Similarities through history.

[Zaknafien]

um.. ok, here's what you wrote.

are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend what is the godfather? what has mafia to do with ancient governmental structures...pleaaaase! why not compare it with star trek or Buffy the vampire slayer then? ;) (im just bein ironically if somebody dont understand)

The Plebs voted, but later in time they got also their own representation, something similar we will only see in modern time, when lower classes were permitted to vote and get their own representative in the parliament.
Anyway who were the plebs? local poor citicen and foreigners.

Now, do you understand what patrons and clients were?

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

um.. ok, here's what you wrote.



Now, do you understand what patrons and clients were?

ok as i see you finally you learn how to quote (but you must agree with me that quoting is not your forte) why next time, instead wasting time trying to quote you just write what you want to say? ;) .

Client and patrons? well I did my home work back then, how about you? because it seems you dont understand (or dont want to understand) what I mean.

Clients (clientes, from cliere = obey) were the subject of the singles gentes quirinaries (or gentiles groups), and they had to obey to their pater familias to witch they were enthrust. And from who they got protection (Patronatus) so as you can see here is the similarity, BUT:

Now during the V and the IV century there was the crisis of the quiritial structure. The "ancient" istitution (rex, patres, comitia curata) were blurred, on the political plan, from the exercitus centuriatus patrizitian-plebs, were the praetor had lot of influence. The turnover of the monarchy (Brutus, Tarquinius, Lucrezia)along with the Etruschian domination and later the sack of rome, favour the socalled "revolt" of the Plebs.

Who were the Plebs (again and again) the Plebs, poor people, foreigners ect were the large population WITHOUT the citizenship, so it means they were NOT giuridical subject not for the pubblic law and for the private. They understod their importance for the army and for the local economy and for the function of the state of rome. So they start to claim their pretensions (claim for earth and also equality at certan degree with the patritians, including representationin the senate) so they got they asked and also 1 or two consul to be elected.

Later the number of the rapresentative of the plebs increased.

The plebs got their rapresentations after they did their massive strike on the avventinus.
So explain to me....HOW DOES THIS CONTERDICT WHAT I SAID?

[Zaknafien]

Youre speaking completely out of our time frame. Please make your argument relative to the situation. Plebian members of Roman society held citizenship, they were simply the poorest of the 5 classes of citizen at the census. The head count were plebs as well, though they held no property. Plebs were enrolled in the census, could own property, and served in the army. There were no "foreigners" in the plebeian assembly.

The patron and client system is VERY similar to mafia familial and protectorive ties, indeed, the very word patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".

Interestingly enough, the plebeian vote counted for little in the assemblies to elect magistracies.

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

Youre speaking completely out of our time frame. Please make your argument relative to the situation. Plebian members of Roman society held citizenship,

no, originally the citicenzip was granted only to the patritian or quirites.

The patron and client system is VERY similar to mafia familial and protectorive ties, indeed, the very word patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".

true..

[Obelics]

could be "very similar" according to you two, but there is not relation. I noticed that one of you two has corrected himself, at first he was speaking of "relationship" and then, he sayd "similar". The second one is right, if we are talking of similitude, but that's not history.

[Zaknafien]

no, originally the citicenzip was granted only to the patritian or quirites.

It is patrician, and it is not the same thing as quirites. But foremost, please keep your discussions within EB's time frame, we are not discussing earlier eras.

I dont understand what point you're trying to make here. What exactly are you aruging, anyway?

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

It is patrician,

thank you.

and it is not the same thing as quirites. But foremost, please keep your discussions within EB's time frame, we are not discussing earlier eras.

Originally was, Quirites was the oldest name of the romans, and since only the patritian got the citizenship it is proper call them Quirites (or patrician).

I dont understand what point you're trying to make here. What exactly are you aruging, anyway?

I am teaching you a little of the history of Rome, and if you cant see the connection, it's not my fault.

[Obelics]

patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".

again:

Padrino is not related with patronus, that is a false statement.
You are using a sort of "transitive regle" here that is not corrected in linguistic:

pater=> (A) lat patronu(m),
pater=> (B) lat medieval patrinu(m)
then (A) = (B) that is not correct.

the first one (A) is used in roman "diritto" and i guess both you two know what it means patronu(m)

the secon one (B) is from medieval latin and it was used in church as "spiritual parents" and it later become also a slang for what you was talking about (mafia): a padrino is your new acquired "(spiritual) father"....

please dont create a false relation between mafia and roman clienteral system.

[bovi]

I am teaching you a little of the history of Rome, and if you cant see the connection, it's not my fault.

If you're not interested in your audience to understand what you're talking about, why bother to post at all? A summary of your arguments and conclusions will help many, I believe, because this discussion has become disjointed. At least I fail to understand what you want to arrive at.

[Zaknafien]

I agree. I fail to see what, if anything, we are arguing about. Obelics, there is a connection between the patron system and the mafia. How can you argue there is not? What is a mafia boss to his clients if not a patron? I think you fail to understand either system if you cannot see their similarities.

Denmark guy, I am always interested in learning more Roman history that my professors may have missed, but I fail to see what point you are trying to get at. You seem to have a very misconstrued view of Roman culture that is not entirely accurate.

[Obelics]

Obelics, there is a connection between the patron system and the mafia. How can you argue there is not? What is a mafia boss to his clients if not a patron? I think you fail to understand either system if you cannot see their similarities.

mafia is somethink related to the modern (post-unitarian) italian state, the situation of the agricoltural masses of the South, who were still linked to the old feudal system in vigor in the old Borbonic kingdom, and the new sort of colonialist system of the northern conquerors, who weren't able to interpretate the instances of the southern system.

if you see some "similitude" between the roman clienteral system and the link that a "servus of the gleba" had with its "Lord" (beware im using the word "lord" not patron) that's the same as to see the same similitude in other european feudal system. It was the "sudden" and "not gradual" ropture of this system that generate what you are talking about.

again if with "relationship" you are referring to some sort of "national genius" a word much used in the '800, that is as saying that if the roman had that clienteral system, than it still continue to be in the italian Dna as the mafia sembiante, than is a very forced thing, but im sure we are not talking of this.

again we are talking of similitudes, not of direct connections (and at last i would like to see what "exactly" are these "connection" and how much proved they are trough the whole course of history).
we can discuss on the matter forever and find as much of similitudes we want, but these are not probant of a direct connection on history, like to say A generate B.

I think it is very more fruitfull to go to investigate how it failed the system that Federico II wanted to give to the southern italy, and make a comparison with the new postunitarian system and its faults. Or again to go to investigate the social instances of the Vice-Realm centuries.

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

Denmark guy, I am always interested in learning more Roman history that my professors may have missed, but I fail to see what point you are trying to get at. You seem to have a very misconstrued view of Roman culture that is not entirely accurate.

Well Zak its Baryonyx Walkeri, not Danmark guy. And if you fail to understand, thats only because you didnt follow the discussion of this topik.


Baryonyx Walkeri wrote:

The Plebs voted, but later in time they got also their own representation, something similar we will only see in modern time, when lower classes were permitted to vote and get their own representative in the parliament.

Do you understand now?

Obelics wrote

mafia is somethink related to the modern (post-unitarian) italian state, the situation of the agricoltural masses of the South, who were still linked to the old feudal system in vigor in the old Borbonic kingdom, and the new sort of colonialist system of the northern conquerors, who weren't able to interpretate the instances of the southern system.

I was in Italy not to long ago, especially at Napoli. I was talking to some people, I think they were some neo-Borbons (correct me if I am wrong), they were pretty pissed because of Garibaldi's invasion in the south.
They told me that the south italian army of Francis the II (Francesco II) didnt surrender at went up to the mountain and figh, a sort of guerrilla war who lasted around 10-15y. And the told me also about a law the italian parlament approved in 1863 were the italian soldiers who were fighting against the guerrilla, had the right to kill people for reprisal of the southern guerrilla. Actually they also told me must of the south were in uprest.
This also helped to increase the power of the mafia in the regions in the south (mafia, gamora ect). They were (the neoborbons) also trying to start a collection of signatures of local napolitan people to remove garibaldis statues around.

Ok I know this is a bit of topik, but since you are italian and from Napoli, the bond between Mafia and local south italian people is that to be ascribed to the "civil war"? or they were just fooling me?

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

And I like also to add, we need to distinguish the concilia Plebis of the 494, it means the council only for the plebs, and the meeting of the tribunes, that was a assembly were plebs and patritian were reunited, but this is from late age.

The concilia Plebis are born like a one side assembly (for the plebs only) the plebi scita commit only the plebs. This uintil the Ortensia law were the plebi scita commited everybody (including the Patritian).

About the senate, at the beginning there were also plebeian consul (nothing prohibit that) and there were also plebeian consul in the repubblic, but they were rapidly excluded from the office. Later, when the law change the situation changed.