WI: Social War Starts In 90 BCE

Rerad te initial post of Sly, in order to answer your question.

Shit happens. Sometimes. Especially if it comes to history.

To conquer Rome is not that tricky. Sulla did it. Caesar did it. Even these longhaired, trouser-wearing Gauls did it.

I am with Sly here. If the socii manage to surprise the romans, they will not be able to react. Also remember, there was already a strong faction inside of the roman senate pro socii.

PS: And if you ask for help from the roman armies out of Italy, remember that more than 50% of all these armies were socii. This is not Hannibal. This is Rome against Rome.
 
Last edited:
Democracy never had a real chance in ancient times

Agricola, there is a call for you. 8 generations of Athenian citizens want to discuss with you about 2 centuries of a certain political system with you and... seriously, they look quite angry.

With new tribes all over Italy, and winning socii representing these new tribes, you have to vote all over Italy, decentrally.

Well, is there any precedent for this? The Italics had their consuls during the Social War in OTL - but how were these consuls elected? Certainly not decentrally as you suggest it.

Either the consuls were
1) elected by a central people's assembly in Corfinium (copy of the Roman Comitia) or
2) elected by the Italic Senate.

The Italic Republic was a confederation of cities, and if you take a look on Greek confederation, there was a council consisting of delegates from the different cities, and magistrates administrating the confederation. Sometimes these magistrates were elected by a central people's assembly, sometimes by the council.

But I never heard of decentral elections in ancient times.

Remember: Our parliament evolved out of feudal assemblies representing the different orders of medieval society, and not out of people's assemblies. A Roman parliament will have to develop out of the Senate.

Where do you believe these Samnites or Ertruscans are willing to elect their tribunes?

To be fair, there is ONE example of representative aristocracy (not democracy) in ancient times. Augustus is said to have tried decentral elections: He made it possible for Italian decurions (members of city councils) to cast their ballot through postal voting, so that the Italic upper class could take part in politics without coming to Rome (not that it would have changed something to Augustus' dictatorship, but it was certainly conceived to be a legitimacy boost for the Principate).

Obviously, this system failed (since we have no evidence it was actually used), probably because absantee voting was just to complicated in ancient times.

@Agricola Are you aware of all the difficulties of decentral voting? The Roman assemblies gathered often - for the election of 6-7 magistrates a year + the elections of religious officials + certainly at least 10 laws a year.

So roughly 20 times a year, elections have to be organized in each city. Controlling the elections was the task of the consuls - but Italy had hundered of towns! Also, remember that the membership in a tribe was hereditary - so each city has to control if the citizen has the right to vote there. Than the votes have to be counted and the repport sent to Rome.

Also, who should the decentral assemblies vote for? There are no real newspapers in Rome - the people in the cities maybe know the local politicians, but they need to know at least 30 different Roman candidates changing at each election. And the candidates have only a limited amount of time, so they'll concentrate on the most important city (still Rome), without becoming known in Italy.

Such a representative system is simply utterly impossible before the era of the politicization of the masses through newspapers and better communication.
 
@Agricola Are you aware of all the difficulties of decentral voting? The Roman assemblies gathered often - for the election of 6-7 magistrates a year + the elections of religious officials + certainly at least 10 laws a year.

I did not say, that they should elect magistrates decentrally. This is indeed impossible. I just wrote about tribes and tribunes. If you implement additional decentral tribes instead of distributing the socii to the existing ones, you can elect tribunes locally. This has nothing to do with magistrates or the senate. It is just a first small step, which could change everythin in the long run.

And of course this is not democracy.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think, that the winners would accept to go to Rome, in order to vote?

A rule the winning socii would replace in an eyecatch. Vae Victis!

Probably, both because representative democracy was more or less unknown in the ancient world, and because going to Rome to vote would give more influence to the wealthy, who would be the ones in charge of hashing out the peace settlement.
 
The Italic Republic was a confederation of cities, and if you take a look on Greek confederation, there was a council consisting of delegates from the different cities, and magistrates administrating the confederation. Sometimes these magistrates were elected by a central people's assembly, sometimes by the council.

But I never heard of decentral elections in ancient times.

The greek confederation or koinon shows, that representative systems are not fully unknown. And of course you have decentral elections here. Somebody elected or appointed these delegates decentrally right?

Just replace in your sentence about confederation I quoted, the word "city" with "tribe" and "delegate" with "tribune". Why tribes and tribunes instead of koinon, polis and delegates? Because it is more roman?

I hope this explains my first step a bit better. I never proposed to elect central magistrates decentrally.

PS: On the other hand, the US developed a representative system not because communication and travelling was great and easy, but because it was lousy.
 
Last edited:
I did not say, that they should elect magistrates decentrally. This is indeed impossible. I just wrote about tribes and tribunes. If you implement additional decentral tribes instead of distributing the socii to the existing ones, you can elect tribunes locally. This has nothing to do with magistrates or the senate. It is just a first small step, which could change everythin in the long run.

But wait. The Comitia tributa and the Concilium plebis (both using the tribus system) have the task to elect lower magistrates and to vote laws.

So if you create more tribes for the socii, they'll have to fit into this systen. That means: The members of the new tribes will have to come to Rome if they want to make use of their political rights (since decentral voting doesn't work).

Either this or you abolish the Comitia and give a new sense to the words tribunes and tribes. But this is 90 BCE: Do you know how long it took the Emperors to completly get rid of the Comitia? There is evidence that the Comitia still gathered during the Severan Dynasty in OTL (Cassius Dio, 58, 20, 4 - stripped of all power, but important for the legitimacy and popular support of the Principate. Compare it to elections in communist countries.) So in 90 BCE, we are 300 years away from the earliest point of a possible abolition of the Comitia.

PS: On the other hand, the US developed a representative system not because communication and travelling was great and easy, but because it was lousy.

They developed a representative system because they didn't wanted to establish a democracy. Jefferson had other ideas for an American government (still representative, but with a much weaker central government).

They had many examples, ancient ones like the Lycian federation and modern ones like the Dutch Republic. Most importantly, they could model their congress after the British Parliament.

But Parliament evolved out of feudal estates and not out of ancient people's assemblies if I haven't already mentioned that.

Why tribes and tribunes instead of koinon, polis and delegates? Because it is more roman

But what are the position and duties of your tribes and tribunes? A tribe is a hereditary subdivision of the Roman Comitia and Concilium. A Tribune is a magistrate of the Roman Plebs elected by the whole Concilium Plebis.

Where do your new tribes gather?
What do they elect? A Tribune who has to be elected by the whole assembly according to Roman tradition?
How many tribes elect one Tribune?
And how do these new tribes and new tribunes fit in the existing Comitia system?

Maybe the Romans just were reasonable when they decided not to change the number of tribes;-)
 
Mass enfranchisement likely means a shift towards the optimates as only the rural aristocracy would be able to afford the constant travelling to vote.
 
Probably, both because representative democracy was more or less unknown in the ancient world, and because going to Rome to vote would give more influence to the wealthy, who would be the ones in charge of hashing out the peace settlement.

Mass enfranchisement likely means a shift towards the optimates as only the rural aristocracy would be able to afford the constant travelling to vote.

Exactly. The rich socii would have the money to come to Rome at least for the most important elections. In the new socii tribes Agricola proposes, the wealthy would have the majority of votes, since only they would have the money to cast their vote in the capital.

That would make the Assembly of the tribes very undemocratic, until many peasants of the new tribes (you were member of the tribe of your ancestors) come to Rome in search of work. But this may take a century or so.

A continuation of the Augustine Principate (where there's an emperor but he's formally just another senator/tribune with plenipotentiary power) still seems likely, although a ban on being both senator and tribune is something could arise in a scenario resembling what you describe ("lower house" of tribunes and "upper house" of senators).

I'm still not convinced that any Roman assembly could gather outside of the region of Rome - and as long as the assembly is close to Rome, the plebs of the city of Rome and rich aristocrats from the tribes far away will have the majority.

But let's imagine Agricola's Tribune system evolve in something like a House of Commons. Now comes the Principate, and I thing you should expect quite funny election results.

"The Candidates of our National Front for Roman Prosperity were elected with 99,98 % of popular votes. The Princeps speaks of a new proof of the citizens' consent to his politics."
 
Top