Publius Nonius Severus

I always saw it as the period of the Samnite war, ending with the defeat of Pyrrhus. Interesting...I have started a new topic on period of the Republic in this thread.

In the Plebeians and Patricians thread I questioned what was considered the "Middle Republic". After some thought I believe there are probably a lot of varying opinions on what the "Early", "Middle", and "Late" periods of the Republic were but they should all fall within the same general ranges...or maybe not! Are such distinctions misleading in and of themselves? Obviously this is something that can never be totally standardized in the scope of something as wide as general study, but, I would be greatly interested in your opinions. Here is mine (based heavily on the structure of the Republic applied by Pamela Bradley in her book Ancient Rome: Using Evidence): Early Republic 509-265 BC Roman Conquest of Italy and Constitutional Development (Conflict of the Orders) Middle Republic 264-146 BC Roman Expansion into the Mediterranean (Punic and Achaen Wars) Late Republic 146-27 BC Decline of the Republic (Aftermath of Mediterranean Expansion, The Gracchi and Others down to Augustus) What say you?

-- Nephele Nice find Nephele! I too had found the term used by McCullough as early as "First Man in Rome", the first book in the series, but I have still been unable to find the actual term in Latin in any source before Augustus. The Masters of Rome Series was very well researched so I thought this might mean hope that I could find a source that would show this term was in use before the imperatorial period and principate. However, I have found since that from time to time McCullough did borrow terms and concepts from the principate and apply them to her stories set in the late Republic (Another common example being property qualifications for knights and senators). As such, I think that her use of "primus inter pares"is another example of this type of borrowing.

During the Republic, a gens could be elevated to patrician via a lex curiata from the comitia of the same. I don't have any specific examples yet but I will continue to look. Did these names also come from Forsythe (I have never read him)? Also, what is the consenus on the "Middle Republic" I have always seen it as after conquest of Italy to the time of the Gracchi...is that universal? If so, then there is evidence of these families being patrician well before the middle republic. I couldn't find any Folii but I think their name is often confused with the Folsii. If so, we can see one as Consualr Tribune in 433 BC and supposedly patrician: Folsius Flaccinator In the case of the Papirii, there seems to be evidence from Dionysius that there were patrician branches as early as the time of the kings: Gens Papiria And finally the Sergii have a member as Consul in 437 BC: Gens Sergia

This is what I have been able to ascertain (Mostly from Livy and Dionysius). The original patricians came from the three tribes settled in the hills in and around Rome as they eventually joined together: The Ramnes (Latins), Tities (Sabines), and Luceres (Estruscans). These tribes had been united as Romans at different times during Romulus' reign. Apparently Tarquinius Priscus did admit some plebeian families of importance into these three original tribes. The kings had the power to do this but essentially needed the consent of the other patricians to do so. Tullus Hostilius also added some of the nobles from the Alban Mount into the ranks of the patricians as well. At this point in history only patricians were citizens. If you weren't a patrician and live in Rome you were a plebeian or client. Then as the years grew on plebeians were accepted to be as part of the "people" and citizens but there is no distinctive time frame for this. From then on if you were born a patrician, you remained a patrician regardless of office-holdings, membership in the senate, or wealth...once a patrician, always a patrician (P. Clodius Pulcher excepted of course). Caldrail- The Servilii were added when the nobles from Alba were added to Rome as mentioned in Livy 1.30. There is no mention of their financial status (however the early Servilli were known to worship a copper coin!) but it should be noted that even amongst patricians there was a pecking order. The members of the first two tribes considered themselves above those of Luceres, added-plebeians, and the Albans.

You are correct, there was an error in my chart. I have not included any reference to when the Consuls used to be called praetors. Just to remove any ambiguity, here are the passages of Livy on the matter. Livy 6.42 Abridged (367BC) The Dictator, however, quieted the disturbances by arranging a compromise; the nobility made a concession in the matter of a plebeian consul, the plebs gave way to the nobility on the appointment of a praetor to administer justice in the City who was to be a patrician". Livy 7.1 Abridged (366 BC) "This year will be noteworthy for the first consulship held by a plebeian, and also for two new magistracies, the praetorship and the curule aedileship. These offices the patricians created in their own interest as an equivalent for their concession of one consulship to the plebs, who bestowed it on L. Sextius, the man who had secured it for them. The patricians secured the praetorship for Sp. Furius, the son of old Camillus, and the two aedileships for Gnaeus Quinctius Capitolinus and P. Cornelius Scipio, members of their own order. L. Aemilius Mamercus was elected from the patricians as colleague to L. Sextius." I have updated the chart as well as seen below (I am too lazy to post another image): Postion / Yr Created / Initial Order / Yr Open to All Orders ======================================== Consuls / 509 / Patrician / 366 Quaestors / 509-504 / Patrician / 421 Tribunes / 494 / Plebeian / Never - Always Plebeian Aediles / 494 / Plebeian / Soon after Curule Aedile Creation Censor / 443 / Patrician / 351 Praetor / 366 / Patrician / 337 Curule Aediles / 366 / Patrician / Soon After Creation

Thank you Cato... Just to update...I have been unable to affix a definitive date for the creation of the Quaestors. All that I have been able to find is that the office as created by Valerius Publicola during one of his four consulships between 509-504 BC. I am also unable to find any sources on a definite date of the the universality of the curule aedileships either. If someone can find a primary source it would be appreciated.

Sorry for any confusion, here is a more comprehensive chart: *By year open to all orders it should be noted that this was either the date of the law enabling both patricians and plebeians to serve or the first recorded date of either a patrician or plebeian actually serving, whichever occurred first. ***Quaestors were established soon after the Republic was founded. The date is most likely between 509-504 during one of Publicola's consulships - I will try to nail this down lateras well as the exact dates when both types of aedileships were available to both orders. My source is Livy and William Smith's dictionary.

Sorry...some factual errors and omissions. It is assumed the Aedileship began around the same time as the Tribune of the Plebs (494 BC) and they were elected from among the plebs. Curule Aediles began shortly after the leges Licinia Sextiae as well as the office of Praetor, both were meant only for Patricians. Edit: Praetors became available to Plebs in 337 BC. Quaestors also began sometime after the Republic was fouded and at first only available to patricians. After 421 BC it was available to either order, but there were no plebeian quaestors before 409 BC. So to Summarize: Consuls - 509 BC Quaestors (509-504?) Tribunes - 494 BC Plebeian Aediles - 494 BC Censor - 443 BC Praetor - 356 BC - Corrected by Edit Curule Aediles - 366 BC

Here is a good article on the nobility: Nobiles from William Smith at Lacus Curtius. I believe Plebs first started entering the Senate around the founding of the Republic, well before 366 in any case. After the censhorship was created, new senators could be chosen from amon ex-magistrates, but didn't have to be per se. Some were chosen just based on their family and status. The Aedileship began in 446 BC. Edit: This is incorrect, they started around the founding of the Republic...see my second reply below for more details. You can find the lex licinia here: LEGES LICINIAE SEXTIAE at the Roman Law Library...Latin only, sorry! (I will try to find an English version)

Awesome contributions all...you put mine to shame! My turn again: Severus: "In today's fast paced world there is no time for lavish dinners that last several hours nor does anyone have time to cook...but, all you have to do is speak into that clown face there and tell it what you want to eat then I drive the auto-lectica around the corner and pick up our food!" Apicius: "Intriguing! (leans head out window) Ahem, yes, I would like a McDormouse with Cheese...extra garum please..."

Ah...Roma! Preface Edit: I didn't see Augusta's post..good stuff in there that shoul dtake precedence over what I say Here is my two day whirlwind Rome excursion guide. You can do either day in either order depending on your schedule Day One - Colloseum, Palantine, and Forum - You need a full day for these to get the most of them. Start at the Colloseum. The ticket gets you access to both it and the Palantine. Start there (early - lines can get long (at least at peak times)). Once you take it all in (check out the bookshop/giftstore on the upper level) go to the Palantine and stroll through it. Hold onto your tickets, I think they are still good for 24-48 hours so you can go back if you have time. Have a lunch (plenty of stuff nearby) and stroll through the forum for the rest of the day. Make sure you bring binoculars to see the details on Trajan's column. I can't remember the name of any place specific but find a restaraunt near the Spanish steps for dinner...everything is great and it's a beautiful place to enjoy the evening. Day Two - The Vatican Museum/St Peter's Square and Pantheon. Regardless of your religious beliefs, you must go to the Vatican museum to see all the treasures there. This should take you 1/2-3/4 of a day if done properly. Grab lunch and head to the Pantheon. After that, whatever elese you have time to or want to see, go for it. Enjoy!

That's it...Well done! Here's another: Severus: Well, today we have a marvelous compound called soap, Mr. Pliny, that comes in solid or liquid form. It can be used for cleaning all manners of things including clothing. You just mix the soap and some water, add your clothes, agitate them, rinse, and they come out fresh and clean! Pliny The Elder: So what am I supposed to do with this chamber pot then?

Blundered as in I botched it, or as in not funny, or as in a bad idea overall?

On the Adam Carolla Radio show in the U.S., there is a regular short bit where Adam attempts to explain a feature of modern day society to "1780s Guy" under the pretense that today's world is quite different from the 18th century and therefore would require some explaining to our ancestors. "1780s Guy" then asks a witty question or makes a comedic statement in response. I think that if we had to explain our world to the Ancient Romans we would also see some hillarity ensue. So, pick an aspect of modern day society, pick a notable Roman guy or gal to explain it to, and try to think of a witty response to your explanation. I'll begin: Severus: You see Cicero, In America, we elect our chief executive, called a President, for four-year terms. In fact, it is possible for the President to be re-elected and serve eight years in a row. Cicero: Is your President's name Marius? Ok, mine was kind of geeky...let's see what you can do!

Your primary North-South street should be called the Cardus Maximus. Your primary East-West street should be called the Decumanus Maximus. This was pretty standard for any Roman camp, colony, city, etc. I am not sure if any of the other names were standardized. I personally like the names of the gods. If you want something more historical there is a list of known (or suspected) street a names from the urbs aeterna herself that can be found in the below link. It is in alphabetical order to you can choose one and move down the list: A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome by Samuel Ball Platner hosted at Lacus Curtius

I completely agree Augusta. There is a fantastic book that I just found the other day that explores the use of anecdotes by both historians and poets as a literary device to convey a variety of issues, to include propaganda. If you have access to Questia than you can find it here: Questia.com, otherwise look for The Roman Use of Anecdotes in Cicero, Livy & the Satirists by Elizabeth Hazelton Haight, Longmans, Green and Co., 1940

Augusta- Thanks again...I indeed chose the tribunate for my theme because I too wanted more and I thought it was a great way to learn. I am glad it lived up to your expectations. Cato- Indeed, I shall continue to build upon this list. In fact, a more in depth profile of the tribunate is part of a project I am working on and I think a list of worthy and not-so-worthy tribunes would make a fine addition. I will let you know as I make more progress. I concur about Livius Drusus. He is an excellent example of a Tribune working within the system and using the office for the greater good: The Senate AND people of Rome. There are times when I wonder what impact his legislation would have made had he lived and legislative package come to full fruition. The Social War would most likely have been avoided, maybe the persistent land issues would have been settled to everyone's favor, perhaps Sulla wouldn't have been able to use the Social War to propel himself down a path of discontent...ah, to dream, nonne?

Worthy additions for sure. It is also easy to add Gaius Canuleius who made way for patricians and plebeians to inter-marry, Gaius Papirius Carbo whose law offered franchise to the Italians after the social war, and let's not forget Gaius Epidius Marcellus and Lucius Caesetius Flavius who had citizens arrested for calling out "Rex" to Caesar as he walked by. In fact, after only 10 or so minutes looking up some of the more significant pieces of legislation or other achievements during the Republic it is easy to see the names behind them are usually tribunes. So again, as I argued in my essay, there were many successes and failures of the tribunate. The names of the of the sincere are sometimes obfuscated by the names of the insincere, but I do not mean to undervalue their importance.

You make a fair point. I do not mean to focus on the negative per se, unfortunately it seems that in these later, most critical stages of the Republic, the actions of the "bad tribunes" outdid much of the progress made my their predecessors and their contemporaries. The tribunate was the foundation on which much of the constitution of the Republic was built and refined and for some 360 years I think the tribunate brought nothing but more glory, prestige, and most importantly legitimacy to the Republic. It is also because the bad is often better remembered than the good that the names I mentioned above dominate the official mention of the tribunes. However, to bring some parity to the matter, I will compile a list of "good tribunes" as well that helped make the Republic what it was.

Not to sidetrack the issue, the more I think about, the harder I find it to accept that he would rather have ten long and hard years of his life be reduced to ashes simply because it was unfinished. I know he was a noted perfectionist, but this seems inconceivable to me. Hence why I brought up possible political motivations for wanting it destroyed. Destroy an epic because it is incomplete = hard to fathom. Destroy a piece of propaganda that compromises your values as an artist (no matter how gracefully and ingeniouslty crafted) = bordering on believable.

Indeed Cato! The power of the tribunes did not grow in a constitutional sense during that time period, rather, it was their influence that grew through the abuses of the office by some notable individuals in that period (The Gracchi, L. Appuleius Saturninus, P. Sulpicius Rufus , P. Clodius Pulcher - just to name a few ). They increased their influence by ursurping new privileges under the pretense of inviolability or legislating in arenas never intended for their purview or using their access to the people to openly forment revolt. Perhaps some of these abuses as I have called them were not illegal, but they broke with tradition, which in the Roman world was on equal footing with the law. They would never had dared encroach in some of these areas had the unchecked increase of their power brought internal conflict to the tribunate and made it susceptible to corruption. Some of these abuses were motivated by demagoguery and others by bribery. They may have been under the guise of popularity, but as you said...these abuses did little to further the interests of the people they were empowered to protect. Instead, by compromising their office the equality they were supposed to ensure made them open to attack and condemnation and thereby making their role obsolete and increase the propensity for disparity instead of equality.

An excellent essay Aurelius, well done! I have a question for you: How much weight do you put on the frontier system as a serious limitation of the army? Given Delbruck's opinion that the frontier system made the army "equally weak everywhere" as referenced in your essay, did he offer an alternative? Would a larger army have helped? The answer is most likely yes, yet, a larger army meant more logistical, financial, and manpower difficulties. Would these extra burdens make a larger army worthwhile? If not more troops, did he offer any other ideas...was he against the frontier system altogether? I am also intrigued by the "central reserve" concept. Were there any suggestions on how large a reserve should be? Should there have been multiple reserves or one large centrally located base? Was there any mention of where such reserves might be placed geographically taking into consideration likely threats and logistical concerns? Hindsight is always 20/20, and looking back having a reserve seems to be a good idea...is there any reason we are overlooking why the Romans didn't pursue this line of thinking as well? Again, excellent work!

Outstanding essay Augusta. Well researched, written, and presented! I never before knew that Virgil wanted the Aenid destroyed when he died. I think this is quite telling that Augutus considered it a key piece of his campaign of propagada by refusing to allow it to be destroyed. Along with his Res Gestae, the Aenid has obviously been one of the most enduring testaments to Augustus' success. I wonder, is there any indication why Virgil wanted it destroyed? I admit although it is on my list of things to become familiar, I only have a faint acquaintance with Virgil and this monolithic work. Was he unhappy about an unfinished work being his legacy? I know there is some discussion that he was unhappy about some portions of book 8 between Venus and Vulcan and there are possibly some incomplete lines. But, I also wonder, perhaps he had doubts about this great work being viewed as a tool of propaganda?

I would also like to add my congrats to Augusta and Aurelius. I have just finished reading their entries and I can see why the judges chose their submissions. I have read a couple of the other entries as well so far and I can see that this must have been a close contest since there are several outstanding entires. I too would like to thank all the judges for the time they spent reviewing the entries and Gaius Octavius for the prize donation. It looks as if we will have some interesting discussions based on these entries in Academia forum. I already have a list of questions brewing... Thanks again! -Severus