What is the main difference between a patrician and plebeian?

Answer 1

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.

Answer 2

plebians are poor and patricians are rich plebians are 90% of people in acient rome and patricians are 10% of the population

The patricians were the aristocracy. The word plebeian had two meanings. One was a derogatory term for the poor. The other one was more broad and could be rendered as non-patrician. It included rich people who were not patricians; that is, the rich plebeians.

Over time, the rich plebeians were included in the elite and a patrician-plebeian oligarchy was formed. The rich plebeians then came to form the bulk of the rank of the equites (cavalry men) which became the lower tier of an enlarged aristocracy. At this point the word plebeian became restricted to the derogatory term for the poor.

Remember that Rome had a long history. At one time the plebeians were considered the poor, the common, the vulgar, etc. However they gained their rights and along with those civil rights, came status. The true plebeians were the group of families who could trace their ancestry back to the founding of the city, just as the patricians. They were considered part of the nobility along with the patricians. All other newcomers were the proletariat which included the equite class.

Ancestry to the origins of Rome was a and remained a patrician thing. There was no such thing as 'true' plebeians. It was politics and wealth and that led to the inclusion of rich plebeians into the aristocracy/nobility, not ancestry. The rich plebeians were admitted into the patrician-plebeian oligarchy later as a result of their leadership of the plebeian movement in the conflict of the orders (social layers; class is an awkward term in relation to antiquity) and it was their inclusion into the oligarchy that brought this conflict to an end. It was a development of the mid-republic, thus a 'latish' one. In this context, plebeian ancestry was irrelevant. Many the rich plebeians' roots in Rome dated from the late monarchy of even the Republic itself. It was only the rich who were co-opted into the aristocracy/nobility as the term patrician-plebeian oligarchy makes clear.

The equites did NOT include the proletariat. This was an aristocratic/noble rank. It was turned into an aristocratic/noble rank to formalise the co-option of the rich plebeians into the aristocracy/nobility. As an aristocratic/noble rank, it was an exclusivist one. The Servian census gave a high property qualification threshold for inclusion and retention in this rank: over 25,000 denarii. Augustus increased the threshold further to 100,000 denarii. You had to, among other things, be wealthy to be part of this rank. The proletarii (poor people) could NOTpossibly get anywhere near this rank, nor would they have been welcome. From the late-republic the proletarii were given a career in the army as infantrymen. Equite means cavalryman.

Many of the newcomers to Rome were prolitarii (poor people), but not all of them. Some of them were wealthy men from Italy and, later still, the provinces. In the late-republic sometimes there was the issue of the homus novus (new man). Originally, in the mid-republic, this term referred to men admitted to the consulship without having a consul as an ancestor (men from the co-opted rich plebeians). It had nothing to do with ancestry to the origins of Rome. In the late-republic, the term also came to be used in relation to a wealthy man from outside the city coming into town and aspiring to became a consul. This created resentment by the established urban elite towards the homo novus. It had a lot to do with being an outsider.

As for the word plebeian, it decayed in relation to the people who had joined the upper crust of society as the old patrician/non patrician distinction had became irrelevant, even though the patricians continued to see themselves as the top layer of society. It remained as derogatory term for the poor. Prejudice dies hard.

Answer 3

At the beginning of the city, the difference between patricians and plebeians was one of wealth and the status that wealth brought a person. The patricians were the wealthy while the plebeians were the poor. However once the plebeians gained their civil rights and the city of Rome was open to newcomers, the difference between the two classes virtually disappeared, as both were considered the nobility who could traced their roots back to the founding of the city.

Answer 4

At the founding of the city of Rome, the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. Over the years the plebeians gained their rights and accumulated wealth and political power. From about the mid republic, the only difference between the two groups was the class in which they were born.