[Plebeians and Patricians]

If one abandons the assumption that this was a popular revolution, the mystery evaporates. There are hints in the sources that the expulsion of the Tarquins was assisted by foreign powers, who would presumably not subscribe to parochial prejudices against plebeians.

 

In this case, why the consulate quickly became patrician only?

 

On a side note, it is absolutely imperative that one quit thinking of plebeians as poor and patricians as rich. This way of thinking about the distinction is not the way the Romans conceived of the difference, and it obscures the issues that were at stake. The plebeian/patrician distinction was a hereditary distinction (like Smiths versus Joneses), not an economic distinction.

 

I understand that in the early republic this generalization does apply, more or less.

[Plebeians and Patricians]

How could L. Junius Brutus do what he did without being a Patrician?

 

What does being a patrician have to do with it?

 

Well, I understand that all political and religious posts in the early republic were limited only to patricians, and most wealth was probably held by them as well. I also think it's safe to assume that the late monarchy wasn't much different in this regard(except being a monarchy and all that ). Under these circumstances, I find it hard to see how a non-patrician could get enough political and popular support to overthrow the existing system, create a new one, and place himself at the top.

[Plebeians and Patricians]

How could L. Junius Brutus do what he did without being a Patrician?

[Plebeians and Consular Elections]

Now I'm thoroughly confused.

 

I'm trying to figure out how the election process worked in more historic times, say, after 200BCE. The so called Conflict of the Orders is long over (almost a century after the Lex Hortensia).

 

So the Comitia Centuriata assembles on election day and there are, say, 3 Patrician and 3 Plebeian candidates for the Consulship. How does the voting process go?

The Centuries vote one after the other, but how are the votes tallied? Do we get one name per one Century, so that the candidates that got the most Centuries get elected? And if that's the case, what happens if both leading candidates are Patricians? (there are no problems if both are Plebeians, right?)

[Plebeians and Consular Elections]

You can see this system in work for the eletion at the end of 192 where Livius is saying thet there were 3 candidates for the Patrician place and 3 for the Plebeian place .

 

So that's how it worked...

 

But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls?

[Plebeians and Consular Elections]

Weird. The nearest Roman History book claims that the Lex Licinia Sextia did guarantee a Plebeian Consul. Although it also admits that there were a few Patrician only years and that only after the Lex Genucia was this law always upheld.

 

What's the final verdict then? Was there or was there not a requirement for at least one Consul to be a Plebeian? And if there was, what happened when the polls leaders were both Patricians?

 

Edit: According to the Cambridge Companion the Lex Genucia "seems" to have instituted this requirement.

[Plebeians and Consular Elections]

So at some some point(Lex Licinia Sextia? Lex Genucia?) it was established that at least one Consul has to be a Plebeian.

 

But, if I understand correctly, Consuls were running for office separately. So what happened if the two who came in first were both Patricians? Was the second "disqualified" in favor of the best polling Plebeian? Or were two Patricians allowed to hold the Consulship despite the law?

[Did the Carthaginians really have no fleet?]

I cant give you a factual answer but I don't think it was impossible for Scipio to land in Africa even if the Carthaginians had a fleet. If (a real if, I don't know the answer) the coast of Africa has a lot of places suitable for landing it should be easy for a fleet, especially one with at least some element of surprise, to evade another ancient fleet with all it's communications and mobility problems.

[Crassus As A General.]

I think Crassus felt like he was the lesser of the other triumvirs and although he was probably the richest man in Rome he'd had no real success on the battlefield where as Caesar and Pompey were already accomplished generals, no matter how rich you were the people of Rome would always love a war hero above everyone else and although he had the status of wealth he never really had the love of the people

 

He was also getting older, time was running out.