Citizenship In Rome And Rome

Citizenship in Athens and Rome has similarities and differences. Being a citizen is being a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government. Being a citizen meant different things in each empire. The relationship between the citizen and their nation varied from their system of citizenship. Rome had a better system of citizenship because they were more open to who they allowed citizenship, they gave people they conquered citizenship, and personal grudges, judgements about others/topics would not affect the Empire.

Documents E and F both describe both the Athenian and the Roman assemblies and senates. The Athenian assembly was much less reliable compared to Rome’s for two reasons, its size and how it was chosen. Athens assembly was made up of every citizen which counted to about 40,000 men. This would make choosing one option very difficult amongst all the citizens since they all have different opinions; also leaders of the assembly were chosen by random lot and that could pave the way towards rigging and that would allow for a non-trustworthy person to lead 40,000 people on one decision. The Roman senate was more efficient compared to the Athenian one because it only had 300 members; these members were also very high ranking officials who belonged to some of the oldest Roman families making them more

In comparing Athenian and American democracy, they are very different however some aspects are the same. The similarities include citizens were allowed to vote for their leader(s). However, the definition of a citizen is completely different now that it was then. A citizen back then was a male landowner in Athens, on the other hand, citizens now days are people that are born within the country or have parents

To begin with, both of their ways that they chose the officials were similar but also differed. The Athenian Government and the Roman Republic both had the citizens of each side choose the officials, but they both had a difference in limitations on how they chose the officials. In Athens, the citizens would vote for the officials, but the people who were official citizens were the ones who were 18 or over, born in Athens, and had to be males. This means that outsiders, slaves, or women could not vote because they were not considered citizens. Additionally, the Athenian Government system for voting was organized with citizens by the name of demes or demos; who belonged to tribes and where combined with others of the same area to make a larger group, which in turn were combined to form ten tribes. (Gill, thoughtco 2017). In contrast, citizens of Rome had to be over 15 years old, male slaves could also vote if they were granted freedom, the women were considered citizens but had no voting rights. The

Athens had a better government in my opinion. I think Athens had a better government because they created a democracy. According to the Athens and Sparta Document Set, a democracy means “rule by the people”. The Athens also got to abolish politicians they did not like. Athens also had ten generals, meanwhile, Sparta has two kings. In my opinion, I think that having ten generals is better than two kings because they understand you more. Sadly not all Ancient Athens were citizens, but if a free male would be a citizen if his father was a citizen of Athens. Later on, they changed that law, it was then bothering the father and mother had to be a citizen for the child to be considered a citizen. Sadly the women didn’t get that many rights but they soon they got more status. The Athens also made it to where not only the wealthy can engage in the jury service. In the Athens, you have to be an 18-year-old man to complete military training. On the other hand, in Sparta, you have to be a 30-year-old to complete military training. Basically, I’m trying to say that the Athens had a better

As stated in my thesis paragraph,rome has a far better system than athens.it starts at the top with an organized and easier to complete their duties as law makers.(doc f) the athenian assembly was less organized and more chaotic.(doc e) the athenian assembly was chosen by random luck (doc b), so there is a good chance many people would not attend or want to attend. In addition to the lottery system in athens, the location where they met could be in a remote location making it difficult

Since ; Athens was a democracy I feel that this better benefitted the citizens living their because it allowed citizens to vote for what they agreed with and what they opposed. For example in Document E it stated that there was an Athenian assembly and they had the power to pass laws, set budgets, and declare war. Whilst in Rome all of the decision making was in the hands of the Senates. All of this could not happen unless the Citizens came to vote. In Athens all forty thousand citizens were allowed to attend, however for some reason there was a shortage of citizens able attend at least six thousand have to be present to make important decisions . Voters had to make the treacherous trip to a hillside called the Pnyx near the Acroplois. Document B The Old oligarch was comparing Rome an Athens for instance it said "It is the poor man's fleet and

The Greeks and the Romans were two empires with similar goals, but contrasting government control. Within Greece were the Spartans and Athenians, which had two diverse governmental bodies. The Spartans were ruthless and focused on military success, while the Athenians lived off of a democracy and let their people decide what was best for the state. Close by were the Romans, who cared for their people liked the Athenians, but made acquiring land a necessity as to the Spartans. Although the Spartans, Athenians, and Romans were made up of different laws and government, they still kept control over their people for centuries to come.

The second major similarity between ancient Greek and Roman civilizations was that their citizens voted on who to make their elected officials, however the difference was that each culture differed in their definition of a citizen. The Greeks only recognized native-born males having the right of citizenship, women and slaves could not be citizens and therefore could not vote. The Romans on the other hand, recognized foreigners residing within Italy as half-citizens giving them full legal rights but not the right to vote. Greece mostly voted into office people of middle- to upper-class citizens, whereas Rome only voted in the rich 10% of their population. Even though history seems to show that the Greeks were more fair by randomly selecting citizens to run for office, the Roman government specifically chose who would run for election similar to our political race today where the Republican and Democratic parties choose who will be there candidates.

However, this influence that the Senate had on the magistrates and popular assemblies was meant to protect the Republic from “popular whims” or the stupidity of the commoner (Gwynn, 24) . Although one could argue this made Rome an aristocracy, this in no way downgrades the justice of the government. The system of checks and balances ensured that the Senate could never be in complete control. More importantly, “the People, who by their votes, bestow honors on those who deserve them” (Tingay and Badcock, 45). The Populus had the right to reject or pass laws or choose war or peace.

In contrast Rome did not have the geological barriers that Greece had. Therefore, under the Roman system, cities answered to a central government that was chosen by the citizens. The fact that Romans had to elect senators gave citizens the need for a unified and participant society. The Roman war strategies were also more unified than the Greek strategies, thus, ensuring their success.

Rome’s citizenship was much better than Athens system because it allowed people, other than men, to be citizens, elected qualified people for important roles, and had an organized roman senate. These reasons contradicted how Athens ran its society.

Ancient Rome feared that if they didn’t give people rights, those people would revolt in a vicious way. By giving the Plebeians rights, they felt like they played a part. Did Ancient Greece give everyone citizenship? As Ancient Greece conquered more, they didn’t give everyone citizenship.

Additionally, during the Pax Romana, emperor Augustus ruled Rome and he was very involved in the law-making system. In fact, he often used his power to make laws behind the public eye and giving credit to the senate. “Octavian [Augustus] realized that the governing class would welcome him as the terminator of civil war only if he concealed his autocracy beneath provisions avowedly harking back to republican traditions. He [Augustus] ostensibly “transferred the State to the free disposal of the Senate and people,” earning the misleading, though outwardly plausible, tribute that he had restored the republic” claim the Britannica Writers (2017). Overall, Athens had a more of an unbiased political system then

Ancient Athens was a highly polarized society in which citizenship meant everything. Citizenship permitted individuals to not only participate in the democratic