Re:The Queen’s Latin or Who Were the Romans? Part I: Beginni...
by zozbot234 on Friday June 11, 2021 @08:03AM
(#27472162)
I'm not sure that the Roman senatorial elite is properly described as an 'aristocracy', since ancestry had become less and less relevant wrt. social status even as early as the late Republic. Wealth and social connections became a lot more important at some point, but people from different backgrounds could acquire those with comparable ease. Of course citizenship status still mattered, but that was gradually extended over time as well. Ancient Rome seems to have been a remarkably open society by the standards of their time.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Queen’s Latin or Who Were the Romans? Part I: Beginni...
by Koncopd on Saturday June 12, 2021 @04:18AM
(#27482670)
Do you mean patricians? Because senatorial elite and senators in general were not become less relevant during the republic, as a roman became a senator after he took the office of a quaestor, the first position in the line of roman public service offices. And it wasn't limited to patricians only, for the most important offices there were no restrictions for plebeians, though there were some special positions for patricians only and for plebeians only. Examples - Cicero was a plebeian, even a novus homo (a politician without senators among his ancestors); Cato the Younger, one of the leaders of the optimates (traditionalist fraction in the senate), was a plebeian, though a member of plebeian aristicracy, descendant of Cato the Censor.
Edit: i think i misread your comment, so there is no arguing with you actually.