Random Questions On Rome

[caldrail]

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.

[\quote]

 

Something similar happened in dark age britain, where the earliest kings were chosen by the Moot, a council of powerful men. Faced with autocratic rule, powerbrokers often do form cartels to reign in their power either overtly or covertly. Its a sign of personal strength that a autocrat can ignore or remove such obstacles. In the case of Rome, they couldn't, and remember that the kings were eventually thrown out.

 

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.

[\quote]

 

Its just class politics like 18th century France or 20th century Russia. The upper class (patricians) like their power and want exclusive rights to it. The lower class (plebeians) don't like being powerless and gradually make it more difficult for the upper class to throw their weight around, often by threatening low key resistance if not outright rebellion. Ruining your opponents reputation, bribery & corruption.... Politics is possibly more sophisticated now but we still do the same things.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd also point out that the power of the aristocrats to reign in a monarch has almost always been accompanied by subsequent limits on the power of the state to infringe on individual rights. The Magna Carta is a nice illustration--it wasn't the Rights of Man or the Bill of Rights, but it was an important precursor (much like the Twelve Tables).

[Andrew Dalby]

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.

 

This question has had lots of good answers. It seems worth adding that 'senatus' literally muust have been a 'collection of old men'. In lots of societies old men = heads of families congregate more or less formally and get to take some of the decisions. So, to take an early but semi-fictional example from Greece, when the people of Ithaca are meeting while Odysseus is still on his wanderings, there's a circle of old men that makes room for Telemachus to join them -- he's Odysseus's son -- but it's the oldest of the old men who speaks first -- one who 'knows ten thousand things'.

 

I guess, when Rome first had a senate, 'powerful clans' would have to be understood in very small-town terms, and that senate was a circle of old men. But, yes, powerful enough to elect a small-town king.

[caldrail]

I'd also point out that the power of the aristocrats to reign in a monarch has almost always been accompanied by subsequent limits on the power of the state to infringe on individual rights. The Magna Carta is a nice illustration--it wasn't the Rights of Man or the Bill of Rights, but it was an important precursor (much like the Twelve Tables).

 

Quite so, but remember the Magna Carta was won by gathering a bunch of nobles and threatening the king with rebellion.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd also point out that the power of the aristocrats to reign in a monarch has almost always been accompanied by subsequent limits on the power of the state to infringe on individual rights. The Magna Carta is a nice illustration--it wasn't the Rights of Man or the Bill of Rights, but it was an important precursor (much like the Twelve Tables).

 

Quite so, but remember the Magna Carta was won by gathering a bunch of nobles and threatening the king with rebellion.

 

Exactly. Which is why it's important for them to guard their power jealously lest there be no internal counter-weight.