The Nature Of Democracy By The Roman Res Publica Essay

Democracy:is a system of government by the whole population or all of the eligible members of a state,typically through elected representatives. In the Roman Republic they were kind of a democratic because anyone who was in the democratic was allowed to vote. People who were picking the councilmen were able to know who be selected at the end and didn’t tell anyone until everyone was not voting anymore.If people did not live in the democracy they were automatically not able to vote nor would they still be in the democratic society. Democracy of historical of racism was a big deal back in the day because when people heard that there was a big problem

In this paper, I intend to show that ancient Athenian democracy influenced western political thought, specifically, western democracies. By influencing such modern day democracies, ancient Greek culture remains a presence in contemporary life.

The roman republic came into existence at the termination of the Roman kingship in 507 B.C.E. The last king of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, was expelled by Collatinus and Brutus, as a result of his arrogance involving the matter of one of his relations raping the wholesome Roman matron Lucretia and her subsequent suicide. The rape of Lucretia was really a representation of the frustration that the roman citizens felt regarding the kingship. The later kings had little regard for roman values and the roman populus, which they used as something of a slave labor force. Brutus and Collatinus became the first Roman Consuls, elected by popular vote.

The Greek society was a direct democracy with people voting on the issues themselves instead of representatives voting on their behalf. Any male citizen over the age of eighteen was allowed to vote. Like the Romans, the Greek government was divided into separate parts. The Greek government consisted of an assembly, council, and courts, with each requiring a different number of voters present. The people all gather and vote on issues by hand, and this is the simplest form of majority rules. The role of the people is extremely important in how the society and state is governed and run. This early form a democracy was detailed by Pericles funeral oration during the Peloponnesian War. Pericles was an eminent Athenian politician who states in regards to the government of Athens, “Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here, Pericles states that the people have all the power and their opinion is highly valued. Likewise, the Romans valued the people’s opinions so highly that they entrusted with them rewards and punishments, vital aspects that held the society together. Pericles also states, “…nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, here is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here is the essence of democracy, every man no

I believe that the Roman Empire was mostly a democracy. If you look at how they ran their government with three branches, the Senate, the Consuls, and the Assemblies you can see that they were run by the people. Although they did have some trouble with their constitution in my opinion Rome was more of an exact variation of democracy not a true democracy.

Democracy, the form of government in which there is a rule by the people, is said to have originated and thrived in the classical period of Athens, from 500-350 B.C.. Democracy inherently gave all that were considered citizens power to participate in politics. That being said, it is highly debated as to how much power the people, also known as the demos, exercised in this democracy. Many practices and informal institutions can be said to have limited the power of the demos. The democracy in Athens could be said to have been a democracy in theory yet not in practice, as can be proven through a variety of primary sources recounting Athenian political institutions and practices. Such primary sources that can demonstrate this include Herodotus’ History, Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, and Demosthenes’ Oration Against Eubulides.

For several years, scholars and historians from around the world have been debating about the Roman Republic’s constitution. Many have described their constitution as purely democratic; however, others find aspects of the Roman Republic characterizing despotism or an aristocracy. So, which form of government could best describe the Roman Republic? Currently, there is no exact answer, but because of meticulous studies, observations were recorded and assumptions were made. From a selection of resources, the most common claim inquired that the Roman Republic should not be considered an accurate form of a democracy and there are a collection of reasons as to why this is.

Although many famous Roman Rulers were known as dictators, the Roman Republic was a strong democracy for quite a long time. Ancient Rome was ruled by a kingdom from northern Italy, which treated the Romans badly. The Romans revolted and made their own nation, and used a democratic government to help make sure that the people were treated more equally. Henceforth, the Roman Republic was quite democratic where almost everybody could vote, there was a balance in power, and the government officials were elected by the people.

President Jefferson and President Jackson were two complete different people. Though each one had their flaws, they also had some good intentions throughout their presidency. The government was different under each president because each one had their own ideas for America. There is a chain of causes that made America the way it was under each president. Jefferson was a good person but was not the best president because he always thought about himself and never what everyone else wanted. Jackson was not a good person but he was a good president because he got things done as a president. He did thing that were good not only for him but for America 's future.

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.

Despite the apparent connection between the fate of Rome and the future of the United States, some people still claim that we aren’t in a state of decline, but rather our government is better and therefore we can’t commit the same mistakes as the Ancient Romans. This is a faulty argument due to its very nature because it’s a non sequitur, as the conclusion “we can’t repeat the same mistakes” does not logically follow from “America is better than Rome”. However, if their intent is to say that Rome was less democratic because it had an aristocratic senate, then the critic has failed to evaluate the Roman political system. During the Roman Republic, the citizens directly elected two tribunes, who had vast amounts of power and whose only purpose

Both Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic contributed greatly to the development of the modern world, bringing into it the notions of democracy and republic. The evolution of these concepts took them to a level much higher than one present in Ancient Greece and Rome respectively. However, modern society continues to draw on somewhat idealized accounts of the ancient world for inspiration in improving today’s governing procedures.

Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans

A large aspect of Roman history has been focused on the discussion over its system of government. Many later states would emphasis their influence stemming from Rome, such as the case seen within the republican and democratic ideals key to post-revolutionary France. This raises an important question about Roman government itself, was it actually the inklings of a democracy? Historians, such as Ronald Syme, have made the argument that the glimpses seen of democracy in ancient Rome are little more than an illusion hiding a system of elite control. This is further evidence with through analysis of the control through Roman patronage, the system of wealthy hereditary networks, and the maintenance of power through appeasement of the popululus.

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.