Roman Government Vs Athenian Government

A comparison of the Athenian and Roman governments demonstrates that the Athenian Limited democracy is the more effective type of government because citizens have more of a say in government, the Roman Republic has many risky outlets for greediness for power, and the Romans had no way of dealing with oppositional factions.
Citizens had more say in government. They were able to be in the Athenian Assembly, which held power like making laws, passing laws, conducting political trials, and electing government officials. Even the poorest citizens had equal opportunities and this is very important because people can express their opinions clearly by proposing laws on their own. All citizens, which was limited to natural born males complete with …show more content…
Jealousy flared easily in Roman government. One moment, Augustus Caesar was in a triumvirate, then the next he gained power and allies turned into rivals. The senate, which controlled foreign and financial policies as well as advised consuls, consisted of more aristocrats filled with high-class nobles. This could result in greediness for more power since they were the ones advising the people who had absolute power. The consul acted as a head of the republic. They have control over the army, senate and assemblies, executed decrees, and represented the Republic in foreign affairs. If these 2 consuls get corrupt or greedy, as human beings are naturally greedy animals, then they could potentially disturb all of Rome. Another important issue in Rome is the fact that, if times aren’t steady, a dictator, appointed by the consuls and elected by the senate, could rule for six months. If the consuls are corrupt, they have power over the senate anyways, and can influence their decisions as well, bringing in an unhelpful tyrant as a dictator. The military could easily set loose like it did before Julius Caesar’s rule, and begin seizing power. Once Caesar’s rule started and he gave the poor jobs while granting citizenship to conquered people, some were scared of his power and the senate ended up stabbing Caesar to …show more content…
The Optimates were senatorial purists that limited power of the plebian assemblies (commoners’ assembly) and thought that citizenship should be granted to far less people, while the populares were people who agreed on land and wealth distribution. They looked at citizenship openly and wanted to loosen the senate’s political iron-grip. The conflict couldn’t be civilly discussed because the politics had no mechanism to deal with opposing sides peacefully, so the problem ended in violence and war. Wide gaps between the rich and the poor were also created as Rome grew; as a result, two men whose names were Tiberius and Gaius tried to help the poor people find jobs but the senators killed him, similar to Julius Caesar’s murder. Conflict arose from this as well. Just because of different viewpoints, the senators murdered one of their own, and the Roman government needed to take steps to deter