How were the greek democracy and the roman republic differ?

Answer 1

The Roman Empire ruled a variety of peoples over a vast area of North Africa, Europe and the Middle East. The Greek democracies governed their own individual independent city-state.

Answer 2

Whilst the Athenian Republic was a true democracy, the Roman Republic was not. In Athens all decisions were made by its citizens who gathered in the Assembly of the People to vote. The task of the executive was to carry out the will of the people. The Roman Republic had three popular assemblies: the Assembly of the Soldiers (which was restricted to soldiers) the Assembly of the Tribes (this was an assembly of the administrative districts, which was open to all Roman citizens) and the Plebeian Council (which was restricted to the plebeians, the commoners). The Assembly of the Soldiers elected the higher officers of state (the consuls, praetors and censors) and voted on war and peace. The Assembly of the Tribes elected the lower officers of state (the aediles and quaestors). The Plebeian Council elected the representatives of the plebeians, the plebeian tribunes. All these assemblies could vote on bills. Therefore both Athenian democracy and the democratic aspects of the Roman Republic practiced direct democracy. This means that instead of electing representatives to vote on bills, the people voted on them.

However, the above did not make the Roman Republic a true democracy.

The voting system of the Assembly of the Soldiers was stacked heavily in favour of the rich. The candidates for election came all form the elites. There was often pressure to influence voters through the patron-client relationship, where rich patrons helped a retinue of poor clients in exchange for political support. The officers of state, though elected, did not truly act on behalf of the people and made their own decisions as they saw fit. The senate, which was the most powerful political body, was not elected and its members were from the two top social orders: the patricians and the equestrians. It acted in favour of the interests of the aristocracy. Therefore, power was in the hands of the aristocracy and the rich. Effectively, the Roman Republic was an oligarchy.

Answer 3

Roman democracy centred on the city being split into tribes (35) which would then vote for their two choices for consul, 4 for praetors, 20 for quaestors, the majorityfor of the tribe counting for one vote towards the candidate. It's also worth noting that in the late 80s BC, Marius introduced the Cursus Honorum, which meant that anyone who wished to become consul (the highest step on the political ladder), would havr had to have previously been praetor and before that a quaestor. He also imposed an age restriction so the minimum age for a consul was 42 and made it so that 10 years had to pass before a man could hold the same office twice. These offices were held in check by the 'governing body' or parliament, if you will, of the state, the senate, membership of which was acquired by holding the quaestorship (minimum age 29) and could be taken away by the censors. There were no conventional parties as we are used to but the senate was split into factions, most notably the Optimates (conservative) and populares (popular party).

In order to maintain this political order, there was also 10 tribunes of the plebs elected by the common people of Rome (the plebeians) who were supposed to uphold the interest of the common populace, held a veto over the consuls and held no financial restrictions, unlike the quaestorship, which required a fortune of at least 1 million Sesterces. Only plebeians could be tribunes, they held vetos over each other and could pass legislation through plebiscites.

Athenian democracy differed as it centred around an assembly, to which any male citizen could attend and the Concil of 500 which had representatives chosen by lot from 10 tribes who attended, members could only serve once in a lifetime. There were however elcections to determine who should hold posts of great responsibility, such as those which handled a great amount of money, these were however less frequent. Generals were also elected.

Answer 4

Rome was never a democracy, not even in the period of the Roman Republic. During the 244-year period of the monarchy the king was in charge and during the 506-year period of rule by emperors the emperors were in charge. During the 482-year period of the Roman Republic there were democratic but Rome was effectively an oligarchy.

Democracy was invented in Athens in the late 6th century BC. To the Greek this meant power to the people and they meant it literally. All the decisions were made by male citizens gathered in the assembly of the people, which also voted on bills. The citizens also sat in the courts. The executive implemented the will of the people.

In Rome power was exercised by an oligarchy of aristocrats and wealthy entrepreneurs The equites or equestrians). There was not a centralised executive like a cabinet or administration. There were five types of elected officers of state who acted independently within the remit of their offices. The top officers were the two annually elected consuls who were the heads of the republic.

The senate was not an elected body. Its members were aristocrats and former officers of state. It was not a legislative body, but it could issue decrees. It was an advisory body. It became the most powerful political body in the Republic

The democratic elements of the Roman Republic were the three popular assemblies. The Assembly of the Soldiers voted on war and peace, elected the senior officers of state, acted as a court of appeal for capital punishment cases until 81 BC and originally it voted on bills. The Assembly of the Tribes elected the junior officers and acted as a court of appeal for other cases, also until 81 BC. In 81 BC all appeals were transferred to a special jury court. The Plebeian Council elected the plebeian tribunes and later became the body for voting on bills.

Answer 5

Greek democracy had many different aspects over time. Both had the basis that citizen soldiers will not fight unless they had a say in what was to happen, so by the 5th Century BCE both Rome and the Greek city-states developed systems of assemblies where the citizens were given a vote in assembly.

This lasted in Rome until the imperial period when a consortium of senate and emperor took over.

In the Greek world some city-states developed into radical democracies where the citizens in assembly made all the decisions and the council implemented them. This ended after it led to destructive wars when the citizens were led astray by self-interested demagogues.

Answer 6

Rome was a representative democracy because the citizens didn't do the decision-making but elected two consuls who would represent them.

Greece was a direct democracy because free male citizens could vote on laws in a general assembly.