Relationships between people with influence and power

Ancient Roman vs. Modern Relationships

A major contrast is visible in the relationships in the ancient Roman and the modern world between the dominant and the weak people. In ancient Rome, one of the notable principles that characterized the ties between the powerful and the weak citizens was the struggle of orders. There was a citizenship structure in the Roman Empire between 500 and 300 B.C, which represented a divide between the social classes called patricians and plebeians (Charles et al. 12). The Plebeians consisted of the powerless and ethnic classes, while the richest people were patricians. In comparison, the large land was owned by the Plebeians, comprising 10% of the Roman people. The Plebeians held a monopoly on the political, social and economic power. Patricians lack power and the struggle between the plebeian and patrician primarily emanated from legality grounds which was a law determined by traditional customs.

Comparison of Roman Empire and the Current World

A comparison of Roman Empire and the current world show that there is a difference. The powerless people have full voting rights and are mandated to partake in the governmental decision-making process. The extreme social class stratification evident in Rome is less pronounced in today’s world. Many governments strive to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor while in Rome, the system presented to promote the gap between the rich and the power through the division of social classes. In the eyes of the Romans, people were not equal whereas equality is one of the major issues that underline the modern political society. Besides, legal status primarily defined power yet in the modern legal promotes equality and freedom.

Concept of Liberty

A comparison of the modern world and the ancient view on the concept of liberty depicts significant dissimilarities. The idea of liberty was also referred to as libertas, and it inhibited equality in large spheres of life. There existed aristocracy, which was the rule defined by few powerful individuals. Additionally, the votes of the plebeian were swayed by the patrician despite having voting rights which evidence the lack of liberty. The Roman Empire was always concerned with the fundamental incompatibility of the monarchy and liberty. Power was concentrated in the hands of few individuals, and a succession of kings prohibited other people in taking the royal seat. According to Charles et al., “Political and military power was concentrated in their hands, and they represented the pinnacle of the imperial status hierarchy” (Charles et al. 34). Libertas system that was evident in Roman Empire was different from the modern form of liberty.

Demoralization of Marginalized People

The Roman idea definition of equality and liberty in Rome truly demoralized the marginalized people in the society. The current system promotes equal rights in political terms in the broad sense of aristocracy. The Roman political system signified hindrances in the political operations and many hierarchical institutions. The freedom of cities particularly the minority and powerless people was certainly a devastating problem. The empire was highly characterized by the military system and slavery which is not manifested in the modern society. The right and status of the poor people was a critical issue that was not integrated into the Roman liberties system. Besides, liberty was also limited to the citizens of Rome, and the non-citizens were not legible in holding positions in the administration system which is unlike the modern world. Only citizens served in the legions and citizens did enjoy a given legal privileges that were not granted to the non-citizens (Charles et al. 25). Notably, the succession of emperors indicates the enormous difference in the Roman liberty system and the modern world. This suggests that liberty was not promoted in the Roman Empire which is central in today’s political structure.

Work Cited

Charles Gianturco, Corrado Vincent. L̀ibertas’ In Ancient Rome. 1st ed., Cape Town, [Publisher Not Identified], 1963,.