Talk:Plebeians

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plebians/Proletarii 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've never heard it used non-pejorative. I'll remove the reference. Joepnl (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great Britain 

message: no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plebs → Plebeian —
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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Plebs" being singular 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Andrew Mitchel 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Future of this Entry

message: 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)
thread_title:  Titus Livius and the Varronian Chronology on Plebeian Subjects 

message: Perhaps move the existing "Life" section to a new article (perhaps like  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)
thread_title:  Current "Life" section 

message: 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. — LlywelynII 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Proletariat]]