Roman and Athenian democracy differ and the second stands out for being more democratic because it had aspects such as:
- Greek democracy was direct, while Roman democracy was representative.
- The Roman democracy had a dispute between the plebeians and the patricians.
<h3>What is democracy?</h3>
Democracy is a term that refers to a form of social organization that is characterized by being the government of the people. In democracy, citizens control the State through mechanisms of direct or indirect participation.
Both variants of democracy existed in the ancient civilizations of Greece (Athens) and Rome. In Athens there was direct democracy in which all citizens were summoned to a public square to make decisions related to the government.
On the other hand, Rome implemented representative democracy in which branches of public power and a senate that created the laws and other provisions to govern in the best way were created. However, this caused corruption to arise and decisions were made for their own benefit or for a specific social class.
According to the above, Greek and Roman democracy differ because Greek democracy was more direct and allowed citizens to participate, while in Rome senators and leaders ruled without taking into account the demands of citizens.
Learn more about democracy in: brainly.com/question/857277
Answer:
white Americans lost the will to fight for what they believed in and what they rightfully owned, so minorities have slowly been replacing them.
Explanation:
the fact that there is protests against white culture in a white nation
Answer:
A. to capture bases from which to bomb the Japanese home islands
Explanation:
In a sense, yes, but also no. The answers are half right and half incorrect.
The American's campaign against the Japanese saw a island-hopping strategy, in which the US took over key islands from the Japanese, which either 1) cut off the supply lines to other smaller islands, making the Japanese troops stationed there void and ineffective, or 2) taking islands for their own strategic value. It is important to note that throughout this entire campaign, the only nation that was taken that was not strategic was the Philippines. The only reason why General McArthur "visited" the island was because he promised the people he would be back to liberate them (following the fall of the Philippines).
The strategic value of each island taken typically fell under one of these sectors. 1) The island cuts off other islands, 2) The island has a air field. If the island is close enough or is in the middle of the ocean, it was generally taken, either because it has an airfield already, or has the means in which one can be created on there. Refueling sites & landing strips were then created, so that less planes had to ditch out in sea if they ran out of fuel.
B. Expand its influence and power around the world. I'm not sure if that's correct or not though.
