Magistrates of the Roman Republic

[Gaius Octavius]

Yes, you make sense, but I still can't get 'oligarchy' out of my miserable head.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Yes, you make sense, but I still can't get 'oligarchy' out of my miserable head.

 

Basic idea: for a supposed oligarchy, there are just too many people sharing power, and no laws preventing anybody (as long as you're a freeborn Roman male, that is) from having a go at getting elected. Plus, with annual elections every year, you can try, try, try again. Of course, you'll be competing with the most arrogant sods you could ever meet (one guy actually claimed he was descended from Venus), and they're doing everything they can to undermine you--but you're still living in a system where you can call them names to your heart's content, and you've got friends and a family too. With a little graffiti and your childhood chums, you have an opportunity unlike anything they had in the true oligarchies of Venice, the early republic, or any of the hereditary monarchies that plagued Europe from Caesar, on through the Kaisars, to the last Tsar.

[Pompieus]

For anyone who is interested here are the top 25 gentes and the number of consulships and consular tribunates held by their members from this list I have (I think it came from the internet and I really can't vouch for its accuracy). The total of offices recorded between 509 - 27 BC is 1213 (if my arithmetic is right).

 

Cornelii 106

Valerii 74

Fabii 66

Aemilii 55

Claudii 43

 

Furii 41

Servilii 41

Manlii 38

Quinctii 38

Sulpicii 38

Papirii 35

Postumii35

Iulii 29

Sempronii 21

Marcii 21

Fulvii 20

Atilii 19

Caecilii 19

Licinii 19

Iunii 18

 

There are some interesting aspect to this, such as the rise and fall of families:

The Fabii dominated the state in the fourth and third century BC with three consecutive princepes senatus (Ambustis, Rullianus and Gurges plus Maximus after an Cornelian interval), but only one (cos suff 45 BC and he a Caesarian) in the first century BC. The Furii and Atilii also seem to disappear, or at least can show no consuls, while the Caecilii came from nowhere to infest the second century BC.

It's also interesting how the numerous disasters presided over by the Postumii didn't seem to injure their chances in the elections.

Also I don't think this list distinguishes between the patrician (Pulchri and Nerones) and plebean (Marcelli)Claudii or Iunii Brutii.

[Gaius Octavius]

(one guy actually claimed he was descended from Venus)

 

If you are referring to MY Great (times 20 or so) Grand Father, you're in for it.

 

Anyway, a couple of hundreds of families for an empire?

[Gaius Octavius]

At this point, I wonder if any participant or reader has altered his opinion on this matter?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Anyway, a couple of hundreds of families for an empire?

 

What can I say? The Roman voters wanted Big Names at the top of the ticket. Further down the ticket, things were pretty wide open, with more New Men than Big Names. All in all, it's certainly a biased system, but it's not a legal oligarchy.

[Mosquito]

The following Romans called the tribunes magistratus: Pomponius, De Origine Juris; Titus Livius, Bk 23; and M Messala, quoted by Gellius.

 

Actually they didnt write that tribunes are magistrates.

 

Anyway, considering the body which was electing them, their duties and their power, tribunes of plebs were not magistrates but representatives and leaders of the Roman plebs while magistrates were officials of Roman Civitas, representing the whole state and acting in the name of SPQR.

 

 

What can I say? The Roman voters wanted Big Names at the top of the ticket. Further down the ticket, things were pretty wide open, with more New Men than Big Names. All in all, it's certainly a biased system, but it's not a legal oligarchy.

 

 

It was a legal oligarchy because the richest part of society had power to vote efectivelly. Usually the poor didnt even had the chance to vote in the centurial elections. And in the tribal elections most of poor people were in 2 tribes.

[Mosquito]

The power to choose senators in the beginning of the republic was given to the consuls (or military tribunes with consular power if they were elected instead of consuls). Since lex Ovinia from 312 BC, senators were being chosen by censors. Every five years censors were preparing the list of senators to which new senators were added (lectio senatus). Usually the new senators were ex-highest officials of the republic, if they fulfilled the following requirements: 1. being born as free (ingenuitas) 2. age (aetas senatoria), first it was minimum 45 years, after reforms of Sulla 28 years, 3. wealth, (at least 400.000 sesterties), 4. flawless life. When censors were preparing the list of senators (album senatorum), they couldn

[Caesar CXXXVII]

For anyone who is interested here are the top 25 gentes and the number of consulships and consular tribunates held by their members from this list I have (I think it came from the internet and I really can't vouch for its accuracy). The total of offices recorded between 509 - 27 BC is 1213 (if my arithmetic is right).

 

Cornelii 106

Valerii 74

Fabii 66

Aemilii 55

Claudii 43

 

Furii 41

Servilii 41

Manlii 38

Quinctii 38

Sulpicii 38

Papirii 35

Postumii35

Iulii 29

Sempronii 21

Marcii 21

Fulvii 20

Atilii 19

Caecilii 19

Licinii 19

Iunii 18

 

There are some interesting aspect to this, such as the rise and fall of families:

The Fabii dominated the state in the fourth and third century BC with three consecutive princepes senatus (Ambustis, Rullianus and Gurges plus Maximus after an Cornelian interval), but only one (cos suff 45 BC and he a Caesarian) in the first century BC. The Furii and Atilii also seem to disappear, or at least can show no consuls, while the Caecilii came from nowhere to infest the second century BC.

It's also interesting how the numerous disasters presided over by the Postumii didn't seem to injure their chances in the elections.

Also I don't think this list distinguishes between the patrician (Pulchri and Nerones) and plebean (Marcelli)Claudii or Iunii Brutii.

 

 

There are several books on the subject , scholars are dealing with this for more than 200 years .

Btw , The caecilii did not came from nowhere in the secont century (actually 143 BCE) , they had consul in 284 , 259 , 247 and 206 .

Yes, the Postumii seurvived well .

Yes the there were Plebeian Claudii (the Marceli) and patrician Claudii (the rest) . All the Iunii were Plebeian and the exeptional is the legendary first consul . He was not a patrician nor Plebeian , he was a fiction .

Brutus who killed Caesar (and save the world from a civil war...) claimed he was a descendant of the first consul...

 

maybe we should have a thread about this

[Primus Pilus]

As for the question at hand...

 

I understand completely the evidence that Cato is putting forth. It's compelling and well presented. I'm rather on the middle ground on this concept as I can easily understand both sides of the argument.

 

The Roman Republic may seem oligarchic in nature because the magistracies of the cursus honorum were limited to members of the Senate. Whether or not 30 separate families held the majority of these offices has less relevance than the idea that only those men who had been adlected into the senate had the opportunity to be elected for these magistracies. The criteria for inclusion into this body may in its essence be an oligarchic tradition, but inclusion was not ultimately limited to only a few families. Evidence of new man adlection is attested throughout Roman history though attaining the consulship was still obviously a difficult and uncommon task. With that in mind, it is rather fair to say that at any given time in the Roman Republic, the magistracies of the cursus honorum (Aedile through Consul) were limited to selection from only 300 men (or 600 in various periods, etc.). Obviously this is a severely limited percentage of the population as a whole and has the trappings of oligarchy.

 

However, while the Senate itself may have been based on oligarchic principals, the government of Rome as a Republic was not limited to this single body of authority. The Tribune of the Plebes, whether we consider the office to be a magistracy or not, as representatives of the people's assemblies cannot be ignored as an integral part of the entire system. In a true oligarchy, no such representation with (at times) such extreme power, would've been available. The office of the tribune was not simply an appeasement of the Plebes, but was a true "check and balance" legislative office against the deliberation of the Senate. Additionally, the right of the people to elect the magistracies of the cursus honorum, even if the choices and opportunities for these offices were limited, cannot be discarded.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, the Senate as a body can be largely associated with the definition for an oligarchy (though I readily and willingly concede there are exceptions which don't quite meet the criteria), while the diversity of the Republican system as an entire entity cannot be categorized as simply.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I thought the following figure (from Shaw & Kondratieff) might be helpful to reproduce:

[M. Porcius Cato]

Were all the comittia tributa presided by tribunes of plebs or only some of them?

 

There are instances where the tribes were assembled by tribunes of the plebs, aediles of the plebs, even by consuls, praetors, and curule aediles. For example, the lex Gabinia Calpurnia de Delo (58) was presided over by a consul; the lex provinciis praetoris (100) was presided over by a praetor (Marcus Porcius). Is this your complaint?

 

Or is your point that the concilium plebis was a third, distinct legislative body rather than a subset of the comitia tributa? This is a controversial matter, according to Lintott.

[Mosquito]

Were all the comittia tributa presided by tribunes of plebs or only some of them?

 

There are instances where the tribes were assembled by tribunes of the plebs, aediles of the plebs, even by consuls, praetors, and curule aediles. For example, the lex Gabinia Calpurnia de Delo (58) was presided over by a consul; the lex provinciis praetoris (100) was presided over by a praetor (Marcus Porcius). Is this your complaint?

 

Or is your point that the concilium plebis was a third, distinct legislative body rather than a subset of the comitia tributa? This is a controversial matter, according to Lintott.

 

 

You got it Cato!

 

Concilium Plebis is the answer. Tribunes of Plebs were elected by the Plebs gathered as Concilium Plebis. Tribunes of Plebs were presiding Concilium Plebis.

All the other types of assemblies were called and presided by the magistratus who called it to enact his law. It didnt have to be a consul, could have been praetor as well.

It could have also been Comitia Tributa not only Comitia Centuriata.

As tribunes of plebs were not magistrates they didnt call Comitia Centuriata. Most of the laws wich were proposed by tribunes of plebs were enacted by Concilium Plebis - an assembly where only Plebeians were allowed to be and to vote but which since Lex Hortensia 287 BC were binding for all the Romans, not only for plebs.

I see nothing controversial here. You cannot consider as one and the same assembly 2 different types of assemblies which had different electorate and had different tasks and different history. In fact it was one of the biggest problems of Roman Republican System that all those different types of assemblies were working all together and often at the same time, without any coordination. Competences of those assemblies were rather based on the tradition and customs than on the written law resulting in a good opportunity for disorder and conflicts.

 

And thats why the diagram is wrong. Trying to make things more simple, in result it give false viev and false informations about Roman Goverment.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Mosquito

[M. Porcius Cato]

The controversy arises from the use of the term "comitia tributa" for a purely plebeian assembly (e.g., Livy, 2. 56. 2) combined with the fact that "concilium plebis" is a modern term. See also: Develin, R. (1975). Comitia Tributa Plebis, Athaeneum, 55, 302-327, for a full discussion.

 

That said, I think everyone can agree that there were meetings of the comitia tributa where patricians could not vote; indeed, it would have been considered offensive if they had attempted to vote in these assemblies: their laws were inscribed with the customary "X...plebem rogavit plebesque iure scivit".

 

It's not quite true that the Lex Hortensia (287) forbade patricians from attending meetings of the plebs, though. Patricians were admitted into the meetings (indeed a patrician spoke at one to decide on a triumph of L. Aemilius Paulus in 167), but they weren't allowed to vote there.

 

In defense of the chart provided by Drs. Shaw and Kondratieff, there is an argument that there was no other kind of comitia tributa but purely plebeian assemblies. In this view, when we see praetors or even consuls at tribal assemblies, their presence merely indicates that they are putting their support behind an action that is technically made by tribunes of the plebs. I'm not entirely persuaded by this argument, but I can see why the chart was drawn up as it was.

[Gaius Octavius]

I think that I am getting somewhere here. I wonder if Mosquito could give a graphic presentation. I really appreciate everybody's efforts here.