social organization: Rome those who could trace their ancestry back to the first Roman Senate at the beginning of the republic They were the aristocrats, the people who enjoyed wealth, status, and political influence The plebeians consisted of everyone else (excluding slaves) During the early centuries of the republic, only patricians could hold public office Intermarriage between patricians and plebeians was against the law In general, patricians thought of plebeians as a mob, as the dregs of society who in many respects were barely human In fact, however, many plebeians were themselves landowners, and some were fairly wealthy in their own right Over a period of some 200 years, conflict often erupted between the patricians and the plebeians (often called plebs) According to some historical accounts, this conflict led to a number of developments, including repeal of the laws barring plebs from holding public office and intermarrying with patricians Further, the plebs frequently threatened, in effect, to go on strike and secede from Rome Their interests were represented by the Plebeian Council (or Plebeian Assembly), which claimed the power to pass laws, giving rise to the modern word plebiscite, referring to a measure voted on by the population as a whole rather than its legislature Collectively, these developments and threats are referred to as the Conflict of the Orders; the primary source of information about this conflict is Livy and his history of Rome, Ab urbe condita (From the Founding of the City) Over time, the patrician class met many of the plebs’ demands so that by the early third century b.c.e., the distinction between the two classes was eroding In fact, many members of the patrician class were falling on hard times and petitioned the government to be reclassified as plebeians so they could reduce their tax bill (Patricians, because of their alleged wealth, paid far higher taxes.) They also tried to reclaim their fortunes by marrying into plebeian families that had become affluent through trade and commerce The political distinctions between the two classes diminished in the later years of the republic, though the social distinction between the two survived as a matter of prestige rather than law It should be noted that some historians dispute Livy’s account of the Conflict of the Orders While they agree that changes took place in the republic’s social order, they maintain that nothing like an organized “conflict” took place and that the plebs never threatened to secede from the republic Historians continue to dispute the exact nature of the events that took place THE ROMAN EMPIRE (27 B.C.E.–476 C.E.) During the period referred to as the Roman Empire, Roman society remained exceptionally hierarchical, though historians know more about the lives of upper-class Romans than they about the lower classes It is known that “Rome” was a diverse entity difficult to define It included not only descendants of Rome’s founders and earliest citizens but also large numbers of people from conquered territories who were granted citizenship, slaves and former slaves who had 1037 been able to buy their freedom and gain citizenship, rural immigrants who came to the cities for economic opportunity, people in conquered territories who were granted some citizenship rights, and large numbers of “easterners” from Greece and elsewhere who made Rome a cosmopolitan city While aristocratic Romans looked down their noses at foreigners, former slaves, and rural immigrants, many Romans welcomed the mix of people, seeing it as a source of strength and vitality Many of the legal distinctions between patricians and plebeians had been eliminated, but this did not mean that social distinctions ceased to exist The imperial court was the center of power and influence during the empire Senators and knights were among the most important people at court Historians estimate that at any given time there were about 600 senators and perhaps 30,000 knights, often referred to as equestrians, or equites Numerous other people, including actors and astrologers, around the court seeking patronage and influence The result was a kind of feudal system, where senators and knights rewarded the loyalty of their followers and retainers with offices and money, while the followers themselves often had a train of dependents who relied on them for their living So rigid was this sense of hierarchy that the Roman census actually divided people into six classes based on the amount of property they owned The senatorial class (which did not necessarily mean that a person was a member of the Senate) required ownership of at least a million sestertii, referring to a silver or bronze coin (A sesterti was equal in value to one-fourth of a denarius It is difficult to attach a modern value to a sesterti, but using the price of bread as a standard of value, it was equal roughly to $5.00.) Membership in this class was based on estate ownership, and a person in this class was not allowed to engage in trade or commercial activity The next class included the equites, who could engage in business and had to be worth at least 400,000 sestertii These two were the most influential classes Below them were three additional classes of property owners, followed by the proletarii, who owned no property These census classes were important because they determined voting rights, with more voting power, of course, going to the higher classes than to the lower ones Further, voting took place from the top down, and as soon as a majority was attained, the result was announced Therefore, the proletarii rarely got to vote Social relationships were often based on the concept of patron and client A patron (patronus) was typically a person of higher wealth, rank, status, or talent In return for special attention and services from people of lower status, he provided them with benefits, which could include jobs or loans at low rates of interest These patron-client relationships did not involve a single patron and a single client These relationships formed a network, so the same patron would have numerous clients—a large retinue of clients was a sign of social status—and an individual client could have more than one patron This social system emerged rooted in the belief that a network of mutual obligations based on status created a stable social order, one in which everyone knew their place