Spartan Citizenship

1013 Words5 Pages
Global History - Due: 20 April 2015 Tutorial: Friday 9am Compare and contrast concepts of citizenship in the ancient world? To what extent were they similar? To what extent were they different? Discuss more specifically how the concept of citizenship developed in the Roman world and how it served Roman expansionism The Roman empire throughout it’s peek was seen to develop and expand its fringes further into Europe, indeed, this was heavily due to the notion and introduction of citizenship with the involvement of Caracalla’s edict. In order for one to understand the concept of citizenship in the ancient world, a comparison between several empires, including, Athenian, Roman and Spartan is necessary. The concept differs between the individual…show more content…
All three empires declare that citizenship would be between a person and the state. Further, all empires provided citizens equity under law, including, civic participation in government. However, both Athenian and Roman excluded women, minors, slaves and immigrants, where as, the Spartan empire permitted women to play a role in the social structure as they were able to own land and have independent rights. As both the Roman and Athenian ideals moved towards democracy in their later stages, the Spartan empire stayed true to its autocrat style where all male citizens were subjected to compulsory military training and paid dues to maintain their citizenship, thus, the Spartan empire differs greatly from the others. Historian Robert L. Dise, Jr. states that “no matter who he might be - all men were subjected to the same rules”, demonstrating the democratic nature of the Greek empire. Unlike Greece, Rome offered generous terms to captives including a second chance at citizenship. Additionally, those areas conquered, were protected under legal recognition, which is greatly in contrast to the Athenian empire. Another departure from the Athenian ideals, the Roman government pitted the upper class patrician interests against the lower classes in order to find a balance between the two. Consequently, the Roman empire is largely based on the principle of democracy in contrast to the other…show more content…
Granting citizenship to peoples in the empire legitimised rule over conquered areas and acted as a judicial safeguard of any uprisings which would naturally occur against imperial rule. Essentially, citizenship rules built loyalty throughout the empire as it brought together the fringes of the empire. This resulted in the successful removal of unrest and the development of multiculturalism in the empire. The rule of citizenship to allow all members their own religious opinion and expression largely allowed for the downplay of religious issues to occur. Furthermore, Roman historian Cassius Dio stated that allowing more individuals to become citizens the Roman Empire, significantly increased the tax revenue allowing for a stabilised economy, subsequently, allowing for a stronger empire. Citizenship provided powers to Roman when the Barbarians threatened the empire. It acted as a safeguard, and therefore, removed all threat present. With this, there was the development of belonging, individuals who gained civic rights, responsibilities and the ability to trade and access land were empowered. Hence, other individuals wished to become citizens. Citizenship, additionally, allowed for all conquered land to be stabilised as individuals could now identify themselves as citizens of cities rather than citizens of the Roman Empire. This was greatly appealing, ergo, expansionism became easily
Open Document