WI: Plebians took over the Roman Republic? (and why they didn't?)

[Thanksforallthefish]

So, I've become interested in Ancient Roman history lately. The Roman Republic's political system was very complicated, and I understand it wasn't a clear cut "poor plebians, powerful patricians" thing, but you could certainly notice a great conflict between those unrepresented by a complex system and those who wanted to keep the status quo going -a class struggle, if you will...- that eventually led to the creation of the Empire, among many other factors.

Interestingly, I notice, but perhaps my interpretation is wrong here, that at many points in the Republic's history, the Plebians held considerable political and social power. The Plebian Assembly made laws that applied to all Roman citizens. The Gracchi brothers even challenged the Consuls. At that point, to me the rest of the Republic's institutions seem a bit superflous, and easily the Plebian Council and/or its Tribunes could have declared authority over the rest of the Republic, much like Imperators did later. But instead of being centered in a single person, authority would be centered in a council elected by the people, at least nominally.

But the rest of the Roman aristocracy seemed always to have the upper hand. And, at the end, Rome became an Empire, and all the powers of the plebians went into the figure of the Emperor. Even the Senate lasted longer.

Now, I realize that at that point rich plebians and patricians were about the same aristocracy and 'plebian' doesn't necessarily mean the common man, or that a Plebian Republic would have been necessarily fairer. I realize my interpretation may be entirely wrong, but I still wonder; why didn't the Plebians -either as a nouveau aristocracy or as the body of common people- seize power when they had the chance?

So:

1: Why didn't the Plebian Tribunes take over political power in the Roman Republic?
2: What would've happened if they did?

 

[Tonifranz]

So, I've become interested in Ancient Roman history lately. The Roman Republic's political system was very complicated, and I understand it wasn't a clear cut "poor plebians, powerful patricians" thing, but you could certainly notice a great conflict between those unrepresented by a complex system and those who wanted to keep the status quo going -a class struggle, if you will...- that eventually led to the creation of the Empire, among many other factors.

Interestingly, I notice, but perhaps my interpretation is wrong here, that at many points in the Republic's history, the Plebians held considerable political and social power. The Plebian Assembly made laws that applied to all Roman citizens. The Gracchi brothers even challenged the Consuls. At that point, to me the rest of the Republic's institutions seem a bit superflous, and easily the Plebian Council and/or its Tribunes could have declared authority over the rest of the Republic, much like Imperators did later. But instead of being centered in a single person, authority would be centered in a council elected by the people, at least nominally.

But the rest of the Roman aristocracy seemed always to have the upper hand. And, at the end, Rome became an Empire, and all the powers of the plebians went into the figure of the Emperor. Even the Senate lasted longer.

Now, I realize that at that point rich plebians and patricians were about the same aristocracy and 'plebian' doesn't necessarily mean the common man, or that a Plebian Republic would have been necessarily fairer. I realize my interpretation may be entirely wrong, but I still wonder; why didn't the Plebians -either as a nouveau aristocracy or as the body of common people- seize power when they had the chance?

So:

1: Why didn't the Plebian Tribunes take over political power in the Roman Republic?
2: What would've happened if they did?

Technically, plebleians did take over the Roman Republic.

For example, ever since 342 BC at the latest, at least one of the consuls needed to be a plebeian.

By the first century BC, a majority of the Senate were plebeians. The patricians were a minority of the ruling class by that time. And plebeian families ruled the republic too. Let's see. The powerful Metteli clan were plebeian. Pompey the Great was a plebeian. Marius and Cicero were plebeians. Mark Antony was a plebeian. Cato, both the Elder and the Younger, were plebeians. Crassus were plebeians.

If you look at the ruling class in the time of the Gracchi, the patricians were a minority, whose only advantage was that they could hold politically meaningless priesthoods like the Flamen Dialis, etc. But that was more than balanced by the fact that only plebeians could hold the office of tribune, a far more powerful office.

Keep in mind that plebeians just means "not patrician" no matter how rich or powerful that plebeian may be. So yeah, the dirt poor in Subura was plebeian, and so was Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in Rome.

So why didn't the plebeians take political power?

Because they already had it.

What if they did?

OTL.

 

[aaronupright]

Sulla was a Patrician, who was born impoverished. Ceaser was also patrician and not particularly well off.
Most of the conservatives, the Optimates were plebeians. Though they did have Patrician members. The Populares, the progressives, had many patrician leaders.
By them time of the late Republic, it probably mattered a lot less.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

Technically, plebleians did take over the Roman Republic.

For example, ever since 342 BC at the latest, at least one of the consuls needed to be a plebeian.

By the first century BC, a majority of the Senate were plebeians. The patricians were a minority of the ruling class by that time. And plebeian families ruled the republic too. Let's see. The powerful Metteli clan were plebeian. Pompey the Great was a plebeian. Marius and Cicero were plebeians. Mark Antony was a plebeian. Cato, both the Elder and the Younger, were plebeians. Crassus were plebeians.

If you look at the ruling class in the time of the Gracchi, the patricians were a minority, whose only advantage was that they could hold politically meaningless priesthoods like the Flamen Dialis, etc. But that was more than balanced by the fact that only plebeians could hold the office of tribune, a far more powerful office.

Keep in mind that plebeians just means "not patrician" no matter how rich or powerful that plebeian may be. So yeah, the dirt poor in Subura was plebeian, and so was Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in Rome.

So why didn't the plebeians take political power?

Because they already had it.

What if they did?

OTL.

So, I seem to have gotten this backwards... The plebeian institutions became redundant because the plebeians were already in the other institutions of the Republic, correct?

And yet there were many attempts at reforming the Republic, both politically and socially. The Gracchi, and even the rise of Julius Caesar himself, show that there was plenty of discontent within the lower classes.

Could have this translated into some sort of Roman revolution? I know the answer is "that's what happened when it became an empire, duh." But before the Empire came, there were attempts at more radical, popular based reforms in the Republic. Why didn't they succeed? Was one-man rule inevitable?

 

[wcv215]

Why didn't they succeed?

Because the upper ranks of Roman society held all the wealth. The Roman wealthy, before the rise of the Emperor, held virtually all significant wealth in the late Republic. There was a small middlish class, but they were ever pressured by the upper class elites and steadily lost their wealth. What this meant was that the Senators and other men of their wealth level could buy off groups of the lower class to support their interests, even if it went against the interests of those same lower class men. When the radical attempts to reform the Republic such as the Gracchi failed it set the stage for the more talented and less scrupled Caesar to swoop in and exploit the anger that was there into control for himself.

Add onto this that there was still a taboo on Romans fighting other Romans. Sure it happened, with increasing regularity, but even as late as the wars of the Second Triumvirate Augustus had to carefully frame his war with Antony to make it look like a war against a foreign power, namely the evil queen Cleopatra who had stolen away the formerly noble Roman Antonius and corrupted him. It wasn't true of course, but that didn't matter. So outright revolution would have been unthinkable.

Now that said, if Caesar hadn't come along and the status quo been continued...well then things might have changed. Now maybe not since by this time the free grain dole had been introduced for the poor, but looking back into Roman history its clear that the poor would have eventually likely taken their anger out of the wealthy. But the rise of the emperors came before that happened. And after that the poor were fed by the dole, and entertained by the games enough to keep them in line.

Those who weren't satisfied with this and wanted to elevate themselves meanwhile joined the army, and were brought under the Emperor's control (unless things had gone to hell) rather than formenting revolution.

 

[Tonifranz]

So, I seem to have gotten this backwards... The plebeian institutions became redundant because the plebeians were already in the other institutions of the Republic, correct?

And yet there were many attempts at reforming the Republic, both politically and socially. The Gracchi, and even the rise of Julius Caesar himself, show that there was plenty of discontent within the lower classes.

Could have this translated into some sort of Roman revolution? I know the answer is "that's what happened when it became an empire, duh." But before the Empire came, there were attempts at more radical, popular based reforms in the Republic. Why didn't they succeed? Was one-man rule inevitable?

The latter struggles has nothing to do with Patrician-Plebeian struggle.

That struggle was settled by 287 BC by the granting of political equality of plebeians.


The later struggles were between aristocracy, equites, and the lower class. Please don't make the mistake of thinking aristocracy=patricians, and plebeians=poor. There were poor patricians, and rich plebeians, for example. Being patrician or plebeian was just a matter of ancestry, not wealth.