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?
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?
Last edited: