NAME- HEMANT

ROLL NO.- 2024HIS1047

QUES- Briefly explain the conflict between the two orders within the period of Roman
republic. How did the relations between the patricians and the plebeians evolved in
these times?

ANSWER- The Roman Republic, one of the most influential political systems of the
ancient world, was marked not only by territorial expansion and institutional innovation
but also by deep internal class struggles. Central to this internal conflict was the
prolonged and complex struggle between two distinct social orders—the patricians,
Rome’s hereditary aristocracy, and the plebeians, the broader group of common
citizens. This confrontation was not merely a series of political disputes but a
foundational episode in the evolution of Roman society. This assignment will explore the
nature of the conflict between the patricians and plebeians, key events that marked its
course and how their relations evolved over time.
The Etruscan monarchy was ousted from Rome in 510 BC and the political power was
passed into the hands of the aristocracy. This event marked the beginning of roman
republic. One of the prominent feature of roman republic was that there was an intense
struggle between the landed aristocracy and the common people of Rome. 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. This resulted in a prolonged conflict. The aristocracy lacked the resources to
mobilize a large standing army consisting of professional warrior and could not therefore
eXectively deal with the unrest among the peasantry. Moreover, Roman military
organization was heavily dependent on the peasants who constituted the main fighting
force. The Roman army comprised unpaid soldiers who were primarily recruited from the
peasantry. Rome required a huge army not only to create its empire but also to maintain
and defend it. It is not diXicult to see why the peasantry could not be ignored. To a large
extent the struggle between the aristocracy and the peasantry was a struggle between
two groups or orders the patricians order and the plebeians order and is often referred to
as 'the conflict of the orders'.
The patricians constituted a small close-knit elite while the plebeians were the common
people. Nevertheless both the orders were included in the category of Roman citizens.
But there were social, political and economic diXerences between them. The patricians
were the economically, politically and socially dominant group. During the last phase of
the republic a small section of the plebeians 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. For most, to be born a plebeian meant belonging to an
underprivileged class. On the other hand, being born a patrician meant automatic access
to wealth, political power and a high social and ritual status. Patricians were also able to
exercise a high degree of control over Roman religion. The division of the Romans into
two orders shares a few similarities with the Indian caste system. This division had a
permanency which resembles the permanency of being born into a particular caste. A
citizen was born a patrician or a plebeian. One could not become a patrician merely by
acquiring wealth or political power. Kinship and marriage too were closely linked with the
division of Roman society into two orders. Till 445 BC marriages between patricians and
plebeians were prohibited by law and for a long time after that such marriages were
rare. Even after the restriction on patrician-plebeian marriages was removed, the
oXspring of a marriage between a patrician woman and a plebeian man was not- regarded
NAME- HEMANT
ROLL NO.- 2024HIS1047

as a patrician. On the other hand children of a patrician father and plebeian mother would
be patricians.
When the republic came into existence the patricians converted the senate into an
exclusive oligarchical institution for governing Rome. Membership of the senate was by
cooption i.e. the original members themselves chose additional or new members of the
senate. The original members must have been those who took over the Roman state after
the overthrow of Tarquin the Proud. In other words, patricians were able to dominate in
the senate and Only patrician males were able to be members of the senate. The highest
oXicials of the Roman republic were called consuls. There were two consuls and they
held oXice simultaneously. In the early years of republic this position was only held by
patricians. One of the important demands of the plebeians in the conflict of the orders
during the early republic had been that plebeians should also be allowed to hold the
oXice of consul. In 367 BC one of the consulships was opened to the plebeians. For a
long time this provision remained a mere formality because the patricians controlled the
electoral process and could manipulate the choice of candidates. It was only in the late
republic that plebeians actually started getting elected to the consulship. Besides the
consuls there were several other magistrates who looked after various aspects of
administration. Just like consulship , these positions were also held by patricians in early
republic. Later plebeians also became eligible for this magistracy. All these instances
show the political exclusion of plebians in the early republic times.
Along with the senate the political structure of the city of Rome included a tribal assembly
which had been in existence since the time of the kings. The Roman assembly, i. e. the
assembly of citizens, was called comitia curiata. The comitia curia ta got its name from a
kinship based social unit called curia into which the primitive inhabitants of Rome were
divided. The patricians were able to influence the proceedings of the comitia curiata by
choosing appropriate presiding oXicers. Voting in the assembly was not according to the
principle of 'one member, one vote'. Each curia voted collectively so that only the opinion
of the curiae was sought. Using their kinship ties patricians dominated the respective
curiae and were able to influence the decision of comitias curiata. The plebeians found
that the comitia curiata could hardly be expected to take care of their interests. As a result
of growing pressure from the peasant soldiers of Rome, who invariably happened to be
plebeians, the citizens were. regrouped to form a new assembly. This assembly was
called comitia centuriata. For most of the republican period the comitia centuriata was
the main assembly of citizens. It is believed that the comitia centuriata was formed c. 450
BC. The working of the new assembly was such that ultimately it did not solve the problem
of giving a share of political power to the plebeians. Unlike the comitia centuriata the
citizens were grouped into centuries. The comitia centuriata contained 193 centuries.
Each century had one vote. As in the comitia curiata, the system of voting in the new
assembly was not based on the principle of 'one member, one vote'. The collective vote
of each century was taken. The arrangement of the centuries was such that the patricians
controlled the majority of votes in the comitia centuriata. Having failed to get a share of
political power through the comitia centuriata, the plebeians organized themselves into
a body of their own. This body came to be called the Concilium plebis. The concilium
plebis was an assembly of plebeians. Soon the concilium plebis got institutionalized and
evolved its own structure. It had regular procedures and elected its own oXicials known
as tribunes. Political dominance of patricians along with the suppression of plebians in
the assemblies like comitia curiata and comitia centuriata was one of the major cause
NAME- HEMANT
ROLL NO.- 2024HIS1047

for thi conflict of order. Some other causes include Debt Bondage and Economic Crisis,
Military Exploitation etc.
The most powerful weapon in the hands of the plebeians was the refusal to render
military service. This refusal was referred to as secessio by contemporaries. There are at
least five recorded instances of secessio. The first occasion when the plebeians resorted
to secessio was in 494 BC. They refused to serve as soldiers unless their demands were
accepted. 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 oX.
Following the victory of 494 BC there were four other important landmarks in the struggle
of the plebeians during the early republic. One of the major demands of the plebeians
was that there should be a written code of law so that there was no arbitrary exercise of
judicial authority. The patricians had consistently abused their judicial powers by
enforcing laws according to their own will. There were no written laws. The plebeians
threatened the senate with another secessio if it did not initiate steps to create a proper
legal framework for the Roman state. The senate set up a ten-member commission (the
members of this commission therefore being called 'decemvirs') presided over by Appius
Claudius. The decemvirs prepared a set of laws for the Romans. This set of laws is known
as the Code of the Twelve Tables. It was introduced in 450 BC and laid the foundation on
which the vast edifice of Roman law was built.
The second landmark in the conflict of the orders was the concedence of one of the
consulships to the plebeians. The actual election of a plebeian to the post of consul
came much later. It was only in the last hundred years of the republic that plebeians
began to regularly hold consulships.
Then in 326 BC another crucial reform took place. Roman law had a very harsh provision
which applied to the strict enforcement of formal contracts or nexum. If a Roman entered
into a formal agreement or nexum while contracting a loan in which the debtor's person
was pledged as security, failure to honour the agreement automatically meant debt
bondage. Debts incurred due to frequent participation in wars, as well as to meet diverse
economic needs, had made indebtedness a chronic peasant problem. When the
peasants and other poor people were unable to repay their loans they were enslaved.
Nexum thus became a device for the big landowners to convert free peasants into unfree
labour. Growing deprivation by the mid-republican period aggravated the problem. The
plebeians to agitate for the abolition of nexum. Finally, a law of 326 BC prohibited the
enslavement of a Roman citizen for non- repayment of debts. This law stabilized the
position of the Roman peasantry for some time.
man peasantry for some time.
The fourth, and perhaps politically the most important, landmark in the prolonged
contest between patricians and plebeians during the early republic was a legislation of
287 BC which gave the plebeian tribunes full-fledged Magisterial powers. There seems to
have been a serious crisis at this stage which culminated in another secessio by the
plebeians. The political crisis within the republic coincided with the plan to bring the
Greek states of southern Italy under Roman control. The situation was so serious that a
dictator-who was an elected magistrate with absolute powers appointed at times of crisis
for a short. duration (usually six months)-was chosen to find some solution to the conflict
of the orders. Quintius Hortensias was elected dictator with the specific objective of
NAME- HEMANT
ROLL NO.- 2024HIS1047

resolving the crisis. Quintius Hortensius enacted a law which made the decisions of the
concilium plebis binding on the Roman state. The tribunes were authorized to enforce the
decisions of the concilium plebis with appropriate punishments for violation. The reform
of Hortensius, known as Lex Hortensia were of immense historical significance. The
Concilium plebis was now at par with other Roman assemblies. Its decisions had full
legal authority. The tribuneship became a powerful magistracy. Lex Hortensia brought to
an end one phase of the class struggle in the Roman republic. After 287 BC the struggle
continued but the nature of the conflict underwent changes.
The developments of 287 BC probably necessitated a reorganization of the Roman
assembly. A new assembly was constituted around this time, though the actual date is
not known. This assembly was the comitia tributa. The comitia tributa was an assembly
of all Roman citizens in which the citizens were grouped according to tribes (tribus). For
the purpose of the comitia tributa the citizens were classified on the basis of their
residence. The tribes of the comitia tributa were essentially residential tribes. a Roman
assembly comprising both plebeians and patricians met and the citizens were grouped
according to residential ·tribes it became the comitia tributa or the assembly of Roman
tribes. This form of convening meetings of all Roman citizens gained more and· more
popularity after Lex Hortensia had made the decisions of the concilium plebis mandatory
for the Roman state. The comitia tributa was a more egalitarian body as compared to the
cornitia curiata and the cornitia centuriata. Birth and wealth did not determine the
grouping of citizens. In the later republic the most important issues which required the
opinion of the citizens were submitted to the comitia tributa for approval. The comitia
tributa elected some magistrates like aediles and quaestors. It also had the power to
conduct minor trials. With the passage of time the aristocracy began to dominate the
comitia tributa too by managing its procedures.
To summarize, the conflict between the patricians and plebeians was a defining struggle
of the Roman Republic, one that reshaped Rome’s political institutions and created a
more inclusive, if still hierarchical, society. Through organized protest, legislative
demands, and strategic secessions, the plebeians gradually dismantled the exclusive
hold of the patricians on power. But It is clear from the above account that the senate
never completely surrendered its privileges. It made some concessions by allowing the
assemblies of Roman citizens (comitia curiata, comitia centuriata and comitia tributa),
the concilium plebis, and the tribunes to have some say in the aXairs of the Roman state.
As new institutions were created the older ones were not formally abandoned. The senate
coexisted with the concilium plebis; the comitia curiata and comitia centuriata coexisted
with the comitia tributa; and the consuls coexisted with the tribunes. The functions of
some of the older bodies were curtailed or modified. Yet there were other features which
remained constant. The comitia curiata retained its archaic oligarchical structure, the
comitia centuriata continued to elect the consuls, the senate remained theoretically
closed to plebeians, and the consulship was still the most powerful magistracy at the end
of the republic. Ultimately, the Conflict of the Orders was a transformative episode in
Roman history. It illustrates how structural inequalities can be confronted through
collective struggle, and how social change often results in compromise rather than
complete revolution. The Roman Republic that emerged from this conflict was more
stable, more representative, and better equipped to manage its growing empire—but it
remained a society deeply shaped by hierarchy and privilege.