Sterile patricians

[Publius Scipio]

So none of the patricians have had a child, the new faction leader adopted a pleb (who hasn't married btw), i have played for pretty long now and i think it is really wierd, is this a new feature or a bug?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Feature.

Romans don't pass power onto their children directly in this time period, so it's a meritocracy! Yay!!

[Publius Scipio]

Yea, but if they only adopt theres only gonna be plebs?! And they still had children i think

[Simetrical]

Some adoptees should be patricians, I think. Most, of course, will be plebeians.

[Ranika]

They're not the only faction like that, either. If you play around, you'll find several that don't have children, but adopt.

[mike^_^]

awesome!!

i haven't even had a chance to play rome as ive been so caught up in my macedon campaign

i remember RTR discussing a system like this, only they never got around too it

great! :original:

[Salvor Hardin]

I disagree. Not all the outstanding roman leaders of this period were adopted. THere should be some natural sons. And you can imagine the first example that comes to my mind...

[Petronius]

The split beetween Patrician and Plebiean families in power at this time was about fifty fifty I think.. maybe leaning towards the Patricians more though. This is probably represented in the game. However, would it be possible to obtain new leaders every full year (to replace the dead ones), as a result of magisterial form of government? Also, when one obtains new lands, it stands to reason that the Senate assigns more people to govern.

[Malrubius]

Getting new generals offered to you is something determined by the game engine, based on the number of provinces (about 2-3 provinces per general).

Glad to see the attempt to shut down births is working! :original:

You should see some Patrician suitors. If things are off with the numbers, we can always tweak them.

[Petronius]

Thanks for the reply, Mal.

[Simetrical]

Originally Posted by Salvor Hardin

I disagree. Not all the outstanding roman leaders of this period were adopted. THere should be some natural sons. And you can imagine the first example that comes to my mind...

Hmm, Cato the Younger was Cato the Elder's great-grandson. That's about all I can think of. Augustus and Scipio the Younger were both adopted, for instance.

[Publius Scipio]

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Hmm, Cato the Younger was Cato the Elder's great-grandson. That's about all I can think of. Augustus and Scipio the Younger were both adopted, for instance.

Yes, but if a roman family didn't do anything great for three or more generations, the other families mocked them as:"only being known in history books."

[Aristocrat]

Define "plebian" families if you could? I find it confusing, are your referring to the populares families, those that had power through the support of the commoners? (pleabians being commoners).
Another thing of note, in most cases, once a so-called pleb was adopted (or in some cases married himself into...cough marius) into a patrician family he was a patrician, not a pleb, but not an optimate (the real "blue-blooded" patricians such as the family Brutus (et tu brutus) came from were the optimate's, their power stemmed from family history and prestige. Families could lose optimate status but never regain it and new families could never become optimates).
The republican senate leaned more in favor of optimate family members than populares family though.

Now, sorry for that, the point I should of made at the beginning is that at this time period plebians were rising to patrician status more regularly than ever before, but in terms of EB there should still be some "blue blooded" optimate patricians IMO.

P.S: Roman politics was the metaphorical snake pit of intrigue as families scrapped and fought with whatever they could to claim more dignitas than other families, hence why the optimates looked down at the populares who used to further alienate the opmitates from the plebians.

[Salvor Hardin]

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Hmm, Cato the Younger was Cato the Elder's great-grandson. That's about all I can think of. Augustus and Scipio the Younger were both adopted, for instance.

Besides Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, I could mention Flaminius, Claudius Marcellus, Aemilius Paulus, Quinctus Fabius Maximus, Metellus Numidicus, Metellus Pius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla (not the same family as Cornelius Scipio, though) and finally Gaius Julius Caesar.

(By the way, sorry if some names are not correct, I know them in Spanish ).

[Publius Scipio]

Any change of it changing to the way people have suggested?

[Publius Scipio]

Hmm... wierd, my faction heir was able to produce a young Scipio.

[Petronius]

@ Pompey - when we say 'Plebian' members, we mean people whose Gens was not reckoned amoung the ancient patrician ones. While they may be senators and have consular ancestors, (or alternatively, a 'novus homo' without any distinguished ancestors) this does not make them Patrician.

[Simetrical]

Originally Posted by Tacitus Cornelius

Yes, but if a roman family didn't do anything great for three or more generations, the other families mocked them as:"only being known in history books."

For those definitions, however, holding a consulship would probably be enough to keep the family on the map.

Originally Posted by Pompey the Great

Define "plebian" families if you could? I find it confusing, are your referring to the populares families, those that had power through the support of the commoners? (pleabians being commoners).
Another thing of note, in most cases, once a so-called pleb was adopted (or in some cases married himself into...cough marius) into a patrician family he was a patrician, not a pleb, but not an optimate (the real "blue-blooded" patricians such as the family Brutus (et tu brutus) came from were the optimate's, their power stemmed from family history and prestige. Families could lose optimate status but never regain it and new families could never become optimates).

Well, as I understand it, the Optimates were mainly a political faction, not quite so much an aristocracy as such. Also, they only came into play later in the Republic. At our start there weren't really Optimates. (And the singular is optimas, by the way.)

Certain families were patrician, and certain were plebeian. For instance, the Julii and Cornelii were patrician families; the Tulii and Marii were plebeian. The classes had different rights; in general, patricians had the legal advantages. Examples: age requirements for magisterial office were two years less for patricians; only patricians could be Pontifex Maximus; patrician aediles were curule magistrates and had imperium while plebeian aediles weren't and didn't. On the other hand, plebeians were the only ones eligible to be the Tribune of the People.

Plebeians couldn't generally rise to patrician status and gain those minor perks. They could, however, attain any rank of actual power, albeit typically at something of a disadvantage—plebeians could become military tribunes, equestrians, senators, aediles, quaestors, praetors, consuls, etc. Pretty much anything except pontifex, which was a ceremonial role only. A plebeian could be adopted by a patrician, however, and I do believe this would confer patrician status on him.

In the early days of the Republic, there was a much greater disparity between patricians and plebeians. By the time of our start date, patricians were more influential but didn't have many more legal rights.

Originally Posted by Salvor Hardin

Besides Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, I could mention Flaminius, Claudius Marcellus, Aemilius Paulus, Quinctus Fabius Maximus, Metellus Numidicus, Metellus Pius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla (not the same family as Cornelius Scipio, though) and finally Gaius Julius Caesar.

Well, there was definitely nepotism in the Roman system. However, there wasn't dynastic rule. Maybe allowing only some births would be appropriate.

Originally Posted by Petronius

@ Pompey - when we say 'Plebian' members, we mean people whose Gens was not reckoned amoung the ancient patrician ones. While they may be senators and have consular ancestors, (or alternatively, a 'novus homo' without any distinguished ancestors) this does not make them Patrician.

Yep. They were called nobiles, not patricii.

[Salvor Hardin]

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Well, there was definitely nepotism in the Roman system. However, there wasn't dynastic rule. Maybe allowing only some births would be appropriate.

Totally agreed. Let us have some old nepotism and corruption !

[Publius Scipio]

Seconded.