Plebs, Patricii et Equites

[M. Porcius Cato]

Quite right. Democracy was a privilege to the wealthy classes, and the plebs had little recourse to it. After all, you wouldn't want those menials thinking they had a say in things would you?

Plebs vastly outnumbered patricians among the magistrates. Far from the plebs having little recourse to elected office, they dominated political offices, the law courts, and the military.

[caldrail]

Quite right. Democracy was a privilege to the wealthy classes, and the plebs had little recourse to it. After all, you wouldn't want those menials thinking they had a say in things would you?

Plebs vastly outnumbered patricians among the magistrates. Far from the plebs having little recourse to elected office, they dominated political offices, the law courts, and the military.

I stand corrected

[P.Clodius]

Quite right. Democracy was a privilege to the wealthy classes, and the plebs had little recourse to it. After all, you wouldn't want those menials thinking they had a say in things would you?

Plebs vastly outnumbered patricians among the magistrates. Far from the plebs having little recourse to elected office, they dominated political offices, the law courts, and the military.

I stand corrected

Democracy was in no way part of the roman system of government. Think of it as some skewed form of proportional representation.

 

1) The Senate had no legislative power, it was strictly an advisory body.

2) There were 4 assemblies, 1 of which was purly traditional in nature, derived from the time of the kings.

a) Curiate Assembly. People organized into Curiae, by 100BC was attended by representatives of officials, people didn't bother to be present.

 

Centuriate Assembly. Voting weight was based on wealth, membership to a century was organized by the censors according to wealth and organized as follows;

There were a total of 193 votes, once a majority was reached voting stopped.

18 centuries of Equites.

5 classes of Pedites. The first class of which carried a votive weight of 70, the other 4 a collective weight of 100.

Capite Censi, that is those who own nothing and have little or no financial means carried a votive weight of 1

 

c) Tribal Assembly of the Plebs. No patricians were allowed and was convened by the tribunes, those being the only officials who could address the assembly. Organized into 35 voting blocks. Issued plebiscitia, had the right of veto.

 

d) Tribal Assembly of the People. Same as the Tribal Assembly of the Plebs but patricians could be present, consuls, praetors, etc could address.

 

All the assemblies were convened by an official, no right of free speech only officials could speak and were convened to vote on a piece of legislation only.

Edited September 20, 2007 by P.Clodius

[Gaius Octavius]

Plebs vastly outnumbered patricians among the magistrates. Far from the plebs having little recourse to elected office, they dominated political offices, the law courts, and the military.

 

Was this through patronage or merit? How would a dirt farmer get the education to fill these posts?

[P.Clodius]

Plebs vastly outnumbered patricians among the magistrates. Far from the plebs having little recourse to elected office, they dominated political offices, the law courts, and the military.

 

Was this through patronage or merit? How would a dirt farmer get the education to fill these posts?

Octavian was a pleb, as was Pompei, and the Grachi bros...Plebs being all those who weren't patrician. Correct me if I'm wrong someone.

[Primus Pilus]

Plebs vastly outnumbered patricians among the magistrates. Far from the plebs having little recourse to elected office, they dominated political offices, the law courts, and the military.

 

Was this through patronage or merit? How would a dirt farmer get the education to fill these posts?

 

Not all plebs were dirt farmers. They occupied the entire gambit of the occupational spectra.

 

The discussion of merit vs. patronage is interesting. In the earliest days, the plebs tried every possible initiative in order to gain political positions of authority or influence. Often these political concessions in the "struggle of the orders" can be viewed as patronage, but the earliest elected Plebs were still men of station regardless how the patricians may have felt about their ability to lead. Through the speech of tribune C. Canuleius (regarding the Lex Canuleia of 445 BC) Livy's representation of the Plebeian struggle to prove their merit to the Patricians is an enlightening read. Livy 4.3-.5 (but starting at 4.1 for a better context would be recommended)

[Gaius Octavius]

Let me try to explain myself. By class or wealth, Abe Lincoln and Bill Clinton might have been plebes or my 'dirt' farmers. What would their chances have been to become consuls without 'patronage'?

[G-Manicus]

Octavian was a pleb, as was Pompei, and the Grachi bros...Plebs being all those who weren't patrician. Correct me if I'm wrong someone.

Octavian was an Equestrian, or are those considered to be Plebian as well? Ie - Anything below a Patrician?

[P.Clodius]

Octavian was a pleb, as was Pompei, and the Grachi bros...Plebs being all those who weren't patrician. Correct me if I'm wrong someone.

Octavian was an Equestrian, or are those considered to be Plebian as well? Ie - Anything below a Patrician?

I may be off mark here but isn't Equestrian rank based on your voting status according to the centuriate assembly? Quoting myself;

Centuriate Assembly. Voting weight was based on wealth, membership to a century was organized by the censors according to wealth and organized as follows;

There were a total of 193 votes, once a majority was reached voting stopped.

18 centuries of Equites.

5 classes of Pedites. The first class of which carried a votive weight of 70, the other 4 a collective weight of 100.

Capite Censi, that is those who own nothing and have little or no financial means carried a votive weight of 1

Obviously it is derived from days past where a person was able to buy his own horse and armour, but was it an actual class of citizen in the plebian/patrician sense?

[Primus Pilus]

Obviously it is derived from days past where a person was able to buy his own horse and armour, but was it an actual class of citizen in the plebian/patrician sense?

 

Disregarding the earlier military aspect and the distinction between equites with the public horse and those without, equestrian from the mid Republic on was primarily a property class. Both plebs and patricians could be equites.

[Primus Pilus]

Let me try to explain myself. By class or wealth, Abe Lincoln and Bill Clinton might have been plebes or my 'dirt' farmers. What would their chances have been to become consuls without 'patronage'?

 

That would depend on the individual and his position in the client system, and the era we are talking about. In the earliest Republic, a pleb was not going to be consul regardless of his financial standing. By the Lex Licinia Sextia of 367 BC and the Lex Genucia of 342 BC, it was established that at least 1 consul every year would be a pleb. Who got elected was dependent somewhat upon familial lineage and client status as well as personal merit.

 

A new man such as Abe Lincoln who started from virtual poverty would've had tremendous difficulty, but it was possible. Bill Clinton's chances would've been better, assuming we can believe some of the connections to earlier American leaders through the name Blythe, but he still would've had difficulty based on the lineage of his adoptive father.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Octavian was a pleb, as was Pompei, and the Grachi bros...Plebs being all those who weren't patrician. Correct me if I'm wrong someone.

Octavian was an Equestrian, or are those considered to be Plebian as well? Ie - Anything below a Patrician?

 

Patricii is an ancestral term derived from pater = father, of controversial origin but presumably referring to the purported original founder clans (gens) of Rome. By exclusion and definition, plebes were the remainder of Roman citizens (civis). Patrcii plus plebes were the whole Roman people (populus).

 

At least from the accession of plebs to the consulate at 388 AUC (366 BC) on, the critical dichotomy between the ruling and the ruled classes at Rome was not patricii / plebes but nobiles / ignobiles, basically meaning you have (or not) a Magistratus Curules ancestor, preferably consular, but also dictator, praetors, censors, and the curule aediles.

 

A plebeian who first attained a Curule office was the founder of his family's Nobilitas , a Novus homo (new man). That would be the case for Octavus' father, who never got beyond the praetorship (693 AUC / 61 BC).. Then, Octavius himself was born an ignobile plebeian (691 AUC / 63 BC), but by adoption from C. Julius Caesar into the gens Iulia he became a full patrician.

Edited September 20, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

Was this through patronage or merit? How would a dirt farmer get the education to fill these posts?

Octavian was a pleb, as was Pompei, and the Grachi bros...Plebs being all those who weren't patrician. Correct me if I'm wrong someone.

 

You're not wrong. Also, there were no educational requirements to ascend the cursus honorum. M. Curius Dentatus was pretty darned close to a dirt farmer, yet he rose to highest office through his military talents, which were formidable enough to defeat Pyrrhus.

 

Look through my list of Roman leaders and you'll find one pleb after another--L. Junius Brutus, G. Licinius Stolo, G. Marcus Rutilus, M. Curius Dentatus, G. Lutatius Catulus, Q. Fulvius Flaccus, C. Flaminius, M. Livius Salinator, T. Quinctius Flamininus, M. Porcius Cato, etc etc--standing toe-to-toe against patricians. The fact is that patricians were just a portion of the founding families of the city, and in a city of so many immigrants over so much time, it shouldn't be surprising that these families were greatly out-numbered, out-moneyed, and out-politicked (for better or worse).

 

I know I started a whole thread on this topic someplace. [edit: HERE it is.]

Edited September 20, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[M. Porcius Cato]

Democracy was in no way part of the roman system of government.

Given the number of raw mistakes you make about the republican constitution (e.g., the powers of the senate, the role of the various assemblies, and role of the plebiscite), it's no wonder you think that there were no democratic elements in the republican system. I'll start a new thread on this since it's a perennial topic of debate that comes up whenever we talk about Sulla, Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius, each of whom dealt major blows to the chief democratic elements in the classical republican system (i.e., the powers of the tribunes, the freedom of contiones, and the election of magistrates).

[P.Clodius]

Democracy was in no way part of the roman system of government.

Given the number of raw mistakes you make ...

OK can't wait to be educated on the "cesspool of Romulus"!

Edited September 21, 2007 by P.Clodius