- I need you to help me comment these two answers.
- As you respond these answers, focus on this question: “What was your honest reaction to the claims made in these answers?”
- Think about your genuine (but respectful) reaction to the posts and to put the result of your thinking into straightforward writing.
- Your initial reaction may consist of mere approval or disapproval (“I like it”- “I don’t like it”), but that is too basic.
- Your reaction should include reasons for your approval or disapproval (“I like it, because X” – “I don’t like it because it pays no attention to Y”).
- At the most advanced level it will place the posts into a broader context (“It strikes me as important, because it connects well with what the the textbook or the lecture said about x.â€).
- At least 5 sentences.
Focusing on three main points, did the Roman Republic’s government, especially its system of checks and balances, lead to political and social stability?
In this particular discussion, I will be giving my views on if the Roman Republicâ€™s government and way of checks and balances brought social as well as, political stability. The Romans never had a democracy type government (McKay, 121). This, given the period of time at hand was a more lenient way of life. There were two â€œdivisionsâ€, the aristocrats and the lower- class citizens or plebeians (McKay, 121). Having this more citizen based way of governing gave the people power throughout the community. Voting was one thing citizen men could participate in, deciding who would sit on consul. Even the plebeians eventually earned this right, through time. During times of great war, the Roman Republicâ€™s empire also did not see it necessary to hold its captiveâ€™s hostage. They instead invited them to become citizens themselves, earning the right to vote and take part in their own community. In my opinion, yes, I do believe that their way of governing brought stability socially and politically. Socially, it made the people of the republic feel more involved with decisions and not have them feel overpowered. Politically, I believe it kept the peace between aristocrats by allowing the people to decide who would be on consul. The way of life by the Roman Republic could be summed up as open and welcoming. The use of â€œNatural Lawâ€ is something that they saw as fitting for all humanity. It is built on a system of right and wrong morally, in which each man has a decision to make (McKay, 123)
The Roman Republic’s government largely kept the peace, and managed to maintain political stability for long periods, but the social stability of the Roman Republic seemed to be constantly in flux. From the beginning of the Roman Republic to the fall of the Roman Empire, the government and the political structure were largely stable and stayed on a largely straight course throughout Roman history, with a few minor branches. The social structure, and with it the stability, was almost the opposite of the political side of the Republic. From early plebeians attempting to gain a foothold in government and achieve citizenship after their sacrifice and service to the Republic, to the later plebeians who gained that foothold and more, then chose to turn their backs on the past and act as if they had never fought for the privileges they gained.
After the aristocrats of ancient Rome revolted against the Etruscan kings, they established a very solid foundation of rule for the future of their Republic and later the Roman Empire (p. 117). While there were several changes throughout the history of Rome, the very core of what was created remained the same. Whether it is on the micro level of two consuls temporarily presiding over the Senate while the members of the Senate served life long terms (p. 117, 121), to the later establishment of positions of praetor or quaestors (p. 121), the political machine that was the Roman government rolled on with little issue.
The Struggle of Orders, which began in 494 BCE, illustrates the ability of the political system to maintain it’s standard order while the social structure was being challenged and being forced to change. Plebeians had served as the bulk, if not all of the infantry, in several campaigns for the Republic and would return home to sad conditions and very little respect from the aristocracy as a whole (p. 123). The plebeians would walk out of Rome and effectively go in strike, refusing to serve in the infantry until their demands were met (p. 123). In 471 BCE the Senate would grant the plebeians their own council, which allowed them to pass ordinances, elect their own officials called tribunes that were counter to the consuls of the Senate, and they gained the Law of Twelve Tables which outlined the laws that governed the people of Rome (p. 121, 123). Later Licinius and Sextius would work to get wealthy plebeians the right to serve in any office, including positions previously held only by patrician citizens (p. 123), and in 287 BCE the lex Hortensia would give the plebeian council, concillium plebis the force of law to preside over plebeians and patricians (p. 123).