Difference between US and a true Democracy

[Akka]

I haven't seen any evidence that would show that they defined a republic as just no monarchy.

Hu, well, it's simply the meaning of the word...
The meaning has been twisted in USA as it seems, but the definition has been given earlier.

As corrupt as a Rome was, it was still a Republic due to the elected officials (and not only because it had no monarch).

Doesn't mean it's a democracy in the slightest.
Rome was actually an oligarchy (an oligarchic republic, in fact), as only the upper class had vote and saying in the city. The Senate was certainly not democratically elected.

 

[Princeps]

Doesn't mean it's a democracy in the slightest.
Rome was actually an oligarchy (an oligarchic republic, in fact), as only the upper class had vote and saying in the city. The Senate was certainly not democratically elected.

Roman Republic had a very strong democratic element.

As corrupt as a Rome was, it was still a Republic due to the elected officials (and not only because it had no monarch).

Roman republic was not practically corrupt; there was a Greek philosopher, who found it very efficient. Its laws, for example, were anything ever seen before. But it was only later on when the republic could not take the enormous expansion and inner-fight and eventually turn in to a dictatorship and then in to a principate. In a sense the Roman republic was very democratic government.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Lets get something straight here, the corporations and the people are the same people.

 

[Aleph-Null]

The United States is a federal republic managed by a confederate of various republics and commonwealths which are managed through democratically elected officials to enforce democratically instituted laws.

 

[colontos]

that sa fallcay; I havent been keeping up withthe thread, just happend to come in, but if you think the Roman republic wasnt a democratic form of government, your sorelly mistaken, and need to go readc your histories over agian; yes the senate was made up of the "nobility", but the senate was hardley the only body in control of Rome; tribunes aided to keep the senate blaenced, and consular power acted as a fair counter balence as well; by the end of the republic, one consul had to be of Plebian orgin, to so represent the people in that regard; thiers a great deal more to Roman politics then just that

Actually i've read my histories (many of them, anyway) and the Romans only gave lip service to the idea of speaking for the common people. The plebians did not vote, and while some members of the govt were selected from among them, they were just that: selected, by the upper class. It was not really representative in that all the senators were pretty much out for themselves, they did not represent any specific segment of the population as is the case in many modern democracies. Senators were also hereditary, for the most part, and that's not, you'll notice, democratic.

but I honestlly dont feel liek sitting here, and writing it all out.

...and I wouldn't either, if my keyboard were as badly broken as yours seems to be.

 

[Princeps]

...and I wouldn't either, if my keyboard were as badly broken as yours seems to be.

Xen always has written like that.

Roman republic was not democratic in modern sence, BUT it did have a strong democratic element in it.

Edit: The Roman Republic was far more superior governmental system that the athenian democracy, or hellenic/persian semi-divine absolute monarchy, or a carthaginian merchant council.