Historians Give Romans Better Marks In Democracy

Conventional view that Roman republic was corrupt oligarchy ruled by rich and decadent aristocracy is challenged by scholars who argue that it was an imperfect but still recognizable democracy, that political office was less controlled by aristocracy than has been assumed and that, in some ways, Rome had even more in common with modern notions of democracy than Athens did; Fergus Millar, Oxford historian and author of just-published The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic, comments; drawing depicts assassination of Julius Caesar (L)

Publisher: The New York Times

Author: Paul Lewis

Conventional view that Roman republic was corrupt oligarchy ruled by rich and decadent aristocracy is challenged by scholars who argue that it was an imperfect but still recognizable democracy, that political office was less controlled by aristocracy than has been assumed and that, in some ways, Rome had even more in common with modern notions of democracy than Athens did; Fergus Millar, Oxford historian and author of just-published The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic, comments; drawing depicts assassination of Julius Caesar (L)

Read more