Why did democracy only develop in Ancient Greece?

Also, I think one of the major reasons why Athenian Democracy and Roman Republicanism crowds out the rest is how dominate classicism dominated the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods.

Well, yeah, but the point is that these are pretty well documented. We do not have the same wealth of info, for example, on old Indian republics.
 
Rome ... practiced democracy independent of Greece.

Not really. Polybius called the roman republic a mixed constitution, which was already an illusion. From a modern point of view, it was no democracy at all, but a timocracy, a kind of aristocracy, hidden by some democratic looking elements. Just looking democratic, of course.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that (ancient) democracy is a Greek concept developed for the Greek world and, when we talk about it, there are way too many (mis)conceptions about what it really is and a confusion with the (universal) notion modern democracy.

Heck, it's like talking about Roman or Aztec football. They surely had a game that involved feet, but...
 
The problem is that (ancient) democracy is a Greek concept developed for the Greek world and, when we talk about it, there are way too many (mis)conceptions about what it really is and a confusion with the (universal) notion modern democracy.

Yes. But even according to ancient standards Rome was rather undemocratic.
 
Not really. Polybius called the roman republic a mixed constitution, which was already an illusion. From a modern point of view, it was no democracy at all, but a timocracy, a kind of aristocracy, hidden by some democratic looking elements. Just looking democratic, of course.

I disagree. There's not much more to say. Carthage was also democratic.
 

Sulemain

Banned
I disagree. There's not much more to say. Carthage was also democratic.

That's not how it works, you can't just arbitrarily state disagreement. The historical record, handed down to us by people like Polybius is pretty clear that both Rome and Carthage had little in common with either Ancient or Modern Democracies.
 
That's not how it works, you can't just arbitrarily state disagreement. The historical record, handed down to us by people like Polybius is pretty clear that both Rome and Carthage had little in common with either Ancient or Modern Democracies.
Disagree. Neither Rome, nor Carthage were outright democracies. But both had, over the course of time, various popular assemblies either electing magistrates or passing legislation. Of course ancient states were much different from modern ones, but that also goes for monarchies and oligarchies. On a continuum between monarchical tyranny on one side (I only say diadochi kingdoms...) and radical democracy on the other, both Rome and Carthage were (the former at least to the 2nd century BCE) somewhere in the centre, at times leaning more towards autocracy and at others more towards democracy. Throughout the 1st century BCE, of course, this changed, and throughout the Principate and then into the Dominate, Rome (and later Byzantium) gradually became absolute monarchies (but, again, not in the Enlightenment Age meaning of the word).
 
That's not how it works, you can't just arbitrarily state disagreement. The historical record, handed down to us by people like Polybius is pretty clear that both Rome and Carthage had little in common with either Ancient or Modern Democracies.
...Polybius describes Rome as part democratic...

". . . As for the Roman constitution, it had three elements, each of them possessing sovereign powers: and their respective share of power in the whole state had been regulated with such a scrupulous regard to equality and equilibrium, that no one could say for certain, not even a native, whether the constitution as a whole were an aristocracy or democracy or despotism."

"and if finally one looks at the power possessed by the people it would seem a clear case of democracy."

"These considerations again would lead one to say that the chief power in the state was the people's, and that the constitution was a democracy. "
http://thelatinlibrary.com/law/polybius.html

If Polybius has any one conclusion on the republic of Rome's governance, it would be that he considered it equal part monarchy, oligarchy and democracy.
 
But both had, over the course of time, various popular assemblies either electing magistrates or passing legislation.

Did you ever had a look at the roman passive electorial rights, or suffrages by centuriae? Did you ever check the unwritten, and more important real part of the roman constitution, which was based on the mos maiorum?

Roman assemblies and elections worked fully different than greek ones. We might dispute, if Athens was a democracy at all. But no question about Rome. Even from an ancient greek point of view.

PS: And Poybius was a political dreamer, who just developed a nice looking academic model. His idea of a mixed constitution might be correct, looking to just the few actually codified roman constitutional laws. But the roman republic worked fully different. The roman senate, which was officially just an advisory board (not elected), was de facto the prime executive and legislative of the working roman republic according to the mos maiorum. Ciceros de legibus and de res publica as well as some of his letters and visions for a reform of the republic are very enlightning about the the real constitution. Consequently the roman republic stopped working, when this unwritten and undemocratic constitution based on the mos maiorum was more and more disregarded, starting in the late 2nd century BC.
 
Last edited:

Sulemain

Banned
Disagree. Neither Rome, nor Carthage were outright democracies. But both had, over the course of time, various popular assemblies either electing magistrates or passing legislation. Of course ancient states were much different from modern ones, but that also goes for monarchies and oligarchies. On a continuum between monarchical tyranny on one side (I only say diadochi kingdoms...) and radical democracy on the other, both Rome and Carthage were (the former at least to the 2nd century BCE) somewhere in the centre, at times leaning more towards autocracy and at others more towards democracy. Throughout the 1st century BCE, of course, this changed, and throughout the Principate and then into the Dominate, Rome (and later Byzantium) gradually became absolute monarchies (but, again, not in the Enlightenment Age meaning of the word).

I see nothing to disagree with here. But I will add that makes neither Rome or Carthage democracies, particularly in the Ancient sense. Mixed governments, as Polybius would put it.
 
That's not how it works, you can't just arbitrarily state disagreement. The historical record, handed down to us by people like Polybius is pretty clear that both Rome and Carthage had little in common with either Ancient or Modern Democracies.

That's exactly how it works. I didn't add anymore because I know we're not going to agree on this. It would be a waste of time.
 
I see nothing to disagree with here. But I will add that makes neither Rome or Carthage democracies, particularly in the Ancient sense. Mixed governments, as Polybius would put it.
And I agree with you.
But it might go some way to de-dramatise the OP question of why democracy only developed in ancient Greece. Constitutions are often mixed. Answering why Athens chose a relatively radical mix is different from attempting to explain why a perceivedly unique model developed.
 
Answering why Athens chose a relatively radical mix is different from attempting to explain why a perceivedly unique model developed.

I have once read in a book about roman province- and city-administration, that the most democratic constitution of the greek-city states was in Rhodos. It was also the last greek city (civitas), which changed its constitution to a roman style timocracy in the 2nd century AD, iirc. The romans disapproved meaningful people's assemblies in the cities of the empire. Because they were often the base of unrest.

But I never could find details about this constitution.
 
Last edited:
I have once read in a book about roman province- and city-administration, that the most democratic constitution of the greek-city states was in Rhodos. It was also the last greek city (civitas), which changed its constitution to a roman style timocracy in the 2nd century AD, iirc. The romans disapproved meaningful people's assemblies in the cities of the empire. Because they were often the base of unrest.

But I never could find details about this constitution.
Same here, I remember reading about that, too, not even a year ago, but I don`t know where, and I didn`t find anything more specific about the constitution, either.
 
Top