The document summarizes the plight of the plebeians in ancient Rome. It describes how Roman citizens were divided into patricians (aristocrats) and plebeians (common people). The patricians held political and economic power, controlling public offices and land. This created conflicts between the two classes. The plebeians faced economic hardship from wars and unfair laws favoring patricians. Politically, plebeians had no say though they could vote. They also lost out on public lands distributed by patricians. Overall, the divisions left plebeians feeling like inferior subjects of the patrician class, trading one tyrannical king for another group of rulers.
The document summarizes the plight of the plebeians in ancient Rome. It describes how Roman citizens were divided into patricians (aristocrats) and plebeians (common people). The patricians held political and economic power, controlling public offices and land. This created conflicts between the two classes. The plebeians faced economic hardship from wars and unfair laws favoring patricians. Politically, plebeians had no say though they could vote. They also lost out on public lands distributed by patricians. Overall, the divisions left plebeians feeling like inferior subjects of the patrician class, trading one tyrannical king for another group of rulers.
The document summarizes the plight of the plebeians in ancient Rome. It describes how Roman citizens were divided into patricians (aristocrats) and plebeians (common people). The patricians held political and economic power, controlling public offices and land. This created conflicts between the two classes. The plebeians faced economic hardship from wars and unfair laws favoring patricians. Politically, plebeians had no say though they could vote. They also lost out on public lands distributed by patricians. Overall, the divisions left plebeians feeling like inferior subjects of the patrician class, trading one tyrannical king for another group of rulers.
Introduction In Ancient Rome the citizens were generally divided into two different yet distinct groups. The aristocrats were the wealthy and nobility of the people who had all the advantages of society from the start. Then the plebeians were the common man and every day man who had the right to vote and hold property but not to hold office. The aristocrats were known as the patricians and they kept many rights from the plebeians for as long as possible in order to maintain control, in the days of the formation of the republic after the defeat of the old kings the ruled the city. The plebeians generally were farmers or poorer by background and they came to resent the rule of the way things were ultimately leading up to the first secession or secessio plebis. Breakdown of the Roman tribes The early history of Rome saw the creation of two social classes, the fewer numbered but powerful tribes and the greater numbered but lesser in power plebeians. Gary Forsythe described this with saying, The patricians constituted a closed group of specific aristocratic clans, whereas all other clans in Roman society were classified as plebeians (2006). These two classes of people were vastly different inside of Rome. The patricians were the only ones in the beginning to hold public office and indeed they even kept the laws of the city to themselves without writing them down of making it common knowledge in the beginning (Plebs, n.d.). Economic differences The wars to free themselves of the kings left the plebeians poor and borrowing from the patricians to survive. The plebeians lived mostly in the country where their property could not be protected by the city walls during the wars. Their land would be unkempt or even sacked by the enemies during this time and they were left with very little. Then came the Law of Debt. This was a law that made debtors an even lower class of citizen than the plebeians already were. This led to them being jailed or sold into slavery if they could not pay their debt (Morey, 1901).
The Plight of the Plebeians
Political Differences During the beginnings of the republic patricians held the majority of the political power, they held all offices while none were given to the plebeians to fill. The only right the plebeians were given was the right to vote. The patricians even held all the religious offices which at the time were important and tied into Roman politics, further ostracizing the plebs (Forsythe, 2006). This uneven divide was hard on the plebeian people and they were growing just as restless with the republic as they were the monarchy before it. Uneven Rights to the Public Domain The last divide between the two classes comes with the divisions of the land for public use. After the wars to rid Rome of the monarchy there was large bits of land that now belonged to all the people. The patricians however saw that differentially as they controlled the government. As Morey stated, [] they disposed of this land for their own benefit; they allowed it to be 'occupied,' at a nominal rent (1901). This land was not able to be sold as it was public land and they reaped the benefits giving little to the plebs and keeping as much has possible for themselves. Conclusion All these differences lead to a conflict between the two classes of Roman citizens. The economic plights brought by the war hurt the plebs. The difference in political power kept them feelnig inferiors. And finally the division of the lands left them with little to nothing to show for their liberation from the ruling class. They merely traded one king for a group of tyrants. References Morey, W. (1901). Outlines of Roman History, Chapter 7. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey07.html Plebs. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Plebs Forsythe, G. (2006). Patricians and Plebeians. In A critical history of early Rome from prehistory to the
The Plight of the Plebeians
first Punic War. Berkeley: University of California Press.
In Re The Sire Plan, Inc., Laguardia Hotel Sire Plan, Laguardia East Sire Plan Hotel, Inc., Debtors. Albert Mintzer v. Lazarus Joseph and David I. Shivitz, Trustees, 332 F.2d 497, 2d Cir. (1964)