Polybius's Politics And Aristocracy In The Roman Republic

In book VI of Polybius’ Histories (53-54), it covers a funeral procession as a form to educate and teach Roman youths. Various values and qualities range throughout this extract, and these values reflect the lives of the ‘Roman Society’, such values would include; Passion, Nobility, Immortality, Excellence, etc. These values of the funeral procession are produced in the text, as a way to ‘inspire’ the youth of Rome. However certain historians are suspicious when it comes to Polybius’ point of view on Roman Society. Historians believe this because of many reasons, which in turn include; being biased in the favour of the Romans, and it is noteworthy to say that Polybius isn’t viewed as a total impartial witness by some historians. Also, it

Romans were a civilization that originated after the Greek culture. They, like Greeks, saw an extreme significance in the idea of a love for one’s country and loyalty. The Romans, however, were more concerned with public affairs such as education, sanitation, and health. They held a strong connection with their ancestors and wished to imitate what the ancient Romans did. Although Romans rejected the idea of a Rex, or king, they favored the common hero. They wanted a leader who a “regular Joe”, someone who was average and could still led an average life after doing extraordinary things. The Romans also had a very defined government that was broken into consuls, senate, and assembly. There were two consuls who served in place of the king as the leaders of the Roman Empire. Next in succession was the senate, comprised only of patricians who debated and passed legislation. Finally, there was the assembly made for the plebeians to approve laws.

For Polybius the advantage of the roman republic over Athenian democracy was that, successively more people shared power as a safeguard against abuse until the immorality of democracy again led to conditions favorable for the receiving of the "Fuehrerpinzip." In his plan, there successively occur three "good" forms of government – kingship, aristocracy, and democracy – only for each to succumb to corruption and for its resulting understanding in its distorted form – respectively dictatorship, oligarchy, and adhocracy, or mob rule – to be overthrown by the kind phase of the next. Polybius also tells us that the senate puts forth its control largely because it has the power to carry out investigations of capital crimes and to offer ultimate negotiation in civil disagreement. There are no rights prior to the state Mixed government implies checks & balances (Polybius, Roman Republic), which implies the good of the entire community.

In Roman society, the aristocrafts we know as patricians. For example, the Roman constitution has three elements.The Senate proposes laws and has the control of the treasury. For instance Although nominally allied with Rome, the League offered only tepid support to the Roman army in its campaign against the Kingdom of Macedonia. Born in Megalopolis in Arcadia, central southern Greece, around 201 B.C., Polybius was the son of Lycoris, a prominent politician of the Achaean League, which united most of the city-states of the Peloponnesian peninsula.However with the exception of the first five books, which have survived intact, Polybius's Histories have come down to us in a fragmentary state.

Some policies and institutions of the Roman Republic were useful to help them succeed in conquering first Italy and then the Mediterranean world. Before of the institution of the republic, the romans were a monarchy since their beginning and they were basically a pastoral people. Rome suffer several changes and improvements under the control of the Etruscan kings. The Etruscan were civilization settled north of Rome in Etruria, and they once had control over almost all the Italic peninsula. The Etruscans influences in Rome were profound, they transformed Rome from a pastoral community to a city (91). The Etruscan built the street and roads that help the development of temples, markets, shops, streets, and houses. They basically brought urbanization to Rome. It is fairly to say that the Rome republic was a fusion between the elements of the Etruscan civilization and the Rome elements. The combination of the different political institutions and policies made the Romans succeed in their conquest territories.

One of the most significant reasons that may prove that the Roman Republic is not a democracy is its system in which includes flaws that are not very democratic. In other words, the system can be viewed as rigged. According to Source C, one example of this was that all voting of the people was only held in Rome. This meant that citizens who were not very wealthy or had the ability to waste time

Unlike Athenian Democracy, Rome was ruled as a republic. “ Republic” was a government controlled by the people. It was not a democratic system, in the sense of Athenian democracy. Because political power in Rome was in the hands of wealthy aristocrats, the Roman Republic was best described as an elected oligarchy. The government of the Roman Republic comprised in three

Most Romans had trouble with the idea of power to only a few people. The concept of power to the people settled well with many of the Romans. There were three main separate parts of the Roman Republic. These parts were the Consuls, the Senate, and the Assembly. A direct statement of their powers is given in document A by Polybius: “ The consuls (magistrates) lead the military and are the supreme masters of the government. They bring matters requiring debate before the Senate. They also call together the people’s Assemblies, and carry out whatever the majority of the Assemblies decide.” This similar to the style of the U.S democracy. Both have mass majority votes on various issues. For U.S democracy it is always for the election of someone to represent for the people. But in the Roman republic it was for people to vote directly on some issues among each other then elect someone to handle the issue in office for a

Polybius, a Greek commander who spent years on military campaigns with Roman armies in the second century B.C.E. (Hunt, Al., 2012, 160) Polybius venerated the Roman camp but it was army discipline that authentically fascinated him. It was rigorous to the point of inhumanity. Polybius believed the ideal Centurion was instilled with the Core Values of the Arête, the Greek value of competitive individual excellence. This commitment or drive imbues a zealousness of self-sacrifice, accolade, obligation, and a commitment to culminate ones ' life in the accommodation rather than peregrinate home in disgrace. Utilizing this philosophy a committed army, led by Centurions who Rome wanted “not so much to be bold and eager to take risks, but rather to be capable of leadership and steady and solid in character, nor do they want them to initiate attacks and precipitate battle”. (Vegetius, F. 2011, 176) It was prosperous in incrementing Rome 's elevate in a troglodytic time into a more Western Civilization.

Subsequently, the system was corrupted because weak or vulnerable individuals were associating with men in power; in exchange of support, and loyalty, for the sake of protection, which broke the Democracy. Socrates said, “Democracy elevates men to positions of authority not because of their wisdom or their fitness to govern, but because of their ability to sway the masses with empty rhetoric. In Democracy, it is not truth that matters; it is public relations.” That is exactly what it was happening in the Roman Republic.

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.

After the fall of Tarquinius Superbus’ reign of Rome, the Brutus and Collatinus led patrician revolution leads to the beginning of a new era in Roman history: the republic. The early republic is mostly a patrician favoring institute and created it in order “to restore power and privileges that popular royal tyrants had usurped from them” and to make it “difficult for any one aristocrat to acquire too much power at the expense of the rest” (Ward 59). Greek historian, Polybius, in his book, Histories, talks about the greatness of this Roman republic and its constitution by claiming: “Now the elements by which the Roman constitution was controlled were three in number, … and all aspects of the administration were, taken separately, so fairly

To conclude, Plutarch Roman Lives “Sulla” teaches the lessons of the effects of powers on people by showing what power had done to a man who was once a kind-hearted, compassionate citizen. Sulla’s change came in different life events including: his first victory that led him to be vain, the Social War and Mithridatic War that took away his compassion, and becoming a cruel leader of Rome. Maybe if everyone would have read Plutarch’s Lives, history would not have repeated itself with leaders like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and today’s Kim Jong Un.

Hamilcar, after ravaging southern Italy, took over a stronghold near Hercte. The fort had positive and negative things in its favor. Polybius described it as almost impossible to conquer based on its location; however, there was no city near the base that he could rely on as an ally. He remained at this location for roughly three years, still raiding Italy, but mostly concentrating on land battles. Polybius compares Hamilcar’s campaigns in Sicily to a boxing match between two champions, “both in perfect training and both distinguished for their courage. As the contest develops and the two exchange blow after blow, without a moment’s pause, it is out of the question either for the combatants or the spectators to anticipate or to keep count

Some people think that ancient Roman is a democratic society but some are not. Personally, I think that the ancient Rome is a democratic society. In this essay, we are going to discuss about the democracy of ancient Rome. To know the democracy of the ancient Rome, we first need to understand its structure and base on it to identify the ancient Rome is a democratic society or not. In order to deeply interpret the structure and democracy of Rome, there are some aspects we need to know, including social development, economic aspect, political development, and military development.