Preview

Roman Citizenship Dbq Essay

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
536 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Roman Citizenship Dbq Essay
Citizenship in Athens & Rome: Which was the Better System? The ancient Romans had a better system in regards to government and citizenship than the Athenians. Unlike the Athenians, the Romans allowed people living in conquered lands to become citizens with limited rights. Native-born Roman women and children were considered citizens while in Athens, only free, native-born adult males are citizens. The Romans also had a better-organized government system. The sheer size of the Roman Empire in comparison to Athens greatly depended on Roman connection to the surrounding lands. As said in Document C, rather than forcing all of the people on conquered lands into slavery, the Roman system gave out citizenship in limited amounts. For example, the Foederati, people who lived in city-states with alliances to Rome, were given limited rights in exchange for military service. Latini, people from regions outside of Rome but still on the Italian peninsula, were granted citizenship as well as the right to travel and do business. These people could not, however, have an official Roman marriage. Foreigners from conquered lands such as the Peregrini from India could be given partial or full citizenship.
Native-born women and children in Rome were also
…show more content…
Documents E and F highlight the main differences in the administration systems. The Athenian Assembly met forty times a year and during these meetings, any of the forty thousand Athenian citizens were eligible to attend. This can easily lead to arguments between the huge crowds breaking out. The large number of attendees could also make it very difficult to properly count votes. The Council of Five Hundred was a group of officials that oversaw the Assembly. While this may sound like a great way to keep order, the officials were chosen by lottery from the general citizenry. This could lead to an unfair representation of the general public in the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    What Roman citizenship rights did non-Roman Italians not have? How did this situation change after 88 B.C.? Why did it change?…

    • 4160 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In Rome, officials handed out citizenship more often than Athens. In Doc A It says Rome was more generous in citizenship than Athens because Rome had a bigger empire than Athens. I think Rome gave citizenship more often is because they had a bigger empire.…

    • 251 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rome before 264BC

    • 633 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Roman army before 264BC was a citizens’ army, comprised of farmers and the population, with very little to no full time soldiers. Every man was expected to provide his own gear, and as such it was very difficult to recruit the poor or slaves to fight, and when they were recruited, it was at the expense of the state. Another problem with a citizens’ army is that they are not full time soldiers, and many are often inexperienced in combat, and lacked the training necessary to be truly superior to any opponent.…

    • 633 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Romans According to the picture in document F, people in the senate usually come from the oldest Roman families and inherited their seats.Having an adverse experience and an omnipotent knowledge, objectives that allows a family to be considered old, and old people will more than likely teach there all knowing knowledge and splendid skill to their children. This stabilizes the senate to only contain smart and wise people. This helps encourage the senate's flow of great thoughts. This helps stabilizes the senate's sense of justice. While the Athenians let the the committee that oversaw the assembly, be decided by a lottery from a general citizenry, according to Document E. In lotteries, power might possibly fall into the hands of people that are careless or contain deep hatred about their state. Power in the hands of a fool could cause the bankruptcy an empire or citizen riots, or even worse. Power in the hands of a fool could cause the rioting of citizens. Power in the hands of a fool could cause the loss of an empire .Whether Athens gave power to the right people is a question for another day, whereas the Romans gave power to the appropriate…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This popular assembly is actually similar to the Athenian direct democracy; however, the power of Spartan assembly was very limited when compared to that of ancient democratic Athens. Sparta and Athens differ by that Sparta was more of an Oligarchy and Athens more of a…

    • 512 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    During the age of Pericles, the Athenians became deeply attached to their democratic system. The sovereignty of the people was embodied in the assembly (ecclesia), which consisted of all male citizens over eighteen years of age. In the 440s, that was probably a group about 43,000. Meetings of the assembly were held on the hillside of the Pnyx, east of the Acropolis. The assembly passed all laws and made final decisions on war and foreign policy. Usually, only respected leaders could speak and that required considerable speaking ability.…

    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Omar Medina

    • 279 Words
    • 1 Page

    In a social aspect Rome let women have citizenship. Which led to woman being happier because they could own land. In Rome being a citizen was something to be honored about. But not everyone could be one. Athenians were more stingy with their citizenship. The Romans more freely gave it away. But they gave it away in measured amounts.…

    • 279 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    How Did Rome Become Good?

    • 1907 Words
    • 8 Pages

    This resulted in a hybrid system, where if you consider the livelihood of the state, and the happiness of its citizens to be the benchmark of what is good, than Rome would be the best state. Polybius considered it the best state because “the strength which is developed by the State is so extraordinary, that everything required is unfailingly carried out by the eager rivalry shown by all classes to devote their whole minds to the need of the hour, and to secure that any determination come to should not fail for want of promptitude;” (Polybius, 1889) The qualities that he describes as good, come down to the drive and confidence of the Roman citizens. As a result of drive and confidence you get successful men that achieve happiness through the acquisition of material wealth. To the Roman man, they strive all their life to achieve happiness which commonly comes through material wealth. This is somewhat common to Athens, but nowhere near the same qualities as Sparta. Although there are differences between the Roman idea of success and the Athenians’. The Athenians, although they used money would not judge each other on the basis of monetary wealth. So in the Athenians eye, the Romans were more likely to get corrupted by monetary wealth. On the contrast because of the government infrastructure, in Rome the state was less likely to get corrupted by sophists, whereas…

    • 1907 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This land connected these people to Rome. It provided a bond much stronger than just citizenship alone. It gave a majority of the population something to fight for; something to defend; something to inherit and to leave to their children. The replacement of this peasantry class by the latifundia's of the wealthy started the crumbling of the Republic. Plutarch writes that "the poor, who had been ejected from their land, no longer showed themselves eager for military service, and neglected the bringing up of children, so that soon all Italy was filled with gangs of foreign slaves, by whose aid the rich cultivated their estates, from which they had driven away the free citizens." Similarly, Appian comments that "certain powerful men became extremely rich and the race of slaves multiplied throughout the country, while the Italian people dwindled in numbers and strength, being oppressed by penury, taxes, and military service."…

    • 2567 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Throughout history there have been several government structures that govern the people of the state, some ran differently, but maybe similar as well. There is a fine line between a democracy and a republic although there are some similarities. In a democracy, the citizens are their own form of government, all having equal say. In a republic, citizens still have high power but use that power to elect representatives to govern the state. I want to focus on two forms of historic government, that both reflect and contradict each other, that of the Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republicanism. The Athenian’s emphasized political and modest display, and believed in the power of the individual human (Cole, Symes, Coffin, & Stacey 2011, 58), therefore citizens of Athens called the shots. Also, the citizens of Rome had the ultimate power, but they used that power to vote in chief executives to help govern Rome. Both governments have left a mark on history and in fact, they even are partially emulated by our very own, the United States of America. The two governments might be a little more democratic than the Federal Republic of the United States but it’s certain that they have been introduced.…

    • 1347 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Greece and Rome had two different types of government. Rome had a republic, whereas Greece had a direct democracy. The republic of Rome was a type of government where the people were involved in their government but were left out of much more than in a democracy. The people were informed by the government of what was going on and the people had their say. However that did not mean that the government had to listen. They had a senate and at the head of the republic sat two consuls that were elected by the senate. The senate was comprised mostly of wealth Aristocrats who held most of the offices in the government. They would meet in assemblies and gatherings to appoint a magistrate or other official and the public would not have a lot of input. However in Greece they had a direct democracy. The Greeks actually came up with the idea of democracy. In this democracy the people would all come together and they would hold a meeting. They would meet every ten days to make decisions for themselves. They would elect a temporary judge or other official of some sort to help in the process and then they would come before the assembly (the people) to be…

    • 963 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    tried to build a more solid senate but failed to take power away from the…

    • 2425 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Fall Of Rome Dbq

    • 641 Words
    • 3 Pages

    One prominent difference would be the freedom that Americans posses. In America, one has the freedom to vote, speak, and have religious choice. This was not the case in Rome. An example of lack of freedom in ancient Rome would be slavery. At that time, slaves were very popular and hardly had any rights. Slaves would not only have manual labor jobs, but also more skilled jobs, sometimes even a physician. Also, in Rome, men and women were not equal. Roman men had full citizenship and were not limited to anything, but on the other hand, Roman women had a very limited citizenship. Roman women could not vote or hold a public…

    • 641 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This creates the opportunity for citizens to be chosen. No one gets a higher chance of being chosen as the lot is completely random. This help create Athens to become very powerful. B. With this democratic assembly, citizens get to contribute in Athens’ political world.…

    • 1643 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Roman citizenship, republican system, and social standings are overall better than the Athens systems because Roman citizenship requirements gave more freedom towards their people. Although a lot of the Roman society is based on social class which can lead to biased towards those of different “rankings”, the Romans conducted census to control the benefits and privileges of citizenship. According to Claudius, in Document C, Athens had conquered aliens (conquered people or foreigners) and made citizenship difficult for aliens to still be in the same society. However, Romans gave those who were conquered more freedom to rejoin the society, treating their people as a republican system. Roman citizenship requirements allowed much of their people to become citizens, providing their citizens with more freedom than the Athenian system.…

    • 802 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays