Rome Had A Better Form Of Citizenship Dbq

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.

When the Athenians were making their laws all 40,000 of their citizens were invited to the lawmaking process,whilst the Romans had a 300 man senate. Also the Romans had an easier way of becoming a citizen. Another way that they differ is that Athens was ruled by a council of 500 and the Roman empire was ruled by the senate and up until third century BCE Roman kings.The Roman Empire is far more superior to the Athenian city-state because of the more efficient government, better laws and more in touch citizens.

The reason Rome is better than Athens is because they were superior to their enemies. The Roman Republic was in the Italian peninsula in 509 to 27 BCE. Rome was better than was better than Athens is because they were more uniform in their systems and rules and laws. They both had their Downpoints and their Strengths but Rome still came out stronger.Rome was able to thrive as a more advanced system than Athens because they had a more organized voting system, allowed for equitable rights, and had allowed citizen to actively participation the government.

The first reason why Rome’s citizenship system was better than Athens’ is because they accepted more people as citizens. In document A it shows who could be allowed to become a citizen in both Athens and Rome. Rome allowed all people except slaves to become citizens while Athens only allowed free native born adult males to become citizens. Rome was a lot more lenient when giving citizenship which is probably one reason they boasted a population of 45,000,000.

In Rome they allow a lot of people to become citizens. Romes people included :native men, native women, native male children, and female children. In Athens they only let native men be citizens. How would athens increase if they didn't give females citizenship? In athens they didn't even consider children citizens. To be considered a citizen in Athens you had to complete education and serve two years in the military.

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

Which was better Rome or Greece? Greece for these reasons. Many things from Greece are still seen today. And the Romans borrowed almost all of its mythology from Greece.

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.

     Because Rome tried to maintain a republic it had different needs compared to the Greeks. "The Romans, unlike the Greeks, were distinguished by practicality and common sense, not by a love of abstract thought. In their pragmatic and empirical fashion, they gradually developed the procedures of public politics and the legal state." (Perry 88)

According to document A Rome let female children, sons of freed slaves, Free native-born adult males, free native-born adult females, and free native-born male children could become citizens while in Athens only free native born males were aloud to become citizens. Rome let more people become citizens than Athens meaning they were more open to citizenship than Athens making more people want to live there because they feel appreciated when they are a citizen. When Rome were to capture a city the people would be open to citizenship and feel welcome to Rome. If you had the choice to go to Rome or Athens you would want to choose Rome because you would have a better chance of becoming a citizen and feeling

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

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.

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.

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.