Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Roman Village

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  What would the head of a Republican Roman village have been called? Were they Prefects or was that a higher rank? I presume villages existed within the Republic or was all farming done on the great land holdings of the aristocracy?

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  Essentially the answer to your question is that the title of the senior ranking person in a village depended on what assembly he could attend in Rome. This would have normally been that of the Comitia Tributa since most large centres of population would have had at least one landlord affiliated tribally to one of the 35 tribes traditionally granted the power to appoint lower ranking civic officers and which ultimately became part of the lawmaking body, together with the Concilium Plebis.
  
  This is by no means a strict pattern however. In the later republic the proliferation of slave labour had seriously imbalanced the Roman economy, including its agronomical sector - so much so in fact that there was a mass migration of poorer Roman citizens to the major urban areas, especially Rome. Villages, such as we understand them now, were superfluous economic units so outside of the towns (which received a form of charter outlining their civic structure) other conurbations of population were organised according to the requirements of the local economy, and usually by the predominant landlord (ie. wealthiest and well connected, but not necessarily with high civic status himself). The countryside became a network of plantations, some vast, and where large concentrations of people existed they were often comprised of non-citizens. In such civic structures there was no 'set' title for a leader, even if the places themselves were in function almost indistinguishable from any other country village - then or now. The end of the republic saw many of these plantations managed, and eventually owned by 'equites' and military officers, both of whom were emerging in status as a class to be reckoned with. So in these cases the 'village leader' would almost certainly hold a military rank, and would have treated the 'villagers' as recruitment stock rather than primarily as contributors to the local economy.
  
  All very fluid, as you can see.
  
  Towns however were strictly regulated. Some were administered direct from Rome by the four annually appointed Praefecti Capuam Cumas. Others were given to quaestors to administer or were even appointed their own aediles if considered important enough.

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 13th May 2006

  <quote>
  What would the head of a Republican Roman village have been called? Were they Prefects or was that a higher rank? I presume villages existed within the Republic or was all farming done on the great land holdings of the aristocracy?
  
  <\quote>
  
  
  
  They would have held the rank of Magistrate
  
  (I think)
  
  I am trying to remember the Greek title for the Village Head, as you must rememeber that there were a lot of Greek villages and towns (esp in southern Italy) Dumrivi or something similar to that IIRC was the Greek title and the Roman equvilant would have been Magistrate
  
  

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 13th May 2006

  Under republican law a village could not just 'appoint' a chief with magisterial rank - a magistrate in republican Rome was any person appointed to the collegial posts by election through the comitia.
  
  Part of the problem with this question is that it presumes a definition for 'village'. The village is traditionally a small concentration of people living in one locality, normally situated in a place where ample water can be obtained, and in which the locals provide a centralised service resource for the surrounding agricultural and sparsely distributed population. Unfortunately this model doesn't sit well within the republican Roman countryside, as I said earlier. Small concentrations existed but their function had been altered fundamentally by the establishment of large, villa-run plantations and the incredibly easy access to skilled slave labour. These 'villages' therefore served no great role in civic administration locally or nationally - that was the job of towns or cities - and so they did not need to have elected leaders. When such a leader emerged or was acknowledged by his peers, his civic title reflected his patronage first and foremost, so he could be anything from a lower magistrate right up to an Aedile.
  
  Crucially also, the 31 rural tribes who had voting rights in the Roman assemblies that appointed public figures had to send representatives to Rome itself to exercise that right, and even then their votes were just a few of many. It was practically impossible for locals, even if they had a man who they wanted to honour with a position of power in their locality, to guarantee that their support would bring about his appointment. The essence of the system was that all positions of power - even in remote rural areas - were issued from Rome itself and for the most part were collegial. This ensured that no 'village chief' could ever use his local position of supremacy and support to challenge the authority of Rome.

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006

  Thanks for the replies - it seems a far more complicated system than a tribal or feudal system.

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006

  To the Romans it was a simpler system - centrally administered, standard across the home territories, and above all unthreatening (they had learnt well from the Greek system of 'city-states' the pitfalls of allowing too much autonomy to a region or too much authority to be invested in one local leader).
  
  Of course the whole thing got fouled up later with the rise in power and influence of the military under empire.

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by bobandkate (U3816271) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006

  How did this administrative system work into imperial times? Did the system of government vary remarkably from province to province? Any answer would be appreciated.
  Kate.
  

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006

  Very much so as provinces were absorbed into the Roman world in a variety of ways. Hispania, for example, forcibly inducted after the Carthaginian wars had a long history of rebellion during republican times and as a result was one of the first under empire to become synonymous with the 'new' concept of political achievement allied completely with military prowess - a notion reviled by purists before the advent of empire but which gradually became THE political necessity as the empire progressed in strength. Civic administration in Hispania had nearly always been effectively influenced, if not directly controlled by the resident military forces. Illyricum on the other hand, also an early Roman acquisition and also renowned in the beginning for its violent opposition to being taken over, quickly became a profitable trade hub and during the first centuries of empire became almost an extension of Italia itself. This is reflected in how the civic administration in that province reflected so closely that which applied to the core Roman territories themselves. Other provinces began as 'client' states that paid taxes to Rome but retained their own administrative functions (such as Judaea or Cyreneica), at least for a period.
  
  In Italia however empire brought about some radical changes in civic administration. Augustus himself brought about the biggest when he carved the Italian territories up into 11 regions and dictated how each should be governed. Prior to this the area that is now Italy, while titularly Roman, was effectively run as an economic concern by the 'tribes' approved by the comitia. This meant that at different times different areas came to the political fore and in essence the entire area was treated as a homogenous whole by teh authorities for the purposes of taxation and army recruitment. Under the empirical reforms regionalisation split the responsibility for these important functions between these 11 local administrations, and (much as with devolution in the UK today) there was an explosion of civic stipends and official titles to be dished out. As the role of the military grew so too did military deployment in Italia reflect these regional boundaries, and soon there was a noticeable overlap between military command and civic function. What would have had the old republicans rolling even faster in their graves was that as recruitment of Italians diminished and the roman legions came to be almost exclusively comprised of provincial stock, the army provided a 'fast track' method whereby military men of 'foreign' extraction could exercise their political ambitions while stationed in Italia, the heart of the empire. This hitherto impossible route in fact became almost a standard route to the role of emperor itself for many ambitious generals of foreign extraction who gained 'kudos' from their simultaneous civic careers in Italia.
  
  And throughout all this, the system still lacked a generic term for a village chief!

  Link to this forum: Roman Village

  Report message8

Back to top