Tribune of the plebs, tribune of the people or plebeian tribune (Latin: tribunus plebis) was the first office of the Roman state that was open to the plebeians, and was, throughout the history of the Republic, the most important check on the power of the Roman Senate and magistrates. These tribunes had the power to convene and preside over the Concilium Plebis (people's assembly); to summon the senate; to propose legislation; and to intervene on behalf of plebeians in legal matters; but the most significant power was to veto the actions of the consuls and other magistrates, thus protecting the interests of the plebeians as a class. The tribunes of the plebs were typically found seated on special benches set up for them in the Roman Forum. The tribunes were sacrosanct, meaning that any assault on their person was punishable by death. In imperial times, the powers of the tribunate were granted to the emperor as a matter of course, and the office itself lost its independence and most of its functions.
>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
👉 Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Tribune
Tribune (Latin: Tribunus) was the title of various elected officials in ancient Rome. The two most important were the tribunes of the plebs and the military tribunes. For most of Roman history, a college of ten tribunes of the plebs acted as a check on the authority of the senate and the annual magistrates, holding the power of ius intercessionis to intervene on behalf of the plebeians, and veto unfavourable legislation. There were also military tribunes, who commanded portions of the Roman army, subordinate to higher magistrates, such as the consuls and praetors, promagistrates, and their legates. Various officers within the Roman army were also known as tribunes. The title was also used for several other positions and classes in the course of Roman history.
- ⭐ Core Definition: Tribune of the Plebs
- 👉 Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Tribune
- Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Lex Licinia Sextia
- Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Tribune bench
- Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Titus Labienus
- Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Marcus Flavius
Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Lex Licinia Sextia
The Licinio-Sextian rogations were a series of laws proposed by tribunes of the plebs, Gaius Licinius Stolo and Lucius Sextius Lateranus, enacted around 367 BC. Livy calls them rogatio – though he does refer to them at times as lex – as the plebeian assembly did not at the time have the power to enact leges (laws).
These laws provided for a limit on the interest rate of loans and a restriction on private ownership of land. A third law, which provided for one of the two consuls to be a plebeian, was rejected. Two of these laws were passed in 368 BC, after the two proponents had been elected and re-elected tribunes for nine consecutive years and had successfully prevented the election of patrician magistrates for five years (375–370 BC). In 367 BC, during their tenth tribunate, this law was passed. In the same year they also proposed a fourth law regarding the priests who were the custodians of the sacred Sibylline Books.
Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Tribune bench
The subsellia were benches in the Forum Romanum where the plebeian tribunes would sit during the day in order to be available to Roman citizens.
Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Titus Labienus
Titus Labienus (c. 100 BC – 17 March 45 BC) was a high-ranking military officer in the late Roman Republic. He served as tribune of the Plebs in 63 BC. Although mostly remembered as one of Julius Caesar's best lieutenants in Gaul and mentioned frequently in the accounts of his military campaigns, Labienus chose to oppose him during the Civil War and was killed at Munda. He was the father of Quintus Labienus.
Tribune of the Plebs in the context of Marcus Flavius
Marcus Flavius was Tribune of the Plebs in 327 and again in 323 BC.
In 329 BC, Flavius was accused of seducing married women by the aedile, Gaius Valerius Potitus (consul 331 BC). While at first he was found guilty, Flavius plead that an innocent man was being ruined to which Valerius replied that he did not care whether or not he had ruined an innocent man or a guilty one, so long as Flavius was being ruined. Because of this remark, Flavius won the trial.