figures in Rome’s history, the personalities and achievements of King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius are complete opposites of one another. Despite the differences found in each king and of their rule over Rome, both Romulus and Numa Pompilius have a tremendous influence in the prosperity and expansion of Rome in its early days.
Edith Hamilton does a great job in translating the works of many different authors of Roman literature, discussing each author's stance on literature as well as their similarities with other Roman authors. Edith Hamilton starts the book in the preface by saying: “I have considered them alone in writing this book. It is in no sense a history of Rome, but an attempt to show what the Romans were as they appear in their great authors, to set forth the combination of qualities they themselves prove are peculiarly Roman, distinguishing them from the rest of antiquity.” (9) I interpret that to mean that you cannot get an accurate reconstruction of history without the personal letters and writings of the day to show us the quality of people of whom we are learning about. The book shows us how the Romans felt about being Roman.
He says this is normal in a system of checks and balances, in which all three forms of government check and balance each other out, but in reality the people had less power than the other two. This is due to the fact that the Senate, to quote, “can do those who manage state-owned property a great deal of harm or a great deal of good, since it has the final say on all these matter” (Polybius 6.16). It can be drawn that it is in the best interest of the people not to act solely in their interests, but rather the interests of the Senate given the fact that they can ruin their lives. Polybius expands and says that by taking this into consideration, everyone is faced with the possibility they may one day need the Senate’s help and thus it is in their best interest not to frustrate or oppose it, and the same goes for opposing consuls, due to the fact that everyone falls under their authority when on campaign (Polybius 6.16). It is clear to one analyzing this that although the masses and assemblies did have great powers in theory, they were not able to act on their own interests as stated above. The common people may have had great power, but said power came with extreme limitations of acting in the interests of those above them, so it can be drawn that although the people did have a role in the political process, said role was to act in the
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
Bravery, strength, and leadership are just a few of the characteristics possessed by Theseus of Greece and Romulus of Rome. Plutarch, a Greek historian, explains lives each of these men. These men were different from any of the other men during Ancient Greece and Rome; according to Plutarch, they were descendants of the divine, which ultimately destined them for greatness. Throughout their lives, they would achieve power through various events and establish the societies and politics of two the greatest cities in history. The paths that each took and the events that occurred in their lives molded them into the heroes while also contributing to the legacy they would leave behind.
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.
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)
Rome's Republican era began after the overthrow of the last Roman King Tarquin Superbus by Lucius Brutus in 509 BC(1), the Senate was ruled the by the people of Rome. The Roman Republic was governed by a largely complex constitution, which established many checks and balances, so no man could have complete control. The evolution of the constitution was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians and the other prominent Romans who were not from the nobility. Early in Rome’s history, the patricians controlled the republic, over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and the result was the emergence of a the republic which depended on the structure of society, rather than the law, to maintain its dominance. This is similar to the creation of the American system of government. Starting with the over throw of t...
The Roman Republic ultimately failed due to the lack of large-scale wars and other crises that had united the Roman populous early in the history of the Roman Republic. Roman leadership and honor became compromised. In the absence of war and crisis, Rome’s leaders failed to develop the honor and leadership necessary to maintain the Republic.