Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Roman republic
Abstract
“The Conflict of the Orders, also referred to as the Struggle of the Orders, was a political struggle between the Plebeians (commoners) and Patricians (aristocrats) of the ancient Roman Republic lasting from 494 BC to 287 BC, in which the Plebeians sought political equality with the Patricians. It played a major role in the development of the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Shortly after the founding of the Republic, this conflict led to a secession from Rome by Plebeians to the Sacred Mount at a time of war. The result of this first secession was the creation of the office of Plebeian Tribune, and with it the first acquisition of real power by the Plebeians.
At first only Patricians were allowed to stand for election to political
…show more content…
I would like to discuss how, in at least three ways, the economic and political differences between the patricians and the plebeian classes ultimately led to a plebeian revolt. The first succession was due to these 3 factors. (B.C. 494) 1. Poverty & Distress of the Plebeians due to previous wars left the Plebeians in a state of poverty. 2. The Unjust Law of Debt put the Plebeians in a place where they had to borrow money from the rich Patricians putting them in the debtor class. If they could not pay their debt, they were arrested and made a slave of the creditor. 3. The Unequal Division of the Public Land which was public land which had been gained in a war. The land was supposed to belong to all the people and could have been used in helping the poor get out of debt. However the government was in the hands of the Patricians which secured the land for themselves. This was what caused the Plebeians to revolt and leave the Patricians to fight their own battles in the first succession. The Patricians realized right away that this would be the destruction of Rome. They made a decree to forgive all debts to those who were insolvent and release all who had been imprisoned. In addition they did the following: (Morey, THE STRUGGLE FOR ECONOMIC RIGHTS, 2014) 1. The Tribunes of the People were given to protect the plebeians from …show more content…
Unlike the patricians, the lower or plebeian class may have suffered under the early republican structure more than they had under monarchy, since they now had, in effect, many rulers. Under the monarchy, they had endured just one. A similar situation in ancient Greece sometimes led the lower classes to welcome tyrants. In Athens, the political movement against a hydra-headed governing body led to codification of laws and then democracy.
In addition to the many headed hydra breathing down their necks, the plebeians lost access to what had been regal domain and was now the public land or ager publics, because the patricians who were in power, took control of it to increase their profits, running it by slaves or clients in the country while they and their families lived in the city.
After the plebeian aedileship had been created, the patricians created the cruel aedileship. After the consulship had been opened to the plebeians, the plebeians were able to hold both the dictatorship and the censorship. Plebiscites of 342 BC placed limits on political offices; an individual could hold only one office at a time, and ten years must elapse between the end of his official term and his re-election. Further laws attempted to relieve the burden of debt from plebeians by banning interest on loans. In 337 BC, the first plebeian praetor was
One of the biggest critics of Pericles’ vision of democracy was Pseudo-Xenophon or (The Old Oligarch). The Old Oligarch first critics the common assessment of the Athenian Democracy that states that democracy does not work very well and that it is foolish and mistaken. The Old Oligarch responds to this common assessment believing that Athens is doing everything right with democracy in terms of what they wanted to achieve with all citizens getting a say in government as Pericles had visioned. However, the Old Oligarch criticizes the common people of Athens as ignorant and disorderly. The Old Oligarch does not agree that all Athenian citizens have merit over class like Pericles. Not being a supporter of the poor, the Old Oligarch finds the Aristocrats as the better sort of people. In passage 1.9, The Old Oligarch states, “But if you seek for good legislation, in the first place you will see the cleverest members of the community laying down the laws for the rest.” The Old Oligarch’s statement shows that he believed the aristocrats were designed to rule. They had money and time, the two biggest components to get an education at the time, and as a result the Old Oligarch believed the aristocrats since educated, could make the best legislation for Athens. The Old Oligarch belief is supported through history to when democracy fell in Athens after the consequences of the Sicilian Expedition. After the fall of democracy, Aristocrats were put in charge because they were seemed as the most educated. In addition, the Old Oligarch states in passage 2.17, “But in the case of engagements entered into by a democracy it is
In comparing the Ancient Athenian system of government, and the Modern Day American political system, there are many similarities. In Ancient Athens, democracy was developed in response to a long history of oppressive rulers who used their position of power for their own benefit. Ancient Athenians sought a government where all citizens were considered equal under the eyes of the law, and all had a fair say in the running of their country. Following a series
Socrates and I grew up alongside the Athenian democracy, and experienced her vicissitudes in the past seventy years. We have both heard and experienced cycle of five types of governments that Socrates had mentioned. (Plato, Republic 8.547e) Our democracy was established hundreds years ago under Cleisthenes and turned to tyranny under Isagoras. In our childhood, Athens was a timarchy, and then Pericles ruled Athens with the
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 133B.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 economics of the Roman Empire soon hit rock bottom due to the high taxation to support the army. Gold was also eroding since Rome was no longer bringing new resources through the expansion. Emperors then tried to mint coins out of silver and copper instead and the end result was inflation and dramatic rises in
Like the various forms of Greek art, the government of ancient Greece appreciated the individual by creating an environment in which individuals were free to express themselves. Tyrants like Pisistratus and Cleisthenes came to power to try and make the polis a better place for the individual. These tyrants reformed the state in many ways; they helped make it possible for the rich and poor to have equal rights, and they created the conditions for the construction of the splendid monumental buildings ancient Greece is remembered for today. Although not all tyrants were good, they all had one thing in common: they were all citizens of Greece, and ruled to improve the lifestyle of the citizens of Greece. After the end of tyranny, Greece had a democracy; a government ruled by the people for the people.
Social order is made and remade through people’s behaviours, interactions and choices and is neither static nor fixed. This essay will provide examples of the ways in which social order is made and remade and how this happens on both a formal and informal level, although when disorder occurs, it is clear to see the level of work that goes into the making and remaking of social order (Blakeley, 2014, p85).
Between the years 509-27 BCE, Rome was considered a republic, which is a type of government in which people vote for representatives to make laws. People were classified as either patricians, plebeians, or slaves within the republic. The patricians were people of the upper class; the ones with all the money. Plebeians were usually farmers, merchants, artisans, or traders and slaves were usually prisoners from the war. During the early Rome expansion, the government was composed of two consuls, the senate, and a dictator when needed. The consuls were responsible for supervising the government and commanding armies. In addition, the senate consisted of three hundred patricians that voted on laws. Lastly, if necessary, a dictator would step in at a time of war, and carry out decisions when there was not enough time to discuss other options within the government . Based on the mentioned information, many people argue about how democratic the Roman Republic really was. The Roman Republic was primarily democratic, however, there were some aspects that could label it as an aristocracy.
From this paper you can see some of the economic and political differences between the patricians and the plebeian classes that ultimately led to a plebeian revolt. You can see how the patricians abused the power to always give them an unfair advantage over the plebeian people. The truth is that the first government after the kings were banished should not be called a republican government but more of an Oligarchy government.
Order and freedom are both necessary and beneficial towards the citizens and society with the aim to promote harmony, yet they both contradict each other. This contradiction has existed throughout many years and it is still hard to decide which one is ideal for the society. This essay will discuss and analyze if order or freedom is more important for political systems.
Nobles judged major cases in court and dominated the assembly. Athenian wealth and power grew under the aristocracy. Yet discontent spread over the commoners. Merchants and soldiers resented the power of the nobles and argued that their services to Athens entitled them to more rights. As discontent spread the government slowly moved towards a democracy.
To understand Plato's arguments concerning the rise of tyrants from democracy, one must first examine how Plato suggests that democracy evolves from oligarchy. Plato sees democracy as a degeneration of oligarchy, something that evolves from a failure to be properly disciplined and restrained in the fulfillment of desires. A democratic person is not necessarily a mindless hedonist, he or she may even be restrained in many regards, but would deny no one the opportunity to be and argue that the mindless hedonist is just as virtuous and honorable as the spendthrift oligarch. Plato explains that a democratic man one who “surrend(ers) rule over himself to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by lot, until it is satisfied; and after that to another, dishonoring none but satisfying al...
...wealthy and had no political power in the early Roman Empire. They started out with no rights but as time went by a struggle emerged for plebian rights and eventually they earned their equality by rights of the law after years of political fighting. The most important political institution that was created during this time was the Senate who created a sense of stability in Rome and offered advice to the console of Rome. It helped Rome keep order in the land and aided in the governing of the people.
As more land and personal property was seized, more citizens found themselves salves to the Romans. These provincial citizens had no rights and the Roman aristocracy had little incentive to provide them with any. (UNRV, 2003)
In the process of expanding and before becoming the Roman Empire, the Roman Republic fought many wars with neighboring groups, such as the Carthaginians, the Gauls, and a few others. Under those circumstances, some groups declared war on Rome to check its expanding power, but failed to do so. Some of the defeated opponents became allies of Rome (later, integrated into Rome and turned into municipia), while enslavement befell the rest. Consequently, Rome’s expansion and enslavement of others steered it into greater external and internal conflicts (which, led to the Roman Republic and to the rise of the Roman Empire). In fact, the enslavement of the conquered people further broadened the internal conflict between the patricians and the plebeians.
In early Roman society, the plebeians were free citizens, that were “commoners” who had limited political representation and far fewer of the social advantages that were afforded to patricians. During this conflict the plebeians, utilized the fact that their sheer numbers sustained the army as well as the day to day activities essential to Rome, sought to strengthen their standing in legal matters and politics. The plebeians began achieving successful outcomes, from the “Struggle of the Orders”, because the patriarchs were aware that without the plebeians Rome had no army and without an army the patricians would be at the mercy of Rome’s many enemies. A key concession the plebeians obtained was that they were granted the right to elect their own officials, that could bring plebeian grievances to the senate.