Should Rome Go Into A Republic Essay

Professor Alan Ward wrote an article titled “How Democratic was the Roman Republic?” stating how Rome was not as democratic as everyone thought it was. He argued that only 2 percent of Roman citizens usually voted. Reasons for that may be due to that fact that voting only took place in Rome so only those who could afford the time and expense to go to Rome to vote which were mostly rural voters and their clients. The voters though had no role in selecting candidates for office or in proposing legislation in any assembly. These are reason that go against the fact the Rome was

The Roman republic was a very big step for governments. The republic was the first of its time, equalized power between people, and kept everything organized. Eventually Rome became a dictatorship. Even though the dictatorship worked decently, Rome became unevolved and died. The Roman republic equalized power between all people, but the Roman dictatorship caused one person to receive too much power.

A republic, like Rome, moves at a maddeningly slow pace. Legislation is put through a system of checks and balances where rivals debate ad nauseum over proposed policies. In a perfect world, this ensures that only which is most beneficial for the state and her peoples becomes a reality. A Tyrant, however, can accomplish a great deal in only a short amount of time. A good leader, like Augustus, can propel his people forward unhindered by the chains of a republic. The Roman people, according to Tacitus: “prefered the security of the current regime to the dangers of old” (Yardley 2008, 3). Even if it lacked freedom, many were willing to submit to an empire if it meant stability and security.

From 509 BC to about 27 BC, Rome was considered a republic. During this time there was no single leader of Rome and the government was run by elected officials. The main leaders of the Roman Republic were the consuls. There were always two consuls in power at a time. Each year new consuls were elected to serve for a one-year term. This kept any one man from becoming too powerful in the government. At the time the Senate was the most powerful governing body in Rome. The Senate had control of the state’s finances and foreign policies. Senators were elected by the people to represent them in government. The Senate was made up of 300 of the most elite and wealthiest of the Roman Republic. One of the most important roles of the Senate to undergo the checks and balances of the Roman government. Checks and balances are the “principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power” (The Editors). The checks and balances of Rome helped to stabilize the government and allowed the power to be distributed somewhat equally between the consul, the Senate, and the people. However, the fall of the Roman Empire eliminated this type aspect of government in Rome (Kagan 101-103).

Not only did the Italian city-republics differentiate themselves from their Roman predecessors in terms of how they came about, but their governments ran differently. While there were certainly elements of similarities between the two eras, there were considerable differences. To start, it is important to lay out the basic foundations of the Roman republic. The Roman republic was incredibly intricate and convoluted to the point that it would take forever to parse out the exact inner workings of each system of government. As such, just the bare bones of the Roman government are necessary to learn from. In essence, the Roman republic can be described in modern terms as a system of checks and balances. The government was predicated on the single principle that too much power should not reside in the hands of one man. No one organ of government could act completely alone. “To execute any act of government, a number of magistrates or other organs must concur” (Finer 396). Each body was divided and had specific powers delegated to it, which will be described more in detail later. The powers were not as simple as legislative, executive, and judicial as most modern people experience government today. Instead, each of the various powers of the three modern branches were even further divided into different governmental organs. The fascinating thing about the Roman republic, however, is in how it slowly morphed into what it eventually became. Instead of the American top-down approach

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

After Julius Caesar was assassinated, the Roman Republic was overruled and transformed into the Roman Empire. The Republic had many flaws including the fact that it was based on inheritance, it had no genuine voice for the lower class, women, or slaves, and it was not strong enough to govern effectively and keep its citizens happy during endless wars. Ancient Rome only truly became powerful when it became an empire.

-The Roman Republic treated all parties fair in civil and criminal cases. The laws were all about the people of Rome. But, eventually a social contest came about called the Struggle of the Orders, and this caused chaos between different types/ groups of people.

Arthur Erickson said that, “Ancient Rome was as confident of the immutability of its world and the continual expansion and improvement of the human lot as we are today”. In Rome got two kinds of government, and there were Roman Empire and Roman Republic. Both of them had different structures to development on many aspects in Rome such as laws, equality and rights of life’s Roman where Rome wanted a democratic system. Although, it has helped later to now, in that time was a conflict where it created a war.

The Roman Republic was established in 509 B.C. BC after overthrowing the Etruscan kings. As democracy was getting started in Athens, the Roman aristocrats (the rich) wanted to get rid of Etruscan kings so they can get more power. They needed the poor men to fight for them. So they promised the poor men that they would be given power in the new government, if they can help get rid of the Etruscan kings. The poor men decided to help, and together the king was threw out in 510 B.C. But once the kings were out, the rich did not give the poor men what they had promised. So the poor men protested and went on strike. The Roman aristocrats had to make a concession, and they let the poor vote. People in Roman Republic voted for representatives who express their opinion like the way United States does. But the only people who could be elected to the Roman Senate were the rich people. Then the poor made the aristocrats agree that the poor men could also elect tribunes, who can say no to any

How was it possible that under the dictatorship and after the deification of Julius Caesar the Roman republic fell, when it had been structurally sound for four centuries before? When the republic was established around the end of the 6th century B.C.E., the Romans made clear that they wished to avoid all semblance of the monarchy that had ruled for two centuries before. (T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995; p. 215) The rule of the Republic was to be split into powers of the senate and consuls, a system that worked for over four centuries. The republic would face problems with the rise of the first triumvirate in 60 B.C.E.,

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.

As Rome became independent from the Etruscan ruling, its government walked away from having a monarch and transformed into a Republic as a way to avoid the tyranny that many times comes with an absolute autocrat. Rigorous precautions were taken from the start in order to keep the power balanced. Moreover, the structure of the government was meant to be resilient to bad judgment. The structure of the Roman Republic with its government and law provided for a more just system.

Rome also had their own constitution. The three parts of the constitution were The Consuls, The Senate, and The Assemblies. These were the only higher powers in Rome, but they did not have an extremely large amount of power. Rome was very democratic because people could legislate, people could vote, and there weren’t too many higher powers. One of the powers people had was that they could legislate.

By that time, the Republic had extended its control throughout the Mediterranean Sea and as far as Britain. That control would operate under an informal unwritten constitution, and establish the use of Latin as its official language, while codifying rights, responsibilities, and status under a written law. Beginning with the Law of the Twelve Tables, Roman jurisprudence would develop over the next one thousand years into a legal system that would eventually become the early basis for law in continental Europe. Even English and North American “common law” owes more than a passing debt to the Romans. Case law and precedents find their roots in a Latin legal term, stare decisis, meaning “ to stand by things decided”. The development of a written law was seen as a method of eliminating indiscriminant application of the law by magistrates and officials upon the lower plebeian class.