tribuni militum cum consulari potestate

[CiceroD]

I was reading through my copy of the Chronicle of the Roman Republic by Phil Matyszak and stumbled upon references to "Military Tribunes". Here's what the author had to say:

 

Military tribunes or to give them their official title - tribuni militum cum consulari potestate - came about in 444.

The powers of the consuls were divided between two new magistrates - the military tribunes and the censors. they could be chosen from both the patricians and the plebeian and the system was a compromise to the idea that the consulship should be open to both orders.

 

In any year the people could choose to elect either consuls or military tribunes, and while there were always two consuls in a year, (If consuls were elected) there could be two, three, or even six military tribunes. (Sometimes their colleagues, the censors, were also described as military tribunes making the the number even higher.) The sysstem lasted until 367 and was abolished by the Licinian Law

 

This raises far more questions for me than it answers. Ostensibly the election of multiple "Consuls" would be useful in leading separate armies (as Praetors would). But a look at my timeline indicates that there were few wars of note in this period except the spectacular capture of Veii and the Sack of Rome by Brennus. In addition I have another reason to doubt the "military" nature of this office: wouldn't a tribune's military imperium evaporate on crossing the pomoerium? How would they ever convene the Senate or Tribal Assembly?

 

As Matyszak relates this was a compromise amidst the Conflict of The Orders. But if this was a way for plebeians to win seats of power I was shocked to see that L. Quinctius Cincinnatus (a Patrician hardliner) himself served in one of the first years Military Tribunes were elected (could have been his son). Reading the UNRV consul lists brought up another little enigma. The Licinian Rogations occured during a run of Military Tribunes from 391 to 367 BCE. The Licinian Rogations a.k.a. "the anarchy" was that time period when the Tribunes of the Plebs held out for access to the consulship. Then what do they do but elect military Tribunes for several years more. This doesn't make any sense! Why commit to a knock-down drag-out war for access to the consulship when Military Tribuneship was already available to plebs? I found another source that contradicts the UNRV consul list. It maintains that the Licinian Rogations came at the end of this period (367) this seems to make sense. (Lex Licinia, Licinian Rogations) Someone please clarify this!

 

The last question is pretty much semantics the official title was "tribuni militum cum consulari potestate". Forgive me but didn't Consuls hold imperium rather than potestas?

[Ingsoc]

The point of creating the militray tribunship was to create a consul like position in order to appease the Plebs demands without actually being the a "true" consullship with all the prestige the position had. The Plebs simply weren't content to be second grade consuls.

 

Potestas is simply a general term to denote legal authority of a magistrate, all magistrates held potestas of some sort, some of them, such as consuls, also held military authority known as imperium. The fact a magistrate held an imperium didn't contradict to the fact he held the potestas of his position.

[Pompieus]

In 445 BCE one of the tribunes (the regular tribunes of the people), C Canuleius proposed that the consulship be opened to plebians. This was at the height of the struggle of the orders and eligibility for election to all the "official" magistracies was limited to patricians. As a concession to the plebs, and to avoid "soiling" the consulship with plebians, the senators decided to replace the consulship with "military tribunes with consular powers" and to allow plebians to run for the post. It was also determined that patrician censors would be elected to perform the census and revise the list of senators(previously done by the consuls) and that each year the senate would advise the assembly whether consuls or military tribunes should be elected and, if military tribunes, how many. Thus regular consuls were elected many times between 444 and 368 instead of Tribuni militum consulare potestate (viz. 443-439, 437-435, 431-427, 423, 421, 413-409, 393) and the number of consular tribunes varied.

 

It was political concession, a stopgap that let the plebs into the power structure without allowing them to actually hold the consulship. This was evidently pretty important to the patricians for reasons of pride and/or religion and they still had the possibility of freezing the plebians out by returning to election of regular, patrician consuls. And it mattered to the plebs too since as you note they still insisted on eligibility for the consulship, and finally got it when the Licinian-Sextian law passed in 367 BCE reserving one consulship for a plebian.

 

The office was not exclusively military as the powers were the same as those held by the consuls (eg consulare potestas)such as the power to conve the senate and assemblies. Imperium (military command) was only one of the consuls powers

Edited March 7, 2011 by Pompieus

[CiceroD]

It was political concession, a stopgap that let the plebs into the power structure without allowing them to actually hold the consulship. This was evidently pretty important to the patricians for reasons of pride and/or religion and they still had the possibility of freezing the plebians out by returning to election of regular, patrician consuls. And it mattered to the plebs too since as you note they still insisted on eligibility for the consulship, and finally got it when the Licinian-Sextian law passed in 367 BCE reserving one consulship for a plebian.

 

 

They elected Military Tribunes for 14 uninterrupted years between 408 and 394 BCE. I can't imagine that this could be allowed if the patricians could so easily "freeze the plebians out" and return to consuls. There was another long stretch between 391 and 367 thats 24 years without a consul. (Admittedly the "Anarchy" also was in there)

[Pompieus]

True, but often the entire college were still patricians. Only a few plebs were allowed to breach the walls. And some of the names preserved are questioned. Not until 367 did the plebs join the ruling class.

[Pompieus]

There are a couple of old articles in the Journal of Roman Studies on this subject. JRS 47 (1953) has an article by E S Stavely that tends to support the "political" solution (viz a sop to the plebians seeking office) and in JRS 47 (1957) F Adcock emphasises that the political and "military" (providing more commanders for an expanded army facing multiple threats) solutions are not mutually exclusive, and thatdifferent reasons may have been controlling at different times beween 445 and 367 BC.

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

I may be wrong (I usually am)but it seems to me that there's some confusion as to the military tribune and the political tribune, e.g., Tribune of the Plebs. Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, but I think they are correct in this instance.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribune

Edited September 9, 2011 by Hieronymus Longinus Rufus

[Pompieus]

I may be wrong (I usually am)but it seems to me that there's some confusion as to the military tribune and the political tribune, e.g., Tribune of the Plebs. Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, but I think they are correct in this instance.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribune

 

The guys CiceroD is asking about are a THIRD species-in addition to the tribunes of the plebs and the six military tribunes attached to each legion of the army. "military tribunes with consular authority". The ones the Wiki article talks about in the "Republican Period" paragraph.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Pompieus