Schabbes

Hi everyone, In 366 B.C. the first Plebeian became consul, patricians and plebeians began mixing, and the forming of the nobility began, blablabla. So far so good, everyone and his brother tell you that. But what about before 366? Were there Plebeians in the senate (i guess so), if so, since when? And which magistracies did they hold? Did aedileship exist before 366? And could someone give me a hint as to where one can find the sources to the leges Liciniae Sextiae? And does the manbearpig really exist? Yours confusedly Schabbes P.S.: And, still unclear to me: Were all patricians part of the new nobility?

Yes, a triple "io triumpe" to the internet, and thanks a lot to you for the quick and useful answer! Greetings Schabbes

Well your favourite generals are all nice and such, but they never can top mine. My chosen general is Marcus Minucius Rufus. He was magister equitum to Q. Fabius Maximus during the second Punic war. After the battle at the lacus Trasumenus, the Romans preferred merely to follow Hannibal

Hi everyone, The library is closed next week (excrementum sacrum-holy crap or how would a Roman swear?), and i have some questions left. I need info on Q. Fabius Pictor (the writer and painter) and L. Aelius Tubero (the one who didn't like Caesar too much). Can you tell me which magistracies these guys held? Were the Aelii (Tuberones) a family of the nobility with consuls among them? And the Fabii- i take it they were a family of highest renown - were they patricians or plebeians? Greetings Schabbes

Wasn't there some later Roman emperor who got himself into some serious trouble because he had his soldiers do only roadwork and fountain-digging? Neither booty nor fame to be won there...

Although it is somewhat painful to contradict one's own former statements, i'll do it -i'm classified as a "servus" around here anyway, so what the heck- i've no auctoritas or dignitas anyway... I'm not even a person! ( ) I did some reading on the republican army's discipline and did not find too much relating to its origin. However, Hans Delbr

Sorry, I expressed myself rather badly, the way i posed the question it was unclear what i meant. The reason that you found no Sullan law on funeral processions is that there probably never was one. The ius imaginum, i.e. the right to show off with your granddad's wax mask, was, before Sulla, available only to curule magistrates, who were also the only ones to be allowed to hold a funeral procession. But under Sulla, the ius imaginum was extended to plebeian aediles. What i wanted to know is whether from this time onward plebeian aediles were also allowed to hold a pompa funebris (meaning that the right to hold such a one was attached to the ius imaginum), or whether the Romans continued the old practice of allowing the funeral procession only to deceased curule magistrates (meaning the right to get a pompa f. was attached to a curule magistracy). This is maybe a stupid question. It would seem logical to connect ius imaginum and the right to "pompa around" with masks of your deceased family members, because if you've got the right to show these masks, why shouldn't you be allowed to do so in a funeral procession? But i've never read someone explicitly say "The ius imaginum allowed to hold a funeral procession", only "pompae funebres were restricted to former curule magistrates". Greetings Schabbes

Hi everyone, i've got a quick question which i've hopefully posted in the right forum: What was necessary for a magistrate in order to get a pompa funebris once he passed away- the ius imaginum or a formerly held curule office? I ask because i'm not sure if the p. funebris was restricted to those with a curule office (after Sulla). Greetings Schabbes (not expecting to be carried to his grave in the near future )

What this discussion developed into is, as i see it, 4 issues: 1. What was the political character of the Roman republic, and which role did the nobility play? (i.e. Millar vs. others) 2. Were the clientelae relevant for the political process? 3. Can the clientelae/the social (civilian) hierarchy (if one accepts its existence) be considered important for the discipline within the army? and, probably another new topic, but imho interesting nevertheless: 4. When actually did the Roman militia-man begin to become something like a paid, professional soldier? I agree with you that 1 and 2 should be dealt with in a special thread. Since that topic isn't that important for me at the moment (that damn paper...), i don't have the time to start such a thread, but you could do it, and i'd be happy to join in later. This is a discussion that should be really interesting for many Forum members, since it concerns the most basic understanding one has of the republic. 3 and 4 can be continued in this thread, i think. Virgil61 and Primus Pilus have argued that the clientelae did not play an important role for military discipline because the soldiers served not necessarily under their patron, but often under some other responsible magistrate. Please note that i (i.e. the guy i read) said "the soldiers felt AS IF in a clientela to the commander", the point being that an internalised strong social hierarchy would make the soldiers feel obliged to obey, because that is just what they did in everyday life. The general value system, based in the clientela, was: "Obey to the guy with social prestige that is responsible for you", and would be transferred to military life, thus being one of the reasons for the strong discipline. Would you disagree? It was the patron who enabled the citizens to make use of their civil rights. The commander just took the role of the person which they were attached to in civilian life, even more so if the army would stay longer in the field than only one summer. Then the soldier was separated from his former patron, who could not help him out, and needed his commander to provide him with an opportunity to earn his living, which would even strengthen the bond between soldier and commander. That was why i was mentioning L. Aemilius Paullus and his soldiers' demand for money. Also, the founding of coloniae between 200 and 170 could perhaps be read in that way: Veterans were provided with a living (~payed) after a long time of military service. Note further Gellius' account on drafted proletarii (16,10) who were equipped by the republic, the later "volones" (slave soldiers), and, later, but still before Marius' time, the lex militaris initiated by C. Gracchus, which made it possible to draft among the lower classes because their clothing was provided for by the aerarium. (Surely i wouldn't claim that Marius wasn't the one to introduce important reforms, but, as i see it, the developments leading into a professional army began before his time and also continued until after it, e.g. to Augustus' time) Greetings Schabbes

But was Millar's concept new in any way? His theory of the plebs as the real sovereign of Rome (JRS 74, p.19) is nothing else than Th. Mommsen's idea of the "citizen body institutionalised in the comitia/contiones as carrier of the sovereign power of the state" (Staatsrecht III/1 127ff, 300ff; III/2, p.1030, my translation). As far as I know, Mommsen is quite well-known also among English-speaking history guys, so Millar should know him. Anyhow, no one of Millar's contemporaries ever claimed SPQR was just a motto. The general consensus, as far as i understand, is that the people and their ability to vote were an essential part of the aristocratic (!) regime: In order to keep the consensus among the nobility, a "third force" was necessary which would allocate the important positions/magistracies (there are exceptions, of course, e.g. pontifices and magistri equitum) Thereby, the nobility would not compete directly "against" each other, but indicrectly- they would try to gain popular favour. Thus, the potentially destructive forces of competition were neutralised, and even put to good use. As long as there was a consensus among the nobility to accept the people's function as a "3rd force", and as long as the people were comparably independent in their voting (not too much blackmailing, which would damage their function as a "referee" etc), the nobility could work as a (more or less) homogeneous ruling "class" (for lack of a better term). To say it again: The nobility agreed with each other that the people would allocate the positions. It is by this consensus that they could form an aristocratic regime, to whom the coherence (they didn't have to fight among each other about the rules to allocate the magistracies) and relative equality of the ruling "class" is critical. As this consenus began to break away, because opportunities arose to acquire political power e.g. by wealth, military and foreign clientelae of incredible strength, the republic was at the end. That's what i understand as the generally accepted idea. Well, the guys criticizing Millar never said it was "unelected", but that it tended to be exclusive. Millar fights an orthodoxy that has long since been done away with. I said the clientelae dominated the people's decisions, and that was surely wrong, i'll admit, because it sounds as if the clientelae were the ONLY factors to decide whom you give your vote to. But Millar even denies that clientelae were one factor among others, like military success, commendatio maiorum, great ludi/circenses during the "aedileship" (- if you can say so), rhetorics etc. when it came to voting. That informal obligations (e.g. Christian Meier in "Res publica amissa" has, before Millar's time, noticed they were not formally institutionalised in the mid + late Rep.) were not necessarily unimportant in Rome is at least indicated by the meaning of the mos maiorum and the amicitiae (e.g. Cicero deemed it only natural for amici to provide large sums of money for his wife while he was in exile- amicitia meant much more than "friendship" nowadays). Besides- Millar also has to make a positive claim; he has to verify that Rome was ruled by the plebs. He cannot say "well you can't prove the relevance of the clientelae, and therefore my claim is right and Rome was a democracy". Again: I didn't say other armies were not disciplined, merely that the Roman army's strength was based on an unusually high discipline which could be rooted in the social hierarchy. Honestly, maybe the only thing about Spartans i know is that they ate blood soup and hunted people for sports, so i'm just guessing... But they came from a social system that imposed harsh discipline on its members, right? Without this social structure, would their military success have been possible? And is this success based on an unusually strict military discipline or rather on a high degree of individual training? Well, a.f.a.i.k. the earliest case of a Roman army spending a winter abroad is the 1st Punic war. Note the many struggles on how to spend the booty in the 2nd century (whether the triumphator should be granted full access to the booty or not- e.g. the Scipio trials initiated by one of your namesakes), and the sums of money e.g. L. Aemilius Paullus (iirc) gave to his soldiers in 167. Booty had always been a "motivator" to compel the people to vote for war (think e.g. of Polybios' account of the outbreak of the 1st Punic war), but as soon as the soldier could no more make a living by plowing the ground, it became more + more important. Marius was only the one who finally drew the consequences, the problem had been there long before. I find this answer unsatisfactory, because religion is too broad an area to specify Roman peculiarities, and discipline as basis for discipline sounds strange as an explanation. Training sure was tough, but was it less tough in other armies? And would you say the Roman army's discipline was stronger than that of other armies? Well, thanks a lot, M. Cato, for the detailed answers, and especially for the link and the book you mentioned, that's exactly what i need. Yakobson is well known here and should be a reliable source for the paper. Yes, that's exactly my point- the soldiers felt as if in a clientela to the commander! Therefore, they were loyal to him (personally) and expected him to do anything for them a patron might do: The faithfulness in this relation is what they called fides, the breaking of which (by any party) is called fraus in the xii tabulae and results in social damnation ("sacer esto")- hence the strong reaction if a commander wouldn't provide a nice stipendium etc. The patron was the one that enabled the client to really participate in society, e.g. without him, the client could hardly defend himself at court. The soldiers were taken away from their old patron and received another (the commander), so they really depended on him for their economic survival and their status as a citizen. Greetings Schabbes

written by Kosmo: "You start by claiming that the romans of mid-late republic were more disciplined then others, but there were some armies highly disclipined and the obvious example it's Hannibal's Italian campaign. To keep an army in enemy territory for that long requires a lot of discipline." Was i saying non-Roman armies were not disciplined? Anyhow, Hannibal was an outstanding leader- you can't really use him as an example of the average state of military discipline in a non-Roman army- and a.f.a.i.k. the soldiers he kept there were, increasingly as the campaign moved on, northern Italian Celts and former Roman socii, who were never far from home. What takes more discipline- keeping a victorious army together, moving plundering along the plains (not easy, admitted), or following such an army, which already dealt your buddies several heavy blows, in the heavy terrain of the hills and mountains surrounding the plains, like Q. Fabius Max. did? I thought it would be generally accepted that Roman military (and civilian/social) discipline was unusually strong, because i've read that in several books about the rise of the republic, i didn't expect an argument on that. But if you can prove me wrong, go ahead- i asked for your advice, and i'm here to learn. written by M. Cato: "My own view is that Millar is dead on" - Sorry I don't get that (English is not my first language), does that mean "Millar is entirely correct"? I didn't want to start a discussion on him, but you seem interested and well informed. My paper is on the nobility betwen 287 and 133 (or 49, i don't know yet), and Millar claims a nobility, or any halfway homogeneous patrician-plebeian political elite, never existed. I can hardly ignore such a claim, considering my chosen topic... He also holds the classical Roman Republic was essentially a democracy (e.g. in his article in JRS 74), which the other scholars on the subject i've read all deny- that's why i tend not to believe him. Given e.g. the number of non-nobility consuls in the mid-/late republic or the three pompae (more or less only accessible to the nobility, depending on your definition), i think it is rather obvious an elite existed which tended to be exclusive, monopolised political and military acumen and effectively ruled Rome. Millar bases his whole argumentation on the assumption that amicitiae and necessitudines/clientelae were not at all dominating the people's decisions. If i could find something that hints to the opposite, that would be nice, if i'd find something that backs him, also great- i surely am not dogmatic, and my professor isn't either. But what seemed convincing to me was this idea: The (early-mid-) Republican army, often not too well equipped, and often lead by commanders who got their posts more by social prestige rather than military acumen, had as their deceisive advantage its discipline (what else?), which was tougher than the discipline in other armies. Now you could try and explain this unusual discipline by a strong social hierarchy (=clientelae), which transfers the patria potestas to the patron. The military commander then, in the field, takes over the function of the patron. If vertical obligations generate such remarkable social discipline, therefore, they must have played an important role, or not? The first beginnings of the function of the commander in the field as a patron-like figure can be dated back to the 1st Punic War at least, I'd guess: As soon as the soldier is no more a mere militia-man whose survival is based on his harvest at home, but a "professional" who stays in the field for more than one summer, he has to rely on his commander as a political figure to grant him a compensation, be it booty, a piece of land or money. Therefore, he is well advised to support his former commander politically, which then creates necessitudines. Now to modify the original question a bit: Do you think the Roman army's discipline was based on military necessities alone, or maybe also on the strong social hierarchy in Rome? If the Roman discipline was, as Kosmo asserted, not stronger than that in other armies, or not based on civilian social hierarchy, and you can give me articles or books saying so (i need that for the paper), then my point with the clientelae would be futile- I'd be happy nonetheless about a definite answer. Greetings Schabbes

Ave everyone, I have to write a term paper on the Roman nobility and have a question that goes into military history. I read that the Roman army's discipline was much higher than in other armies of the time (relevant for me: mid to late republic), and that this discipline was based not only on the general understanding of military hierarchy in that era, but to a high degree on Roman social structure, because the soldier and his commander felt as if in a cliens-patronus relation (sry, I don't know the anglicised terms). If the discipline is considered as highly unusual for the time (and the most important advantage of the Roman army), and that discipline is mostly based on the institution of the clientelae, then one could think that the clientelae did indeed have a striking importance throughout Roman society, right? In your face, Fergus Millar! But I would need more stuff to illustrate the point. Is there anyone who wrote about the origin of discipline in the Roman army and related it specifically to the general social structure? Greetings Schabbes