Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:03 AM   #81
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
lol you did it again . I love this, you remind me on a 3 years old kid who doesn't know where is the toy

Oh, you mean Cornelia mother of Gracchi, the one who reportedly created their political program. Yeah I heard about that woman, she was powerful, but again in times we don't talk about, like we don't talk about the Cesar. However, since I love kids, and I always try to give them their toys when they're lost here is something for you:

One of the first woman who openly promoted hellenistic styles and habits was Cornelia, mother of famous Gracchi. For her time, extremely rich, Cornelia actively took part in creating of political programs of her sons, and by attracting the most famous and influential men of the time to her house. She is the vanguard of the era in which many women of Rome will reach power and fame as a few men in the Empire.

If you guess from where is this quotation, I'll personally come to Mexico and buy you a drink.

Cheers
Yup. I mean that Patrician lady who married such a proud Plebeian husband.

And I also mean that proud Patrician CJ Caesar who married such three proud Plebeian wives.

Analogous to so many myriads of Patrician-Plebeian couples all along the Republic, we may add.

Now, if you shall like us to discuss your recently acquired knowledge on basic ancient Roman sociology any deeper, I'm afraid a brand new ad hoc thread would be an absolute requirement, just not to derail this one any more.

Because, as already explained here more than once, regarding the OP this fascinating piece of information is just another nicely irrelevant fallacious red herring.



Now, any additional relevant hard evidence on the rather democratic Roman Republican Constitution you would like us to discuss here ???

Cheers.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:22 AM   #82

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,822

Patrician elite was replaced by nobilitas - new elite made of mixed Patricians and Plebeians.

From my above mentioned essay:

The end of the class war between patricians and plebeians was possible because the leaders of the plebs not only became senators, but many of them were important and influential members of this body. As a result, a new class of roman society was formed, senator class (ordo senatorius), which was in possession of great fortunes and whose members were descendants of the rich, old patrician and plebeian families who were connected by blood, politics and money. It was itself divided in two groups: first group was the elite of senate members of the most important families which held the highest offices. Second group were so called “regular senators”, who were the members of senate, but had no influence and no chance to be elected for the highest ranks in the republic. The elite was called nobilitas (from nobilis – noble). To enter, the elite senator had to be elected by the consul or have at least an ancestor who was a consul. In the 3rd century BC, the nobiles were in fact a group of about 20 families of patrician and plebeian origin and few “new men” (hominess novi) who achieved the position of consul. The most powerful families were Fabii, Cornelli, Claudii and Valerii. A typical member of nobilitas of patrician origin was, for example, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, also known as Cunctator. He was a censor, was elected consul on five occasions, and twice as dictator. Typical members of nobilitas of plebeian origin were Quintus Publius Filon, four (4) times elected for consul and Marcus Atilius Regulus, twice elected for consul, and commander during the first punic war.
Mosquito is online now  
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:46 AM   #83
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
Patrician elite was replaced by nobilitas - new elite made of mixed Patricians and Plebeians.

From my above mentioned essay:

The end of the class war between patricians and plebeians was possible because the leaders of the plebs not only became senators, but many of them were important and influential members of this body. As a result, a new class of roman society was formed, senator class (ordo senatorius), which was in possession of great fortunes and whose members were descendants of the rich, old patrician and plebeian families who were connected by blood, politics and money. It was itself divided in two groups: first group was the elite of senate members of the most important families which held the highest offices. Second group were so called “regular senators”, who were the members of senate, but had no influence and no chance to be elected for the highest ranks in the republic. The elite was called nobilitas (from nobilis – noble). To enter, the elite senator had to be elected by the consul or have at least an ancestor who was a consul. In the 3rd century BC, the nobiles were in fact a group of about 20 families of patrician and plebeian origin and few “new men” (hominess novi) who achieved the position of consul. The most powerful families were Fabii, Cornelli, Claudii and Valerii. A typical member of nobilitas of patrician origin was, for example, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, also known as Cunctator. He was a censor, was elected consul on five occasions, and twice as dictator. Typical members of nobilitas of plebeian origin were Quintus Publius Filon, four (4) times elected for consul and Marcus Atilius Regulus, twice elected for consul, and commander during the first punic war.
As usual, any information is as valid as its primary sources.

Even if such sources are not disclosed here, and even if the information is still a bit oversimplistic, AFAIK it seems to be basically exact.

Glad to see some myths on the Patricians/Plebeians are being debunked now; there were rich plebeians and poor patricians.

So to begin with, the diverse statements on favorable political conditions for patricians and for the rich couldn't be equated.

Please note that your etymology above is actually in reversed order: it is the English word "noble" which comes from the Latin nobilis. the issue is relevant because the Roman meaning of the Latin term was quite different of the English word.

Nobilis and related Latin terms simply meant "known", i.e. "famous".
The word comes from the Latin noscere ("known") which in turn comes from the PIE root "gno-" unsurpringly exactly the same as the English word "know" and its cognates among most Indo-European languages.

Nobilis was just a descriptive term; it simply implied that at least one ancestor had been known for becoming a consul; hence the opposition with the novus homo, i.e. the first man in his family to occupy the consulship.

It was never an aristocratic or restricted term, i.e. no "closed club".

Once the humblest plebeian became consul (let say like M. Curius Dentatus) his offspring became automatically nobiles: easy as that.

The consular ancestry naturally could mean a lot of family prestige and had potential propagandistic value, but aside from that absolutely no additional social or political advantage was conferred.

Any nobilis had exactly the same right of being poor or being a loser as any other Roman citizen (let say LS Catilina)

Therefore, John Quincy Adams & George W Bush could be rightly described as US nobiles

Last edited by sylla1; November 8th, 2012 at 11:58 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:15 PM   #84

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,696
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Yup. I mean that Patrician lady who married such a proud Plebeian husband.

And I also mean that proud Patrician CJ Caesar who married such three proud Plebeian wives.

Analogous to so many myriads of Patrician-Plebeian couples all along the Republic, we may add.

Now, if you shall like us to discuss your recently acquired knowledge on basic ancient Roman sociology any deeper, I'm afraid a brand new ad hoc thread would be an absolute requirement, just not to derail this one any more.

Because, as already explained here more than once, regarding the OP this fascinating piece of information is just another nicely irrelevant fallacious red herring.



Now, any additional relevant hard evidence on the rather democratic Roman Republican Constitution you would like us to discuss here ???

Cheers.
Sylla is probably distracted and he might not remember the name of the thread. The name of the thread is Roman Republic Constitution and as far as I know Republic lasted exactly from 509. B.C, so all my posts were according to criterias of the thread more than relevant. Just, the thing with you is that you don't follow the same posts, but follow only those you like what can be easily verified lol.

Unlike you, I'll gladly read all your posts and perhaps acquire another dose of laugh. I'm somehow sorry because you live so far, I swear I'd call you to celebration tomorrow.
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:29 PM   #85
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
Sylla is probably distracted and he might not remember the name of the thread. The name of the thread is Roman Republic Constitution and as far as I know Republic lasted exactly from 509. B.C, so all my posts were according to criterias of the thread more than relevant. Just, the thing with you is that you don't follow the same posts, but follow only those you like what can be easily verified lol.

Unlike you, I'll gladly read all your posts and perhaps acquire another dose of laugh. I'm somehow sorry because you live so far, I swear I'd call you to celebration tomorrow.
Cheers.

Blatant Fallacious Red Herring flag:
The OP is not called "marriage practices of the Roman legendary times".

That's exactly why I cannot correct any more of your misconceptions on such issue here; I'm sorry.


Now, any point on the historical Roman constitution you would like us to debate on?
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:40 PM   #86

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,696
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Cheers.

Blatant Fallacious Red Herring flag:
The OP is not called "marriage practices of the Roman legendary times".

That's exactly why I cannot correct any more of your misconceptions on such issue here; I'm sorry.


Now, any point on the historical Roman constitution you would like us to debate on?
Tomorrow sylla, tomorrow. As far as I recall, I mentioned marriage law from XII tables, but you had to fullfil your weird need and mention Cesar and his plebeian women. Of course, as usually it's my fault.

Here is night, I should go to bed soon, tomorrow is my birthday so I have to take a good and long nap. As far as thread and Constitution are concerned, I'm sure you'll do just fine without me, or actually without anyone else. So enjoy the posting, and hear you tomorrow.

P.S. When did you jumped from semi - legendary to legendary times? You like jumping obviously lol

Cheers
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:50 PM   #87
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
Tomorrow sylla, tomorrow. As far as I recall, I mentioned marriage law from XII tables, but you had to fullfil your weird need and mention Cesar and his plebeian women. Of course, as usually it's my fault.

Here is night, I should go to bed soon, tomorrow is my birthday so I have to take a good and long nap. As far as thread and Constitution are concerned, I'm sure you'll do just fine without me, or actually without anyone else. So enjoy the posting, and hear you tomorrow.

P.S. When did you jumped from semi - legendary to legendary times? You like jumping obviously lol

Cheers
"As usual"...

Cheers
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 06:53 PM   #88
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

As a relevant side note, just to avoid multiple standards and for comparison purposes, it is worth reminding that the full male suffrage (i.e. excluding property qualifications or equivalent economic restrictions) was not introduced in let say the United Kingdom and Poland until 1918 and in the United States until 1964.

Were the US of 1789 or the UK of 1832 democratic?
What do you think?

Last edited by sylla1; November 8th, 2012 at 07:01 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 07:10 AM   #89
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Now, please note in the first place that there is actually not so great academic disagreement as the enthusiasm of the debate would suggest at fist sight.

No one has stated that the Roman Republic may have been any ideal absolute democratic rule of the people and just the people.

To begin with, not Polybios himself.

Polybios systematically explained us that the Roman Constitution was the perfectly balanced amalgam of the three polar Aristotelian political models: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy.

Naturally each term not necessarily exactly in any of the diverse acceptations of these terms nowadays...
But the way the Classical Hellenes, particularly Aristoteles & Polybios themselves understood it.

Their idea of "monarchy" couldn't be any farther from our modern idea of autocracy.
They simply implied the executive power regularly exercised at any given time by a single individual.
In the Roman case, regularly by each one of the Consuls (in turns).
An obvious moder equivalent is the President of the United States.
In fact, the effective independent executive power of the modern POTUS is far greater than that of any Roman Republican consul.
Basically because:
- There's always another magistrate with exactly the same faculties balancing each other, and
- The term of office is far shorter, just one year.

Their idea of "aristocracy" was not an inherited elite per se.
That's why there was never an inherited elite, not even equivalent to let say the dukes & barons of the modern democratic UK.
A Roman nobilis was literally and explicitly just a guy with a famous political ancestor he could boast on, i.e. any former consul.
Just that.
The only added bonus (even if often extremely valuable) was family prestige; just that. No additional social or political advantages came with the title.
Again, analogous to the Adamses and the Bushes of this world.

By the time Polybios described the Roman Republican constitution, and from then onward until CJ Caesar & co. destroyed the Republic, i.e. long after the nowadays inevitably mostly legendary Struggle of the Orders had disappeared, the only effective benefit of being a Patrician was being automatically a nobilis.
(I.e. just some family prestige, not necessarily always of the best kind)
Aside of that, just a couple of secondary religious positions were reserved for them.
Conversely, the potentially (and often effectively) influential Plebeian magistracies (chiefly aediles & aribunes) were absolutely excluded for the Patricians.
Hence the infamous tricky adoption of a Clodius.

Last but not least, what Aristotle & Polybios understood as "democracy" was much more radical than nowadays.
As Hellenistic scholars, their paradigm of democracy was the regime of the Athens of Kleisthenes & Perikles, already remote by the time of Polybios.
In other words, the most radical direct democratic regime ever known by humankind to this day.
For the record, hardly the ideal model of a political regime for any of both authors.

The Aristotelian political ideal was closer to the historical Spartan Constitution.
Which of course they didn't consider as a democracy.
But which under our modern criteria, as so rightly pointed out by our Okamido and other Historumites, modt definitively qualifies.
EXactly the Spartan Constitutiom which was within our attested Classical Hellas the closer we can get to the Polybian Roman Constitution itself.
(Yup, in spite of all the nicely pro-Hellenic but clearly unhistorical fables on Jonian philosophers, Corinthian tyrants or Athenian legislators sponsoring the early Roman state)

That said, please remember that the effective and indisputable Full male citizen suffrage present among the ancient Romans reportedly since the fall of the Monarchy and effectively no later than our first available hisrtorical records was not achieved by any later European nation until 1792, and has not been continuous to this day until 1848.

In other words, the Roman Republic was more democratic (usually exponentially so) than virtually anything from its own collapse to at least the emergence of the US.
In fact arguably effectively more democratic than the majority of modern nations until quite recently, to some extent even nowadays.
Click the image to open in full size.
Democracy Index 2011.

Given the complexities of the Republican comitia and electoral practices, before getting into such issue guess it's better to allow some of our fellow Historumite debaters the chance to add here some relevant hard evidence, timely corrections and educated opinions on this already long boring exposition

Rest my case...
sylla1 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
constitution, republic, roman


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Books on roman kingdom and roman republic Raist Ancient History 5 June 10th, 2012 09:49 AM
Books about the Roman Republic duccen History Book Reviews 5 December 15th, 2011 02:26 PM
Social group on the Roman republican constitution sylla1 Ancient History 0 November 25th, 2011 04:53 PM
Roman Republic VS Roman Empire CRUSADERcro Ancient History 36 November 26th, 2009 03:32 AM
Roman Republic vs. Roman Empire ice2w Ancient History 9 March 25th, 2009 10:26 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.