Talk:Caecilius Metellus (disambiguation)
 | The contents of the Caecilius Metellus (disambiguation) page were merged into Caecilia gens on December 2, 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Untitled
[edit]Although plebeians (meaning not of patrician stock -- the Caecilii Metelli were nobles) --something's wrong here. --Wetman 18:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome to one of the little hells of classical studies; see plebs for more. The nature of the plebeian/patrician distinction is one of the great unanswered questions about ancient Rome - every hypothesis is contradicted by some of the known facts. Stan 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that a Roman plebian was merely the term for the very wealthy class of Rome. And that successively, through various riots, unrest and such, they gained more and more power until eventually having nearly the same role as the patricians, minus holding some priesthoods. In Caesar's time, plebians could be elected Consul and patricians could be elected Tribunes of the Plebes.
Additionally, should this page become a disambiguation page, with individual pages set up for the more noteworthy Caecilii Metelli? Numidicus to Scipio are three highly influential Romans that could be fleshed out more with their own additional articles I think. What are your thoughts?--ScottieB 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Plebian vs. Patrician
[edit]The term "plebeian" connotes any Roman gens (gens being loosely equivalent to "family" or "clan") that was not a patrician gens; "pleb" refers to an individual from a plebeian gens. Patricians were specifically those gens that had directly served the Etruscan kings as military leaders, advisers, and administrators before the foundation of the Republic in 509 BC. While patricians tended to own more and better land than plebeians in very early Rome, it would be a mistake to assume the distinction between patrician and pleb was based solely on having greater material wealth. Rather, by having the ear of the kings, patricians served as patrons of plebeian clients who sought access to the government for one reason or another. It was therefore only natural that patrician gens assumed the leadership of the Republic. While at first there was no mobility between gens, it eventually became possible for plebs to marry into patrician gens (the progeny of such unions would be patricians) or even be adopted into patrician gens; such practices replenished the patrician gens, which would surely have died out eventually otherwise. Roman Society by Henry C. Boren provides a good account of the evolving and gradually blurring distinctions between these classes. --L. F. Brunk Jr. 09:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Merger proposal
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The other way around: this current page needs to be redirected to the family tree.
But before that, all individuals listed herein need to be sorted properly, as some do not have any sources and are of questionable existence even.Avis11 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)- Sorting done, only individual of questionable authenticity already nominated for deletion. Avis11 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would remove Caecilius Metellus. It is redundant with Caecilia gens. Outdated too. T8612 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose all these proposals. I think the family tree should be moved to a template instead and this page remade into a prosopographical list, set index or disambiguation page of men in the family.★Trekker (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect Caecilius Metellus and Caecilii Metelli family tree to Caecilia gens (or make Caecilius Metellus a disambiguation page), merge all substantial content to Caecilia gens and put the family tree itself in a suitably useful format on that page. A synthesis of the proposals above. GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)