The Licinio-Sextian Rogations

The Licinio-Sextian rogations, traditionally dated to 367 BC (having been first proposed in 376 BC), have long been a topic of debate in Roman scholarship. Since the late 19^th century, there has been consistent confusion and speculation around almost every aspect of the rogations and the events which led up to them.Footnote ⁷ One thing which has remained constant throughout the conversation, however, is the acknowledgement of the moment’s importance – even if only in the Roman historical consciousness. Indeed, quite apart from the important social, economic, and political ramifications of the laws, the narrative which surrounds them features a wide range of tropes often used to signal key events in the city’s early history – a ten year struggle, patrician arrogance and family drama, etc.Footnote ⁸ – hinting that, at least for later Romans, this was remembered as a pivotal moment in the evolution of their city and society.Footnote ⁹ And while the foci of the first two rogations, debt and land, seem to have represented important aspects of Rome’s changing socio-economic landscape, it is the introduction (or reintroduction) of the consulship which represents the most likely reason for this significance. This was the point at which the consulship, which represented the highest elected office in republican Rome and the focal point of military and political power, emerged in what can clearly be identified as its late republican form, marking the end of a long period of development.Footnote ¹⁰

But the nuances of this development, and what really made the year 367 BC so noteworthy, seem to have long ago been lost to the vagaries of Rome’s problematic historical tradition.Footnote ¹¹ Our primary source for the period, Livy, suggests that the consulship had actually existed since the advent of the Republic in 509 BC, although he acknowledges it may have gone by another name – the praetorship – in the fifth century.Footnote ¹² But in his narrative, the rogations passed in 367 BC merely reintroduced an old office with some new ‘tweaks’ – most notably for Livy, that one of the positions was supposedly reserved for the plebeians. As many scholars have pointed out over the years, however, Livy seems to be incorrect in his assessment as there were several sets of consular colleagues which featured two patricians in the years after.Footnote ¹³ As a result, the ‘plebeian victory’ of 367 BC may have merely been the restoration and potential opening up of a previously existing office – something which many scholars have felt hardly justifies the moment’s supposed importance in the development of Rome’s political system.Footnote ¹⁴ It is usually thought that there must be something else to the story.

Unravelling this mystery is a rather tricky proposition. Given the time period in which the events occurred – the early to mid-fourth century BC – the entire narrative must be viewed with a high degree of caution, and indeed scepticism, even before one gets to the more problematic aspects. With the very late start of the Roman historiographical tradition in the late third century BC, coupled with what the Romans themselves admitted were cryptic and incredibly limited documentary sources for earlier periods, what remains for the fourth century BC – the oral tradition and Rome’s nebulous ‘historical consciousness’ – struggles to offer any credibility whatsoever to the vast majority of the information contained in the narrative. While we may be able to put some stock in the basics of the laws themselves (it is possible that they may have been preserved in an archive) and the names of the key political figures (whose names were likely preserved in the fasti or some other such document), there is very little possibility that most of the details in the narrative would have been preserved, unadulterated, from the fourth century BC down to the first Roman historians writing a century and a half later. In all likelihood, the bulk of the narrative which is preserved in our extant sources represents a mix of anachronistic interpretations which resonated with the culture contemporary with their creation, which was likely sometime in the final two centuries of the Republic. Indeed, even the more optimistic historians of early Rome have suggested that explanation must be sought outside of the extant narrative, with Cornell famously noting in his chapter on the period in The Cambridge Ancient History that ‘very little of this narrative can be accepted as it stands’.Footnote ¹⁵

The problems with the evidence are so widespread, in fact, that there arguably exists more scholarship on the issues with the period c. 376-367 BC than there does on possible solutions and interpretations. All three of the measures supposedly passed in the Licinio-Sextian rogations have been called into question at various points in time. Many scholars have suggested that the two economic measures are anachronistic and may in fact relate to the third or second century BC, and, as noted previously, Livy is also generally thought to be simply wrong in his explanation of the consulship – particularly in relation to the ‘Struggle of the Orders’.Footnote ¹⁶ This is not to say that Livy’s narrative is incomprehensible, and indeed Pellam has recently mounted a defence of Livy’s narrative as being at least internally consistent, but very few would actually suggest that Livy was right about what actually happened and why.Footnote ¹⁷

The problems with the evidence are not simply limited to Livy’s interpretation either, as the narrative itself is also quite problematic with one of the more significant complaints being (perhaps paradoxically) that it is ‘too rich’.Footnote ¹⁸ Even though these events occur after 390 BC and in the period when Livy claims the sources are more reliable,Footnote ¹⁹ the events of the early fourth century BC are still very much in the prehistoric period – meaning that anything detailed or dramatic should be viewed with a significant amount of caution as it likely originated from somewhere other than the period in question.Footnote ²⁰ Indeed, the association between the conflict over the rogations and the figure of Camillus (himself of questionable historicity) along with the numerous allusions and connections to other key moments in Rome’s early history casts a shade of doubt over the whole story.Footnote ²¹ It is also generally accepted that part, if not all, of the ten years of the anarchy (376-367 BC) represents a correction of the Varronian chronology in order to bring it in line with Greek dating.Footnote ²² As a result, the entire narrative for the period between 376 and 367 is rightfully seen as being incredibly problematic. The period was clearly remembered as important, but even our sources (and likely their sources) weren’t quite sure why.

Although this is clearly a complex narrative with many problems to focus on, the change at the top of Rome’s military command arguably represents both the most accessible aspect and our best chance for discerning what is really at the centre of this historiographical knot. While there is a growing body of evidence for Rome’s changing economy in the fifth and fourth centuries BC,Footnote ²³ and particularly the importance of land,Footnote ²⁴ our wider historical context for the first two rogations is still quite hazy. The changes to Rome’s political and military structure, however, are unanimously attested in the literary sources.Footnote ²⁵ The shift from consular tribunes to consuls in the 360s BC seems to have been documented (perhaps in the fasti) and was universally accepted – although not fully understood. Indeed, our extant literary sources, or at least those like Livy and Plutarch who do more than simply mention the change, seem rather perplexed by the development and its significance. This was something in the historical tradition, rather like the advent of the consular tribunes which preceded it in the mid-fifth century (and not coincidentally), which did not fit neatly within the standard narrative for Rome’s social, political, and military development. It simply did not make sense given their understanding of Rome’s political structures and their development. In fact, Livy’s struggles to explain the importance of 367 BC may have resulted in his associating the moment with later laws, such as the lex Genucia,Footnote ²⁶ in order to justify its prime position in the Roman historical consciousness.

This confusion makes some sense, as the consulship of 367 BC was clearly understood by Livy (and presumably, by extension, Plutarch et al.) as marking the reintroduction of the earlier office, and it is difficult to understand why it would be seen as such a momentous development. A wide range of hypotheses have been advanced to address this, although they generally fit between two points on a spectrum. On the one end there is the argument that Livy is essentially right in his interpretation and 367 BC marked the reintroduction of an archaic office after a period of abeyance – albeit now accommodating at least the possibility of a plebeian holding the office. This is the position espoused by Holloway and Forsythe amongst others, who generally interpret the confusion as relating to the ‘Struggle of the Orders’ and that the plebeians being allowed into this office really was a major victory.Footnote ²⁷ On the other end of the spectrum there are those who have argued that the advent of the consulship in 367 BC was not the reintroduction of the archaic office, but rather the introduction of a new magistracy. By far the most common formulation of this argument suggests that the ‘new consulship’ was a rationalisation of the previous consular tribunate, which had been the magistracy in charge of Rome’s armed forces since the Gallic sack of 390/387 BC – and, of course, irregularly before that since its traditional creation in 444 BC. This was first advanced in a fully developed form by von Fritz in 1950 and it has been further developed by De Martino, Brennan and others.Footnote ²⁸ And of course there are various positions between these two. For instance Drogula has recently argued that the consulship was the reintroduced office, but in a college with the newly introduced praetorship.Footnote ²⁹ Alternatively, Wiseman and Richardson have both pushed for 367 BC as the advent of a new office which existed in contrast to both the consular tribunes and what they have interpreted as a previously hierarchical arrangement where a praetor maximus dominated one (or more) other praetors, although again emphasising the collegial aspect.Footnote ³⁰

The Comitia Curiata, The Comitia Centuriata, and Military Authority

While all of the options discussed above are obviously possible, most of the arguments to date have tacitly assumed, following Livy, that the transition we see in 367 BC was largely an administrative one at the top of Rome’s military and political hierarchy. Whether it was to allow the plebeians into an existing magistracy, a rationalisation of the consular tribunate, or a shift to a slightly more collegial organisation, the main change is typically interpreted as being confined to the chief magistracy and the result of internal, political developments. It has not been seen as a change in the nature of military authority, but merely in who and how many were allowed to wield that authority. However, by moving the focus away from the internal politics of the ‘Struggle of the Orders’ which feature so prominently in Livy’s explanation and towards a wider consideration of Rome in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BC, it is also possible to see this development as part of a wider response to Rome’s changing situation. What is often lost in discussions of the period is how much the wider context of the city was in flux. For instance, the economy of Latium seems to have experienced a gradual shift in focus towards land during the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries (aspects arguably visible in the first two rogations of 367 BC), while the arrival of the Gauls in 390/387 BC and Rome’s sudden subsequent focus on expanding citizenship and alliances both point towards an evolving approach to war in the region.Footnote ³¹ Within this wider context, and seen alongside other developments in Rome’s military and political hierarchy – most notably the use of ‘consular tribunes’ in the 440s BC – the advent of the consulship in 367 BC can be seen as part of a wider reaction within Rome to both internal and external pressures. Indeed, I would suggest that the developments of 367 BC can be viewed as the culmination of a much larger shift in Roman politics which saw the basis of military authority move from the comitia curiata to the comitia centuriata – comitia which represented two different understandings or approaches to Rome’s population and whose approaches to military authority may have also varied, at least initially. The evolving relationship between these comitia, their constituencies, and their attitudes to military authority, is likely reflected in the changes at the top of Rome’s military hierarchy, with each new magistracy representing a new formulation of power. However, the changes at the top of the military hierarchy – although the most visible indications of this shift – offer only the most meagre of hints themselves as to the real developments which underpinned them, which is perhaps why the authors of our extant sources were confused as to their true nature. The progression of chief magistracies merely represented one of the outcomes of this negotiation, not the process itself.

Of fundamental importance to this debate on military authority is the nature of archaic Roman imperium. Imperium is obviously a very thorny issue that scholars struggle with even in periods with far better evidence than the regal and early republican eras, and the variety of positions on archaic imperium range everywhere from the power of the rex in all matters to a simple military command.Footnote ³² Although the details will likely forever be beyond our grasp due to the nature of the evidence, at its core archaic imperium seems to have represented a bond between the community and the magistrate which existed in the same sphere as the power of a paterfamilias, a point noted by historians as far back as Mommsen.Footnote ³³ The powers of a general in the field, and particularly the control over life and death (vitae necisque), clearly mirrored the traditional powers of a paterfamilias.Footnote ³⁴ Additionally, as Nisbet argued, the two principles of authority often seem to have overlapped and come into conflict even in later periods,Footnote ³⁵ as seen most famously in struggle between the imperium of Quintus Fabius Maximus and the patria potestas of his father Fabius Maximus Cunctator recorded by Livy et al.Footnote ³⁶ So although they were clearly not one and the same, archaic imperium likely drew its inspiration from the powers traditionally wielded by the patres of Rome’s archaic gentes and may have resembled the relationship between an archaic patron and a client – albeit spread across an entire community and enshrined in a ritualised and highly circumscribed form.Footnote ³⁷ As with any relationship, the nature of imperium likely changed and evolved over time, although it did seem to maintain a certain set of core principles which described it, if not defined it.Footnote ³⁸ Regal imperium seems to have represented part of a relationship between the community, as embodied by the comitia curiata, and the rex. The comitia elected or confirmed the rex and passed a lex curiata.Footnote ³⁹ There has been lots of debate about what the lex curiata did in the Republic and if it in fact related to imperium or auspicium, but the point is arguably moot for the regal period, as the curiae would have conferred it by either the election or the second vote.Footnote ⁴⁰ During the Republic, the relationship between the curiae and imperium is much harder to pin down, as it seems that the comitia curiata still passed a lex de imperio – but as many have argued this may have simply confirmed auspicium, at least in later periods.Footnote ⁴¹ Indeed by the late Republic the potestas of the consuls, if not their imperium, seems to have come from the election of the magistrate in the comitia centuriata. Footnote ⁴²

The shift in military authority from the comitia curiata to the comitia centuriata is therefore something which we know occurred, likely between the mid-sixth century and the mid-fourth century BC, although it is hard to identify exactly when. Indeed, there is still significant debate over when the comitia centuriata came into being, let alone when the assembly took on various powers. The traditional narrative holds that the comitia centuriata were introduced by Rome’s sixth rex, Servius Tullius, in the middle of the sixth century BC as part of a wide ranging set of reforms.Footnote ⁴³ However, this early date for the comitia centuriata, and indeed most of the ‘Servian Reforms,’ has long been questioned for many reasons.Footnote ⁴⁴ While a full discussion of this debate is not appropriate here, it is worth noting that the comitia centuriata seem to play almost no role in Roman politics until the middle of the fifth century BC. Although it is clear that Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus seem to have assumed they were performing many of their usual duties during this period, the comitia’s duties before the 440s BC are incredibly problematic. Many of the early duties of the comitia, such as declaring war, are merely assumed based on the comitia’s association with the archaic populus and later practice.Footnote ⁴⁵ Cicero claims that the comitia were given a judicial role in 509 BC by P. Valerius Publicola as the court of appeal in capital cases, and the passing of the lex Valeria was offered as the first legislative action of the comitia.Footnote ⁴⁶ However, the historicity of this record is somewhat doubtful as there was also a Valerian law giving the right of appeal to the people in 449 BC – and, given the comitia’s sudden importance in the 440s, this later date is arguably more likely. Looking across the political landscape of the late regal and early republican periods, despite the comitia centuriata’s supposed creation in the sixth century BC, there is no evidence – direct or indirect – to suggest a fundamental shift in the nature of Roman power or politics during the regal period either. The preexisting assembly – the comitia curiata – seems to have remained very active. Indeed, the comitia curiata seem to have represented the dominant assembly in Rome well into the fifth century BC.Footnote ⁴⁷ They evidently continued to pass the lex curiata de imperio and seem to have represented the de facto assembly for virtually all business during the period – even electing the early plebeian tribunes.Footnote ⁴⁸ Even after the comitia centuriata assumed a position of dominance, their actions still required sanctioning by the Senate (and likely the curiae) until the Publilian law 339 BC, further hinting at the political hierarchy in place during the archaic period.Footnote ⁴⁹ So while it is clear that Livy assumed the centuriate assembly was in place during the sixth century and there are references to various aspects of the system, most notably Brutus’ recruitment of iuniores in 509 BC, the vast majority of the evidence seems to suggest that the archaic comitia curiata remained the dominant assembly in Rome throughout the regal period and the traditional seat of military authority.

It is probable that the movement of authority from the comitia curiata to the comitia centuriata was a long process, with the administrative structures lagging behind the political realities of Rome – something arguably visible in the rather late date of the Publilian law which finally moved the centuries out from under the power of the Senate and archaic curiae in the 330s BC. There are various points, however, where change may have been accelerated. The period c. 509 BC for instance, at least in the traditional narrative, represents a possible moment for change, as the transition from monarchy to Republic was obviously a significant political shift. It is clear that Livy and other late republican historians assumed that the centuriate assembly regularly elected the curule magistrates from 509 onwards, as they did in later periods. While the reality behind this situation is uncertain, the very nature of the early Republic suggests that this period would have seen some growth and development within the membership of this body – even if the comitia centuriata had yet to take on their fully developed form. In contrast to the late regal period, which was dominated by the oppression of the local elites by the reges in Rome, the power-sharing arrangement which the Republic represented would have offered a multitude of opportunities for at least some of the wealthy (i.e. the patricians) in Rome. And while the curiate assembly seems to have represented a more geographically-based representation of power focused on the urban core of Rome, the much broader catchment and timocratic basis of the centuries would have favoured this emerging population.Footnote ⁵⁰ Indeed, the legislative twin of this assembly, the comitia tributa, is explicitly recorded as expanding during this period and famously acquired the power to elect the tribunes in the 470s BC.Footnote ⁵¹

The 440s BC, however, seem to represent one of the most significant periods for the development of the comitia centuriata and the point at which the assembly seems to emerge as an important political force. The year 443 BC traditionally saw the election of the censors by the comitia centuriata, which represents one of the first times the assembly seems to have been given an explicit role, as the office of the censorship seems to have been inexorably intertwined with this assembly.Footnote ⁵² Indeed, while it is entirely possible that our sources may have been retrojecting anachronistic norms from the late Republic here as well, the centrality of the census to the centuriate organisation suggests not. It is also probable that comitia centuriata were active the previous year as well, as it is likely that the comitia centuriata also elected the newly created consular tribunes in 444 BC. There is naturally debate over just about every aspect of these enigmatic officials, although Ridley has argued convincingly that they were likely elected by the comitia centuriata, and indeed Livy does explicitly note this twice in book 5, indicating that his sources associated the magistracy with that assembly by at least 400 BC.Footnote ⁵³

Consular Tribunes

The consular tribunes are obviously a highly problematic magistracy, although they do fit within an existing tradition of local magistrates labelled as tribunes. Indeed, if the sources are to be believed at all, there were quite a few tribunes of various types in early Rome. According to tradition, the tribes of Romulus were each headed by a tribune,Footnote ⁵⁴ Brutus was a tribune of the Celeres in 509 BC,Footnote ⁵⁵ there had been plebeian tribunes from at least the 490s BC, and in 449 BC Livy records that the Romans elected military tribunes which were to have ‘supreme command’ (summae rei praeessent) through the so-called comitia militaria – which may represent the comitia centuriata, or at least a version of them.Footnote ⁵⁶ But deciphering the relationship between all of these tribunes, and particularly the military tribunes of 449 BC and the military tribunes with consular power elected in 444 BC – which seem to have been closely connected both chronologically and in duty – is tricky to say the least. While the military tribunes of 449 BC seem to have been largely charged with regulating the military aspects of the relationship between the plebeians and the state in the same way that the tribuni plebis moderated this in the civilian sphere, the military tribunes with consular power of 444 BC were in full command of the army.Footnote ⁵⁷ This opens up the long running debate over whether the magistrates of 444 BC had imperium or not. There are sources (and modern scholars) supporting both sides in this debate and, given the nature of the evidence, it is unlikely that either side will ever be able to be proved correct conclusively. However, it does seem as though the new magistrates lacked the ability to triumph and their power does seem to have been a little different.Footnote ⁵⁸ Indeed, one key difference seems to have been the auspices, as the first plebeian to carry these was supposedly in 362 BC when the ill-fated L. Genucius was elected consul, although plebeians were elected to the consular tribunate.Footnote ⁵⁹ Additionally, they did have the ability to command armies – or the potestas to do so – as the most common version of their descriptor, tribuni militum consulari potestate, suggests.Footnote ⁶⁰ This indicates that the office represented a slightly different approach to military authority in Rome. The consular tribunes had the potestas of later consuls, and the ability to command armies, but lacked auspicium and likely imperium. If this is correct, it means that in the second half of the fifth century BC, Rome was able to understand and utilise at least two distinct models of military command and authority.Footnote ⁶¹ On the one hand there were the archaic praetors, which seem to have existed in colleges but may have also featured at least an informal hierarchy with a praetor maximus.Footnote ⁶² These magistrates, which continued to be elected irregularly during the period from 443 to 390 BC, evidently continued to be granted archaic imperium and presumably functioned much as they had before.Footnote ⁶³ While it is uncertain where they were elected, they likely retained a strong association with the curiae through the evidently regular passing of the lex curiata de imperio and their traditional connection to this assembly as the ancient representation of the community.Footnote ⁶⁴ Conversely, the consular tribunes seem to have based their power on a form of military potestas or authority, possibly associated with the comitia centuriata. Arguably related to the military tribune’s authority (summae rei praeessent) as initially granted in 449 BC through the ‘comitia militaria’, this bond was not explicitly with the community as represented by the curiae (and so connected to and descended from the power of the rex), but was evidently a slightly different expression of authority granted by the army alone. Indeed, this may go some way towards explaining the consular tribune’s inability to triumph, a ritual tightly connected to the urban core of Rome as represented by the curiae as well as the importance of crossing the pomerium.Footnote ⁶⁵

The connection, or lack thereof, between the consular tribunes and the curiae is far from clear cut however. For instance, Livy records a lex curiata in 390 BC (Livy 9.38), which was a year with consular tribunes in office, hinting that they may have had some sort of authority derived from this assembly – although this particular piece of evidence is highly problematic, even for this period. This reference to the lex curiata is part of a wider narrative concerning the Curia Faucia, a curia whose primacy was associated with the defeat at Cremera in 477 BC, the sack of the city in 390 BC, and the later disaster at the Caudine Forks in the Second Samnite War.Footnote ⁶⁶ As a result, the strong association between the curia and defeat, as well as the Fabian gens, hints that its dating to 390 BC may have more to do with a traditional association with Roman disasters than historical reality. Additionally, it is also worth noting that, even if there was a curiate vote in this year, it may not have related to the consular tribunes, as the curiae obviously performed other functions – or indeed it may have related to the imperium of the dictator Camillus, as he acquired a lex curiata in that year.Footnote ⁶⁷

Having authority derived from the comitia centuriata, however, would have represented a significant shift in the years when Rome elected consular tribunes. The curiae represented the archaic, urban population of Rome. Although the community of Rome had obviously been expanding and developing during the regal and early republican periods, the curiae (if we can say anything about them for sure) were still associated with this archaic hub and were very used to voting on the grant of imperium for a military leader – having been part of this type of relationship for centuries. The comitia centuriata, conversely, represented Rome’s evolving population and featured a much more expansive and extramural catchment. Famously linked to Rome’s tribal assembly, the comitia centuriata would have included the increasingly settled gentes of Rome’s hinterland in addition to the urban centre, and indeed their meeting location outside of the city on the Campus Martius arguably illustrates this point.Footnote ⁶⁸ This more inclusive body, while significantly increasing the size of the assembly and the represented population, would have also likely made military authority in the form of imperium a bit more problematic. As suggested above, although the nuances are likely lost forever, imperium did seem to exist in the same sphere as the power of a paterfamilias or patron.Footnote ⁶⁹ As a result, it is entirely possible that, particularly when Roman citizenship and Roman identity were still is their infancy, members of gentes – and particularly powerful or rival ones – may have been wary of going under the power of another paterfamilias in this way. While the urban community of Rome, with its disparate and heterogeneous population, may have been used to this arrangement for the protection and betterment of the community, the gentilicial population based increasingly in Rome’s tribal hinterland may not. The potestas of the consular tribunes may have represented a compromise in this situation whereby the army – which was likely increasingly made up of gentilicial forces in Rome’s expanding comitia centuriata – granted limited military authority, which did not exist in the same realm as patria potestas, through the mechanism of the comitia centuriata.Footnote ⁷⁰ So while the archaic praetorship represented a continuation of the power of the rex, the consular tribunes may have been more closely related to the evolving socio-political structures of Rome, and most notably those which included and incorporated the rural hinterland and its population. While this arrangement may have had some issues, most notably with regard to power and prestige, it seems to have had significant benefits as well – as it was evidently seen as the most viable military option following the Gallic sack.

Military Authority in the Fourth Century BC

This brings us, finally, to 367 BC. This year evidently witnessed the reintroduction of the regular issue of imperium through the office of the consulship at a time when the comitia centuriata was changing. Indeed, a number of scholars have argued that the period c. 400 BC saw a dramatic transformation of the centuriate assembly. For instance Cornell argued that this was the period when the various classes of the centuriate system were introduced.Footnote ⁷¹ Although Livy (1.43) and Dionysius (4.18) both suggested that the centuriate system was introduced as a complete system by Servius Tullius in the mid sixth century, this has long been thought to represent an anachronistically complex model and indeed there exists an alternate tradition in the literature (see, particularly Festus 100L) where there was initially only a classis and an infra classem.Footnote ⁷² Seeking a point where the addition of the various subdivisions of the classis makes some sense, the period c. 400 BC has often been presented as a likely period given the significant changes which the city, and both the comitia centuriata and comitia tributa, were undergoing. For instance, we also know the period saw an expansion of the tribes, as Rome endeavoured to expand her citizen base in the aftermath of the Gallic sack, integrating a number of new populations and regions – most notably near Veii and Tusculum – and also through the creation of municipia as at Tusculum in 380 BC.Footnote ⁷³ The period also supposedly saw the advent of tributum, which may have been associated with the integration of poorer members of society into the armed forces.Footnote ⁷⁴ It may therefore be possible to see the introduction of the consulship in 367 BC as the point at which imperium, long associated with the archaic community of Rome and the curiae of Rome, was finally unified with the potestas of the comitia centuriata and Rome’s emerging, expanded population. Indeed, when seen in the broader context of Rome’s social and military situation in the early fourth century BC, this type of development makes quite a bit of sense.

Emerging from the Gallic sack in 390/387 BC, Rome was faced with significant military threats which included the possible return of the Gauls along with pressure from more traditional opponents like the Latins and Etruscans. Obviously, given the confusion around the magistracy, we are unsure why the Romans introduced the consular tribunate – although military reasons are offered as one option. It seems clear, however, given that the consular tribunate was the magistracy which the Romans adopted on a regular basis after the sack of the city, that the office was somehow seen as the more effective option militarily in this context – although the regular use of the dictatorship is also noteworthy.Footnote ⁷⁵ The question of why the consular tribunate was seen as being more effective than the archaic praetorship is impossible to answer. It may simply have been that there were more of them (by this point six were being elected) although, as Ridley has argued, it was probably not based on their track record – which was far from sterling in the fifth century.Footnote ⁷⁶ But based on the argument and associations noted above, it is possible that they, being connected to the centuriate assembly and not the curiate assembly, had access to a larger or different body of troops. And indeed, the fulltime adoption of the magistracy does coincide with Rome’s other attempts to expand her manpower using the tribal structure during this period – for instance through the use allies and the first municipium at Tusculum. So the consular tribunate may have represented the best, or indeed only, way to utilise the entirety of the city’s expanding population during this period.

But Rome’s military concerns were not the only factors at play in the early fourth century. The reforms of 367 BC were also likely a response to political needs. Indeed, if Livy is to be believed at all, political concerns were the main driver behind them. In this discussion, plebeian desires have usually been emphasised, and both the introduction of the consular tribunate 444 BC and the consulship in 367 BC are usually depicted as plebeian political ‘victories’. But patrician desires were also likely key. If the consular tribunes did wield merely military potestas and not imperium, this suggests that the office may have been lacking in prestige. At the very least it would have blocked magistrates from celebrating a triumph, but more than that imperium seems to have created a much more personal bond between the army, general, and the ultimate victory than that which existed with mere potestas – an aspect which may be linked with the associated auspices as well.Footnote ⁷⁷ Indeed, the use of the consular tribunate after 390 BC may have led to the increased use of the dictatorship in order to satiate this patrician desire for personal glory. Although the dictatorship may have arguably been more militarily effective, putting power into the hands of one man presumably chosen for his ability to handle a particular military situation, it also allowed for much more prestige in this environment as it continued to utilise archaic imperium and the right to triumph. Indeed, the rather ambiguous imperium maius of the dictator in this period (maius to that wielded by the archaic praetors), if this did indeed exist, may have represented a precursor to the type of imperium wielded by the consuls in 367 BC – unifying the archaic prestige of the curiae with the increased power of the wider community.Footnote ⁷⁸ The regular use of the dictatorship, however, even with Rome’s pressing military concerns, is unlikely to have made either the plebeians or patricians particularly happy – the plebeians, because they were blocked from the office, and the patricians, because it monopolised power and went against the elite power-sharing arrangement which underpinned the republican system. As a result, there may have been pressure to introduce offices which would offer all of the elites in Rome, both patrician and plebeian, a chance to acquire the prestige in war which imperium offered.

The new consulship fits within this context and, if seen as a new office, can be explained as a response to these pressures. As Brennan and others have argued, the consulship of 367 BC seems to have been seen as an effective replacement for the consular tribunes in terms of military power, and in this way exists in sharp contrast to the archaic praetorship, which was not seen as sufficient after 390 BC.Footnote ⁷⁹ This suggests that, from the view of military authority, the consulship of 367 BC had much more in common with the consular tribunes than the archaic praetorship, carrying with it the potestas of a magistrate elected through the centuriate assembly and associated with that body. However, when considering the prestige of the office, the consulship of 367 BC also carried with it the status and associations which went along with the archaic grants of imperium and auspicium by the curiae. So in 367 BC, we may not only have the advent of a new office, but a reinterpretation of both military authority and imperium. In 367 BC imperium and auspicium are reintroduced, albeit in something resembling their late republican form where they carried more ritual than real significance. Closely associated, like the ritual of the triumph, with urban centre of Rome and the religious heart of the community, what had been a bond between a powerful warlord and the community in the archaic period very soon became a symbolic association – albeit a meaningful one.Footnote ⁸⁰ The real power of the consulship, as revealed in its late republican guise, came from its potestas and association with the comitia centuriata.Footnote ⁸¹ And indeed, these comitia were intimately associated with the office with Livy famously dubbing them the comitia consularia.Footnote ⁸² This assembly, and its linked tribal assembly, bound together all of Rome’s evolving and expanding population in this period in a way which allowed the Romans to take full advantage of their new manpower reserves. As a result, the new consulship – whose very name evokes collegiality – may not only have been collegial in its membership, but also in its power and authority, representing the unification of the curiae and comitia centuriata.

As something of an aside, this interpretation has some interesting implications for the praetorship, which was also introduced in something resembling its late republican form at this time. As noted above, there are a range of positions on the office and its relationship to the consulship, with which it seems to sit awkwardly – equal, and yet somehow inferior.Footnote ⁸³ However, if one assumes that the praetorship of 367 BC was in fact the reintroduced archaic praetorship, then things make some sense. If this is the case, then the magistracy could arguably have equal imperium with the consuls, although it would have vastly limited potestas, being perhaps more closely associated with the curiae and not the centuriate assembly (although it is entirely unclear which assembly it was initially elected in).Footnote ⁸⁴ Indeed, this early association between the praetorship of 367 BC and the curiae may be preserved in its strong association with the urban core of Rome and its title as the praetor urbanus which is often seen to run contrary to its wide-ranging roles and duties, often far from the city.Footnote ⁸⁵ As Rome’s political system developed and the curiate assembly became more and more vestigial in nature, ultimately becoming nothing more than the college of lictors by the late third century BC, it is likely that the office was rationalised and shifted to the centuriate assembly.Footnote ⁸⁶ However, the memory of its confusingly inferior status, at least with regards to power, seems to have been retained. Additionally, the praetorship did seem to have remained a patrician monopoly – at least for the 30 years following the Licinio-Sexian rogations – and so retained that archaic aspect.Footnote ⁸⁷

Returning to the consulship, this new, unified office, perhaps most importantly, reflected Rome’s changing character in the fourth century BC. The city of Rome was ‘growing up’ – expanding, and developing. While the curiae and comitia curiata represented Rome’s archaic heart, the centuriate and tribal assemblies reflected Rome’s expanded (and expanding) population. This change at the top of Rome’s military hierarchy was far more than an administrative change, but a real reflection of the changing nature of Roman society. It was an acknowledgement that the urban curiae were no longer representative and new systems and approaches were needed to reflect the wider society and relationships therein. As can be discerned from the names of many of Rome’s archaic tribes, outside of the urban centre these included increasingly settled gentes in the hinterland. However, as the centuriate assembly and Rome’s emerging fourth-century ‘nobility’ suggest, of equal importance in this context was an appreciation of the timocratic nature of being ‘elite’ in Rome. Additionally, even in this changing environment, the curiae seem to have retained something important. Something about imperium and auspicium and the ritual power which they offered, even if it simply meant access to the community space, was seen as important enough to elite competition to warrant their retention – even into the empire.Footnote ⁸⁸