How is the roman republic compared to Athens?

Answer 1

1 fact that is differnet between the U.S. Republics and the Roman republics is that Rome had higher classes and lower classes and we are fre, which means we don't have any high classes or low classes.

Answer 2

The only comparable thing in Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic is that bills were voted on by popular assemblies. For the rest they were completely different.

Athens' democracy was direct. This means that people did not elect representatives. Bills were not voted by something like a US congress, but by the people who gathered in the people's assembly. Courts were seen as exercising the will of the people. They were not professional. There were no presiding judges. Jurors received no legal direction and there were no lawyers. Parties represented themselves. For private litigation the victims prosecuted. For public cases anyone could prosecute because they were community cases. Jury panels were large, from 201 to 501. At one point courts became able to override the assembly. the court could block matters to be put put to the assembly before the vote and approved bills could be put for review by the court, which could annul it and penalise the proposer. If the court approved, the bill did not go back to the assembly. The court could also annul a law passed by the assembly. Someone who lost a vote could prosecute both the proposers of the law and the law itself. From 403 BC laws were not made by the assembly, but by juries. The executive did not have political power. It oversaw administration, but did not play a part in policy making. It executed the wished of the assembly as determined by its vote.

Rome did not have something like a US congress either. Bills were voted on by the people in the popular in assemblies, such as the assembly of the soldiers, the assembly of the tribes and the plebeian council. Bills were originally proposed by the consuls (see below), but became increasingly the initiatives of the plebeian tribunes, the representatives of the plebeians. They were not officers of state. Trials were conducted originally by the consuls and then by the praetors who acted as a chief justice and could command an army and became the second highest officers of state. They were advised by legal experts (jurists). The assembly of the soldiers and the assembly of the tribes acted as courts of appeal until Sulla instituted a special jury for this in 82 BC.

The senate wielded enormous power, but was not an elected body. It originally, was composed of aristocrats and former senior offers of state. Later it was composed solely of former offers of state, both senior and junior. The senate was the political stronghold of the aristocracy. The executive was composed by elected magistrates (officers of state). This executive was not a centralised like a cabinet or administration. The five types of officers of state (the consuls, praetors, censors, who were senior magistrates and the aediles and quaestors who were junior magistrates) acted independently within the remit of their offices. The consuls were the two annually elected heads of the city and the army. Thus, the military was not separated from civilian authority and there was not a separate chief of staff. Officers of state of the same rank could veto each other, and magistrates of higher rank could veto magistrates of lower rank.

Answer 3

Completely different. Rome developed into an oligarchy. At around the same time, Athens became a democracy which to the Greek meant power by the people. It was ruled by the assembly of the people where the citizens gathered to vote directly on all bills. Bills were proposed by citizens, not by officers of state.The executive did not have much political power and it was seen as the servant of the will of the assembly.

Rome had two elected consuls in charge who had considerable power.The powerful senate was not an elected body. It had two assemblies as voting bodies which voted on different matters. Bills were proposed by consuls, the top officers of state, or the plebeian tribunes who were not officer of state, but were representatives of the plebeians. The plebeian council, which became the main legislative body had its origins from a plebeian rebellion where the plebeians had broken away from the state. It was absorbed into the state through the co-option of the plebeian leaders into the oligarchy. The rich controlled politics.

Answer 4

The only comparable thing in Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic is that bills were voted on by popular assemblies. For the rest they were completely different.

Athens' democracy was direct. This means that people did not elect representatives. Bills were voted by the people who gathered in the people's assembly and, from 403 BC, by large jury panels with 201 to 501 men. The executive did not have political power. It oversaw administration, but did not play a part in policy making. It executed the wishes of the people as determined by the vote of the assembly.

In the Roman Republic the people also voted on bills through one of three popular assemblies: the Assembly of the Soldiers, the Assembly of the Tribes and the Plebeian Council. The Roman executive had five types of elected officers of state, three senior ones and two junior ones. There was no centralised governance and they acted independently within the remit of their offices. They were entitled to their discretion and they were not seen as executing the wishes of the people. The senior offices of state were elected by the Assembly of the Soldiers, whose voting system was heavily staked in favour of the rich. The most powerful political body was the senate. It was not an elected body. It was dominated by the aristocracy, which opposed any measure which threatened its privileges. The late Republic was also torn by a conflict between the aristocracy and politicians who championed the cause of the poor (the populares). The aristocracy regularly opposed bills which would provide relief for the poor. The plebeians (the commoners, most of whom were poor) had created its own separate institutions: the plebeian tribunes, who were their representatives, and the Plebeian council, their own assembly. There was conflict between these plebeian institutions and the populares on the one hand and the senate and its supporters on the other hand. In the late Republic this conflict became violent and contributed to the civil wars which brought the Republic down. Thus, despite having a democratic element, the people having the right to vote, the Republic was controlled by the aristocracy and rich men and is usually considered that it was essentially an oligarchy.