Spqr

[Guest Shane]

The classic formula early Rome sucess is-in the opinion of some scholars-that is was the SPQR-Senatus Populus Romanus-The senate and the people of Rome. From my readings and research I have only seen the Senate ruling in there own interest and the Plebeian/Patricia kind of taking whatever was left (more so the Pleb's).

 

I'll argue there was a time in it's early years when the senate was not corrupt and did indeed rule in the interest's of Rome not just in the interest of the aristocrates and securing there position(s) for life.

 

Thoughts?

[Primus Pilus]

The case can certainly be made that the Senate really only governed as an independent body for a very short time. Despite Tribunician power however, the Senate was still the pivotal focal point of Roman government. Even if sometimes playing second string to demigogue tribunes or even individual maverick politicians, the Senate was always viewed as the ultimate Roman authority.

 

Even so, without the Tribunes and 'Populares' Senators, the Senate could not represent the position of the masses effectively. The 'checks and balances' of the middle Republic government was possibly the most efficient and fair form in Roman history. Personal power and ego always played a part, but it didn't start to tear apart the system until after the mass expansion and slave influx of the Punic Wars and other eastern conquests.

[P.Clodius]

Foreign affairs were the Senate's domain also. One of the issues the senate had with the Gracchi is they both intruded on this sacred cow. Tiberius propsosed a law (which passed) to use funds recently willed to the Roman people by a foriegn power to fund his land relocation bill. Gaius propossed the colonization of former Cartheginian territory. The senate's concern was, what happened to Mos Maiorum?

[Ursus]

Well, you notice the Senate is listed first and the people almost an afterthought.

 

Furthermore, "the people" when it came to elect the most important magistrates were divided into classes based on wealth, and the wealthier classes had a very disproportionate amount of power.

 

I think a Republic doesn't presuppose the equality of everybody - that is a democracy. A Republic only presupposes the equality of the socio-political elite in whom the vast majority of power is concentrated.

 

In the olden days a person's status in Rome was based on how much they could afford in weapons and armor. Of course the wealthy could afford the best armaments and were the natural leaders of the citizensarmy, and this carried over into political life as well. Roman society did revolve around service to the patria, and most Romans assumed that since the socio-political elite contributed the most, they deserved to rule.

 

When the patricians did commit eggregious offenses, the plebians did revolt, of course, and checks and balances put into place. But the basic Roman ideal of elites serving as patrons to rest of Roman society as clients doesn't seem to have gone out of fashion. Modern ideals of egalitarianism seem out of place in Roman society. The only equality that mattered was the equality of those in the ruling classes, and that lasted until the late Republic and its various generals upset the balance.

[Guest spartacus]

Just out of interest, do you know who came up with the motto SPQR ?

[pompeius magnus]

I did

[Guest spartacus]

I thought it was you, not some Roman Senator!

 

[pompeius magnus]

I am older than I look. I always thought it was post Punic War after Roman power began to spread.

[Guest spartacus]

To be honest PM I am not sure of its true origin!

 

 

help anyone?