Briefly respond to the make-up of Roman government. Tell us if you think it makes sense and can bring about the orderly society that all humans have craved from the dawn of civilization. Please be specific identifying which elements would work and which elements would not.
Please post a response by February 4.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
i really dont think that romes governmentis a good one. it is trapped between oligarchy and democracy which means that it has neither the security of oligarchy nor the freedom of democracy. it is different and, while it was the first of its kind, is not very good. having your generals also be judges leads to too much millitary power. also, they had a government official directly control public distraction, which is an element of fachism.i can say it worked for a while, but you had to many issues of power among the magistrates that would lead to the repuiblic to buckle. it doesnt make a very good model either because it was highly unstable. it seems like a better example of what not to do when running a government
I agree with Alex. Though it was new and a nice thought at the time, a breakthrough at that, it had many holes that Alex adressed. Its almost like playstation 1 now that we look back on these things. Between how unstable it was and how it was a very diffrent system i would not cal it a great government in the least.
i think that Romes government was for the most part good. one problem is that in times of emergency, the dictator got too much power. when attacked, he got all the power. while this guarantees that orders will be followed immediately, it also also allowed him too use that power to take over Rome and take down all who appose. one thing that was really good is that the consuls only had 1 yr. this allowed time for the jr. magistrate to fix any problem but not enough time to become a dictator.
I agree with Alex the Romans had some major holes in their government, the biggest of which I thought was their paranoia about monarchy. It may seem smart because they don’t want a bad leader in power for an amount of time that could cause damage to the nation. But let’s say there was a leader who showed Rome the greatest year the nation has ever known and they just kick him out of power. That doesn’t seem right, at least give him the chance to run for reelection before he’s old and wrinkly. I like Alex’s augment about the “generals” being the judges that does not Make much sense. For a full view of Alex’s Ideas on this matter see his blog. (Three above my own). Overall I think that Rome’s government was excellent, due to the fact that they controlled most of the world.
i think that the government of rome was not a great one. but despite its flaws it was still the only one of its kind at the time. their precedent was greece which still had not mastered the art of democracy. i have to disagree with alex on his point that government public distractions were an element of "fachism." the aediles were in charge of public entertainment not pacifiction. also, more vareity of people in power allows for more deliberative lawmaking and decisions. of course though the position of dictator could not have been appealing to the townspeople for if they were all slaughtered in a massacre, he wouldnt have to do anything about it. and so what if the judges are also generals, it would allow them to "punish criminals" by sentencing them to military service which would increase the size and strength of their invading force. so although it was not a great government, it was not a bad one either.
In my opinion, i think that Alex is wrong. Rome's government must have been a good one if lasted so long. As Justin said, one flaw was that in times of emergency, the dictator would get too much power, do what ever he wanted, and not get proescuted for it. Although, they were always able to keep things in order. Even if it meant bribing the plebeians. Plus it was okay for the government to have a lot of military power because the tolerance they had for oher nations would give them more men to fight even if they lose some of their battles( the story of Pyrrhus). In my overrall opinion, Rome's government did what they thought was needed to be done.
I think that Rome's government was good, however with flaws. They did not take in consideration for the commoners and personally the commoners were lucky that they made up the military because otherwise they probably would have nothing to use against the aristocrats. Then you have the plebians that rose up and got that immense veto power which resulted in the passings of less laws. Also, the Romans that started the government never thought of bribery and how money can influence people's decisions. So all in all, Rome's government must have passed the Test of Time's qualifications since it lasted so long, but that doesn't mean there were no flaws.
I believe we have no right to judge their government when ours isn't perfect either.
Rome's government wasn't perfect, but it worked for them. I believe that they shouldn't have given the dictators so much power when they had to be involved. That’s exactly what they didn't want for their country, so why did they give men this power? I believe that the consul's position was corrupt. As Tom stated before Rome was afraid of having a monarchy, I don't believe that they should have shut out men with good ideas after 6 months, but then again I like the fact that they allowed change in their government. It was just a bit too often. Also, I believe that any man should be allowed re-election after his term is through. I also don't admire how the people in government were chosen by wealth. I think that any man should have had the right to be part of the government. Other than those minor issue's I think Rome's government is an okay one at best, their consuls are a lot like our president, they just elect and trade them more often than we do. This makes them open for new ideas and keeps them away from dictatorship. The consuls control the military too, but not at the same time as they are governing the country like our president does. This allows the person leading the army/government able to focus more on their duty. Their senate is like our congress; they make laws and pass them, if the president or in Rome’s case anyone doesn't veto the law. Quite frankly, I think that in many ways their government is a lot like ours. Our government had evolved more because we have learned by trial and error, what works and what doesn't. My response wasn't very brief so I am going to end here.
I believe that Rome's government was obviously sucsessful if it lasted for so long. But, like any government, there is always room for improvement. I believe that Rome's government worked for the time period in which it existed. I agree with what Justin said, that in time of emergency, the dictator had too much overall say/power. Having so many specific roles at that time was impressive, and eliminated chaos.
Kelly Francisco
I believe that Rome's government has some flaws, but was capable of being a successful governement that made sense. As basically everyone else said, the dictator did have to much power in terms of emergencies. However, the dictator only served a six month term, therefore, it switches up putting different people in charge. I also think the length of the terms also helped Rome's government. The most a term was, was 18 months and those were the sensors. Other terms ranged from six months to one year. I also agree with Sarah A's comment on how our government is not perfect, and we shouldn't judge others countries governments for not being perfect. I also believe the government was well rounded, it had many elements to it. The military was ruled, the laws were made, even written laws came about by the 12 tables. Overall I believe Rome's government was a stable and successful one, otherwise, it would not have lasted as long as it did.
Overall, I believe that Rome's government is okay, you can't argue it wasn't because it lasted for over two millenia. I just do not support what they would do when there was an outside force threatning Rome. The idea that they would elect one person to rule all of Rome is not a good one by my pint of view. I do not agree with this because any normal person over a period of time would abuse that type of power. It is not healthy for a government to give all the power to one person because in most cases the society will suffer. Ceasar abused his power and found a way to stay in office longer because he had all the power. What I think they should have done was to limit the powers of the ruler of Rome to a certain degree like checks and balances in our government.
I have to agree with Alex, i really didnt think Roman government was good. I just think there was too much room for corruption to take place within. Having people serve one, two year, six month terms seems very unstable and disorganized. What would happen if one group didnt do their job, or say certain people just resign or assasinations they would be in chaos. And giving the dictator complete power to do what ever he wishes for six months, that doesn't make sense. He could get away with anything. I think their fear of monarchy clouded smart thinking. But thats my opinion and it clearlry worked well for them to last two millenia.
Edward Cummins
I believe with Sarah Kelley and Justin when they say that the dictators in their one year time have too much absolute power. Don't you think that it is a little crazy that Romans whatever the dictators want in one year and they absolutely hate monarchs or kings. I also believe Sarah when they did a good job avoiding chaos.
Government in Rome held a key role in its characteristics of greatness, leading to a successful system. Due to the fact that its government lasted for such a long period of time, its foundations worked to dominate for so long. Not one form of government is completely perfect, and there is always space for improvements in Rome. Like everyone previously stated, a dictator with all the power is dangerous, but if the time was limited, considering it is in the event of emergency, a certain security measure must be put in place for decisions to be made quickly. I agree with Kelly, as long as the dictator didn’t serve for that long with control, over time left opportunities for others and different mind sets to be in charge in times of crisis. As the book states Rome was “controlled by a relatively small group of privileged people.” The idea of the Senate and assemblies were important to the success of Rome, although it would have seemed better to have more of the common people contributing. The struggles between the patricians and the plebeians show that the people of Rome were interested in their rights, how to make their voices heard, and the government. The society of Rome would be created from these people who wanted to be part of the government.
I believe Alex made some really valid points on the make up of Rome's government, but i dont agree with what he said in the firt sentence "i really dont think that romes goernment is a god one" Romes goverment, while flawed, still was great. Rome's government was split into 3 parts. The first part was assemblies whoch made laws.Assemblies didnt have alot of power. The sencond part was Magistrates. This was a few groups who held proggresive power. At the bottom, were Aediles, then Questors, then praetors, and with the most power were the consuls. The consuls were also seperated into a group called the censors, who are in control of cencus and wealth of people, and in time of crisis, a dictator to help save Rome for a 6 month period of time. On a different note, there were two different classes of wealth. The Patricians, and the PLebeians. The Patricians, who were aristocrats, had all of the power where the Plebeians had very litte power. The thitd part was the senate whoch had 300 senates. They were aristocrats and needed wealth to be in the senate. They were in charge of foreign policy and in charge of money. Rome's government had its flaws like treating the Plebeians and the Patricians differently, but as Sarah said, we really cant judge what a good government is because ours has its flaws also. However, even though Rome had its flaws, it was still an amazing governmnet. It would have to be to last over 2000 years! The idea of Magistrates was very practical and created a system of checks and balances like our government. In times of national crisis, they could elect a dictator with complete control to help Rome out of crisis. But instead being able to be a dictator forever, they set a time of six months as the limit on being a dictator so they wouldnt be kings. Rome's government was great one, but still had many flaws, as all do, for nothing can ever be perfect and utopian.
I disagree with Alex saying that Romes government isn't a good one because if it wasn't then their empire would have fallen quickly. Rome's goverment wasn't the only thing that contributed to it long lasting empire. I believe that qualities also take part in this like honour and trust because if they didn't have this then dictatorship would be abused and other powers too. I think its a good idea to have like two of everything so that they can switch off but can't take control of both positions at the same time like how a general can be a military leader or a judge. The only bad thing that i can see in the goverment is that they are giving the dictator wayyyy too much power. I mean really they could accidentally choose the wrong person and bring about world destruction in six months or like rape every women in the city but not get prosecuated for his actions. Overall, i believe their goverment was very successful and sets a good example on what modern society should look like.
The Roman government wasn't what I expected it to be. The conflict of the Plebeians and Patricians was something that needed to be fixed. It was apparent how there wasn't any equality. However, Rome did still managed to last a long period. As Alex said I concur with the idea that having generals also as judges can be a bad idea seeing that the general could bring in military emotions into his judge side and corrupt things.
hey ed the dictators only have 6 month terms.
I think overall the Rome government worked, it must have to have lasted so long. I believe that is was good to not have all the power like a dictatorship and it is more like the government we have today. It divides certain departments to different people and that gets things organized. I don’t really like the part of government how there is 300 senators. I think that it is too many people and there would be too much bickering and nothing would ever get done.
Edward Cummins
Sorry Ramzi, 6 month terms, I will remember that.
Meg
I think that Rome had many elements that have served as building blocks for civilization and prosperity as we know it today.Obviously they were doing something right if the Roman Empire lasted for over 2,000 years. Considering the era that Rome was existent in, this was a great feat. If anything I believe that the Roman goverment was the weakest element to their Empire. I believe that at times the system and the officials were unstable in some situations.
I think Romes government was good. They had different people that held different jobs that they carried out. Also, the short terms ensured new ideas every so often. The only downside was that some positions held too much power. However this couldn't have been too big a problem since Rome lasted for over 200 years.
With Romes form of government, it is amazing that they did not fall sooner than they did. They were caught somewhere between power to the people, and people to the power, and the entire time they were at war. The government could completely topple at any moment. To quote a makeup wearing gentleman in a purple suit with green hair, "All it needed was a little push."
Post a Comment