A Short Note On The And The Plebeians

This essay will attempt to explain the motives that have led to the rise and fall of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the late second century B.C. Although very few sources remain of these accounts, which are based mainly on works of the historians Appian and Plutarch, the Gracchi have been the subject of study by several scholars. If on the one hand earlier historians tend to represent them as heroes and revolutionaries, on the other, more recent ones have regarded them as two controversial figures which were politically motivated by personal gains. They proposed and passed a series of legislations and the most controversial one is the agrarian law about the redistribution of the land. It can be argued that their motives have been certainly and thoroughly selfless for the good of the people of Rome in the specific period of history which spans from 133 B.C to 121 B.C. On the contrary, as it will be explained below, their methods have not always been ‘orthodox’. There could be three main areas that will help this essay to conclude if they were truly heroes of the people or political opportunists; the first is to evaluate what their true motives were, the second is to assess if there was an agrarian crisis and the third to establish who the beneficiaries of their legislations were. Overall, as all political figures, the Gracchi have to be taken in the context of the specific roman society of their time.

Patricians hold all the offices in ancient Rome and plebeians who outnumbered them were mostly farmers, craftsmen and soldiers. Therefore one can understand that practically while plebeians had no rights or knowledge, they were in an advantageous position as patricians couldn’t defend the city or do any kind of job without their help. Plebeians couldn’t tolerate the increasing debt and the abuse of patricians and demanded equality, by blackmailing the patricians

Plebeians pressured the patricians to make political concessions, one result being the publication of laws which served as a check on decisions by judicial officers. New officials and tribunes were created and were drawn from non-elite classes. They could veto or block actions the Assembly or officials that threatened lower order interests.

Chapter three labeled "Empire Urban life and imperial Majesty in Rome,China,and India. In Republican Rome a man named Romulus inaugurated traditional distinction between the patricians and the plebian. The patricians were the where the land owners who were also aristocrats that served as priests, magistrates, lawyers and/or judges. The plebian were the lower classed poor people who consisted of craftsmen, merchants and laborers. In 510 BCE the roman people expelled the last Etruscan kings and decided to rule themselves with without the need for a monarchy.

Looking at Rome’s political struggles at the dawn of the first century B.C., it becomes apparent that the groundwork for Caesar’s Republic shattering revolt was lain down by Marius and Sulla. To be more specific, the stage was set by the class struggles between the Aristocracy, who demanded control of the Republic by virtue of tradition, and the masses, which demanded a voice.

In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti highlights the many significant people and events that characterized the late Roman Republic. Specifically, he focuses on the time period between the election of Tiberius Grachus, to the rise of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. In this account of history, Parenti presents the social, political, and economic aspects of the Roman culture from the perspective of the Roman commoner, or plebeian. Using this perspective, he also spends a great amount of time examining the causes and effects of the assassination of Julius Caesar. The views that Parenti presents in this book stand in sharp contrast with the views of many ancient and modern historians, and offer an interesting and enlightening perspective into class struggle in the society of the Roman republic.

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

The views of the upper class of Han and Roman citizens contrast because of the differing cultures of each empire. In Rome, the significance of the plebeians, the lower class, and patricians, the wealthy, in society created tension due to the political inequality. Cicero, a member of the wealthy class of Rome wrote about craftsmen saying how “no

Why were plebeians so important to Rome? In ancient Rome, the upper class of aristocrats, the patricians, were wealthy and powerful, but few, so to expand Rome's territory, as well as to protect it, they needed the large population of common people, plebeians, to furnish soldiers for the growing army. While Rome had always been threatened by neighboring states, military threats from its rivals increased as its borders grew, and as well, it had to maintain control over the territories it had already conquered. Roman colonies needed protection, as did Romain resources, especially valuable or strategic ones. Furthermore, the city of Rome itself needed defending.

This meant that any decisions made by the plebeians was binding for all citizens of Rome. The decisions were binding, regardless of the approval or disapproval of the Senate. Their bindings were now of equal worth to the Roman assemblies bindings. The effect of the law was that the plebeians could

Plebeians was so important to Rome. The term Plebeian referred to all free Roman citizens who were not members of the patrician. Plebeians so important to Rome because the plebeians could elect their own government officials. They elected "tribunes" who represented the plebeians and fought for their rights. Plebeians the power to veto new laws from the Roman senate.

Rome felt under constant threat, at the beginning of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was initially ruled by the rich and powerful. This ruling began “After the overthrow of the monarchy, Roman nobles, eager to maintain their position of power, established a republican form of government”(p.129). Later on, this power to the rich would prove chaos. The patricians who “were descendants of the original senators appointed during the period of the kings were great landowners, who constituted an aristocratic governing class”(p.129). The plebeians did not have this power of authority like the patricians did. The plebeians were “constituted the considerably larger group of non-patrician large landowners, less wealthy landholders, artisans, merchants, and small farmers”(p.129). These people could vote with the patricians but could not be elected into office, they could not marry someone out of the patricians and vice versa, it was forbidden for these groups to intertwine.

This caused a lot of problems with the patricians. When the senate wanted to fight a war, the plebeians did not want to because they had not been able to vote. Finally a law was made called “The Law of the Twelve Tables.” The patricians and the plebeians agreed on this, and it said that everyone had to follow the same rules. Slowly the lower class was granted more rights, like the right to marry someone in a different class.

The plebeians were important to Rome because they were the working class and majority of the military Rome had. In 494 BCE the plebeians decided to walk out of Rome. The Patrician class knew it would be the fall of Rome without them. The plebeians were the working class of Rome; they were not all poor but not of the aristocratic patrician class. Without them there would be no defense of Rome. By making accessions to the plebeians the patricians saved Rome from almost certain death. Allowing the plebeians to have more of a role in the government and protections from unfair deals and laws proved that they were needed.

The principle of legality states that “before criminal sanctions may be applied, a reasonably precise and fairly ascertainable statute must exist which makes certain conduct criminal” (Richards). The relationship between the principle of legality and ignorantia legis places a responsibility on the law to have clear guidelines of what criminal conduct constitutes and also places a responsibility on persons to have knowledge of existing laws and statutes and to follow them. Highlighted through this relationship is the first objection to ignorantia legis. The availability of law and the responsibility to be aware of all law as a preconception to ignorantia legis is an unreasonable expectation to be placed upon all people. The amount of laws and statutes in existence amounts to a sum which no single person within their lifetime could endeavor to neither learn nor, much less, comprehend.