Ok... some info here is needed, because some stuff said is wrong. They are basically saying here that the 30 patrician families were all the wealthy people, while the other people were poor. That's not true. The patricians were nobility... but not always wealthy. We know for a fact for example that Lucius Cornelius Sulla was a patrician and yet his early life was quite poor. The Caesar branch of the Julii were also quite indebted and poor... which is why Gaius Julius Caesar's grandfather married his aunt to the VERY VERY RICH, and yet NOT a patrician, Gaius Marius. The marriage to a patrician woman gave Marius the political clout he needed... while Gaius Marius MONEY was able to insert Caesar's father and his uncle into the Cursus Honorum (it was very expensive to follow the Cursus Honorum... and even more expensive to become a Senator). Cicero and Pompey were also plebeians and also VERY wealthy. And the Junii themselves are MAYBE plebeians, maybe patricians. It seems Brutus family was not related to the Junii that expelled King Tarquinius Maxiums from Rome and founded the Republic... but they probably said so.
Great comment and thanks. I guess they had to simplify things for a movie version? Can you imagine how long it would've been, if they had to explain all of that? LOL :)
I like the point but I think you've missed something essential. To be patrician meant to have access to wealth. They could call on resources and trade on favours. Like Caesar and many others, they could be massively in debt and continue a relatively lavish lifestyle. It was simply a completely different form of both wealth and debt compared to that of your average pleb. Their names gave them access to a support network of interlinking patronage and favour. They didn't need cash, they were 'inherently' wealthy. As you said, they could just trade their status for disposable wealth through marriage. That option wasn't open to the average family. There's a reason why barely any patrician ever was forced to live life in true poverty. On top of that, the wealth of the patricians and the other 90% of the population are not comparable. The average Roman had no wealth, in a modern sense, besides their tools and a few belongings. Whereas patricians always had resources to fall back on at a pinch. Perhaps I oversimplify, and I admit that there were some notable cases of Novus Homo, but you see my point.
@@TomatoSandwich16 I disagree with you. Many patricians did NOT have access to wealth or to favors. Some family branches were in relative poverty for generations. Your example of Caesar is not good. Caesar's family got rich because of the marrive of his aunt to the VERY RICH and plebeian Gaius Marius, who financed Caesar's father rise in the cursus honorium and allowed his father to marry a woman of good social standing in Rome, Aurelia Cotta, with several consulars in the family. Caesar's debts are different from poverty. Just at that time like in today, you have poor people and you have rich people with tons of debts... and when you are rich, sometimes the problem is the people who you own a LOT of money (as they must make everything possible for you to return that money, or they go broke too)...
The remarks on homosexual roles recall the scene in the Sopranos where the wiseguys are most upset by the news that Vito was not the dominant partner in the scene described to them.
Thanks, your vidios only enhance a series I enjoyed. Too cool to see & hear the actors / character / historical figure, speak of the day. I felt like I was there from the description. More so than watching...wow, give us more please!
I can't believe the one guy said Romans looked at sex like any other human need such as thirst or hunger and didn't attach all the baggage we have today with it...bruh no the fxcc they did not and infidelity was punishable by death.
![A Tale of Two Romes - HBO 'Rome' documentary [18+ age restriction imposed by YouTube!]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
