Talk:Plebeians

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.

Response

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).

Plebians/Proletarii

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).

Balance of power

After the plebs received the Tribune of the Plebs with veto power, could you say they were more powerful than the patrician class - because that class did not have access to such veto power?

Dutch

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)

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

Page move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Note: Originally this was move request was closed in favor of the move, but was reversed and re-opened after opposition was raised. Aervanath (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Plebs → Plebeians — I plan to expand the article Plebs sometime in the near future when I get more time. I would though like to ask if it is possible to change the article name to Plebeians as I believe it to be a more precise title. I would be grateful for any opinions on this proposal. Thanks. Surtese (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Plebeians is the proper term and plebs is the abbreviation (I'll probably try to find some exact references tomorrow, but I think Andrew Lintott is a good example). Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and then after it's been moved, split the article in two, with the modern usage moving to plebes. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to have seen this; I disagree. Plebs is the name of the order; plebians are the members of the plebs. Since plebian has the wider metaphorical use also, this article should be at Plebs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part here appears to be correct. The OCD entry is "Plebs" and members are Plebeians, although it is also an English abbreviation of plebeians. I've relisted the proposal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the English (also American) abbreviation pleb/pleib/plebe is what the voices above are talking about. But in Roman history, plebs is a singular, with the (rare) plural plebes meaning "several peoples". Possibly a page on plebe is warranted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I reopened it. You are right on that, and the current article is about the Plebs (e.g. "was the general body of Roman citizens (as distinguished from slaves"), which besides being a Latin word is also an English word for this body. Thanks for the comment! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

From a 'History of Rome' Written by Marcel Le Glay, Jean-Louis Voisin and Yann Le Bohec. "Then conflicts in Rome between plebeians and the patricians began, a development or process referred to today as the "struggle of the orders." in 494, the plebeians withdrew to the Sacred Mount....".

"plebs, plebeians: Political grouping which appeared in 494/493 BCE, of any class, who opposed the patrician organisation of the state. Made up of rich and poor, patrons and clients, native Romans and foreigners (Latins, Sabines, etc) who had come into the city. At first, their sole point in common was their opposition to the privileges of the patrician. Subsequently plebeian gentes were formed in opposition to the patrician gentes".

Perhaps I have quoted too much but I think these two quotations point out the fact that 1) Plebeian is the most common term and 2)Plebeian is the name of the political group as used in ancient Rome. Surtese (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you have quoted enough to show three things.

• This is not an English text; it is an unfortunate translation from the French. Privileges of the patrician is not idiom.
• The authors believe Livy's chronology.
• They do so inconsistently, since Livy speaks of the plebs under Romulus (as is only to be expected, unless patricii and patres conscripti are entirely unconnected - a fringe view.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Livy can be deemed inconsistent by many people. The further back in history he wrote the further from the actual truth he got. "Plebs under Romulas"? If there is overwhelming doubt as to the existence of Romulas then the story of the plebs is hardly believable. Historians would be rather remiss if they did not use archaeology alongside ancient writings to verify the facts. Quite often they don't verify (or prove them wrong) the writings and quite often they do. Livy was not always right and he was not always wrong, which is why it is wrong to say the authors are inconsistent. Marcel Le Glay, Jean-Loius Voisin and Yann Le Bohec can hardly be critisized for going through livys writings with a fine tooth comb. Surtese (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, Romulus' existence is doubtful; the problem with your quotations is that Menenius Agrippa is almost equally dubious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that it was a mistake of translation in the Le Glay et al book. Don't get me wrong, it's possible but if you put that in an article someone would say WP:OR. I didn't think a move would be pperformed so quickly so I was not especially concerned about finding sources. Tomorrow I'll go to the library and find Lintott's book on the constitution. That will hopefully settle the matter one way or another (although I dread reading that book, Lintott's bloody dull and always writes in a roundabout manner). Nev1 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that Lintott maintains the Latin distinction: plebs is the order (Most power exercised by the senate over the plebs was unspectacular; the first secession of the plebs; [Concilium] was the common word for meetings of the plebs at Rome, but might on occasion refer to assemblies of the whole people); however, the individuals comprising it are "plebeians" (those plebeians who were under arms; In theory there was nothing to prevent two plebeians being elected [to the consulship]). We should too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that should sort things out. We should probably add a footnote to the article explaining that plebeians were members of the order of plebs. Referenced of course, what page is that on? Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Lintott take precedence over all other historians? There are plenty of sources out there from historians who call them the Plebeian order or the Plebeian party. I'm not trying to fight this if I'm wrong, only ensuring we get it right. Surtese (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Plebs is an English word, as any number of citations will show (and the fact that Lintott does not italicize it) - a loanword, of course; in this contrast, it is the correct word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• How about Barthold Georg Niebuhr, here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are other sources.[1][2][3]. I won't bang on about it though. If Lintott is deemed to be the eminent historian on this who am I to argue. Surtese (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All three of those sources also use plebs, correctly. Plebs is a noun, plebeian the corresponding adjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it; he must assume the term is known to the reader, although he does define patres. Try Oxford Latin Dictionary, "plebeius"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Lintott is something of an authority on the subject and is widely referenced. He's not definitive, but if he says it, it's probably a good bet to be true... although a source hasn't yet been produced explicitly stating that plebeians were members of the order of plebs. Nev1 (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cassell's Latin Dictionary will have to do for now; it defines plebeius as "member of the plebs....plebeian." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall stick to my archaeological writings and wish you all the best in expanding the article. Wikipedia it seems is not for me. Surtese (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• As for the final comment; how? There were millions of plebeians; we know nothing at all about the vast majority. We know very little about most of the remainder, but one of the things we do know is that they differed greatly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yea, I'm with Septentrionalis here. Basically, I don't see anything that supports "Plebeian" over "Plebs" that couldn't simply be turned around and using foe the exact same move back to "Plebs" down the road. Unless and until something else comes up, I'm going to have to say Oppose.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.