Caesar "illegal" march - T.D. Barnes view

[Caesar CXXXVII]

When I said 99 etc' I wanted to show the un-democratic nature of the Roman republic just before Caesar's day , that is the point .

Now numbers - since 200 BCE (not 59 or 91 or 133 or 167) there were 313 consulships (including Sufecti) .

Fasti is for Consuls , not Quastors and surly not T.P.

253 of these Consulships were held by 30 families (Gens) that is 81 % . More important is that 287 of the 313 were held by 44 families , that is 91.7 %

 

So , those numbers have any influence on my (and many) argument ?

It was a pure oligarchy , the poeple had no shrare in the government .

 

 

 

 

"since 200 BCE..." I forgot to add "until 44 BCE" and than "there were 313..."

[M. Porcius Cato]

Now numbers - since 200 BCE (not 59 or 91 or 133 or 167) there were 313 consulships (including Sufecti) .

Fasti is for Consuls , not Quastors and surly not T.P.

253 of these Consulships were held by 30 families (Gens) that is 81 % . More important is that 287 of the 313 were held by 44 families , that is 91.7 %

 

In the thread I'm starting, I'd like to see your source on this. After your previous claim that 99% of the consuls belonged to 30 families, I'm quite skeptical to the new numbers, but I'm happy to be persuaded differently.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Now numbers - since 200 BCE (not 59 or 91 or 133 or 167) there were 313 consulships (including Sufecti) .

Fasti is for Consuls , not Quastors and surly not T.P.

253 of these Consulships were held by 30 families (Gens) that is 81 % . More important is that 287 of the 313 were held by 44 families , that is 91.7 %

 

In the thread I'm starting, I'd like to see your source on this. After your previous claim that 99% of the consuls belonged to 30 families, I'm quite skeptical to the new numbers, but I'm happy to be persuaded differently.

 

99% as to make a point , I am realy amazed (again and again) to see your "squareness"

 

My source is the Fasti Consulares from 200 BCE to 44 BCE , I counted the Consulships by Gens (Cornelii , Claudii etc') and came up with the numbers . Simple .

 

P.S. - If we look at the family connection between the Gens (by marriage) , the percenage of the 30 will come very close to 95% (see Munzer) .

[Mosquito]

P.S. - If we look at the family connection between the Gens (by marriage) , the percenage of the 30 will come very close to 95% (see Munzer) .

 

 

Dont forget adoptions. The whole Fabii clan in the late republic existed only because of them.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

 

 

P.S. - If we look at the family connection between the Gens (by marriage) , the percenage of the 30 will come very close to 95% (see Munzer) .

 

 

Dont forget adoptions. The whole Fabii clan in the late republic existed only because of them.

 

 

Hi Mosquito ,

 

Agreed !

[M. Porcius Cato]

P.S. - If we look at the family connection between the Gens (by marriage) , the percenage of the 30 will come very close to 95% (see Munzer) .

Dont forget adoptions. The whole Fabii clan in the late republic existed only because of them.

 

Adoptions help the narrow claim (about %) at the expense of the broader claim (about oligarchy). Take an extreme example: suppose one family adopted the whole Roman body of citizens, leading to all magistracies being "concentrated" in one enormous family. Under this situation, the distinction between new men and aristocrat becomes meaningless, as does the distinction between oligarchy and pure democracy. Thus, as adoption is more widespread, so too is the meaningfulness of family as a measure of oligarchy.

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC, sounds nice, but the adoptions were amongst the oligarchs.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Take an extreme example: suppose one family adopted the whole Roman body of citizens, leading to all magistracies being "concentrated" in one enormous family. Under this situation, the distinction between new men and aristocrat becomes meaningless, as does the distinction between oligarchy and pure democracy. Thus, as adoption is more widespread, so too is the meaningfulness of family as a measure of oligarchy.

 

And how is your example connected to the real situation in 1st centurie's Rome ?

You have set your own rules , came to a conclusion and than dismiss a claim that was made with regard to the real situation .

 

A: "I have 10 $ , I Bought a car (5$) , so now I have 5" .

B: "You are wrong . I give you an example - In Timbactoo a car cost 4$ , so now you have 6"

 

Got it ?

Edited January 27, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

MPC, sounds nice, but the adoptions were amongst the oligarchs.

 

I've protested the use of oligarch previously, so I'll read "leading family" for "oligarch". That said, see whether it makes a difference.

 

Suppose an extreme case where 100% of magistrates were controlled by 10 families and some of the men in one family were adopted by another. It would have no effect on the oligarchic character of the state: 100% of magistrates would still be controlled by the same small number of men; everyone would still call it an oligarchy; the only difference is whether you call Marcus and Julius by the same gens or by different gentes. It makes no difference.

 

Take the case like I mentioned: suppose 100% of magistracies were controlled by 10 families, and these 10 families adopted all the other people in the state. Then, everyone in the family would be eligible to hold magistracies, and no one would call it an oligarchy.

 

The point is that adoption either has no effect on how oligarchical the system was (it's the exact same few men controlling the state, whether you call them by the same name or not)--or adoption undermines the oligarchy by broadening the number of men who are eligible for the magistracy.

 

I really fail to see the opposing point. What would be a situation where adoption serves to further concentrate power into the hands of successively fewer men? As long as the number of offices is held constant, no man could hold more than one office, and all of the offices are elected--there is no such situation in which adoption affects the oligarchic character of the state.

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC, (Iupiter forbid!), are you saying that it was similar to the Soviet system? They did have 'bottom' up elections.

[Mosquito]

So far i know patricians were usually adopting only sons of patricians famillies. Fabius or Cornelius wouldnt adopt a man of even one of the best plebeian famillies. If i remember well (i didnt check it now but i think i have read somthing about it in the past) there were many second or third sons of gens Claudii who were adopted into Fabii and even some other patrician famillies.

 

I've protested the use of oligarch previously, so I'll read "leading family" for "oligarch". That said, see whether it makes a difference.

 

NOBILITAS is the word you are looking for. Not Oligarchs or leading familly. They were called nobilitas, the men, the famillies who had ancestors that achieved consulship.

[M. Porcius Cato]

MPC, (Iupiter forbid!), are you saying that it was similar to the Soviet system? They did have 'bottom' up elections.

 

That's about where the similarities end.

 

NOBILITAS is the word you are looking for. Not Oligarchs or leading familly. They were called nobilitas, the men, the famillies who had ancestors that achieved consulship.

 

Good call.

[Gaius Octavius]

In the sense that we are speaking here: Nobilitas, Leading Families, Better People equals oligarchs. The words may be used without any confusion.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In the sense that we are speaking here: Nobilitas, Leading Families, Better People equals oligarchs. The words may be used without any confusion.

 

I completely disagree. There will always be leaders and followers; whether leadership is restricted by hereditary rules or not, however, makes a huge difference.

[Gaius Octavius]

Disagreement and dialogue advance knowledge. Each one may then elect as he legitimately chooses.