Random Questions On Rome

[Kathleenb]

Hi, new here. I visit Simaqian and All Empires forums periodically (same screen name). I have a few random questions.

 

By 715 BC, according to Livy (1.17), the Senate existed already existed during the time of the Kings; and, in fact, they gained the authority to ratify choice of King.

 

How did the Senate actually come into being? It seems a rather odd departure from other ancient political entities (other than maybe Greece), and yet the first time we hear of it, it is already full-formed.

 

The Plebeian Assembly gained ground, perhaps not steadily, but in a general trend, during the early and middle Republican days. It is not clear to me, really, how they accomplished this. There were two recorded secessions, but I have not read so far why these were effective at bending the patricians to their will. In various places I have read things implying that the plebeians "forced" the patricians to concede rights to them, or they waited out the patricians, but I have not read the actual mechanisms by which the plebeians were able to win these contests. I just don't get it - seems like the patricians could have put down the plebeians forcefully whenever they seemed to be getting too big for their britches.

 

Rome treated Greece/Macedonia and Asia Minor much differently than they treated other places. Did the Romans consider the Greeks to be closer to their moral/cultural equals, thus entitling them to better treatment? Did the proximity of the Greeks have anything to do with it? Or perhaps the Romans' recently enriched war chests after the Punic Wars?

 

Also, I don't know much about Macedon under Philip V. Was his rule particularly despotic, benevolent, ... ? I ask since some of the Greeks at the time asked for Rome's intervention at home - perhaps they thought Rome's rule would be an improvement.

 

Thanks, and looking forward to meeting y'all!

[Neos Dionysos]

Hi, new here. I visit Simaqian and All Empires forums periodically (same screen name). I have a few random questions.

 

Also, I don't know much about Macedon under Philip V. Was his rule particularly despotic, benevolent, ... ? I ask since some of the Greeks at the time asked for Rome's intervention at home - perhaps they thought Rome's rule would be an improvement.

 

Thanks, and looking forward to meeting y'all!

 

I would say no. It wasn't the Greeks looking for improvement it was them simply fearful of a rise once more in Macedonian control over the Greek cities. The Greeks had been pawns for the most part with many Hellenistic kingdoms since the era of Philip II. The Greeks have a long history of bringing in outside forces to crush any one power, (even other Greek cities), from becoming to powerful, even Persia was brought into Greece on a few occasions because some Greeks, (Sparta did this), were becoming to great a force. Now, they had no one but the Hellenistic kingdoms to contend with, so it was simply trading one for the other. Rome however, brought a new people, a new culture, and a new hope that Greece could regain her independance with Roman intervention. They did, to an extent, but over the years when Rome became to extert control and influence over the Greeks, the Greeks hated this and tried to once again break free. The Romans made an example of Corinth in 146BC, by razing it to the ground where it was left in ruins for another 100 years. So I would argue agianst Philip V beind despotic, I would say it was more along them lines of the Greeks afraid of another Philip II, and they did not want this.

 

An excellent book on the subject is "Philip V of Macedon" by F. W. Walbank

[Primus Pilus]

How did the Senate actually come into being? It seems a rather odd departure from other ancient political entities (other than maybe Greece), and yet the first time we hear of it, it is already full-formed.

 

Much as Livy wasn't sure how Rome was formed we also aren't completely sure of the true origins of Rome and its Senate. However we can surmise that the Senate was formed from a coalition of leading families (clans). The early 'Fathers' (Patres, hence Patrician) were gathered as an advisory council to Romulus (assuming of course he was a real man) and the practice likely became more and more of a formal body as time went by. At the time of the expulsion of the kings by Brutus, 200 new 'Patres' were added to the original 100 (or so we are told). As these men were conscripted into service the Senate began to be called Patres (for the original fathers) et (and) Conscripti. Eventually the et (and) was dropped and the Senate was simply known as Patres Conscripti (conscript fathers). But I suppose that really has nothing to do with the original question

[pompeius magnus]

Building off of what Primus wrote, the Senate was made up of the original families and through time it changed to encompass a larger range. The adoption of the Laws of Solon from Athens caused the Romans to be divided into tribes, which towards the middle and end of the republic is where you had some of the senators coming from and also is how the voting was split up.

[Kathleenb]

Thanks very much for the prompt and helpful responses. Looks like a great forum - gotta love activity.

 

The adoption of the Laws of Solon from Athens caused the Romans to be divided into tribes...

 

Interesting. I had never heard of the Solon connection to the creation of the Senate.

 

 

But I suppose that really has nothing to do with the original question

 

Ah, but that's how some of the most interesting discussions get going!

 

 

An excellent book on the subject is "Philip V of Macedon" by F. W. Walbank

 

Thanks. I'll add it to my "someday" list. I have too much on my "immediate" list to tackle anything else right now.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Plebeian Assembly gained ground, perhaps not steadily, but in a general trend, during the early and middle Republican days. It is not clear to me, really, how they accomplished this. There were two recorded secessions, but I have not read so far why these were effective at bending the patricians to their will. In various places I have read things implying that the plebeians "forced" the patricians to concede rights to them, or they waited out the patricians, but I have not read the actual mechanisms by which the plebeians were able to win these contests. I just don't get it - seems like the patricians could have put down the plebeians forcefully whenever they seemed to be getting too big for their britches.

 

The plebeians were reported to have effectively gone on strike. Apparently, massive civil disobedience can change the minds of even patricians--as Gandhi taught the British many years later.

[Germanicus]

The plebeians were reported to have effectively gone on strike. Apparently, massive civil disobedience can change the minds of even patricians--as Gandhi taught the British many years later.

 

Yes, I thought they threatened to leave Rome to the Patricians, leaving it essentially defenceless as the armies raised were in the most part plebian.

[Primus Pilus]

The Plebeian Assembly gained ground, perhaps not steadily, but in a general trend, during the early and middle Republican days. It is not clear to me, really, how they accomplished this. There were two recorded secessions, but I have not read so far why these were effective at bending the patricians to their will. In various places I have read things implying that the plebeians "forced" the patricians to concede rights to them, or they waited out the patricians, but I have not read the actual mechanisms by which the plebeians were able to win these contests. I just don't get it - seems like the patricians could have put down the plebeians forcefully whenever they seemed to be getting too big for their britches.

 

The plebeians were reported to have effectively gone on strike. Apparently, massive civil disobedience can change the minds of even patricians--as Gandhi taught the British many years later.

 

Yes, probably a perfect way to illustrate it. The entire withdrawal of the Plebes may be an implausible notion, and quite possibly could be translated as a shutdown of labor effecting the required services and industries of urban civilization, rather than an actual physical departure. In addition, despite the notion as the Plebes as simple poor masses, they did outnumber the Patricians, assumedly by a considerable margin even in the early Republic. (though census figures are not available). Many plebes were still landowners despite their limited rights, and did provide service to the Roman army. 'Patrician tribes' simply couldn't arm themselves and force the masses back to work without the Plebes taking up arms themselves. Force, though it was used at times, wasn't a simple 'matter of fact' notion.

 

The William Smith Dictionary, while not going into great detail regarding all the political struggles, provides a solid introduction. Plebs

[M. Porcius Cato]

Another important lesson from the "secession of the plebs" is that Roman economic agents were not isolated but mutually dependent on one another, as you would expect in any society with a fair degree of specialization.

[P.Clodius]

Explain what you mean by "economic agents" please.

Edited February 3, 2006 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Explain what you mean by "economic agents" please.

 

A person who participates in the economy by buying and selling goods/labor/etc.

[P.Clodius]

I think I get where you're going. In plain english, the Oligarchy was screwed without the Plebs.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think I get where you're going. In plain english, the Oligarchy was screwed without the Plebs.

Bingo! And, I'd add, vice-versa.

[P.Clodius]

Bingo! And, I'd add, vice-versa.

That my friend looks grounds for debate unto itself.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Bingo! And, I'd add, vice-versa.

That my friend looks grounds for debate unto itself.

Maybe I should first ask you to define "oligarchy" as you were using it earlier.