Kenneth Lasoen
Kenneth L. Lasoen studies Belgian intelligence and defence matters. Educated at the universities of Ghent and Leuven in History, and at Brunel University London and Pembroke College Cambridge in Intelligence & Security Studies, Lasoen teaches Intelligence at the University of Antwerp and researches Belgian security policy and history at Ghent University
less
InterestsView All (11)
Uploads
The tribunes had no constitutional authority to intervene in public affairs, except by proxy of their sacrosanctitas, which guaranteed their protection and gave them the power of the mob. The office evolved however towards having a recognized place in the body politic, with the tribunes regulating a whole range of political, military and economical matters. This paper investigates the various reports in the historical record of interventions by the plebeian tribunes in economic affairs in Rome. Land transactions are presented by the sources as the centerpiece of their efforts from the beginning, many times resulting into violent conflict with the landowners. Research will attempt to show a gradual evolution in the authority on economic policies assumed by the tribunes and the concilium plebis they chaired, by defining which precedents they established by regulating debts, interests, establishment of colonies, trade, war booty, accumulation of wealth, fraud, and land transactions with the Lex Licinia Sextia of 367, the Lex Flaminia of 232 and the Gracchan land legislation of 133 and 122 BC as highlights. The historicity of the often suspect accounts of the earliest proposals will be taken into consideration as well as the practical applications of the eventual land divisions. These questions are investigated by the available literary and non-literary evidence that is often clouded by the fragmentary sources and the at times fabricated evidence they contain.
The tribunes had no constitutional authority to intervene in public affairs, except by proxy of their sacrosanctitas, which guaranteed their protection and gave them the power of the mob. The office evolved however towards having a recognized place in the body politic, with the tribunes regulating a whole range of political, military and economical matters. This paper investigates the various reports in the historical record of interventions by the plebeian tribunes in economic affairs in Rome. Land transactions are presented by the sources as the centerpiece of their efforts from the beginning, many times resulting into violent conflict with the landowners. Research will attempt to show a gradual evolution in the authority on economic policies assumed by the tribunes and the concilium plebis they chaired, by defining which precedents they established by regulating debts, interests, establishment of colonies, trade, war booty, accumulation of wealth, fraud, and land transactions with the Lex Licinia Sextia of 367, the Lex Flaminia of 232 and the Gracchan land legislation of 133 and 122 BC as highlights. The historicity of the often suspect accounts of the earliest proposals will be taken into consideration as well as the practical applications of the eventual land divisions. These questions are investigated by the available literary and non-literary evidence that is often clouded by the fragmentary sources and the at times fabricated evidence they contain.
This paper investigates the power struggles that led to the establishment of the tribunate from the perspective of that office and attempts to trace any antecedents to the Roman plebeian tribunate. What was it that the plebeians were lacking since the installment of the Republic that they had during the reign of the kings and demanded again at their secessio and how did they come by it in the first place? Why was the election of a number of tribunes who had no constitutional authority to intervene in public affairs, except by proxy of their sacrosanctitas – which guaranteed their protection and gave them the power of the mob – deemed sufficient a concession to end the secessio? Which actors were the driving force behind the resistance, the wealthy but non-aristocratic plebeians seeking a share in power or the lower classes suffering from the economic problems of the beginning of the fifth century BC? How is it that these economic problems were given a solely political solution? Did these groups form their own identity which allowed them to act as one? What was the reaction of the patricians to the later developments, i.e. the actions of the tribunes and their activities in the concilium plebis they chaired? These questions are investigated by the available literary and non-literary evidence of a period in early Roman history that is clouded by the fragmentary sources and the at times fabricated evidence that they contain. The focus will then lie on the main narrative sources such as Livy’s Ab urbe condita, Dio’s Roman History, Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities, Diodorus of Sicily, and some of Plutarch’s Lives, next to many other authors such as Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Aulus Gellius, and Tacitus who did not write about the archaic times in great volume, but sometimes add details which either corroborate or contradict the other writers. This literary evidence will be put to the test where appropriate, by comparing archaeological evidence of archaic Rome with the tradition. Therefore research will also take into account the criticism of the literary sources and review the claims that the extant authors have resorted to telling false stories and that very little of the ancient tradition is to be given credence."