Talk:Plebeians

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 12 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JamarcusW. Peer reviewers: Jarbobinkly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Modern usage: The first sentence of this section is grammatically incorrect. It reads that there is a language 'French English'. Either that or you are implying that British et al are languages which they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.76.0 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Response
Actually the high ranking plebs were members of the centuriate and tribal assemblies so could vote, also they could become senators and consuls etc and could veto all but a few senate decrees (through the tribunes of the plebs) —The preceding kek comment was added by 207.188.67.244 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Plebians/Proletarii
What is the distinction between the Plebs (who I believe were mostly members of the 3-5th classes in the centuriate assembly) and the Proletarii, (who had no vote as they were beneath the fifth class, basically all unemployed or poor, and eventually the members of Gauis Marius [and Successors] Conscript Legions) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.77.162 (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Proletarii means "breeders" i.e "Those who sustain society by making babies". That is the origin of the term.Arcsoda (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Balance of power
After the plebs received the Tribune of the Plebs with veto power, could you say they were more powerful than the patrician class - because that class did not have access to such veto power?

Dutch
It says in the article that in Dutch the term is used literally, but as far as I know (apart from the literal Roman case) it's solely used pejoratively in Dutch as well. The dictionary seems to agree with me. However, as the sentence is probably inserted by a fellow dutchman, I'll await someone agreeing with me before changing it. 131.211.81.191 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never heard it used non-pejorative. I'll remove the reference. Joepnl (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain
It says in the article that in Great Britain the term is a back-formation, where I've heard it used it's more of an abbreviation for 'People lacking everyday basic skills' Plebs. See the
 * Daily Mail article Can someone with better wiki skills update this? Chrisjwatts (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Page move proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not moved. Note: Originally this was move request was closed in favor of the move, but was reversed and re-opened after opposition was raised. Aervanath (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Plebs → Plebeians &mdash; I plan to expand the article Plebs sometime in the near future when I get more time. I would though like to ask if it is possible to change the article name to Plebeians as I believe it to be a more precise title. I would be grateful for any opinions on this proposal. Thanks. Surtese (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Plebeians is the proper term and plebs is the abbreviation (I'll probably try to find some exact references tomorrow, but I think Andrew Lintott is a good example). Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support and then after it's been moved, split the article in two, with the modern usage moving to plebes. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to have seen this; I disagree. Plebs is the name of the order; plebians are the members of the plebs. Since plebian has the wider metaphorical use also, this article should be at Plebs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first part here appears to be correct. The OCD entry is "Plebs" and members are Plebeians, although it is also an English abbreviation of plebeians. I've relisted the proposal. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the English (also American) abbreviation pleb/pleib/plebe is what the voices above are talking about. But in Roman history, plebs is a singular, with the (rare) plural plebes meaning "several peoples". Possibly a page on plebe is warranted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I reopened it. You are right on that, and the current article is about the Plebs (e.g. "was the general body of Roman citizens (as distinguished from slaves"), which besides being a Latin word is also an English word for this body. Thanks for the comment! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From a 'History of Rome' Written by Marcel Le Glay, Jean-Louis Voisin and Yann Le Bohec. "Then conflicts in Rome between plebeians and the patricians began, a development or process referred to today as the "struggle of the orders." in 494, the plebeians withdrew to the Sacred Mount....".


 * "plebs, plebeians: Political grouping which appeared in 494/493 BCE, of any class, who opposed the patrician organisation of the state. Made up of rich and poor, patrons and clients, native Romans and foreigners (Latins, Sabines, etc) who had come into the city. At first, their sole point in common was their opposition to the privileges of the patrician. Subsequently plebeian gentes were formed in opposition to the patrician gentes".


 * Perhaps I have quoted too much but I think these two quotations point out the fact that 1) Plebeian is the most common term and 2)Plebeian is the name of the political group as used in ancient Rome. Surtese (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you have quoted enough to show three things.
 * This is not an English text; it is an unfortunate translation from the French. Privileges of the patrician is not idiom.
 * The authors believe Livy's chronology.
 * They do so inconsistently, since Livy speaks of the plebs under Romulus (as is only to be expected, unless patricii and patres conscripti are entirely unconnected - a fringe view.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Livy can be deemed inconsistent by many people. The further back in history he wrote the further from the actual truth he got. "Plebs under Romulas"? If there is overwhelming doubt as to the existence of Romulas then the story of the plebs is hardly believable. Historians would be rather remiss if they did not use archaeology alongside ancient writings to verify the facts. Quite often they don't verify (or prove them wrong) the writings and quite often they do. Livy was not always right and he was not always wrong, which is why it is wrong to say the authors are inconsistent. Marcel Le Glay, Jean-Loius Voisin and Yann Le Bohec can hardly be critisized for going through livys writings with a fine tooth comb. Surtese (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, Romulus' existence is doubtful; the problem with your quotations is that Menenius Agrippa is almost equally dubious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that it was a mistake of translation in the Le Glay et al book. Don't get me wrong, it's possible but if you put that in an article someone would say WP:OR. I didn't think a move would be pperformed so quickly so I was not especially concerned about finding sources. Tomorrow I'll go to the library and find Lintott's book on the constitution. That will hopefully settle the matter one way or another (although I dread reading that book, Lintott's bloody dull and always writes in a roundabout manner). Nev1 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to see that Lintott maintains the Latin distinction: plebs is the order (Most power exercised by the senate over the plebs was unspectacular; the first secession of the plebs; [Concilium] was the common word for meetings of the plebs at Rome, but might on occasion refer to assemblies of the whole people); however, the individuals comprising it are "plebeians" (those plebeians who were under arms; In theory there was nothing to prevent two plebeians being elected [to the consulship]). We should too.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like that should sort things out. We should probably add a footnote to the article explaining that plebeians were members of the order of plebs. Referenced of course, what page is that on? Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would Lintott take precedence over all other historians? There are plenty of sources out there from historians who call them the Plebeian order or the Plebeian party. I'm not trying to fight this if I'm wrong, only ensuring we get it right. Surtese (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plebs is an English word, as any number of citations will show (and the fact that Lintott does not italicize it) - a loanword, of course; in this contrast, it is the correct word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Barthold Georg Niebuhr, here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are other sources.. I won't bang on about it though. If Lintott is deemed to be the eminent historian on this who am I to argue. Surtese (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All three of those sources also use plebs, correctly. Plebs is a noun, plebeian the corresponding adjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it; he must assume the term is known to the reader, although he does define patres. Try Oxford Latin Dictionary, "plebeius"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Lintott is something of an authority on the subject and is widely referenced. He's not definitive, but if he says it, it's probably a good bet to be true... although a source hasn't yet been produced explicitly stating that plebeians were members of the order of plebs. Nev1 (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cassell's Latin Dictionary will have to do for now; it defines plebeius as "member of the plebs....plebeian." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall stick to my archaeological writings and wish you all the best in expanding the article. Wikipedia it seems is not for me. Surtese (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move
no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Plebs → Plebeian &mdash;

I read through the previous move request discussion, and while I understood the rationale behind keeping the article name at Plebs, I disagree with the reasoning. I think there are two points which should be presented which weren't previously.

a. If we are striving for consistency in our naming conventions, one would think that the Patrician (ancient Rome) and Plebs articles should follow the same format, i.e. Patrician and Plebeian (in which both names refer to an individual member of the class) as opposed to Patrician and Plebs (where patrician refers to one individual, a member of the patrician class, and Plebs refers to the whole class of plebeians). Also, although PMAnderson attempted to establish Plebs as an English loanword as opposed to a Latin-only word in the previous debate, I disagree and I do not think that its unitalicized use by one historian makes it an English word. The patrician article is not titled "Patricii" and similarly the plebeian article should not be titled "Plebs", as this is the English Wikipedia and not the Vicipaedia Latina. This leads into my next point-

b. Wikipedia is meant to be read, and it is meant to be read by average English speakers. The average English speaker who can't name a single Latin declension and doesn't know the difference between an aedile and a praetor is not going to know that a plebeian is a member of the Plebs, and will not search for Plebs buts plebeian (or more likely, plebian). Although there are redirects in place, the article should be titled Plebeian because that is the most commonly used English word in this case. Also, the article's focus should shift with the name to being about an individual member of the Plebs (a plebeian) as opposed to the class as a whole. This would bring it in line with the Patrician (ancient Rome) article.  Neil   Clancy  19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * a) We are not striving for consistency; we are striving for utility. There is no convenient English equivalent of plebs for the opposite group; patriciate? Patrician order? Nah. We live with it, and explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * b) The average English speaker who can't name a single Latin declension and doesn't know the difference between an aedile and a praetor is not going to know that a plebeian is a member of the Plebs,  That's why we have redirects; but since this argument would work equally well to support a move of plebeian to plebs, I think it less than persuasive in deciding between the two states. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the final comment; how? There were millions of plebeians; we know nothing at all about the vast majority. We know very little about most of the remainder, but one of the things we do know is that they differed greatly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm with Septentrionalis here. Basically, I don't see anything that supports "Plebeian" over "Plebs" that couldn't simply be turned around and using foe the exact same move back to "Plebs" down the road. Unless and until something else comes up, I'm going to have to say Oppose. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Plebs" being singular
The word "plebs", as explained in the article, is a singular. We would not say "the gaggle of geese were" or "the group are", so I think it would be inappropriate to use "plebs" in the plural. I haven't actually made this change, I defer to you real Wikipedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.29.50 (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Mitchel
I've just removed again the reference to him shoved into the Modern Usage section here. To plonk him in as the only reference to someone using the word in modern times just because he's in the papers right now seems wrong. If it's added along with other examples of the use then it would be more appropriate for an encylopedia. Identz (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it is a PRIME example and well reported modern usage of the word. To remove the reference because you feel it is wrong smacks more of a political allegience than an example of how the word has been used. andymcgarry (User talk:andymcgarry) 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Believe me, there's no political allegiance here (Look over my posting history and see how much is about politics of any colour), but may I suggest the fact you go there so quickly shows that your reasons to want to add this is for political reasons and not because you genuinely want to improve the article. My point isn't that it shouldn't be in the article, I think it should as a prominent use of the word. My point is that if it's going to get added then it should be added with other examples of the word being used, perhaps as a new section showing various ways it has been used, rather than throwing a SINGLE person's use of the word in. Do you really think it looked right throwing a single example of the use of the word at the bottom of the "Modern Usage" section? If you want to add it then may I suggest you should find other examples of the word being used and perhaps add a new section with several examples and thus you would have improved the article. Sitting there on its own in the article feels like the very political bias you've just accused me of. Identz (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Land-owning
Did the plebs necessarily own any land? Did not some rent the place they lived? --Oddeivind (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Future of this Entry
Has anyone noticed that a great deal more verbiage has been generated in the Talk section than on the Page? As long as the article is composed of one type of fish and two types of fowl, I don't see how it can be improved. I have taught Ancient History for forty years, but I would never even begin to try to fix this mess. So far I see only superficiality and error. Maybe the thing to do is move to have the page deleted, and then start over with just the Roman material. Let me just give you, in the meantime, something to read: Richard E. Mitchell, Patricians and plebeians: the origin of the Roman state (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990). It's heads above the two books cited so far, both of which are embarassing. Vicedomino (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Titus Livius and the Varronian Chronology on Plebeian Subjects
I am almost afraid to talk about an issue so controversial, but don't you think that this article is too much enslaved to Titus Livius and the Varronian Chronology? You must keep in mind that both authors were likely to put back the foundation of Rome and of all its institutions (including the Tribuni Plebis) to the most ancient times in order to make them more respectable. The Varronian Chronology "Ab Urbe Condita" has been dismissed by archeologic research which has proved that Rome, as a City, was only founded in the second half of the VI century BCE and not in the VIII century BCE as Varro tells us. The chronology "Post Reges Exactos" is somewhat surer, but still has a discrepancy of eight Years. That means that Varro, not only added eight Years to the Roman Republic, but in a whim of fancy decided that each king, even those who were only legendary should have reigned exactly by 30 years. As to Titus Livius he duplicates and triplicates his histories from century to century. This article omits the evolution of Roman Society trough the centuries, making general affirmations about the importance and number of the plebeians in different centuries. One thing is to say that the plebeians were the overwhelming majority of the Roman Society in the first century BCE, another thing is to say that it was so in the first half of the V century BCE. The so called "Servian Reforms" are nothing but a myth and are posterior to the "Tumultus Gallicus" and so are the so called "Servian Walls" as Archeology has found out. Emperor Claudius himself (who was a reasonable historian with good knowledge of Etruscan Antiquities) told to the Roman Senate that during the supposed "Servian Reign", Rome had been dominated by an Etruscan King called Macstrana. When the Roman Republic was instituted, the Roman Society was divided in patricians, clients and plebeians. The only People's Assembly was the "Comitia Curiata". The patricians were attached to a "Curia" and so were their clients. I cannot believe there was ever a "concilium plebis curiatum" because the Plebeian didn't belong to any "curia". They had no political nor civic rights and were only valued as auxiliary troops to the main Roman Army. That explains why the first secession took them to a place called "Mons Sacer". The discontented plebeians had to find sanctuary in a sacred hill, otherwise they certainly could be slain by the regular Roman Army, composed by the patricians and their clients. As their were needed as auxiliary troops, they were brought back to Rome by good words and, perhaps, a remission of their debts, but certainly without political rights, without civic rights, without tribunes and without "plebiscita". The situation had changed 50 years after, when the "decemviri" made the Twelve Tables Law. By then the "clientela" relationship though still existing, had be come somewhat looser in its effectivity, many clients left or were dismissed by their patrician patrons, had become plebeians and were claiming for a written law which should give them some rights. The Twelve Tables Law did give them some rights, but not equal rights, nor did it acknowledge "Tribuni Plebis", "Concilia Plebis" or "Plebiscita". Only after the fall of the "decemviri" did the Valerian Horatian Laws (the so called "Leges Sacratae") establish the existence of the "Tribuni Plebis" and of the "concilia plebis tributa". This was based on the division of the "Urbs" in four regions. The plebeians who inhabited one region were to be considered a plebeian tribe and to have a tribune. The four tribunes were to be sacrosanct, whoever did lay hands on a tribune, patrician or plebeian, should be held as "sacer" and excluded from civic society. Every tribune could summon the "concilia plebis" and present to them the "rogationes" which would become "plebiscita" when voted", but one can doubt if the patricians were bound by these "plebiscita". The "Lex Publilia Philonis" (second half of the IV century BCE) gave the Tribunes the "ius agendi cum senatu": that means the Tribunes could summon the Roman Senate and get a "Senatusconsultum" on the "rogationes" before they were submitted to the "concilia plebis" and became "plebiscita". That may or may not imply that the "plebiscita" were now binding to patricians. The "Lex Hortentia" (fist half of the III century BCE) converted the "concilia plebis tributa" in "comitia tributa" This was made by adjoining rural tribes to the urban tribes. The assembly would be presided by a "proper" magistrate (consul or praetor) and the patricians, who had by then became a minority could also vote in these assemblies. The tribunes (which by then were 10) maintained the "ius agendi cum senatu" and the "ius agendi cum populo": each one could summon the "comitia tributa" and present "rogationes". As Hortentius was a dictator in time of war, these reforms, no doubt, corresponded to the reality of the contemporary Roman Army and Society. Only then it became clear that the plebiscita" had the same value as the "leges" and also bound the patricians.

It must de noted that during the Roman Republic the censors had no power to turn plebeian unto patricians or patricians unto plebeian. Their job was to divide the Roman people in 5 "classes" and, after the "Lex Ovinia" to draw the list of senators ("Album"). Through the "notae censoriae" they could remove someone from the Senate or downgrade him from an upper class to a lower class, but could never turn a patrician into a plebeian. Also the condition of "infamis" could not be be changed by the censors. If a patrician was found guilty of perjury in court he would become "infamis", but he would always remain patrician and would also retain his class unless, in the next "census", a "nota censoria" should remove him from the Senate or from a higher class to a lower class. Jalpendre (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Jalpendre (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Jalpendre (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Jalpendre (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Jalpendre (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Jalpendre (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Current "Life" section
Perhaps move the existing "Life" section to a new article (perhaps like Common life in ancient Rome or something like that). The plebs were a very non-homogeneous group. You had really rich plebs like Crassus; rich plebs like Pompey, MJB, Cicero, Octavian's family, etc; middle class plebs in the centuriae; then poor plebs in the capite censi. These are very different groups and it is not easy to generalise about their all sharing some kind of "Life"; this is compounded when ancient sources written by the rich discuss poor people practically not at all and archaeological evidence usually does not speak for itself. Ifly6 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proletariat
isn't just a "class of wage earners" in Communist jargon. The proletarii were a subclass of the plebs who should be dealt with here, probably in paragraph form alongside better discussion of the equestrians and upper-class plebs. Similarly, the current article doesn't seem to talk about the grain dole or cura annonae at all, despite the plebs presumably being the main focus of the thing, considered a pillar of the empire. — Llywelyn II   15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)