Roman Republic Dbq Analysis

Rome was the greatest empire in western Europe of its time.They succeeded in government, economics, and military. This changed when plague, natural disasters, and invasion caused the fall of Rome. Such as barbarians overwhelmed and took over cities, plague killed farmers, workers, and governors.

What started as one of the most powerful forces, the Roman empire, started taking turns for the worst. The empire slowly fell apart from the inside out as its leaders became weak and corrupt; their military became lazy; and the plague spread, devastating the Roman population. The empire that had conquered anyone around was soon being invaded by everyone.

John F. Kennedy once said that “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind”. Since the beginning of humanity many disputes have occurred, some dating back as early as The Roman Empire and ancient Chinese Dynasties. As long as humans live and develop different customs, there will most definitely be conflict.

The trials of political success and error throughout history, have led to more efficient and authentic ways of governing, making nations stronger over the course of time. While the United States and the Roman Republic share similar political systems, the structure of the Roman Republic is in many ways flawed compared to the modern Democratic Republic of the U.S. nation. The Roman Republic’s rigid social structure flawed their political system because there was less flexibility within the social ladder, affecting citizens and their opportunity to be elected into office. The Republic’s society was made up of two distinct and separate social classes, the Patricians and the Plebeians. “In the early years of the Roman Republic, patricians controlled all the religious and political offices; plebeians had no right of appeal against decisions of the patrician government, since no laws were codified or published.

After being mistreated by their last king, Romans didn’t want to be controlled by one supreme ruler. So, they formed a republic, where each citizen has the right to vote to pass laws and elect officials. This system worked for centuries, in such a way that no one person or group of people was more powerful than another. Rome’s government had many ways to balance power.

The Roman government was democratic when it came to the citizens. The citizens could elect their own officials, and the officials were supposed to represent every level of Roman society. There were many types of officials. The two consuls were the chief officials of Rome. Once elected, they served for two years (Trueman, Chris). One of their most important powers was controlling the army (Government under Roman Republic). When they were unsure of a course of action, they were advised by the Senate, a council of around six hundred male citizens (Trueman, Chris). Those six hundred men were usually from wealthy patrician families and were the ones in charge of making the laws and controlling the spending. Contrary to the election of the other officials, the Senate was appointed by the current Consuls. Once they were appointed, they served for life. When one member died, another was chosen in their place (Government).

The Roman Republic was a “democratic” republic, which allowed first citizens to vote, and to choose their governors in the senate (Hence, their consuls). However, it was a nation ruled by its aristocracy, and, consequently, the entire Republic`s power was concentrated in a few individuals. Furthermore, the Senate was controlled by Patricians, which directed the government by using wealth to buy control and power over the decisions of the senate and the consuls. This situation aroused the inconformity of the people; as result, a civil war took place in the Republic (destroying it), and then the Roman Empire was born.

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

Polybius analyses different aspects of Rome to understand how it turns to be so great, and one of the characteristics he highlights in his analysis is the roman government. He states, “THE THREE kinds of government, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, were all found united in the commonwealth of Rome.” In this statement, he conveys the idea that Rome has taken the best of all three types of government to create this new type of government that is form to make the republic succeed. What takes from these three government branches is: the consul from the monarchy branch, the senate from the aristocracy branch and the tribal assembly from

The Roman Republic was very democratic due to the fact that the government was split into three different parts which relied upon one another, people were able to legislate themselves, and the people were able to vote on who they seem as fit to withhold an office position. In ancient Rome, the people created an republic immediately after having an horrid king in power. They decided to split the government into different parts and have set rules in place to make sure that no one would ever be able to have as bad as effect on Rome than the last king had. Though the government was called an republic, its principles were very democratic. The first reason of this is because the government was split into three different sections that relied on one another to properly function. Their government consisted of the two consuls, the senate, and the assembly. The

(SOURCE) Any time there is a power distribution inequality, there is a democratic problem. In Polybius's writing he states, "In the same manner the Senate also, though invested with so great authority, is bound to yield a certain attention to the people, and to act in concert with them in all affairs that are of great importance" (one sent on word document). This shows how easily the Roman leaders could be swayed. The fact that they have to give attention to the people in what they do in order to continue to have great authority, allows problems to arise. The people would try to use their influence they have to get the leaders to choose their side on an issue. In "Politics and Aristocracy in the Roman Republic" by John North, North takes a different view. It is his perspective that Polybius had an unrealistic view of the Roman rule. He states that Polybius had, "To be seen as completely duped by his Roman noble friends, who told him that Roman democracy was just as good as Greek" (North 1990). The argument is that while he was being told these things, his friends were telling people how to vote. The swaying of votes and leaders is a problem with democracy.

Like the Greeks, the Romans developed a democracy as their government. The Romans didn’t entirely replicate the democracy of the Greeks, but instead took the idea and re-interpreted it to fit their standards. Using a democracy became very helpful to the Romans.

Concomitant with the Athenian system, in the city of Rome popular government was introduced as well, albeit under a different name, respublica (from "res" – thing and "publicus" – public). Consequently the republic was similar with Greek demokratia. At the beginning only aristocrats or patricians were allowed to participate at the governing act, but "after much struggle the common people [….] also gained entry" (Dahl, 1998: 13). Only male patricians, later lower castes as well, were able to govern, meaning that women, same as in Athens, were denied any political rights. Starting as a city-state, the Roman Republic conquered territories far beyond its initial borders and gave Roman citizenship to the conquered people. Even though this system might seem sturdy, the impossibility to adjust the institutions of popular government to the increasing number of citizens and the ever-growing Republic is a major flaw. In order to exert their political rights, the conquered people turned into Roman citizens had to participate in meetings in the city of Rome, a tedious and expensive effort, which corroborated with the increase in

The political system of Classical Rome was the base of the United States’ political system. Even though the founding fathers were also influenced by Classical Greece, Romans’ political system was developed to govern a larger population ("Rome vs. US"). The Romans were the ones to develop a form of government known as republic. In this type of government, officials are elected to govern the state and to represent the voters. Unlike the Greeks, which developed democracy, where citizens were allowed to directly participate in the decision making part of the government ("Power, Politics, and You Enrichment"). This type of government would work perfectly on a small civilization, but not in the US. In the United States, we vote to select our representatives because our population is very large. It would be very chaotic to allow every single citizen to participate; we would never be able to come to an agreement. In the beginning of the Roman Republic,

In today's modern world representative government is the norm. Nearly all governments are ruled by their citizens via a republic or some other type of governing body. However, in the ancient world, this standard of democratic government had not yet taken hold; political control still belonged to the few elite, rich, and powerful persons and influential families. Thus, we have a contrast between governments of the ancient world and our modern day governments. In other words, the past generally denotes monarchy, empire, or absolute control. While modern government usually implies republic, voting, or democratic control.