The obvious English word for factio is faction, however, Andrew Lintott notes that in Roman comedies factio implies power from wealth and social status, rather than leadership of a political or economic special interest group which is the accepted meaning in liberal democracy. Rome existed for long enough, and the historical record short enough, that factio pops up with several meanings, including a corrupt oligarchy, but also the Roman optimates which were the noble and conservative families of the Senate.

Lintott argues that because of the vague description of factio in the Roman political record, the political effect of the Roman aristocracy is better determined through how the aristocracy controlled the consulship and their cohesion in the Senate.

The position of consul was originally the domain of the patricians alone, until the third century BC when plebians became eligible for the position through election. It appears that plebians is misleading as the position required Roman citizenship and in the increasing Roman Empire, this was a small privileged minority.

It also appears that the equistrian order (cavalry) and its high barriers of entry (400,000 sequesteres) meant that the plebians were high in the economic strata. These weren't dung shovellers being elected to the consulship, they were new wealthy families, who were outside of the original Roman nobility.

Lintott notes that despite some social mobility, with plebians families being integrated into the Roman aristocracy, the plebian consul's were still small in number:

new names form only about eight percent of the total in the consular lists in the period between the Pyrrhic War and the Second Punic War.

and:

A well known analysis of the period from 232 to 133 BC shows that the 200 consulships were shared between 58 gentes, 26 of which accounted for 159 consulships, and ten of which accounted for 99., effectively half the total.

That suggests that the Roman aristocracy was very cohesive, as well as competitive in the powerful positions, though within a small group of families.

This would suggest that a class reading of Roman politics may be in order, and since it was a democratic system, which combined voting from tribes and the military, that upward pressure from the majority was being dampened by the cohesive patrician class.

There appears that like the British monarchy, the Roman patricians bent as they needed to. For example the political communication between patricians and plebians prior to the establishment of the Tribunes, and when the position was abolished, was usually a riot. Lintott writes :

Moreover, as Cicero recognised, the plebs at Rome, deprived of its tribunes, resorted to the traditional method of riot in order to give vent to its grievances: the restoration of the tribunate of its full powers became desirable as a safety-valve.

Enfranchisement and political representation became important tools in not only political order, but also social and civil order.

The Tribune was a very powerful position, being made sacred while the Tribune was in office such that violence against them was a crime against divine law (not human law) and they also had the power of veto over consuls and the senate. Augustus, in establishing his power, made the emperor's positions equate to Tribune for life - which was more powerful and popular, with both patricians and plebians, than Caesar's constitutional position as dictator for life.

There was constant competition and the seeking of advantage between the patricians and plebians, and in the late republic, popular will was recognized as a very powerful political weapon, such that the nearest thing to what we would call parties developed. These were the optimates and populares. These were Roman conservatives, the optimates, and Roman popular politicians (normally Tribunes and Consuls), or populares, who pandered to the plebs. Which are political strategies that can be viewed under liberal democracy.

In the early republic the dominance of the patricians was shown in legislation as there were bans on marriage between patricians and plebians, as well as bans on plebians entering elected positions, though this changed.

I suspect this was mainly because of Rome's military success and subsequent conquest. This placed stress on the existing patricians to administer Rome, its provinces and new conquests while still supplying the consuls, senators, magistrates and generals. Essentially the franchise of administrative positions was expanded to include plebians, though rich ones that were Roman citizens, because of the demands of empire for an ever increasing number of skilled administrators.

More Reading on Andrew lintott

• Andrew Lintott
• Rome
• factio
• plebians
• patricians
• optimates
• populares
• consuls
• Roman Factio
• Roman Pro-Consuls and Pro-Praeters
• Consul and Pro-consul (Pre-post Sullan)
• Mos in the Roman Constitutional System
• Violence in Republican Rome
• Private Violence and Tyrannicide
• Athenian, Roman and Anglic Legal Cohesion
• Roman Constitution and Violence
• Roman Annulment of Laws
• Julius Caesar and Violence