While some may argue that this is an entirely subjective topic, I say that this can be measured by how citizens were treated under the laws of their respective governments. Rome, for example, treated its citizens with the utmost respect, we even read in the books that when a criminal was arrested if he could prove his citizenship he would immediately be treated much better than a non-citizen. There is also evidence that any Roman citizen could commute even death sentences for those in exile unless they were convicted of treason and if a citizen was accused of treason then he had the right to be tried in Rome. Outside of criminal trials the typical Roman male was expected to surpass his father's achievements in some way. If he could accomplish this task, he could expect to lead a life that even Donald Trump could become jealous of. However, those who did not were not necessarily marginalized: they were still organisms with a vote and were respected by high human beings. Athenian citizens were also treated well, assuming they voted and were truly nice people. The typical Athenian citizen will have just finished his military service and will be looking forward to a life of leisure and happiness, or not. Athenian citizens were expected to vote, otherwise they were considered little better than dogs. The good news would be that they could hold public office, right? Winning the wrong office wasn't so much an election as a lottery, so being popular counted for nothing. However, if that person managed to seize power via a lottery, he or she may have to live in constant fear of exile. Every year the Athenians held a vote to decide who to exile from Athens, so if they didn't like it they wouldn't have fun. This all points to another count for Roma which brings the count to three for Roma and zero for