Would it be fair to say that Rome transitioned from a monarchy to an aristocracy to an oligarchy to some form of a representative democracy by the late Republic?
No.
Rome was a monarchy from 753 to 509 BC. Even among the seven kings of Rome, the Romans moved toward a Constitutional Monarchy with important enfranchisements from Servius Tullius that Tarquin repealed with his high handed autocratic rule. Tullius had established the Assembly of the Centuries. The people had a voice and representatives. They also had their patron client relationships and in 494 BC they had the tribune. With the publication of the 12 Tables in 451 BC, their rights had been codified and everyone knew them.
The soldiers of the Roman Army even in the late Republican Army when Marius armed scum and dregs, soldiers could read.
You always had representative democracy in Rome even in the days of the Roman monarchy.
Rome was a monarchy from 753 to 509 BC. Even among the seven kings of Rome, the Romans moved toward a Constitutional Monarchy with important enfranchisements from Servius Tullius that Tarquin repealed with his high handed autocratic rule. Tullius had established the Assembly of the Centuries. The people had a voice and representatives. They also had their patron client relationships and in 494 BC they had the tribune. With the publication of the 12 Tables in 451 BC, their rights had been codified and everyone knew them.
The soldiers of the Roman Army even in the late Republican Army when Marius armed scum and dregs, soldiers could read.
You always had representative democracy in Rome even in the days of the Roman monarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment