Class Conscious

[Ursus]

Following from the thread on politics, I thought we could look at the role of class structure in Imperial Rome.

 

So in the early Republic there were basically two distinct divisions, the Patricians and the Plebs. The Patricians could be further divided into Senators and Equites.

 

By Imperial times we have a complicated social hierarchy. Augustus restored the Republican system of orders, but there were now sharper differences - although things can be roughly divided between the social haves (honestiores) and social have-nots (humiliores).

 

Honestiores: Senators, Equestrians, Decurions

 

1) The Senatorial order.

Requirement: one million sesterces.

Perks: right to hold various offices, right to sit in Senatorial seats in public, right to wear the toga with a broad purple stripe.

Recruitment: by the Princeps, among the wealthiest and most powerful families across the empire.

Restrictions: strict moral legislation imposed by Augustus. Forbidden to marry freedwomen or perform in public spectacles.

Subdivision: the ancient families with Consular ancestors were known as nobiles and were more prestigious than newly recruited Senatorial families.

 

2) The Equestrian order.

Requirement: 400, 000 sesterces. Two previous generations of free birth.

Perks: right to sit in equestrian seats in public; right to hold various offices; right to wear toga with narrow purple stripe and wear a gold ring

Recruitment: From Romanized propertied classes across the empire

Restrictions: strict moral legislation, could not perform in public spectacles

Subdivision: small minority holding high office for emperor called the "equestrian nobility" and had special titles. The Praetorian Prefect came to virtualy outrank Senators.

 

3) Decurions.

Requirement: vague requirement for wealth (around 100, 000 sesterces), social prestige, and moral status

Perks: right to hold local office, distinction among local population

Recruitment: local men of property recruited by provincial government for municipal service

Restrictions: were not paid for their services, and were expected to contribute their wealth to the community.

Subdivision: the wealthiest and most powerful were called the "New Men" who had exploited the prosperity of the Pax Romana and risen above local obscurity.

 

 

Humiliores: freemen and slaves

 

Requirement: none, other than being a slave or a freeman of no political and economic significance.

Perks: few to none

Recruitment: born into a social class, or sold into slavery

Restrictions: no real part in political process

Subdivisions: Freeborn could make fortunes and become decorians and onward. Slaves could buy or be granted freedom, but any recently manumitted slave could not hold office. Some slaves employed in government service or as household servants of the power elite held more wealth and influence than freemen.

 

(the above is largely taken from _The Roman Empire_ by Garnsey and Saller).

 

Romans were obsessed with their social status and paraded it everywhere. It was said every Roman except those at the very top (the Emperor) and those at the very bottom (slaves) were simultaneously a patron to those in the lower orders and a client to those in the higher orders. This interlocking client-patron relationships basically defined Roman society.

 

Roman Social Class Conscious. Virtue or Vice? Inegalitarian social structure offensive to modern sensibilities? Or a smoothly ordered social system where those who contributed the most wealth and political service to the system were rewarded with high social status? What say you?

[P.Clodius]

Ursus, what are you and an Oxford professor of classics? You're posts are always on the ball!!

[Primus Pilus]

Excellent synopsis of the Roman class structure.

 

I'll try to start this off... I would say that this ancient system is both similar and yet would be somewhat reviled by the modern sensibility. The 'lower class' made up the bulk of the population of the ancient world, and were governed by the social elite with little opportunity for advancement. While the opportunity for advancement exists today, are abrupt shifts in the social order any more common than they were 2,000 years ago? The bulk of people living in democratic societies today occupy the 'middle-class' which simply did not exist in the Roman structure. That one social change completely skews the two systems, otherwise we might find our sensibilities to be very similar. However, by comparing the position of the elite in both societies, does today's middle class occupy any better of a station than the lower classes of the Roman world?

[Guest spartacus]

Here in Britain you tend to find a 4 tier system,

 

Elite class

 

Upper class

 

Middle class

 

Lower class

 

 

I suppose the Elite class became more noticeable after the Thatcher-years, but since I can remember we have always had a class-system and always will !

 

To answer PPs question, sorry CHs question, I do believe todays Middle classes are better than the Roman Lower class simply due to opportunities that are available should you want them, there is more scope for bettering oneself today and the emphasis seems to be what ever you can do I can do better, it seems no-one wants to be the back marker, left out probably due to an inner feeling of isolation which pushes otherwise ordinary people to achieve the otherwise extraordinary !

 

To answer Ursus last closing statement perhaps the 2 tier class system worked then and I quite like its ideals, but I just cannot see it working with this modern, fast-paced ever changing world we are stuck in!

 

Perhaps we could do with a new world order ,a re-inventing of Democracy to suit these times, I feel the current state management system is long overdue reform!

[Ursus]

P.C. Thanks. Just too much free time on my hands. ;-)

 

PP and Spar: To me the system of orders makes sense on theoretical level. I don't think I totally buy the belief in absolute egalitarianism our modern age proscribes. The basic idea seems sound to me - that one is ranked in one's society according to the wealth and service one invests to the State. That one's political rights and perks are tied to one's contributions to society.

 

Remember the lowly proletarians from the early republic, who had no vote whatsoever, but who were exempt from taxes and military service and only expected to contribute their proles (offspring?). Heck, half of Americans don't vote anyway, but they are forced to pay taxes and register for military conscription.

 

To me the system is only unfair if there is no opportunity for advancement. If people are locked into a social caste from birth, such as ancient Hindus, that would be terrible. But if there is opportunity for advancement up the ranks, and theoretically a possibility for demotion down the ranks due to punishment or deriliction of duties, that would seem fair. All the books I read suggest people did move up (and, less frequently, down) the ranks in the imperial Rome.

So there was mobility, if somewhat limited.

[pompeius magnus]

Actually Urus I believe in the republic there were three classes and within those three there were many more divisions. the Patricians held the position of upper class, the Plebians were roughly the middle, and the head count the lower class. Within the Patrician class there were the head or lead families, such as the Iulli, Brutii, Scipii, and Claudian, and the lower new families, such as perhaps Cicero and Marius who became a patrician through marriage into Iulli family. It is interesting though that the sacred plebian assembly was infilitrated from time to time by patrician families, such as Clodius- Caesars plebian minion who was adopted by a man of plebian status younger than him I believe as a son. I have another theory that the main cause for republics fall was the tribune of the plebs, a valuable resource used by many generals to gain power, in particular Gaius Marius with Saturnius, and Caesar with Clodius. I have thought about writting a book when I get my phd in roman and greek history about the evolution of the roman class system during the republic from 2 classes to 3 and a historical perspective from each 3 would anybody find that interesting.

[Germanicus]

The basic idea seems sound to me - that one is ranked in one's society according to the wealth and service one invests to the State. That one's political rights and perks are tied to one's contributions to society

- Ursus, I'm glad you can see this only on a theoretical level.

 

I guess it depends on what social spectrum you come from today, but I certainly would not want to be judged as Romans were. We still are to a certain degree as many posts indicate, but wealth = worth ? I think that view is becoming more prevalent at present, and money has always and will always open ,more doors than no money, but in the long term I don't think that can possibly work. I've read some of the posts over on the "Power Corrupts" string today, and the majority of posters seem to think that ultimately, it does. Perhaps I'm too much of an an idealist, but I could never come at thinking that Politicians and the wealthy contribute more to society than a social worker or teacher on 25K a year.

[Ursus]

Things were a little different in Ancient Rome, where in the early citizens militia the wealthier sorts were the ones that could buy heavy armor and weapons and thus took the lead in the defense of the state. And throughout Roman history the wealthy were expected to contribute to the community and often did, usually in the form of public buildings or direct contributions to the state treasury. The Decurions, or municipal councilors, were tapped especially for this purpose.

 

I think it worked for Rome, at least until the rot and degeneration of later generations. It might not work for modern western societies, but that's precisely because in the last 1500 years we've developed different values and different social mores where the Roman conception of society is not completely welcome.

 

And I'm inclined to think that captains of industry and commerce help provide the economic and tax base from which most teachers and social workers get paid. ;-) Most of my teachers and professors seemed more inclined to thrust their social values lessons on their students rather than teach them strictly practical and useful things. These social values were usually along the lines of "society is evil, and it's all the fault of white rich men."