Pseudo123

-From an exterior point of view, for antic autors, what counted was the senators, not the magistrate, whose role was minor.Tthe senatus consultums (consulta ?) are usually identified by the name of the senator who pronounced a decisive sententia, not by the name of the magistrate who "presided" the Senate. When the name of the magistrate is quoted, it is an exceptional and historic intervention ! Usually, he is just quoted to have the year of the SC. In the same way, if the debate involves anonymous senators only, the magistrate's name is neither quoted. Finally, in the sources (among wihc Ciceronian texts and Appien), the magistrate usually plays no actual role in the debate. -From an intern point of view now, we know that the convocation by the magistrate (by a relatio) is only a legal formality, nothing more. Many examples when the senators asked the magistrate to convoke the Senate, and the magistrates accept to do so in most of the cases (even if he had no legal obligation to do so), even if the magistrate is the consul, the highest rank ! The normal attitude for a magistrate was to submit himself to the demands of the Senate for a relaton. And even better, the Senators could gather theselves in the building to have an informal debate (the decision was hence taken) and only THEN they ask to the magistrate to convoke an official seance to ratify the result of the debate. The preliminary informal talk BEFORE the seance was paramount. -This issue is representative of what you have to understand about Rome. In Rome, the law is not paramount. Formalism is not paramount (except for religious issues which can be used in politics, that's right). What counts is the reality of the games of power. IN THEORY, the senators cannot issue a SC without his relation. IN PRACTICE, he is submitted to them. And their decision can already be taken before the official seance. In modern politics, formalism is much more respected in order to hide more efficiently to the people the true games of power. For example, in France, officially, the Parliament is very important. In practice, the government is the only one who decides, joint to Conseil d'Etat (a Council of Judges and Administrators whose members control the day-to-day technicality of politics).

Hi. I wondered what was the name of the Senatus consulte (or the law) which gave Pompey his command against Sertorius. Same for Crassus vs Spartacus. Thanks.

-The Senate gathers three systemic functions. 1) It is a tribune of the oligarchy. The richest and most prestigious men from Rome sits in the Senate and talks about current affairs. We can see it because even if the senatus consultum was broken by a plebs tribune, the talk was recorded. The important was to know what the other members of the oligarchy thought about the issue. This aspect is very important. If you are isolated thinkingsomething, you will not act on your own unless you are Marius or Caesar. 2) It is also a "Corps". A Corps is a group of people where all the member exert of pressure on each member to ensure its existence. Here, it is Warish affairs. The Senate had a routine (of war), they did war, they were prestigious, they just maintained themselves in this state because ... because it was the reason why their group existed ! This kind of "Corps" can be compared to the American Militaro-Industrial complex (military and cash-making routine),French "Corps d'Etat" (law-maker and statist routine), and English web of students from prestigious universities (Scom and prestigious pseudo-military routine). They do the politics on the long term beyond elections. 3) Finally, the Senate is the head of the city in times of crisis. Look at the Senatus Consultus Ultimum, which was a decree by the Senate. In order to "save the patria", anybody could kill the threat. Traditionnaly, a group of senators lead roman knights (equestres), scribs and tresor tribune armed with batons to kill the dangerous man. -In practice, they were able to edit the laws passed by the people, but this edit could be broken by the intercessio of a plebs tribune, which could be broken itself by the veto of another tribune. These edits had no legal force in pactice but they were followed by all magistrates and citizens because of the auctoritas of the Senate. A Senatus consultum voted by a too incomplete Senate was usually ignored and crushed the day after. -And how did you enter the Senate ? You had to be rich AND prestigious, you were excluded from the Senate by the censor if you were not prestigious not rich. But roman knights (rich people and prestigious too) were not automatically senators. You had to occupy a curule magistrature, that is to say one from the cursus honorum, questor, praetor, edil and consul. -Who was influent in the Senate ? Before the Punic Wars, the one who were dictators once and ancient censors. They were the only one who truly talked, the other shut up and walked to the man they backed. After the Punic Wars, with the disparition of dictatorship, consulars (the one who were once consuls) became the dominant group of talkers. ____________ It could in fact meet without the magistrate. This condition was just a formal one, and the magistrate ran to the Senate when there were senators in it. You can read Marianne Coudry thesis "Le sénat, pratiques délibératives". Mommsen was wrong. It could de facto declare wars. The Senate was the one who decided of international affairs. Beware the notion of separation of powers ! It did not exist in ancient Rome. People in Rome had no specific filed of action. The Senate had particularly universal competence. They could talk and take decisionsabout narly everything ! The key notion for the Roman Republic is not the separation of powers but the actual balance of powers between three poles, The People (democracy), The magistrates (linked to monarchy for the Roman because they hold the powers the king formerly gathered), the Senate (oligarchy). The were all dependent upon the others. The people elected magistrats and gave its auctoritas to the Senate, the magistrates are the actual "men of action" in Rome (so that they are needed by both the people and the Senate) and the Senate is the assembly of the elite of the People and they can take many decisiosnabout magistrats and the People. But they need to be backed by the people and magistrats (who are senators-to-be) because they have no "legal" power.

Hi everybody. Do you know any good reference about the Preafects of thr Preatorian Guard during the High Roman Empire ? Ia m not interested into the biography of each preafects but rather the role all over the High Empire of these men. I've been looking for such documents, but I found little evidence ... Thanks.

-> The post punic wars Senate did not even vest a dictator once, the issue was a structuralone and not a coincidence. -> Was a special super-commanding like Pompey's one against the Pirates (absolute power in a huge area, 150 k soldiers and 1000 ships) better ? I mean : why special commanding with no limit and not the traditional dictatorship ? They were too means to ends. This resurgence of the dictatorship is interesting. Perhaps Caesar wanted to be a "patria savior" like the dictators of the past used to be, in order to legitimate his power. Octave used this kind of idea but without the function.

Hi. I am somebody interested in roman history because this is where we come from all. And we can learn many lessons about politics, morals, humanity in general by studying this huge and well documented history.

Hi everybody. I had three questions : 1) why the dictatorship was not used during the Late roman Republic (post second Punic War) in order to face emergencies ? Why did they use instead of the dictatorship special commanding powers, granted to Marius (6 times consul) , Pompey (against Sertorius and the pirates) or Caesar (super proconsul of 3 provinces with 4 legions), to face emergency situationslike the Cimbres and Teutons invasion or the Pirates ? This questions was raised by a book from Marianne Coudry Le Sénat de la République romaine, pratique délibérative, where she says that before the Punic Wars, censors and ancient dictators were the senators who talked and influenced most, whereas after the Punic Wars, there was no longer enough ancient dictators because nobody was named dictator anymore, so that the real power was passed to consulars and perhaps ancient praetors. To me, dictatorship seems easier to control than special super-commanding powers. 2) Why Sylla did not try to be claimed as dictator by the Senate in order to be able to legally use his army into Rome ? He would have gained the legitimacy he lacked when he came back to Rome. He would have avoided proscriptions and the like. Without proscriptions, no shock to the Roman population, no Crassus, and without shock and without Crassus, no Caesar, who was first used as a link between Pompey and Crassus who did not like each other. 3) And finally, why did the censor lose their prestige after the second Punic war (cf Marianne Coudry) so that the ancient censor lost their super influence on the Senate ? They were able to maintain their function prestigious during centuries before, why did they fall precisely at this moment ? Were they corrupt ? But why at this precise moment ? Why not before ? Does anyone here knows more about it ? As I mainly read french or french-translated books, perhaps english-speakers could have other references ... Thanks in advance