More handpicked essays just for you.
Athenian democracy and roman republic
Accomplishments of the Roman Republic
A2 history how democratic was roman republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Athenian democracy and roman republic
The Roman Republic was kind of Democratic. The people did hold the power but there was a barrier between those who/ couldn’t vote due to distance. The 3 Branches consisted only of males when means that all people can vote. It was because 3 Branches of government shared power. They considered again would lead to say the Chief Power of State. Miller said the powers in Roman people were citizens as voters. They also made them more powerful and more democratic by dividing them into 3 groups:The Consuls that lead the military and were supreme masters, The Senate process laws and has the control of treasury, and The Assemblies who Grant office to those that deserve through the Elections. Some of these barriers however kept them from
voting because they all had to be conducted by the Senate, also because their territory was expanded to well-do-rural voters. Voters in assemblies didn’t have as much power because some didn’t have money and time to vote. Also the ballet didn’t change the situation in which all people had to have legislative but electoral choices.
Greece and Rome’s governments included many democratic aspects that continue to be used in modern
day federalism. In section 1 of the Fundamental Orders, an executive office as well as a judicial branch is elected. The person with the most votes becomes the governor, and the next six runners up would hold positions as magistrates in the general court. The representative branch is established in section two where it is stated that the next runners up to the magistrates shall be the public officers to the people of their town. These three branches of government are exactly the same in present day, but how they are elected and appointed to their position is the only difference.
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.
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 House and Senate are somewhat different in terms of size, structure and procedure. However, despite their differences, collectively the Congress did make up the “dominant” class of the three branches of government for the 150 years of American government. ...
During the age of Pericles, the ideal form of government was believed to be a government formed by all of the citizens regardless of wealth or social standing. This was known as democracy, literally meaning “ government of the people” [Document 3.] This government favored the many instead of the few. Athens was a direct democracy, meaning every citizen participated in debates. Western civilization used this philosophy of government by many, and created an indirect democracy where citizens elect officials to make and enforce laws.
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
support, the power to destroy, and most importantly the power to inform. The legislative branch
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.
They were originally established with the intent to give most of the power to the people. The power to vote for the leaders and settle issues professionally. Both forms of governments had senates, which represented the people and helped the nations succeed, by not allowing one person to gain complete power like a king or emperor would. They both did not want kings ruling the entire kingdom, so they gave the people more power by allowing them a voice with some form of voting. Power was also given to representatives and officials in the republic and democracy. The Athenians were able to vote for legislation and bills, while the Romans elected officials to vote on the people’s behalf. The Roman’s established an aristocratic republic controlled by only wealthy people, so the power was not shared equally in society. On the contrary the Athenians allowed anyone to be in government as long as they were a male citizen. A form of the executive branch emerged from both systems; Rome had two consuls elected by council and Athens had a council of five hundred men. They both had different regulations on who was able to be a citizen. The Athenians only granted citizenship to native born males, while the Romans gave half citizenship to Italians allowing them to have full rights, but were not able to
In addition, due to the establishment of the three branches the negative effects of factions have been discouraged. One of the numerous institutions that have helped with the discouragement of factions is the Legislative branch. The Legislative branch is comprised of two parts, The House of Representatives and The Senate. The House is composed of Representatives elected by the people within a district and is determined by population, thus the more people in a state, the m...
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 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.