Equestrians And Patricians

I know all about patronage and clients. But what kind of relation did patricians and equestrians have in the pagan Empire? Did they have legal contracts? Or was it more of a mutual coorporation, with the Patricians holding the soil and thus raw resources, and the equestrians as the businessmen?

Could equestrians and patricians be of a same bloodline? Was it possible for a patrician to have sons or nephens as equestrians?

Entry into the orders was based on wealth.

Senators - one million sesterces. Were forbidden to marry freedwoman. Senatorial status passed down three generations. Senators were encouraged to reproduce and to have their sons follow in their footsteps. There was no formal legal hereditary, but obviously there was a certain informal continuation of wealth and influence from one generation to the next, much like in the upper classes of modern America

Equestrian

I just found a site that goes into greater detail:

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/socialclass.html

OK, this is *probably* a dumb question but...did "equestrian" back then have anything to do with horses like it does today?

Not a dumb question at all.

In the olden days of the citizen militia the Equites were the first order of the military assemblies: they were the calvary. Only the very rich could afford horses.

But as Rome expanded the citizen militia lost its importance. Romans relied on their foreign allies for calvary. So the equites ceased to be a military class per se. But they were still rich and thus part of the ruling elite. :-)

Oh. lol thanks

Thanks for the links.

The Romans called mutual support between upper-class men of relative

The Equites and the Senatores were both part of the Roman upperclass. There was a third group - decurions, or town councilors - but we'll ignore them for now. The Equites and Senatores both formed the upper class of Rome. There was really no middle class - anyone not an Equestrian or Senator was considered the lower rung.

To be an Equite you had to have 400k sesterces, to be a Senator you had to have a million. So Senators were richer. They also wore fancier togas and had better seats in public places. The Senators were the landed aristocracy and the Equestrians were mostly the commercial class. However, the Princeps picked a small minority of equestrians to fill important civil and military posts, and this small minority of equestrians effectively had more power than the Senators.

So all things being equal Senators were more powerful and richer than Equites, and Senators may have taken equites as clients. However there was that small band of Equestrians linked to the Emperor who stood above Senators and were answerable only to the Emperor.

But the difference between Equestrians and Senators is quite small in relation of those two groups to the rest of the Roman population.

Here's another link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_%28Roman%29

That answers most of my question, thanks.

So equestrians and senatores were upper class, making them both 'patricians'? I understood equestrians furfilled a middleclass role, but this appears to be incorrect.

If the senators owned all the land but could not engange in commerce, they had to be relient upon equestrians to do that for them. In the same way, equestrians were dependent upon the senatores for acces to raw resources. Appearantly senatores and equestrians could be of the same bloodline (not household, but relatives), as a senatore was in essence an equestrian with a magistrature.

Was holding a magistrature the only way you could own (IE: have access to the resources) land in the Roman Empire? Being a governour over a province?

The reason why I am so interested in this is because of a project I have underway for . I am currently running 'The Roleplay Society of Roma Victon' together with Maretti and with the aid of Drusilla. I am currently exploring the possibilities of setting up a virtual society within Roma Victor. To this purpose, we would be setting up the social order of patricians (senatores), equestrians and plebians as it was in the Roman Empire at 180 AD. Each of these classes would have a distinct role within the economy of Roma Victor, based on our understanding of the Roman Empire. Read the delegation of tasks below:

Patrician

Management of farms and distribution of corn

construction and maintainance of buildings

contracting equestrians and plebians

maintaining network of tradecontacts (for their contracted equestrians)

protection of their property (by funding armies and guards)

Equestrian

Managing production lines

Purchase of raw materials and/or tools (through the contracts of their patricians)

Selling of finished goods (export, selling to the contracts of their patricians)

Distribution of finished goods (retail, selling to the actual consumers)

Plebian/Freedmen

Crafting and production

Assistance with administration (as the clerics of patricians and equestrians)

The current system does not cater for military activities and combat in general. Warfare and bloodsport were important in Roman society. Therefor functionality for legionaires, auxiliaries and gladiators alike will be added at a later stage.

My last question - is this system a reasonable reflection of Roman society at 180 AD? I am not striving for 100% accuracy, but it has to have some level of authenticy.