M. Porcius Cato

I like the idea of their restoring the Roman sewer first to deal with the problem of rainwater. Seems fitting somehow that they would restore in the order that the structures were built.

Basic idea: for a supposed oligarchy, there are just too many people sharing power, and no laws preventing anybody (as long as you're a freeborn Roman male, that is) from having a go at getting elected. Plus, with annual elections every year, you can try, try, try again. Of course, you'll be competing with the most arrogant sods you could ever meet (one guy actually claimed he was descended from Venus), and they're doing everything they can to undermine you--but you're still living in a system where you can call them names to your heart's content, and you've got friends and a family too. With a little graffiti and your childhood chums, you have an opportunity unlike anything they had in the true oligarchies of Venice, the early republic, or any of the hereditary monarchies that plagued Europe from Caesar, on through the Kaisars, to the last Tsar.

Under the kings, unelected patricians made up the whole senate. Later, unelected patrician senators became vanishingly rare, and, under Sulla, apparently extinct. Elected patricians, however, were common. Make sense?

Thank you. I still don't know what you're asking. Sometimes you underline single words. For example, "We must admit that we know almost nothing of the procedure for appointing new senators before Sulla

I don't know what question you're asking from your underlining. After Sulla, elected magistrates--and, as far we know, only elected magistrates--were appointed to the senate; therefore, after Sulla, senators were effectively elected to the senate. Before Sulla, matters are much less clear.... Actually, I'm just repeating what Lintott said, what's your question?

70% of what? Of quaestors? Of tribunes? Of aediles? Of praetors? Of consuls? or of all magistracies? It's not enough to restrict one's analysis to just one office and declare a sweeping generalization about an entire government. No. Why would it?

Yes and no. After Sulla, election to a magistracy came with a senate seat, but having once the senate seat was gained, only an action by a censor (according to fairly strict rules) could remove a senator from the senate. The thinking was that the advice of the senate (they couldn't pass laws) should come from many years worth of experienced magistrates and not be subject to the ebbs and tides of one election cycle. I'm very glad to hear it, and I'd love to see the list that you mention. Indeed. And since professional historians do not speak with one voice and frequently disagree with one another (sometimes in terms more vituperative than any used on this forum), one must ultimately summon evidence to make up one's own mind.

Where does your certainty come from GO? Elected magistrates (including tribunes since the lex Atinia, and quaestors since at least Sulla) were eligible to sit in the senate, and these were elected posts (the quaestorship, for example, since at least 443 BCE). Since Sulla, anyone elected to the quaestorship could serve in the senate (e.g., having been elected quaestor for 75, Cicero serves on the senate sub-committee examining the dispute between Oropos and the tax collectors in 73). EDIT: I'm assuming you don't have Andrew Lintott's "Constitution of the Roman Republic", so check out this interview with Lintott: he gives a better answer to your question than I did.

As far as our conclusions go, nothing really hinges on whether tribunes count as magistrates. Out of curiosity, I looked at the praetors alone to see whether the lion's share of praetorships were going to the top 20 or so families. Quite the opposite, the 178 known praetors were divided among 117 different gentes, with just 40% of the praetors belonging to the top 20 families. Here are the unique gentes listed in Gruen (number of individuals in parentheses for consular families). Praetors of consular families (34 gentes) Acilius, Aemilius (4), Antonius (2), Aufidius, Aurelius Cotta (4), Caecilius Metellus (6), Calpurnius (4), Cassius (2), Claudius (6), Coelius (2), Cornelius (9), Domitius (2), Fannius, Hortensius, Julius (2), Junius Silanus (2), Juventius (2), Licinius (5), Manlius (5), Marcius (3), Minucius Thermus (2), Octavius, Papirius, Plautius, Pompeius (2), Porcius, Publicius, Pupius, Rutilius, Sergius, Servilius, Sulpicius (4), Terentius (2), Valerius (3) Praetors of praetorian families (22 gentes) Aelius, Ancharius, Aquillius, Aufidius, Bellienus, Caecilius, Calidius, Claudius Glaber, Cornelius Sisenna, Cosconius, Fonteius, Gabinius, Licinius Murena, Memmius, Nigidius, Nonius, Quinctilius, Rubrius, Scribonius, Sextilius, Tremellius, Villius Praetors of senatorial family (26 gentes): Afranius, Antistius, Appuleius, Autronius, Caecilius Rufus, Caesius, Considius Nonianus, Cornificius, Curtius, Fabius, Fufius, Junius, Licinius Sacerdos, Lucceius, Peducaeus, Plaetorius, Plautius, Servilius, Sestius, Silius, Titius, Valerius, Vergilius, Verres, Voconius, Volcacius Novi homines (35 gentes): Alfius, Allienus, Ampius, Annius, Arrius, Atius, Attius, Caesonius, Considius, Coponius, Cossinius, Culleolous, Favonius, Flavius, Gallius, Gutta, Juncus, Labienus, Lollius, Megabocchus, Mummius, Octavius, Orbius, Orchivius, Petreius, Pomptinus, Quinctius, Roscius, Septimius, Sosius, Tullius, Turius, Valerius, Varinius, Vettius

The following Romans called the tribunes magistratus: Pomponius, De Origine Juris; Titus Livius, Bk 23; and M Messala, quoted by Gellius.

I completely disagree. There will always be leaders and followers; whether leadership is restricted by hereditary rules or not, however, makes a huge difference.

First, thank you for your thoughtful response. I thought the contrast between the republics of Rome and Venice was quite apt, and I was happy to see your analysis of the number of novi homines. Second, you raise an important question: if the Roman republic was not an oligarchy de jure, was there some sense in which the republic was an oligarchy de facto? With respect to family ties, I think the evidence I cited suggests No, and I think we're in agreement on this. With respect to auctoritas, however, Rome was far more oligarchical, with the views of some statesmen having vastly more weight than those of others due to all kinds of political stagecraft (on this, see especially, Marx-Morstein's interesting book "Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Republic"; a review here). Though even with respect to what we might call an "oligarchy of influence", I think we need to be careful. It's very tempting, for example, to see whole eras in terms of a titanic struggle between two major competitors (e.g., Licinius vs. Claudius, Cato vs Scipio, Marius vs. Sulla, Pompey vs Caesar, etc). Partly, however, I think the simplicity of these struggles simply reflects the paucity of our sources. When our sources are more voluminous (e.g., in the era of Cicero), the number of major players increases dramatically. As much as I like L R Taylor's "party of Caesar" vs "party of Cato" idea, most of Caesar's and Cato's allies were merely friends of convenience, with political goals that were short-term and with political alliances that were consequently short-lived (e.g., look at the shifting alliances of the enormously influential Metelli in the late republic, or contrast the goals of Nasica and Ahenobarbus with that of their nominal ally Cato). Finally--and this is a perennial bone of contention in modern politics--there is a vast and important difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. In a society of equal opportunity, free competition, and natural differences in ability, one would expect inequality of outcomes--and the same must be true of political influence as well. Those who cannot speak well or fear to do so will never attain the same political influence as a Cato, Cicero, or Caesar. Thus, at least in my opinion, the most important thing is that the laws of the republic were not oligarchical, that there is ample evidence of participation from a broad range of families, and that the participation and influence of plebeian families in particular grew over time with no need for radical, Soviet-style purges of the patrician families.

The mistake is not mine, but yours. Tribunes of the plebs were magistrates; they were listed as 'magistratus' by the ancient jurists, and I've included a reference so anyone can double-check my sources. I've analyzed 600 magistrates from the post-Sullan period since that was the period that gave rise to the claim that Caesar invaded an oligarchy--that is, rule by the few--rather than a republic. I think I've shown conclusively that this is a falsehood. If you want to maintain that an earlier period of the Republic was oligarchical, then put up the evidence on as comprehensive a range of magistracies (consuls, praetors, aediles, tribunes, and quaestors) from an earlier period. I'd love to see it. Perhaps the post-Sullan era was becoming more open to non-consular families; perhaps it was becoming less so. But you can't appeal to a vacuum of evidence to support your claim that my period was non-representative of the republic in general. These facts support neither the claim that Rome was an oligarchy nor the claim that upwards of 80% of magistracies were held by some 20 or 30 leading families. Moreover, it isn't true that most senators had no right to speak in the senate; rather, there was simply an order of precedence, which was absolutely necessary. No large body of people can adequately discuss matters without rules of order. If you would think about this mathematically, the number of speakers has to be limited in order to have a meaningful exchange of opinion: if two people present competing ideas, you have four arguments (argument A, argument B, counter to B, counter to A); if three, then you have nine arguments (A and anti-B and anti-C vs B and anti-A and anti-C vs C and anti-A and anti-; and so on, exponentially, with the value of the exponent determined by whether one allow rebuttals to counter-arguments. Had the Senate allowed everyone to present their own unique views, a generation of Romans would have died of old age before deciding whether to build the road to Capua. In short, the notion that every Senator should have the inalienable right to speak on every issue flies in the face of simple math.

That's about where the similarities end. Good call.

I've protested the use of oligarch previously, so I'll read "leading family" for "oligarch". That said, see whether it makes a difference. Suppose an extreme case where 100% of magistrates were controlled by 10 families and some of the men in one family were adopted by another. It would have no effect on the oligarchic character of the state: 100% of magistrates would still be controlled by the same small number of men; everyone would still call it an oligarchy; the only difference is whether you call Marcus and Julius by the same gens or by different gentes. It makes no difference. Take the case like I mentioned: suppose 100% of magistracies were controlled by 10 families, and these 10 families adopted all the other people in the state. Then, everyone in the family would be eligible to hold magistracies, and no one would call it an oligarchy. The point is that adoption either has no effect on how oligarchical the system was (it's the exact same few men controlling the state, whether you call them by the same name or not)--or adoption undermines the oligarchy by broadening the number of men who are eligible for the magistracy. I really fail to see the opposing point. What would be a situation where adoption serves to further concentrate power into the hands of successively fewer men? As long as the number of offices is held constant, no man could hold more than one office, and all of the offices are elected--there is no such situation in which adoption affects the oligarchic character of the state.

I'm strictly speaking of oligarchy in the sense Polybius used it: rule of the few. Whether came from money, military success, good looks, brains, whatever doesn't matter. To put it differently, if there were a small number of wealthy citizens who had no political ambitions for themselves or others and the magistrates were chosen by lottery, it wouldn't be an oligarchy--it would be rule by the many. If everyone were equally rich, but only 10 hereditary families controlled all the offices of the state--it would be an oligarchy. Thus, the definition of oligarchy is independent of economic control. Were voters sometimes bribed? Our sources certainly say so. But I think one has to question what's really going on with these bribes. The fact is that the ballot was secret. Thus, a voter might be paid to vote for Bibulus, yet vote for Caesar, or vice-versa, and no one would know or get their money back. Moreover, there were laws against bribery, courts devoted to prosecuting it, and elections entirely annulled because of the scandal of bribery. Finally, and I think this is a critical question to ask: if votes did not matter, why did anyone want to buy them? If Rome were a hereditary monarchy, votes would be worthless and no one would care to buy them. Doesn't this suggest that the votes of the people really did count for a whole lot?? Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not claiming that the Roman republic was a democracy, nor that it was a utopia, nor that the civil rights of the people were never violated during the long history of the Republic. My claim is that Rome had real democratic elements and that it's incorrect to call Rome an oligarchy. In contrast, a system of hereditary rule by a single extended family through their appointed magistrates--that IS an oligarchic system, and it was the one that was in place during the principate.

Dont forget adoptions. The whole Fabii clan in the late republic existed only because of them. Adoptions help the narrow claim (about %) at the expense of the broader claim (about oligarchy). Take an extreme example: suppose one family adopted the whole Roman body of citizens, leading to all magistracies being "concentrated" in one enormous family. Under this situation, the distinction between new men and aristocrat becomes meaningless, as does the distinction between oligarchy and pure democracy. Thus, as adoption is more widespread, so too is the meaningfulness of family as a measure of oligarchy.

Why? If you discovered that a wife murdered her husband to support her lover with his inheritance, you'd condemn the deed even if it occurred two years ago, would you not? If it occurred 20, 200, or 2000 years ago, what's the difference? I think the real mistake is write off the past as being beyond moral judgment. Would you really want people to celebrate Hitler in 2000 years? That's the logical consequence of this relativism.

A major question about the Roman republic concerns the extent to which the magistrates of the state were dominated by a small number of families. The motivation for this concern is that a state that is dominated by the few is an oligarchy, a term which Polybius (among others) used to describe many constitutions in the ancient world--but not Rome's. There are a number of important factual matters to establish in assessing whether Rome was an oligarchy. First, what is a magistrate? Second, who were the magistrates? Third, to what extent were the magistracies dominated by a few families? And, last, does family dominance support that the claim that Rome "was a pure oligarchy, the poeple had no shrare in the government [sic]"? First, a 'magistrate' (or magistratus) had a precise legal meaning in ancient Rome (discussed here). A magistrate is one who holds the legal right to direct the business of the state. Initially, only the kings were magistratus, and immediately after they were expelled, only the two consuls were magistratus. Over time, this list expanded to 10 tribunes of the plebs, 2 consuls, 18 praetors, 6 aediles, as well as various propraetors and proconsuls. In the age of Sulla, it included 2 censors, 2 consuls, 8-10 praetors, 2 curule aediles, 10 tribunes of the plebs, 2 plebeian aediles, and 20 quaestors (see here for Prof. Kondratieff's useful page, or Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic). Second, who were these magistrates? A partial but magnificent answer to this question is provided by Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, a 2 volume work that is impossible to reproduce here. (A more complete source is currently being produced by Drs. Benness and Hillard.). For our purposes, I would suggest limiting the period under consideration simply to 78-49, since that's the period that's really under dispute and also since we have a full list of magistrates for this period reproduced in Gruen's widely available "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic". Third, if we confine ourselves to this period, it becomes clear that the proportion of magistracies that went to the top families depends very much on the rank of the magistracy held. At one extreme, 54 of the 61 known consuls (88.5%) came from consular families. At the other extreme, only 33 of the 113 known tribunes (29%) came from consular families. Overall, of 600 known magistrates from 78-49, only 241 (40%) came from consular families. Thus, the majority of the magistrates of the late republic were men who came from families that had risen no further than praeteor. Fourth, not only were the majority of the magistracies going to non-consular families, even if the proportion were reversed, it would not support the claim that the people had no share in government. Quite the contrary, it was the people in their assemblies that elected all the magistrates who formed the cursus honorum--from censor to quaestor--in addition to electing all the minor magistracies, including the tresviri capitales and monetales had the power to alter the constitution (e.g., by introducing new magistracies or expanding their numbers) pass civil laws, found colonies, and distribute public land; and control admission to Roman citizenship itself. . So far from the people having no share in the government, the very government itself was engraved on the ballots that were held in the palms of the people. In my view, the claim that Roman republic was an actual oligarchy is an insidious falsehood that only serves the purpose of whitewashing the crimes of Caesar and his heirs. It's one thing to read this sort of nonsense from their apologists; we needn't go on repeating their propaganda from the luxury of our own republics.

In the thread I'm starting, I'd like to see your source on this. After your previous claim that 99% of the consuls belonged to 30 families, I'm quite skeptical to the new numbers, but I'm happy to be persuaded differently.

I'm going to open a new thread on this.

10 praetors? First was only one praetor and noone knows what he was really doing in the begining of republic. It was praetor maximus.After judical power was separated from consulship there was 1 praetor. In the 4th century BC additional praetor for foreigners was added. After Sicilly and Sardinia became provinces 2 more praetors were elected. Sulla raised number of praetors to 8. Caesar raised number of praetors to 16. And in Cicero's day, there were 10. But none of this helps your case in the slightest: there's still no way that 99% of consulships or magistracies (no matter what offices are meant by the term) were dominated by 30 or 20 families. I wonder, do you really want to persist in this thesis?

If you have the chance, ask him about his idea that coffee enemas are the cure for cancer.

I'm pretty sure this statistic is incomplete or a complete fabrication. Source? Between consulship of Manius Acylius Glabrio in 191 BCE and first consulship of Gaius Marius only 2 homines novi were elected for consuls. For 222 consuls elected between 218 BCE and 108 BCE: 24 were Cornelii 15 were Claudii 10 were Fulvii 9 were Aemilii 9 were Postumii 8 were Fabii 8 were Sempronii I would say that it wasnt 30 famillies that were contributing majority of magistrates but even less. In fact the rank of consul was reserved for only about 20 famillies. Come on, finish the math. You've listed 83 consuls from 7 families. You've still got 139 to go and only 13 families to do it in--you're not even going to come close, even for the restricted time frame you've listed. Plus, you've only listed consuls, not the 10 praetors of each year, let alone the aediles, quaestors and tribunes. Let's face it: the notion that less than 30 families made up 99% of consuls (let alone all the magistracies) is a fantastic exaggeration.

If I understand what you're saying, I must object that he is the sole perpatrator. Take for instance Mr. Polk and his little Mexican expansionist war. I don't think you've understood GO correctly. He claimed that Jackson was a "harbinger"--i.e., a forerunner, not a 'sole perpetrator'. Also, so far as I know, nothing that Bush has done comes even close to declaring martial law in the US, arresting American legislators and judges, and threatening judges with mob violence. Jackson did all those--and was popular for it. Bush's behavior has been of merely questionable legality (e.g., with respect to Jose Padilla)--and the man is politically toxic. To me, it looks like the country has grown more sophisticated about these sorts of things, not less.