Expert: Maria - 4/19/2010

Question
Hi,

I would like to know what the main differences were between the Ancient Greek and Romans understanding and uses of the concept Citizenship. Maybe, Greeks examined Citizenship from a more political and social standpoint, and the Romans from a more legal standpoint.

Your help will be much appreciated

Kind regards,

Carlo

Answer
Hello,

With regard to Greece, I have to point out that in ancient times there was not only one concept of citizenship which was in force all over Greece.  We must,in fact,  talk about  Athens and Sparta, where right of citizenship was a bit different.

So, while in Sparta citizenship was always inherited by blood and thus not all inhabitants of the Spartan state were considered to be citizens, in Athens we know that until 451 BC citizenship – that is, the active participation of all citizens in politics- belonged to anyone who had one Athenian parent at least, but later the Athenian citizenship was restricted to those whose parents were both Athenians, just like in Sparta.

Anyway, differently from Sparta, in Athens foreigners who had settled there – the so called “metics”( Greek, métoikoi)– though they  did not have citizenship and thus  did not have the same rights as citizens and thus they could not possess land and  had to have an Athenian to guarantee for them, had however some of the same obligations, like serving the army and paying fees and taxes.

In short, it is true that both Spartans and Athenians examined citizenship from a political and social standpoint, i.e. related to civil rights and social status.


As for Rome, we must distinguish between the period of the Roman Republic (from 509 BC to 27 BC) and that of the Roman Empire (from 27 BC to 476 AD).

From 753 BC, when the Roman Kingdom began with the city's founding, traditionally dated just to 753 BC, to  the  overthrow of the kings in 509 BC, only the members of the three tribes of the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres who inhabited Rome were Roman citizens (“Cives Romani”, in Latin) .

But later in the period of the Roman Republic the Lex Iulia in 90 BC granted the rights of Roman citizenship  to all Italic  states that had not participated in the Social War against Rome  or who were willing to cease hostilities immediately.
They had only the rights of property and marriage, but not the additional rights to vote and to hold office, as these rights plus the rights of property and marriage were held by the full Roman citizens, who enjoyed full legal protection under Roman law.


In short Roman citizens  were sub-divided into two classes: those who held only the rights of property and marriage- a kind of a second-class citizenship within the Roman stat- and those  who also held these rights as well as the additional rights to vote and to hold office.


Finally in AD 212 all free men in the Empire were granted citizenship by an imperial edict of Emperor Caracalla who  declared that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship, while before for the most part only  inhabitants of Italia held full Roman citizenship.


To conclude, Roman citizenship,which was not always inherited by blood, was considered   from a legal standpoint as it granted the full range of benefits that flowed from this status as well as full legal protection under Roman law all over the empire which was very great in area.

Therefore, generally speaking, we can say that it is true that "Greeks examined Citizenship from a more political and social standpoint, and the Romans from a more legal standpoint", as you say.

This in brief, of course, as the matter is quite broad.

Best regards,
Maria