Roman assemblies in the context of "Curiate assembly"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Roman assemblies in the context of "Curiate assembly"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Roman assemblies

The Roman assemblies were meetings of the Roman people duly convened by a magistrate. There were two general kinds of assemblies: a contio where a crowd was convened to hear speeches or statements from speakers without any further arrangements and a comitia where citizens were called and arranged into voting blocks.

When called to enact legislation or make decisions, such as on guilt or war, citizens were in the historical period always divided into voting blocks. Citizens voted directly in these blocks, with a majority of the blocks determining the decision of the assembly; this system was directly democratic with no representatives. There were three kinds of voting blocks – curiae, centuriae, and tribus – giving rise, respectively, to the curiate, centuriate, and tribal assemblies. In the middle and late republics, only the centuriate and tribal assemblies were politically relevant.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
In this Dossier

Roman assemblies in the context of Senate of the Roman Republic

The Senate was the governing and advisory assembly of the aristocracy in the ancient Roman Republic. It was not an elected body, but one whose members were appointed by the consuls, and later by the censors, which were appointed by the aristocratic Centuriate Assembly. After a Roman magistrate served his term in office, it usually was followed with automatic appointment to the Senate. According to the Greek historian Polybius, the principal source on the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the Roman Senate was the predominant branch of government. Polybius noted that it was the consuls (the highest-ranking of the regular magistrates) who led the armies and the civil government in Rome, and it was the Roman assemblies which had the ultimate authority over elections, legislation, and criminal trials. However, since the Senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy, it had the most control over day-to-day life. The power and authority of the Senate derived from precedent, the high caliber and prestige of the senators, and the Senate's unbroken lineage, which dated back to the founding of the Republic in 509 BC. It developed from the Senate of the Roman Kingdom, and became the Senate of the Roman Empire.

Originally the chief magistrates, the consuls, appointed all new senators. They also had the power to remove individuals from the Senate. Around the year 318 BC, the "Ovinian Plebiscite" (plebiscitum Ovinium) gave this power to another Roman magistrate, the censor, who retained this power until the end of the Roman Republic. This law also required the censors to appoint any newly elected magistrate to the Senate. Thus, after this point in time, election to magisterial office resulted in automatic Senate membership. The appointment was for life, although the censor could impeach any senator.

↑ Return to Menu

Roman assemblies in the context of Senate of the Roman Empire

The Senate of the Roman Empire was a political institution in the ancient Roman Empire. After the fall of the Roman Republic, the constitutional balance of power shifted from the Roman Senate to the Roman Emperor. Beginning with the first emperor, Augustus, the Emperor and the Senate were technically two co-equal branches of government. In practice, however, the actual authority of the imperial Senate was negligible, as the Emperor held the true power of the state. As such, membership in the senate became sought after by individuals seeking prestige and social standing, rather than actual authority. During the reigns of the first Emperors, legislative, judicial, and electoral powers were all transferred from the "Roman assemblies" to the Senate. However, since the control that the Emperor held over the senate was absolute, the Senate acted as a vehicle through which the Emperor exercised his autocratic powers.

↑ Return to Menu

Roman assemblies in the context of Constitution of the Roman Empire

The Constitution of the Roman Empire was an unwritten set of guidelines and principles passed down mainly through precedent. After the fall of the Roman Republic, the constitutional balance of power shifted from the Roman Senate to the Roman Emperor. Beginning with the first emperor, Augustus, the emperor and the Senate were theoretically two co-equal branches of government. In practice, however, the actual authority of the imperial Senate was negligible, as the emperor held the true power of the state. During the reign of the second emperor, Tiberius, many of the powers that had been held by the Roman assemblies were transferred to the Senate.

The powers of an emperor existed by virtue of his legal standing. The two most significant components to an emperor's power were the "tribunician powers" Latin: tribunicia potestas and the proconsular imperium, or the power to command. The tribunician powers gave the emperor authority over Rome itself and the civil government, while the proconsular powers gave him authority over the provinces and the army. While these distinctions were clearly defined during the early empire, eventually they were lost, and the emperor's powers became less constitutional and more monarchical. The traditional magistracies that survived the fall of the Republic were the Consulship, Praetorship, Plebeian Tribunate, Aedileship, Quaestorship, and Military Tribunate. Any individual of the senatorial class could run for one of these offices. If an individual was not of the senatorial class, he could run for one of these offices if he was allowed to run by the emperor, or otherwise, he could be appointed to one of these offices by the emperor.

↑ Return to Menu

Roman assemblies in the context of Iudicium populi

A iudicium populi (literally "popular trial" or "popular judgement"; also called a iudicium publicum in earlier periods) was a judicial trial, primarily in the Roman Republic, before one of the popular assemblies. In the proceedings the popular assembly and the people that made it up heard evidence from the prosecuting magistrate and the defendant before rendered a final verdict directly. The presiding and prosecuting magistrate were most often aediles or plebeian tribunes but more rarely could also be one of the quaestors, the duumviri perduellionis, or in religious cases the pontifex maximus.

In the early republic these popular trials were believed to be the only means by which large fines or capital punishments could be administered at Rome, since the Twelve Tables and the laws permitting a citizen's appeal to the people and tribunes (provocatio and auxilium, respectively) made it illegal for a magistrate to otherwise punish a citizen. However, by the second century BC they competed for jurisdiction with the quaestiones perpetuae (permanent jury courts) which heard cases on specific types of cases (such as corruption, public violence, and murder) in a more streamlined manner. The emperors' arrogation of provocatio and assertion of exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law by the early empire made the iudicium populi obsolete.

↑ Return to Menu

Roman assemblies in the context of Prerogative

In law, a prerogative is an exclusive right bestowed by a government or state and invested in an individual or group, the content of which is separate from the body of rights enjoyed under the general law. It was a common facet of feudal law. The word is derived from Old French prerogative (14c.), M.L. prerogativa "special right", from Latin praerogativa "prerogative, previous choice or election", originally (with tribus, centuria) "100 voters who by lot voted first in the Roman comitia", from praerogativus (adj.) "chosen to vote first".

↑ Return to Menu

Roman assemblies in the context of Inheritance law in ancient Rome

Inheritance law in ancient Rome was the Roman law that governed the inheritance of property. This law was governed by the civil law (ius civile) of the Twelve Tables and the laws passed by the Roman assemblies, which tended to be very strict, and law of the praetor (ius honorarium, i.e. case law), which was often more flexible. The resulting system was extremely complicated and was one of the central concerns of the whole legal system. Discussion of the laws of inheritance take up eleven of the fifty books in the Digest. 60-70% of all Roman litigation was concerned with inheritance.

In the case of intestacy, Roman inheritance law had no concept of primogeniture and treated male and female children equally. However, in most cases intestacy was avoided by means of a will. Roman law recognised very broad freedom of testation, but wills had to strictly follow correct formulae and phrases in order to be valid. The will had to name an heir. In addition to this, it could name a legal guardian (tutor) for underage children, manumit slaves, and leave legacies to third parties. Over time a separate system of fideicommissa ("trusts"), which allowed greater flexibility, developed alongside the system of wills.

↑ Return to Menu

Roman assemblies in the context of Tribal assembly

The tribal assembly (Latin: comitia tributa) was one of the popular assemblies of ancient Rome, responsible, along with the plebeian council, for the passage of most Roman laws in the middle and late republics. They were also responsible for the elections of a number of junior magistracies: aediles and quaestors especially.

It organised citizens, by the middle republic, into thirty-five artificial tribes which were assigned by geography. The composition of the tribes packed the urban poor into four tribes out of the thirty-five. The requirement that citizens vote in person also discriminated against the rural poor who were not able to travel to Rome.

↑ Return to Menu

Roman assemblies in the context of Ancus Marcius

Ancus Marcius (Classical Latin: [ˈaŋkʊs ˈmaːrkiʊs]) was the legendary fourth king of Rome, who traditionally reigned 24 years. Upon the death of the previous king, Tullus Hostilius, the Roman Senate appointed an interrex, who in turn called a session of the assembly of the people who elected the new king. Ancus is said to have ruled by waging war as Romulus did, while also promoting peace and religion as Numa Pompilius did.

Ancus Marcius was believed by many Romans to have been the namesake of the Marcii, a plebeian family.

↑ Return to Menu