Violations Of Law And Tradition

[Kathleenb]

Marius, Sulla, the Gracchi - although they may have spoken in support of Rome's laws and traditions, they felt free to break them for their own purposes.

 

Were law and tradition more universally accepted and lived up to before the 2nd century BCE?

 

How much of these guys' violations were really self-serving and how much were the violations as altruistic as they might have liked to portray them - end justifying the means, it's OK, we're just breaking the law to reinstate the old Roman traditions.

 

How much did early ignoring or breaking of the laws lead to "bigger and better" violations later?

[Lost_Warrior]

I think alot of it had to do with wealth and influence, not time period. Those guys got away with it because they were rich, influential people. If someone of a lower class had tried the same thing, they wouldn't have lasted ten seconds most likely.

[caldrail]

Sulla really did believe he had saved Rome, hence his retirement to ordinary life. Of course, he had his own interest in mind. Very few people take enormous risks politically without a good reason, without something to gain. As with any culture, including ours, laws apply to those who get caught bending them. Traditions are often cast aside when expedient - the romans were past masters at that!

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think alot of it had to do with wealth and influence, not time period. Those guys got away with it because they were rich, influential people. If someone of a lower class had tried the same thing, they wouldn't have lasted ten seconds most likely.

 

Well, Spartacus lasted quite a bit longer than 10 seconds. Also, the political gang-warfare led by the likes of Clodius and Milo was undoubtedly unlawful, and most of these brigands got away with it for some time.

[Lost_Warrior]

Well there are always exceptions, and Spartacus was one of them. However most who managed to get anywhere did so with some influence of some kind, high breeding (even if they didn't show it) or what have you.

[M. Porcius Cato]

How much did early ignoring or breaking of the laws lead to "bigger and better" violations later?

 

Enormously. Given that the republic lacked a written constitution, precedent and tradition was all they had holding the system together. Once one was ignored, it was nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

BTW, I wonder if Kathleenb will ever bother to read this.

[caldrail]

I think alot of it had to do with wealth and influence, not time period. Those guys got away with it because they were rich, influential people. If someone of a lower class had tried the same thing, they wouldn't have lasted ten seconds most likely.

 

Well, Spartacus lasted quite a bit longer than 10 seconds. Also, the political gang-warfare led by the likes of Clodius and Milo was undoubtedly unlawful, and most of these brigands got away with it for some time.

 

Spartacus is given the credit for the rebellion but lets not forget Crixus and Oenamaus, who both had a hand in starting it. He only stayed at large for two years, the last of which became a running fight to stay ahead of his enemies. More importantly, the survivors of the final battle against Crassus (which Spartacus didn't survive - Sorry Kirk) were famously crucified along the Appian Way. All 6000 of them. And that really does show how Rome dealt with violations. They simply didn't mess around. If the law called for you to sewn into a sack with animals and thrown into a river, thats what they did. Its no wonder that people like Galba brought his crying children into the senate to avoid a sentence for war crimes against the Lusitani. Its true that money and influence could help you find an alibi or excuse, but you still had to convince your judges that your case was just. A glib tongue was as useful as a bag of gold. Once the sentence was passed, there wasn't any death row, no final appeal. They dragged you away and dealt justice, often in front of an expectant crowd. I suppose those jailed could always hope for clemency - it did happen - but the prisoners were just as likely to be led to the nearest arena for some nasty demise.

 

Rome was ruthless in applying the law. Despite this, Rome was a lively place and you'd certainly see law-breaking if you turned the wrong corner. I also think that many miscarriages of justice must have occurred. Does anyone have an example of a miscarriage of justice that came to light?

[P.Clodius]

Having said that Caldrail, the death sentence was carried out relatively rarely.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Not only was the death sentence rarely applied, but citizens had the right to a trial (at least during the republic). Special courts existed for all sorts of crimes. For example, there was a court specially dedicated to prosecuting people who violated election laws (e.g., bribery). Some election laws, however, were rarely followed and almost never enforced. For example, candidates were forbidden from using a nomenclator to whisper the names of citizens ot them. The only candidate to obey the law was Cato, much to the embarrassment of his opponents (who were widely ridiculed, but never prosecuted).

[Lost_Warrior]

Can you explain what the nomenclator was neccesary for? Who's names was he wispering, when, and why?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Can you explain what the nomenclator was neccesary for? Who's names was he wispering, when, and why?

 

The nomenclator was used when candidates were canvassing for the vote. So, if Poplicola Candidatus walks up to Manlius Advia to ask for his vote, but Poplicola doesn't actually know who the heck Manlius is, the nomenclator would whisper "Manlius Advia, fishmonger from the Aventine, son of nobody" in Poplicola's ear so Poplicola could say, "Ave Manlius! May I talk to you about the plight of the fishmongers? My opponent wants to give free fish to everyone and put you out of business--vote for me so I can put a stop to these radical proposals!" Manlius Advia, presumably impressed that Poplicola is at least making an effort (however clumsy), then casts a vote for Poplicola and tells his friends that he knows Poplicola personally, and they share an interest in stopping radicals from putting honest plebs out of business.

 

Or at least that's how I think it's supposed to work.

 

BTW, there's a nice bit in the HBO/BBC Rome series where Caesar's slave Postumo serves a similar function for Vorenus who is running for an indeterminate magistracy. It's a good scene.

[Lost_Warrior]

Oh, I see ::laughs:: well yes, it is a clumsy effort.

 

Thanks for the info!

[caldrail]

Having said that Caldrail, the death sentence was carried out relatively rarely.

 

Thats interesting, because when I read about such things there are plenty of wrongdoers meeting their ends. The noxii for instance. I agree that crucifying 6000 rebels in one hit isn't run of the mill, but nonetheless I find it hard to accept that death sentences were rarely carried out. I do accept that the honestiores could call on their status and supposed moral standing to help them out in fix, and that their sentences were more lenient than those handed out to humiliores. As I've already mentioned some senatorial class defendants were absolutely outrageous in their emotive excuses. With a little drama they could pull an aquittal. Indeed, I'm coming to the opinion that giving a theatrical performance on the floor of the senate was a very healthy talent to have.

 

At the other end of the scale we have abuses of power from certain emperors who sent people to their deaths on a whim, or perhaps a supposed insult, or simply to steal.

 

Justice seemed to have depended on your influence more than anything else. If your network of friends and supporters are with you, your chances of being let off increase. That's another reason why lower classes were more likely to be sentenced. People might be sentenced to the sword, the gaming school, the animals, the prisons, the garrotte, the stake, or just exiled. These sentences are in the records because they happened. I don't think it was always that rare.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Crucifixion was astonishingly rare for Roman citizens. For non-Romans, not so rare.

[Kathleenb]

BTW, I wonder if Kathleenb will ever bother to read this.

 

Sheesh, gimme a break! I thought I was impatient! Why would you think I wouldn't return and read? Hmm, I posted on 2/13 and by 2/15 you think I've left for good?

 

Yeah, I come back to read responses, but y'know I have a husband, a job, 6 kids, a house, various projects, friends, church, and one class. While I'd like to devote more time to reading history and surfing the net, a bunch of the aforementioned items precede both of those.

 

Personally, on this and other history forums, I'm grateful for posters who develop questions that stimulate discussion, even if bunny trails, and even if the original poster doesn't contribute much beyond the question.

 

And that really does show how Rome dealt with violations. They simply didn't mess around.

Well, as long as the perpetrator didn't have an army to back up his violations. Then he could pretty much do whatever he wanted and get away with it - usually, of course, in the name of restoring Roman traditions and laws.

 

citizens had the right to a trial (at least during the republic)

Again, until someone powerful decided to skip the niceties of trials. Some people would be outraged whenever that happened, but it happened nonetheless.