The Senate vs The Plebeian Assembly

[Cassius Loginus]

During the Roman Republic, the Senate (the aristrocracy) and the Tribunes with the Plebeian Assembly were always confrontational. The Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus murder was a case in point.

 

Am I correct to say that this tension in politics has always been even to our own age: the Senate (right-wing parties) and the Tribunes/Plebeian Assembly (left-wing parties).

[Primus Pilus]

During the Roman Republic, the Senate (the aristrocracy) and the Tribunes with the Plebeian Assembly were always confrontational. The Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus murder was a case in point.

 

Am I correct to say that this tension in politics has always been even to our own age: the Senate (right-wing parties) and the Tribunes/Plebeian Assembly (left-wing parties).

 

Not necessarily. In the earliest part of the Republic, when the senate/ruling aristocracy was much more exclusionary towards plebes, this was more likely to be the case. However, by the time of Gracchus the senate was made up of many supporters of both political ideologies and everything in between. As an example, Caesar was a "populares" of the oldest patrician lines, while M. Porcius Cato was a staunch conservative of plebeian origins. Both were aristocrats of course but as members of the senate they maintained completely opposite political stances.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think it's a totally misleading oversimplification. First, there was no hereditary aristocracy in the Roman republic. Second, the one hereditary social distinction that existed--the plebeian/patrician orders--did not map onto political factions in the middle to late republic. Third, the large majority of voters were not "liberal" in the modern sense of the term--they were typically religious, for an aggressively militaristic foreign policy, and consistently resisted the expansion of civil rights to non-Roman Italians (until it resulted in the Social Wars). If anything, it was the more philosophically well-educated senators who were "liberal".

 

I'd also point out that the senate typically did not come into conflict with the tribunes of the plebs. A large proportion of senators had been tribunes themselves, and for every Gracchi-type, there was at least one Livius Drusus-type who supported the senate's positions. Moreover, even the Gracchi had the support of many leading senators, and the danger to the Gracchi only came when they attempted to usurp powers that were not traditionally delegated to them (e.g., running for consecutive offices).

 

Understanding the Roman republic through the lens of modern politics is a recipe for oversimplification, distortion, and misunderstanding.

[Pompieus]

In truth it is anachronistic to apply modern political ideologies to ancient political systems, particularly Rome. There were political catchwords and politicos sometimes appealed to the "traditions" of the aristocracy or the "rights" of the people but Roman politics was mainly a struggle for power, wealth and influence among individuals and families. After the plebian leaders gained access to the higher magistracies in 366 BC, the "tension" was usually between the leaders of the various powerful families not between rich and poor or patrician and plebiean. Of course there were exceptions - the Gracchan period is the most familiar- but when this happened the ruling class usually closed ranks, destroyed the upstarts and made what concessions were necessary to keep the syustem working and their power intact.