The clientela-theory and the fall of the republic - help is needed&#33

[Caesar CXXXVII]

What is clientela ? It is about Leaders of factions and their clients via private armies .

 

I see--we may be arguing at cross-purposes. That's not the definition of 'clientela' I would provide.

 

On the one hand, your definition is too broad. Factions had leaders (like Caesar, Pompey, and Cato), but the non-leading citizens in the faction were not necessarily the clients of those leaders (e.g., Bibulus followed Cato, but Cato was not the patron of Bibulus). Further, leadership of a faction did not require a private army. For example, the factions of Cato/Ahenobarbus/Scipo had no army, nor did the vast majority of patrons have an army -- even in the late republic.

 

On the other hand, your definition is too narrow. The patron-client relationship extended far beyond politics. Its genesis in the early republic was as a mechanism for providing legal protection to plebs who lacked the civil rights enjoyed by patricians, and as civil rights for plebs in Rome expanded and as Rome expanded into foreign territories, patronage was increasingly an Italian and later foreign affair.

 

 

So , as you and I know there were at least 4 kinds of clientela - between Patricians and Plebeians until the 3rd century BCE , between the "Patricio-Plebeian nobility" and the "Plebs" from the 4th century BCE until the fall of the Republic and between Rome (SPQR as a whole or as leading individuals) and foriegn nations from the 4th century BCE until the fall of the Empire . I was reffering to the 4th kind - between Roman generals/faction leaders (such as Scipio Aemilianus , Marius , the Metelli , Sulla , Pompeius Strabo , Pompeius "Magnus" , Crassus , Caesar , Lepidus , Antonius and little Caesar) and their soldiers/clients from the mid 2nd century until the Principate .

 

When you said that Augustus did not use his clientela to gain control in Rome , it was not logical for me to reffer to the last criteria ?

Edited December 6, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[P.Clodius]

Perhaps I'm mistaken here (I don't think I am), but wasn't Octavian's policy of Tota Italia a means of drawing support from his italian clientella?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I was reffering to the 4th kind - between Roman generals/faction leaders (such as Scipio Aemilianus , Marius , the Metelli , Sulla , Pompeius Strabo , Pompeius "Magnus" , Crassus , Caesar , Lepidus , Antonius and little Caesar) and their soldiers/clients from the mid 2nd century until the Principate .

 

When you said that Augustus did not use his clientela to gain control in Rome , it was not logical for me to reffer to the last criteria ?

 

I understand that if you accept this criteria, it's relevant to include that criteria, but there was nothing in your response that even mentioned clientela. Moreover, there are some important distinctions being blurred in the criteria that you propose (e.g., the union of solider and client is probably a much smaller set than either of its two parent sets), and--most importantly--no ancient sources make the claim that Octavian simply inherited the chits owed to Caesar by his troops. On the contrary, Octavian had to compete vigorously with Antony for the loyalty of the Caesarian faction. There's simply no precedent for this sort of competition in an ordinary client-patron relationship--but there is in ordinary politics. This is why I make the claim that the system of clientele is not the key to understanding the legal and practical basis of the principate.

[Andrew Dalby]

I was reffering to the 4th kind - between Roman generals/faction leaders (such as Scipio Aemilianus , Marius , the Metelli , Sulla , Pompeius Strabo , Pompeius "Magnus" , Crassus , Caesar , Lepidus , Antonius and little Caesar) and their soldiers/clients from the mid 2nd century until the Principate .

 

When you said that Augustus did not use his clientela to gain control in Rome , it was not logical for me to reffer to the last criteria ?

 

I understand that if you accept this criteria, it's relevant to include that criteria, but there was nothing in your response that even mentioned clientela. Moreover, there are some important distinctions being blurred in the criteria that you propose (e.g., the union of solider and client is probably a much smaller set than either of its two parent sets), and--most importantly--no ancient sources make the claim that Octavian simply inherited the chits owed to Caesar by his troops. On the contrary, Octavian had to compete vigorously with Antony for the loyalty of the Caesarian faction. There's simply no precedent for this sort of competition in an ordinary client-patron relationship--but there is in ordinary politics. This is why I make the claim that the system of clientele is not the key to understanding the legal and practical basis of the principate.

 

But political office wasn't inherited; property was passed on by testament; so why did Romans adopt other Romans if not to pass on their clientela?

 

And, yes, all serving soldiers became their commanders' clients to some extent, because it was the leader who enabled them to acquire all that booty and those bounties; and all retiring legionaries without any doubt at all, because the commander arranged some land for them to settle on. Much of Suetonius's life of Julius is about how he built up his clientela; Suetonius hardly mentions the word, but he doesn't have to because he's describing a social system that underlies politics and is familiar to all of his audience.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Augustus and the use of cilentela , just another example

Edited December 7, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII