How did developed nations in the ancient world specifically.. >"Roman Republic" How exactly did these civilizations NOT come up with the concept of a representative democracy earlier? I mean, I know the Republic Era was supposed to pass for democracy, but with the number of Plebians, I'm surprised that the concept of 'regions get representatives' didn't come around earlier, especially with the amount of Greek influence. Why did they not adopt a representative democracy for all classes earlier?
Carter Murphy
Representative democracy was always bad idea and every city that attempted it turned into ruins.
Aaron Gomez
From what I recall, Athens (which is one of the most famous practitioners of democracy) only abandoned such a practice after they were invaded by an outside force.
Jeremiah Sanchez
Because they fell to either the enemy within, reactionaries and wouldbe Sullas, and the enemy without Rome
Sebastian Ortiz
I can acknowledge the need for a dictator position at times, but there is no reason that this practice couldn't be used in times of peace.
Leo Cox
T. Carthaginian/Bolshveik
Elijah Taylor
I don't think you understand how hard it is to actually poll a population. Electoral fraud was inavoidable back then, accurate polling was just not feasible. It only works (kind of) nowadays because technology and bureaucracy both have advanced enough to allow it, but even 150 years ago already the concept of voting was a fucking joke.
Adam Hall
they WERE representative.
when the Roman Senate was installed the Senators were elders from the ancient Roman tribes and families within their society.
overtime this form of representation stopped being accurate to the realities of the Roman people, so many more assemblies and directly democratic institutions were established, most relevant of them being the Assembly of the plebs. This formed a rough balance of power between the elite, deeply entrenched patrician elite and the popular masses.
the Republic finally failed when this balance of power was broken and the Senate's legislative functions were deadlocked in a time of crisis.
Benjamin Adams
Truly representative democracy tends to be a product of increasingly wealthy and increasingly educated members of society demanding political representation as their stakes in society increase. There simply wasn't enough money in ancient times to go around for the entire population of big old empires to be enfranchised.
The Roman Republic is a bit of an exception, but that's only because it was only citizens themselves who could vote - still a fairly small percentage of the population of Rome's empire. There's no way it could have worked if every single person in all of the provinces was entitled to vote for the plebeian assembly or the senate.
Speaking of which, does anyone here know how voting for the senate went once the Empire was established? I imagine it carried on in much the same way during Augustus' time, but after that?
Jayden Torres
I see your points. The Tribune of the Plebs was undoubtedly a great way to democratically represent the lower class, but could not elections have been done by region?
This definitely would have gotten harder as the republic expanded, but it would have worked in the meantime.
Nathan Garcia
What do you mean by region? Do you mean the provinces?
Carter Walker
>but could not elections have been done by region?
WELL, most of the territory we assign to the Roman republic(and empire) wasn't actually directly controlled by Rome, but was allied states, like Italian Socii. In a lot of aspects these client states governed themselves, had their own councils and assemblies and just kept the designated Roman governor fat, drunk and happy.
Provinces and actual conquered territories were different, there were colonies which followed the Roman government system more strictly and had appointed diplomats and administrators doing their cursus honorum, for example, Emperor Vespasian started his political career being a clerk in a Praetors office and traveled all over the empire doing odd jobs.
As far Rome was concerned these territories were literal extensions of the city of Rome, and they were inhabited by Romans who moved out there to colonize. It was actually a thing where Romans struggled to show up to vote because they lived too far so they either found a way to make someone represent them or abstained.
Andrew Baker
Depends on how you define 'representative' - Romans abhorred the idea of the greatest number have the greatest number. The lowest class only had one century to represent their vote in elections. The more wealth you had the greater number of centuriae accorded to your class in the elections - the logic being the more you contributed to the Republic the more of a say you should have.
Mason Gomez
Early-mid republic at least, the tribes were still skewed to avoid giving the urban masses an undue (or proportionately representative) say.
Austin Foster
>but could not elections have been done by region? During the Republic, there were four legislative assemblies of Rome:
The assembly of the plebs, the tribal assembly, the centuriate assembly, the curiate assembly.
The tribal assembly is the assembly of the tribes, which, contrary to what the term suggests, is not an assembly divided by ethnicity. Tribes are purely geographic divisions, so this assembly is exactly what you're asking for. The assembly of the plebs is basically the tribal assembly lead by a consul and restricted only to the plebeians, so it qualifies as being done by region, too.
Jayden Moore
>the tribes were still skewed to avoid giving the urban masses an undue (or proportionately representative) say. That doesn't make it not-representative.
It's just a qualified vote.
Camden Harris
>Representative democracy was always bad idea and every city that attempted it turned into ruins.
Be fair, so did the cities that didn't attempt it.
Everybody winds up as ruins, sooner or later.
Cameron Stewart
Yeah, mea culpa, I had a brain-dead moment and read representative as meaning proportionately representative.
Justin Lewis
An outside force that would likely have failed to defeat Athens if not for absolutely retarded policies supported by the Athenian Demos.
This is actually a recurring theme in Athenian history. Athens was a fucking joke
Joseph Cooper
>I don't think you understand how hard it is to actually poll a population.
This -- in Rome, they got around it by requiring that you vote in person, in Rome. Somewhat disenfranchising for citizens elsewhere as the citizenship started to spread across Italy and beyond.
I'd also add that, in an era lacking efficient means of communication, I am not sure the advantages of democracy really show up beyond something the size of a small city -- adding more and more uninformed opinions to the decision making process does not seem, to me, to add much value.
Alexander Ross
>Senate's legislative functions In matters legislative, the Senate had an advisory roll only -- though they had enough prestige that their advice was usually taken and their recommendations passed by an assembly.
Jace Turner
>voting for the senate
Do you mean "voting IN the Senate?" SDtayed about the same, but meant less and less.
If you are asking about voting for election TO the senate, there was no such thing, Senators were not elected as such, though being elected to certain offices was one way into the senate and probably the most common one. As those offices became more and more appointive under the Emperors, membership in the Senate would have been more and more in the Emperor's gift.
Brody Gutierrez
>I see your points. The Tribune of the Plebs was undoubtedly a great way to democratically represent the lower class,
It was intended as such, I disagree that it was a great way to do it. Election as Tribune gave you a bunch of kick-ass powers that you were SUPPOSED to wield on behalf of the people, but it took something on the order of minutes for the aristocrats to spot that a non-Patrician aristocrat was eligible for election, and could use his powers to protect the elite. Plus, of course, some Tribunes could be bribed.
Bentley Morales
My bad, I meant voting for the magistrate positions, especially consul. Once the principate was firmly in place, did elections continue to attract large numbers of voting citizens?
Thomas Moore
I'm not super well read on how the Republic actually functioned, but everything I've read makes it seem as though the Tribunes veto was the most commonly misused power toward the end of the Republic. Your thoughts?
Chase Walker
>In matters legislative, the Senate had an advisory roll only Exactly. This is possibly the most important takeaway someone looking into the political system of Rome should have.
The Senate is NOT a parliament. The Senate does NOT pass laws.
The assemblies vote on the laws, the tribunes have the right of initiative (tribunicia potestas, "tribunary power"), the Senate legally is just an advisory board, although they were much more influential than just giving advice, of course.
Xavier Stewart
>the Senate legally is just an advisory board, Regarding legislation, that is.
Ethan Walker
>How exactly did these civilizations NOT come up with the concept of a representative democracy earlier?
Tribalism is natural, tribes ruled by one man/family is the natural thing, republics were a thing to stop intern disputes and share a slice of power to everyone important, it need brains to think on that, but it eventually dies when someone achieve a huge share of power.
In few words, despotism is natural (but it doesn't mean necessarily that it is good).
Brayden Parker
>the senate was just an advisory board So was parliament they still BTFOed Charles Stuart's head
