Social Formations and Cultural Patterns of the Ancient and Medieval

World-II
ASSIGNMENT – I
Question. Analyse the nature of class conflict in the Roman Republic.
The foundation of the city of Rome is traditionally dated to 753 BC. The growth of
republican form of government succeeded the decline of monarchy in Rome and lasted
for a period of five centuries from 510 BCE to 27 BCE. In a republican form of
government, the supreme political power rests with a body of citizens and is exercised by
appointed officers who are in some way responsible to the citizens.
The aristocracy initially set up an oligarchical government. The oligarchy exercised its power
through an oligarchical council, called the senate which remained the single most centre of
authority throughout Roman Republic. The Roman society was rigidly divided into
two classes or ‘order’- Patrician (rich aristocracy) and Plebian (poor common
masses). Roman society was further vertically organized into family, clans (gens), tribe
and community, and in the performance of religious and civic duties, they cut across all
generational and economic divisions. Roman society was clearly divided along class lines and
the less privileged sections, particularly the ordinary peasants, resented the monopoly of
political power which the aristocracy enjoyed.
Theoretically, the status of patrician in Rome was accorded on the basis of birth and
could not be acquired through wealth. But in practicality, power and reputation in the
state were obtained not through birth but through success in elections. The patrician
order was based on patriarchal kinship called Gentes or clans. In early Rome
citizens were divided into armed groups of three tribes, each tribe representing a district and
further subdivided into 10 smaller districts called curiae. The 30 curiae were further
divided into 4 urban and 26 rural districts named after biggest Gentes.
Non-patrician Gentes were the one who didn’t belong to the governing class even though
many of them were wealthy and influential society. In due course of times, they were
grouped as plebians or plebs, and they represented undifferentiated group of citizens. When
the monopolistic position of the patricians rendered many small landowners and modestly
well-off citizens in a disadvantageous economic position that the plebs were identified with
the poor lower order of the Roman Society. However, during the last phase of the republic a
small section of the plebians was given a share in political power, but the vast majority of
them remained a deprived class with very little control over land or other means of
production.
Oligarchy under the Republic functioned through a council called Senate.
Membership of the senate was by co-option i.e., the original members themselves chose
additional or new members. Only Patrician males could be members of Senate. Senate was
empowered not only to direct and conduct the affairs of the government, foreign affairs and
finance but also supervised activities of each magistrate, was controlled by the Roman
aristocracy. The Plebians resented this monopolisation of political authority leading to a
prolonged social conflict known as “conflict of orders” between plebians and
patricians.
Among the various causes of the social conflict, one included the debt bondage or
enslavement of the poorer sections of the plebians in the event of failure on their part to
repay the loan due to frequent participation in wars, as well as to meet diverse economic
needs. Nexum or the formal agreement has become a device for big landowners
to convert free peasants into unfree labour. In 326 BC a major reform took place and
a law was passed which prohibited enslavement of a Roman citizen for non-repayment of
debts. The abuse of law by the aristocrats and ambition of elite plebians to get access to
offices monopolized by the patricians was another major cause of the conflict.
While analysing the “conflict of orders” in Rome, one must not lose sight of the fact that the
plebians were not an undifferentiated mass of citizens even though all who did
not constitute the governing class were grouped into the plebian category. There
were wealthy plebians who were included in the non-patrician Gentes and were also
influential enough to get high offices. On the other extreme, in this plebian category were the
small farmers and property-less citizens (pro -literarii) who were exposed to various forms of
exploitation on the hands of the aristocracy. In this “conflict of orders” the interests of the
plebian class as a whole were combined together to oppose all kinds of monopolies exercised
by the patricians.
The chief demands of Plebians were a share in the political decision-making, an end to the
economic exploitation of the peasantry at the hands of the aristocracy and co-ordination of
laws which were hitherto unwritten and interpreted by the patricians to suit themselves. The
conflict assumed serious proportions during 495-93 BCE when the tensions generated due to
the ill-treatment of debtors led the plebians to leave collectively the city in what has
been termed in Roman tradition as “secession” and refused services in the
army until their demands were met.
The first occasion when the plebians resorted to secession was in 494 BC. They wanted the
Roman state to acknowledge the existence of the Concilium Plebis and recognize the
tribunes. It was only after the Roman state had agreed to these demands that the secessio
was called off. The Roman oligarchy lacked the resources of a full-fledged monarchy and
were therefore not in a position to ignore these demands for long. Moreover, the Roman
army, responsible for both protection and expansion of the Roman frontiers consisted chiefly
of small landholding plebians. They had to render mandatory military services and equip
themselves militarily on their own besides managing tax payments and their own subsistence
through farming. The first phase of the “conflict of orders” ended only in the 3rd century BCE,
when most of the demands of the plebians were met.
Constitution and recognition of public assemblies and plebian officers can be considered as
one of the early victories of the plebians in this social conflict. Another major victory for
the plebians was the codification of laws in the form of promulgation of the
famous “law of twelve tablets” in 450 BCE. Up until now, customary laws were
applicable in Rome which were heavily loaded in favour of the patricians and they dominated
it too as they were mostly chosen to be the pontiffs who interpreted the law.
With the codification of laws, the patricians were deprived of their privileges and were
brought under the ambit of the Roman law just like any other citizen. “The Law of Twelve
Tablets” was so called because it was written on 12 tables of wood and was
placed near the forum or the central area of the city. The Law of Twelve Tablets
brought the customary laws into written form and the fundamental feature of these laws was
to establish the principle of equality before law. Later these laws were revered by the Romans
as kind of charter of People’s liberties.
Another Favourable Development for the Plebians was that it received a share in the
distribution of vast amount of agricultural land that the Romans had acquired
after capture of the Etruscan City in 392 BCE. This enabled the plebians to quip
themselves for military service and helped reduce the intensity of class struggle for the time
being. In 367 BCE, the Licinian Laws were passed which made provision of
consulship for the plebians, limited the individual appropriation of public land
by the aristocracy and reduced the debt of the poorer classes. Although it was
difficult for the plebians to get consulship as their election was done in Comitia Centuriata,
yet it opened avenues for them to become lifetime members of the senate.
A major landmark was in the form of a crucial reform in 326 BCE through which Nexum
(contract), which had become an instrument in the hands of the landowners to
enslave free Roman citizen for non-payment of debt, was abolished. The final
plebian victory came in 287 BCE (after another secessio from the city due to the crisis
brought about by war and debt) with the passage of a law known as Lex Hortensia,
named after Hortensius, the dictator appointed to resolve the conflict of orders which
stipulated that the measures enacted by the councilium plebis would be binding on the Roma
government with or without the approval of the senate. The plebian assembly was now
treated at par with other Roman assemblies and plebian tribunes became powerful
magistrates.
These developments until the middle of the Roman Republic however brought an end to only
the first phase of the class struggle in Rome. Further leading to the second phase of the
conflict of orders that started with the Roman Mediterannean venture, which had important
consequences om the growth of slave society in Rome.
The continued social conflict led to the abolition of Nexum. Peasant’s problem was
compounded by the fact that continuous military campaigns of the Republic made it difficult
for them to look after farming activities. Abolition of Nexum meant that no free Roman
citizens could be put under debt bondage. However, the abolition of Nexum could not
prevent the creditor from taking over the land of the defaulting debtors. This exasperated the
condition of the plebians leading to renewed social struggle after the conquest of Western
Mediterannean leading to another round of land redistribution in 133 BCE, whereby a
part of the ager publicus illegally taken over the patricians was distributed among the
assidui, small peasantry.
In conclusion, all of the above-mentioned factors led to the “conflict of orders” between the
patricians and plebians. This struggle brought about some benefits to the plebians class as
the patricians could no longer ignore the demands of the former because plebians
constituted the bulk of the army and the state needed them both for offence and defence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Anderson, P. Passages From Antiquity To Feudalism. London and New York: Verso,
1996.
 Chris Scarre Brian M. Fagan, ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS: Fourth Edition, Routledge,
2016
 Farooqui, Amar, Early social formations, New Delhi: Manak, 2001
 Finley, M.I. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1983

NAME – SAMIYA MISHRA