Power To The Poor

[caldrail]

It is frequently forgotten here that the "poor people" were also the soldiers; the military service was their true and only political power, either under the Republic or the Empire, as it was so vividly illustrated by the story of the plebeian withdrawal to the Sacred Mount.

 

An interesting statement. Was it indeed the case that the poorest classes of Rome sought political influence by service in the Legions?

 

The republican armies, prior to the Reforms of Marius in 106BC were essentially a citizen militia, raised annually or at the most for the duration of a campaign. They did so because service to Rome was both expected and respected. Not all volunteers were chosen for service, and not all the chosen always served. Much depended on circumstance.

 

The democratic institutions of ancient Rome were far reaching and Polybius describes them ably, although we should be aware that he does so without going into intricate detail as he says himself. Polybius makes the point that the lower classes were well represented, that they had a part to play in government, and clearly the Roman public were not entirely disatisfied with the organisation of the state even though at times they had gripes over its policies.

 

The post-Marian legions were very different, with a more regimented order of battle and service conditions lasting as much as twenty five years. The real motive for joining the legions during this period was to escape poverty. The legions offered a living, if a somewhat risky one, with decent medical care and substantial perks for serving soldiers, not to mention a primitive pension scheme and grants of land on retirement. Should conflict break out, it was expected that Roman troops would loot and pillage enemy towns when the opportunity arose. Their commanders, whilst keen to ensure a minimal standard of discipline and behaviour, were well aware of the nature of their men and regarded their bloody looting after a siege and assault as just punishment upon the defeated. It is also true that Roman soldiers were not averse to theft from the general public.

 

The image of imperial troops marching on Rome with a general determined to be emperor is perhaps misleading. Whilst the rank and file were sometimes devoted to their generals and wished to see them on the throne as emperor, they did so for selfish motives rather than the good of the plebeian classes as a whole.

 

In the late empire the political unity of Rome begins to fragment as taxation rises and the emperors turn to displays of magnificence to retain their authority instead of relying on traditional status. Even then, the plebs of Rome did not rise up in indignation as we might expect of modern populations, but instead simply withdrew from Roman administration.

 

The late armies were different' The old larger independent legions were a thing of the past, undoubtedly a good thing if you happen unsure of power, and the introduction of almost pyramidical armies composed of smaller legions as regimental formations meant that command of these troops was better controlled politically. Whereas the Principate had relied on division of military strength between individuals to retain a balance of internal power (a process that failed as we have seen) in much the same way as the traditional division of levies between two consuls in Republican times, the Dominate preferred a smaller number of replaceable generals commanding armies much closer to the pattern we understand of our modern day.

 

Noticeably however, there is a great deal of difference in the performance of troops in these late armies. Vegetius moans about their poor standards, and Ammianus Marcellinus tells us that fresh recruits were better motivated at the time of Adrianople. He also mentioned that the Emperor valens stayed at Melanthia after leaving Constantinople making frequent speeches to persuade his army to go on campaign at all. The discontent of the common soldier of this time is mentioned by other historians - Zosimus provides us with a damning description though perhaps that can be forgiven for being written a century or two after the event.

 

Nonetheless, despite this lack of military will, there is no popular uprising. Any involvement of the legions in political change is merely one of direct presence in events, and then usually led by ambitious and charismatic generals as opposed to the will of the common soldiery whose goodwill was often manipulated by crafty politicians. It worth pointing out that Roman generals were politcal appointees, not necessarily chosen for their abaility to lead armies, but their influence within the ruling classes.

 

What we should see therefore is a state with a carefully arranged balance of influence between the social classes that allowed the prerogatives of the high-born, and permitted the say of those of lower station. There was no revolution aimed at removing these institutions during the course of Rome's 1200 year reign as the seat of power, rather that the person at the helm be replaced for someone more convenient to those who were not satisified - which was usually a minority such as a legion or two.

 

Some might point to Spartacus as the leader of a true working class rebellion. This is of course modern myth making. The identification between marxist principles and the campaigns of Spartacus are obvious, but inherently flawed. Spartacus did not revolt to lead the common people to freedom - he escaped a death in a violent spectacle in the arena for his own survival and enrichment as a bandit, a life he already had experience of. That many of the common folk rallied to his cause shouldn't suprise either. Many were slaves escaped harsh and cruel treatment in the same way that slave revolts had already ocurred in Sicily. The revolt of Spartacus was, in effect, a local revolt that gathered strength like a snowball. More importantly, Spartacus never attempted to establish an alternative Roman state. He merely escaped the one that was set to punish him for his banditry and then attempted to profit from the hordes that saw him as an easier life.

 

In short, the common folk of Roman society had enough institutional say. In later periods, they felt less need to express it, bought off with free food and entertainment. When the power of Rome faded in the west, the common folk turned their backs and tried to manage their own affairs.

Edited July 14, 2009 by caldrail

[Ingsoc]

I think the view of the Plebs as a "class" is anachronistic. The division to order in Rome was based on your Census, a minimum of 1 million sestertius + membership in the senate and you were a member of the Senators order, a minimum of 400,000 sestertius and you were a member of the Equestrian order and all the rest were classified as Plebs. Obviously there were a wide variety among them - farmers, artisans, unskilled workers, etc. so I don't think we could call them a "class" in the modern way, certainly not in a Marxist way. I have not yet seen any evidence to "class consciousness" among the Plebs.

 

No doubt that since the Marian reforms military service gave political power to the ordinary soldier, the question is if this was really what they were after when enlisted and during the service? as you pointed out the main motive for enlistment was poverty and since the soldiers always supported some aristocrat and never wanted one of them to take over I doubt that what they want was a way to express political power, usually their mindset is that "our general is such a great guy and we shouldn't let them mistreat him".

[marcus silanus]

I think the view of the Plebs as a "class" is anachronistic. The division to order in Rome was based on your Census, a minimum of 1 million sestertius + membership in the senate and you were a member of the Senators order, a minimum of 400,000 sestertius and you were a member of the Equestrian order and all the rest were classified as Plebs. Obviously there were a wide variety among them - farmers, artisans, unskilled workers, etc. so I don't think we could call them a "class" in the modern way, certainly not in a Marxist way. I have not yet seen any evidence to "class consciousness" among the Plebs.

 

No doubt that since the Marian reforms military service gave political power to the ordinary soldier, the question is if this was really what they were after when enlisted and during the service? as you pointed out the main motive for enlistment was poverty and since the soldiers always supported some aristocrat and never wanted one of them to take over I doubt that what they want was a way to express political power, usually their mindset is that "our general is such a great guy and we shouldn't let them mistreat him".

 

I do agree that the perception of the Plebians as a class and as the universally poor masses of Rome is quite incorrect. The landless poor are more correctly referred to as the Proletarii or the capite censi. There were many wealth and powerful Plebian families and perhaps the distinction between Plebian and Patrician nobility is rather like the British aristocratic families whose lineage goes back to, for example, the days of the Tudors and those wealthy and powerful families enobled because of a member's contribution to commerce or politics, the latter being the Plebian equivalent.

[sylla]

The democratic institutions of ancient Rome were far reaching and Polybius describes them ably, although we should be aware that he does so without going into intricate detail as he says himself. Polybius makes the point that the lower classes were well represented, that they had a part to play in government, and clearly the Roman public were not entirely disatisfied with the organisation of the state even though at times they had gripes over its policies.

Actually, what Polybius explicity stated in his panegyric on the Roman Constitution was that it was not democratic.. nor monarchic, nor oligarchic, but a peculiar fourth way with the best of each world; however, as the aristocratic Achaean that he was, Polybius betrayed himself some lines below, stating that the aristocratic Roman constitution was a significant factor over the more democratic Carthaginians:

"Consequently the multitude at Carthage had already acquired the chief voice in deliberations; while at Rome the senate still retained this; and hence, as in one case the masses deliberated and in the other the most eminent men, the Roman decisions on public affairs were superior, so that although they met with complete disaster, they were finally by the wisdom of their counsels victorious over the Carthaginians in the war".

[Ingsoc]

I do agree that the perception of the Plebians as a class and as the universally poor masses of Rome is quite incorrect. The landless poor are more correctly referred to as the Proletarii or the capite censi. There were many wealth and powerful Plebian families and perhaps the distinction between Plebian and Patrician nobility is rather like the British aristocratic families whose lineage goes back to, for example, the days of the Tudors and those wealthy and powerful families enobled because of a member's contribution to commerce or politics, the latter being the Plebian equivalent.

 

I think you got a bit confuse, their actually two definitions to what a Pleb is, the first as you said is the Patrician-Plebian division that determine by who was your father, this definition lost relevance is the end of the early Republic as the Plebs got equal rights. The second is what I've mention, the division into three categories (Senators, Equestrians, Plebs) based on one property.

 

Actually, what Polybius explicity stated in his panegyric on the Roman Constitution was that it was not democratic.. nor monarchic, nor oligarchic, but a peculiar fourth way with the best of each world; however, as the aristocratic Achaean that he was, Polybius betrayed himself some lines below, stating that the aristocratic Roman constitution was a significant factor over the more democratic Carthaginians:

"Consequently the multitude at Carthage had already acquired the chief voice in deliberations; while at Rome the senate still retained this; and hence, as in one case the masses deliberated and in the other the most eminent men, the Roman decisions on public affairs were superior, so that although they met with complete disaster, they were finally by the wisdom of their counsels victorious over the Carthaginians in the war".

 

The idea of mixed constitution (Miktea Politea) as the ideal state of affairs was a very old Greek idea. AS for Polybius one should ask how well did he describe the Roman political system, for example he mention only one people assembly instead of the three that existed.

[sylla]

The idea of mixed constitution (Miktea Politea) as the ideal state of affairs was a very old Greek idea. AS for Polybius one should ask how well did he describe the Roman political system, for example he mention only one people assembly instead of the three that existed.

Polybius presumably took the anacyclosis concept from Aristotle's Politics; however, we should remember his Book 6 was not research but propaganda, because his conclusion was perfectly known in advance; the Roman constitution was the best of the best.

 

In short, the common folk of Roman society had rather few institutional say, because even if by ignoring (for the sake of the argument) the obvious physical limitations and the real possibility of both positive and negative incentives (Ambitus) we admit that in principle any Roman citizen could vote, only a selected aristocracy (in fact, a fully developed plutocracy) could have been voted for virtually any magistracy.

 

The selection of such aristocracy was mainly hereditary (just check out the proportion of "new men" at any time); it was a plutocracy, because in modern terms and for any practical purpose, any citizen had to be filthy rich to participate in Roman Republican politics on his own, especially during the last two centuries.

 

In fact, the ruling elite should never ever work for their living, with the obvious exception of Politics (Rhetorics included) and War.

Plainly stated, regular guys like you and me, who ought to work for their daily living (let say a carpenter or a blacksmith) were simply out of the game (unless they joined the army and became heroes, of course).

 

"Plebeian" is certainly not synonymous of "poor". The definition of the former condition was negative, ie. any Roman citizen that was not a "Patrician".

The latter definition was quite complex and it is not entirely understood to this very day, mainly because all the Patrician recruitment and even most of the "struggle of the orders" happened during legendary or semi-legendary periods; its clear that multiple and variable criteria were used across time.

Edited July 15, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

Actually, what Polybius explicity stated in his panegyric on the Roman Constitution was that it was not democratic.. nor monarchic, nor oligarchic, but a peculiar fourth way with the best of each world;

 

Did they or did they not vote on political issues? Your question then is not whether the Roman Consitution was democratic, but to what extent it was. Some might argue that our modern democracies only pay lip service to the concept. So therefore what Polybius points out is not the existence of democracy, but a comparison with the greek-inspired ideal.

 

I'm still suprised that people see recruits joining the legions to enjoy their politcal rights. There isn't any such connection in Roman society. In the Republic, a person was entitled to volunteer because his politcal rights existed. In the empire, it was a job with good health care, retirement perks, and the potetial to add wealth. The political power of the legion is limited to threat of violence or the influence of its commander. However, the exercise of that power is ethically borderline and technically mutiny against the Senate and the people of Rome. Since an individual joining a legion has no choice but to obey orders or follow the crowd, how could he exercise his political will within such a restrictive military organisation?

[sylla]

No doubt that since the Marian reforms military service gave political power to the ordinary soldier, the question is if this was really what they were after when enlisted and during the service? as you pointed out the main motive for enlistment was poverty and since the soldiers always supported some aristocrat and never wanted one of them to take over I doubt that what they want was a way to express political power, usually their mindset is that "our general is such a great guy and we shouldn't let them mistreat him".

Long before the Marian Reforms, his share of the war booty was essentially the only chance for an ordinary Roman fellow to obtain enough money on his own to translate it in real personal political power, as exemplified by many new men; that might very well have been the case for Marius himself.

[Kosmo]

The urban poor of the Late Republic had influence and we see members of the elite trying to win favor with it by many means. It was often decisive when the army did not got involved. The requirement of 1 million sesterci for a senator and 40.000 for a equites belongs to the Empire period.

[sylla]

Argument "A":

The urban poor of the Late Republic had influence and we see members of the elite trying to win favor with it by many means.It was often decisive when the army did not got involved.

The urban poor retained a huge influence during the Imperial period: that's why panem et circenses were required, even at Constantinople.

 

Argument "B":

The requirement of 1 million sesterci for a senator and 40.000 for a equites belongs to the Empire period.

Please forgive me, but I can't find the relationship between "A" and "B".

Edited July 16, 2009 by sylla

[Kosmo]

A. Indeed. And it went beyond the poor citizens.

B. There is no connection, this was meant as a reply to post #2. I was trying to say that the Senate of the Republic was not necessary a plutocracy. And the Senate was not the only power and maybe not even the greatest so I doubt that Rome can be ever seen as a plutocracy.

[Pompieus]

What about the equestrian order? Did not the ordo equestris include EVERYONE with the required census (viz 400,000 sestertii) WHO WAS NOT A SENATOR - that is everybody the censors had not added to the list of senators? Including both those individuals assigned to the 18 equestrian centuries (those who held the equo publico) AND those with the required census in the centuries of the first class? Also including the sons of senators who were not old enough or distinguished enough to have been added to the senate - like Pompey?

 

And could not a patrician who had fallen on bad economic times (like the young Sulla) fall out of the equestrian order completely and be registered in the capiti censi

 

And wasn't everybody who was not a member of the 22 or so surviving patrician clans (regardless of their economic or social status) a plebian?

 

Oh, and the real working poor (the industrial population of the city of Rome may have had more influence on politics than has generally been assumed if you believe Fergus Millar's "The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic".

[sylla]

A. Indeed. And it went beyond the poor citizens.

B. There is no connection, this was meant as a reply to post #2. I was trying to say that the Senate of the Republic was not necessary a plutocracy. And the Senate was not the only power and maybe not even the greatest so I doubt that Rome can be ever seen as a plutocracy.

A. We entirely agree.

B. Sorry, now I get it.

I simply can't understand what would you require to consider any regime as a plutocracy; from Merriam-Webster:

1 : government by the wealthy

2 : a controlling class of the wealthy

 

The Roman Republican nobiles widely fitted both acceptations.

Panem et Circenses were not introduced by the Empire; they were required for any Republican campaign and, consequently, such campaigns were impressively expensive, as you can check on virtually any source.

Any candidate required filthy amounts of money, either on his own or from a sponsor (ie, his patron), at least across the last two centuries of the Republic (BTW, the only well-attested period in our sources for this issue).

Lacking the latter option, the only chance for any ordinary Roman citizen to get enough money was the war booty, as exemplified by Curius Dentatus.

 

If you are aware of any well-attested exception, I would gladly check on your primary sources.

Edited July 16, 2009 by sylla

[M. Porcius Cato]

I simply can't understand what would you require to consider any regime as a plutocracy; from Merriam-Webster:

1 : government by the wealthy

2 : a controlling class of the wealthy

The Roman Republican nobiles widely fitted both acceptations.

 

Did they? Seems to me that there were plenty of nobiles that--far from being wealthy--were saddled with so much debt that it would take the wealth of a whole nation (*cough* Gaul! *cough*) to pay it off.

Edited July 18, 2009 by M. Porcius Cato

[Ingsoc]

I simply can't understand what would you require to consider any regime as a plutocracy; from Merriam-Webster:

1 : government by the wealthy

2 : a controlling class of the wealthy

The Roman Republican nobiles widely fitted both acceptations.

 

Did they? Seems to me that there were plenty of nobiles that--far from being wealthy--were saddled with so much debt that it would take the wealth of a whole nation (*cough* Gaul! *cough*) to pay it off.

 

Good point, however you should note that nobiles without money (such as Sulla, Caesar, Catillina) had some difficulty reaching the higher offices.