Roman Government Vs Greek Government

Polybius’ The Histories describes the merits of the Roman Empire, specifically their constitutional government, compared to the Ancient Greek governmental systems. These merits include combining the best parts of each form of Greek government, maintaining a stalwart government system that follows the rule of law, and the positions of government that spread power enough to keep from corrupting it. Despite this, there is corruption within the Roman government, but not so much that the ideals and laws of the state are jeopardized.
Polybius prefaces his belief that the Roman constitution is innately good with the concept that “in less than fifty-three years nearly the whole world was overcome and fell under the single dominion of Rome” (Polybius 293). Polybius argues that Rome’s constitution is better than the Greek constitutions of Athens or Thebes because neither polis was able to expand and progress to the extent Rome had (Polybius 407). In providing this information, Polybius is extolling the virtues of the constitution on the basis that it covered such a large area and populace, becoming the largest governed area of its time. This does give credence to the constitution as being a stabilizing force that
According to Polybius, these governments were not enough on their own, which is why government in Greek poleis was constantly changing between the three. To solve this problem, Rome’s constitution combined the best of the three forms of government, discarding the flaws. “[Kingship, aristocracy, and democracy] all shared in the control of the Roman state,” and this is reflected in the constitution of Rome (Polybius 329). This is specifically shown in the organization of the ruling bodies; the positions of consul are derived from monarchy, whereas the senate is another form of aristocratic government, and all positions are elected, showing democratic