A Three-Layer Analysis (TLA) of Livy, History of Rome, Book 3
1. Question
Why did Fabius try to persuade the other tribunes instead of Terentilius himself?
This question examines the political exchange between the patrician side and the tribunician side in the first half of Livy’s History of Rome from its Foundation, Book 3.
Terentilius was the central figure who proposed a law to limit consular command authority.
He used the political time window created by the absence of both consuls and tried to limit consular command authority by law.
At this point, Terentilius was not simply one tribune.
He was the initiator of the legal reform application. He was the central node that represented the institutional reform demand of the plebeian side.
Therefore, even if Fabius tried to persuade Terentilius directly, it was difficult to change his decision criteria V.
For this reason, Fabius tried to persuade the other tribunes, not Terentilius himself.
This was not a strategy to break the central node of the opposing OS by direct confrontation.
It was a strategy to work on the other nodes inside the tribunician group and divide the output of the whole tribunician body.
This study examines why Fabius tried to persuade the other tribunes instead of Terentilius himself through TLA, or Three Layer Analysis: Fact, Order, and Insight. It also uses OS Organizational Design Theory R1.34.00.00.
2. Abstract
Fabius tried to persuade the other tribunes instead of Terentilius himself because Terentilius had already become the central node of the legal proposal application. His V was difficult to change through direct persuasion.
The V of Terentilius was already fixed in the following direction:
Limitation of Consular Command Authority
→ Plebeian Protection
→ Clarification of Public Officer Discretion
→ Connection to Written Law
If Fabius directly tried to persuade the proposer himself, the conflict would easily harden.
For Terentilius, withdrawing the proposal would not be a simple policy change. It could look like a loss of legitimacy as a representative of the plebeians.
Therefore, Fabius treated the tribunician body not as a single OS, but as a composite OS with several nodes.
There were other tribunes besides Terentilius.
They may have agreed with plebeian protection, but they may also have had different views about timing, state crisis response, and possible compromise with the patrician side.
Fabius used this possibility of internal divergence.
He did not simply deny the purpose of the Terentilian proposal. Instead, he could present the following questions to the other tribunes:
Should the proposal be voted on immediately?
Should it be activated during a state crisis?
Can plebeian protection and state defense be maintained at the same time?
Is compromise or postponement possible?
In other words, Fabius moved the conflict from “for or against the proposal” to “application activation validity.”
The conclusion of this study is as follows:
Fabius tried to persuade the other tribunes instead of Terentilius himself because Terentilius had already become the central node of the legal proposal application, and it was difficult to change his V directly. Fabius therefore treated the tribunician body as a composite OS with several nodes and worked on the other tribunes. This was not a strategy to defeat the opponent by direct argument. It was a strategy to redesign the internal consensus structure of the opposing OS.
3. Research Method
This study uses TLA, or Three Layer Analysis.
TLA divides historical material into three layers.
The first layer is Fact. It organizes the Terentilian proposal, the continued dispute over the proposal, the case of Caeso, the occupation of the Capitol, the conflict between the tribunes and the consuls, the plurality of the tribunician body, the Decemvirate, the suspension of tribunician power and appeal, and the reinstitutionalization of freedom protection circuits.
The second layer is Order. It extracts the structures behind the facts. It reads Terentilius as a central node. It reads the other tribunes as peripheral nodes. It reads the tribunician body as a composite OS. It also extracts the structure in which Fabius moved the issue from the content of the proposal to activation validity.
The third layer is Insight. It derives essential lessons that can also be applied to modern states and organizations.
This study also uses OS Organizational Design Theory R1.34.00.00.
The main concepts are as follows.
Central Node
A central node is the main person or institution that activates an application or political output.
In this case, Terentilius was the central node of the legal proposal application.
Peripheral Node
A peripheral node is a person or institution that belongs to the same system as the central node, but may have different decision criteria V or a different view on activation timing.
In this case, the other tribunes were peripheral nodes.
Composite OS
A composite OS is a condition in which several personal OSs, several V structures, and several possible connections exist inside one institution or group.
The tribunician body was not a single person. It was a composite OS with several nodes.
Application Activation Validity
Application activation validity means evaluating when and under what conditions a policy, proposal, or institutional reform should be activated.
Fabius did not focus only on the purpose of the Terentilian proposal. He focused on its activation timing.
Connection Control
Connection control means adjusting the total output by working not only on the central node, but also on peripheral nodes, compromise conditions, activation conditions, and approval routes.
The action of Fabius can be understood as this kind of connection control.
4. Layer 1: Fact
In Livy’s Book 3, the institutional conflict between the patrician side and the tribunician side appears around the Terentilian proposal.
In Section 9, Terentilius demanded a limitation on consular command authority.
Here, Terentilius became the central node of the legal proposal application.
In Section 10, the proposal became a continuing issue.
This shows that the proposal was not a temporary political maneuver. It became fixed as an institutional reform demand.
In Sections 11 to 13, the case of Caeso, accusation, and bail are described.
Patrician violence, trial, and class conflict made the demand for plebeian protection stronger.
In Sections 16 to 18, during the occupation of the Capitol, the tribunes and the consuls came into conflict.
This shows that tribunician power could collide with state crisis response.
In Sections 19 to 21, conflict and compromise over tribunician power, reelection to public office, and the legal proposal are described.
This shows that tribunician power needed connection to public purpose.
In Section 24, the trial of Volscius was connected with voting on the proposal.
Justice, politics, and class conflict were combined, and the proposal became a political card.
In Section 30, the number of tribunes was increased.
This shows that the tribunician body expanded as a representative institution with several nodes.
In Sections 32 and 33, power moved to the Decemvirate, and appeal was no longer available.
The later danger of suspending tribunician power and appeal became clear.
In Section 36, the second Decemvirate became coercive.
This shows that public office authority could become similar to royal power when there were no tribunes and no right of appeal.
In Sections 53 to 55, the tribunes, the right of appeal, and plebeian resolutions were strengthened again.
Tribunician power was finally reinstitutionalized as a freedom protection circuit.
In Section 59, Duilius restrained further revenge.
This shows that tribunician power needed SC and connection to public purpose.
5. Layer 2: Order
The structure of this case is to read the action of Fabius not only as persuasion or division, but as connection control that adjusted the internal output of the tribunician composite OS.
Terentilius was the initiator of the legal proposal application
Terentilius was the central figure who proposed a law to limit consular command authority.
This proposal was not a temporary expression of dissatisfaction.
It was an institutional reform that tried to limit consular command authority by law and clarify the boundary of public office authority.
Before written law, the main conflicts included consular command authority, recruitment, trial, tribunician power, and protection of body and freedom.
Written law was the foundation for moving these conflicts into a common rule space.
At this point, the V of Terentilius was clear.
V of Terentilius
＝ Limitation of Consular Command Authority
× Plebeian Protection
× Distrust of Public Officer Discretion
× Connection to Written Law
× Political Output of Tribunician Power
It was difficult to persuade such a central node directly.
For Terentilius, the proposal was not merely a policy. It had become part of his political legitimacy.
Direct persuasion of Terentilius would create frontal conflict
If Fabius tried to persuade Terentilius himself, the conflict would be structured as follows:
Fabius on the patrician side.
Terentilius as a tribune of the plebeian side.
The side that wanted to protect consular command authority.
The side that wanted to limit consular command authority.
This was frontal conflict.
In this structure, if Terentilius compromised, he could look weak as a representative of the plebeians.
If Fabius compromised, the execution authority of the patrician side would be limited.
Therefore, direct persuasion could easily stimulate the pride, support base, and political V of the opponent.
From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, direct persuasion could activate the defense reaction of the central node.
Therefore, Fabius moved toward the other tribunes, not Terentilius himself.
The other tribunes belonged to the same institution, but they did not necessarily have the same V
The tribunician body was a representative institution for plebeian protection.
However, not all tribunes always supported the same policy with the same intensity.
The other tribunes may have had the following judgments:
They agreed with the Terentilian proposal, but questioned the timing.
They agreed that consular command authority should be limited, but wanted to avoid conflict during a state crisis.
They supported plebeian protection, but wanted to avoid delay in military response.
They wanted to protect tribunician power, but also wanted to maintain the order of Rome as a whole.
In other words, the other tribunes may have had more connection to the SP of the whole state OS than Terentilius himself.
Fabius aimed at this possibility of divergence.
Fabius treated the tribunician body as a composite OS, not as a single OS
The tribunician body was one institution.
However, even if it was one institution, several personal OSs existed inside it.
Terentilius.
The other tribunes.
The plebeian assembly.
Plebeian public opinion.
Experience of negotiation with the patrician side.
Recognition of state crisis.
These elements could move in the same direction, but they could also diverge.
Fabius used this composite structure.
He did not try to persuade Terentilius directly. Instead, he could present the following logic to the other tribunes:
Plebeian protection is not denied.
However, stopping state crisis response at this timing is dangerous.
The demand to limit consular authority can continue.
But military action, city defense, and state order should not be stopped.
Tribunician power exists to protect the plebeians, not to paralyze the whole state OS.
In this way, Fabius could question the activation timing and connection to state SP without denying the purpose of the Terentilian proposal itself.
Fabius moved the conflict from the content of the proposal to activation validity
If Fabius argued with Terentilius himself, the issue would become simple:
Are you for the proposal or against it?
Should consular command authority be limited or not?
But when Fabius tried to persuade the other tribunes, he could change the issue.
Should the proposal be voted on immediately?
Should it be activated during a state crisis?
Can plebeian protection and state defense be maintained at the same time?
Is compromise or postponement possible?
This is important.
Fabius did not simply deny the proposal itself.
He questioned the validity of activating the application at that time.
This was also an attempt to redefine the action of the tribunes from “legitimate plebeian protection” to “overactivation during a state crisis.”
6. Layer 3: Insight
The action of Fabius was not a strategy to defeat the opponent by direct argument.
It was a strategy to redesign the internal consensus structure of the opposing OS.
Persuasion strategy model of Fabius
The persuasion strategy of Fabius can be expressed as follows:
Persuasion Strategy of Fabius
＝ Recognition that the V of Terentilius was Fixed
× Understanding of V Differences inside the Tribunician Body
× Persuasion of the Other Tribunes
× Divergence of Tribunician Output
× Suspension or Postponement of the Proposal Application
× Reconnection to State Crisis Response SP
This was not a frontal attack.
It was a strategy to work on other nodes inside the opposing OS and prevent its output from becoming unified.
Fabius saw the following points:
The V of Terentilius himself was fixed.
The V of the whole tribunician body was not yet fixed.
The proposal application could not be strongly activated unless the whole tribunician body supported it.
Therefore, if Fabius worked on the other tribunes, he could weaken the output of the application.
Composite OS model of the tribunician body
The tribunician body can be expressed as follows:
Tribunician Body OS
＝ Proposal Promotion V of Terentilius
＋ Plebeian Protection V of the Other Tribunes
＋ Concern for State Crisis SP
＋ Plebeian Public Opinion T
＋ Possibility of Assembly Approval
＋ Possibility of Negotiation with the Patrician Side
In this model, the tribunician body is not a single will.
It is a composite OS with several V structures and several possible connections.
Fabius worked inside this composite OS.
Direct persuasion failure model
Direct persuasion of Terentilius himself was likely to fail for the following reasons:
Direct Persuasion Failure
＝ Fixation of the Proposer’s V
× Accountability to Supporters
× Cost of Losing Face
× Need to Maintain Legitimacy as a Plebeian Representative
× Suspicion toward Persuasion by the Patrician Side
× Risk of Political Retreat
In this structure, the proposer is unlikely to compromise.
If he compromises, he damages his political legitimacy.
Peripheral node persuasion model
Persuasion of the other tribunes works through the following structure:
Peripheral Node Persuasion
＝ Adjustment of Activation Timing, not Denial of the Purpose
× Recognition of Plebeian Protection
× Presentation of State Crisis SP
× Preservation of Future Continuation of the Proposal
× Presentation of Room for Compromise
× Divergence of Tribunician Output
In this model, persuasion does not mean “stop protecting the plebeians.”
Rather, it means the following:
Plebeian protection is necessary.
However, state crisis response must not be completely stopped.
The proposal can remain an issue in the future.
Compromise, postponement, or adjustment is possible now.
In this way, Fabius presented to the other tribunes a path for reconnecting tribunician power to state SP.
Model for avoiding the danger of tribunician power
The action of Fabius was also an attempt to avoid the danger of tribunician power.
Avoiding the Danger of Tribunician Power
＝ Recognition of Plebeian Protection V
× Presentation of State Crisis SP
× Restraint of Overactivation of the Proposal Application
× Formation of Compromise inside the Tribunician Body
× Reconnection with the Patrician Execution API
× Temporary Stabilization of the Republican OS
This model shows that Fabius was not simply opposing the tribunes.
He was trying to reconnect tribunician power to the SP of the whole state OS.
Causal Chain
The causal chain of this case can be organized as follows:
Distrust of Consular Command Authority
→ Terentilian Proposal
→ Terentilius Becomes the Central Node of the Proposal Application
→ The Proposal Connects with Plebeian Protection V
→ Direct Persuasion of Terentilius Would Stimulate Pride Legitimacy and Support Base
→ Fabius Avoids Frontal Conflict
→ Fabius Recognizes Several Nodes inside the Tribunician Body
→ Fabius Works on the Other Tribunes
→ He Questions Activation Timing and Connection to State Crisis SP, not the Purpose of the Proposal Itself
→ The Output of the Tribunician Body Diverges
→ Overactivation of the Proposal Application Is Restrained
→ Conflict with State Crisis Response Is Reduced
→ Tribunician Power Is Repositioned as a Problem of Connecting Plebeian Protection and State SP
→ This Leads toward Later Redesign of Written Law Right of Appeal and Tribunician Power
This causal chain shows that Fabius did not simply avoid Terentilius.
He judged that the V of Terentilius himself was difficult to change and tried to control the output through other nodes inside the tribunician body.
Final Insight
The final insight is as follows:
Fabius tried to persuade the other tribunes instead of Terentilius himself because Terentilius had already become the central node of the proposal application to limit consular command authority, and it was difficult to change his V directly. If Fabius directly persuaded the proposer himself, he would stimulate the pride, support base, and political legitimacy of Terentilius as a plebeian representative, and the conflict would harden. Therefore, Fabius treated the tribunician body not as a single OS, but as a composite OS with several nodes, and worked on the other tribunes. This was connection control that did not fully deny the purpose of the proposal, but presented activation timing, state crisis SP, and room for compromise, and divided the output of the tribunician body. In other words, the strategy of Fabius was not to defeat the opponent by argument, but to redesign the internal consensus structure of the opposing OS.
7. Implications for the Modern World
This analysis can be applied to modern companies, public institutions, schools, and nonprofit organizations.
Modern organizations also have strong proposers, strong reformers, and strong opponents.
When such a person becomes the central node of a proposal or opposition movement, direct persuasion often does not work.
This is because the proposal is no longer just an opinion. It is connected to the person’s legitimacy, pride, support base, and self definition.
In this situation, direct persuasion can strengthen the opponent’s defense reaction instead of changing the opponent’s view.
Modern organizations have the same structure.
Examples include the following:
a person who proposed a reform plan
a central figure of opposition
a representative of the field
a central member of a labor union
a project leader
a leader of opposition to a new system
If one says directly to such a central node, “You are wrong,” the person often does not move.
What is more important is to work on the surrounding people: co proposers, approvers, influencers, execution members, and coordinators.
However, this must not become simple division work.
To be healthy connection control, the following conditions are necessary.
1. Do not deny the purpose itself
The legitimate purpose of the other side must be recognized.
In the case of Fabius, plebeian protection itself was not denied.
In modern organizations, this means not denying field protection, customer protection, quality improvement, or reform demand itself.
2. Question the activation timing
The issue is not only whether the purpose is correct.
Should it be activated now?
Are other conditions necessary?
Should it proceed step by step?
Can it be compatible with crisis response?
It is important to move the issue from “for or against” to “activation validity.”
3. Adjust the V of peripheral nodes
Even if the central person is fixed, the V of surrounding people may still be flexible.
Co proposers, related departments, approvers, field leaders, and execution members may not always have the same opinion with the same intensity as the central person.
This is where consensus building becomes possible.
4. Reconnect the proposal to the SP of the whole OS
If a proposal or opposition is closed inside the V of one department or one group, it can collide with the SP of the whole organization.
Therefore, the purpose must be reconnected to the SP of the upper OS.
5. Use it as output adjustment, not division
Working on peripheral nodes can become division work that destroys Trust T.
However, if it recognizes the legitimate purpose of the other side and designs activation conditions, connection conditions, and compromise conditions, it can become a strategy of consensus building.
The lesson for modern organizations is clear.
When the V of the central node is fixed, direct persuasion hardens the conflict. What is needed is not to defeat the person by argument, but to work on peripheral nodes and redesign activation conditions, connection conditions, and compromise conditions.
8. Conclusion
This case is important for understanding the detailed political technique in the first half of Livy’s Book 3.
In the previous case, we analyzed why the tribunes saw the absence of both consuls as an opportunity for action.
In this case, we examined how Fabius responded after that.
Fabius did not directly persuade Terentilius himself.
This was not because he underestimated Terentilius.
Rather, he saw that Terentilius was the central node and was difficult to move through direct persuasion.
Terentilius was the proposer of the law.
His V moved toward the limitation of public office authority, plebeian protection, and clarification of consular command authority.
If Fabius directly told him to stop, Terentilius would have found it difficult to compromise.
This is because compromise could damage his legitimacy as a plebeian representative.
Therefore, Fabius worked on the other tribunes.
From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, this choice was highly rational.
When the central node of an opposing OS is fixed, it is often more effective to adjust the V of peripheral nodes and divide the output of the whole OS than to move the central node directly.
This also applies to modern organizations.
Strong proposers, strong reformers, and strong opponents often do not compromise when they are confronted directly.
In such cases, the total output can be adjusted by working not on the person himself, but on surrounding decision makers, co proposers, influencers, approvers, and execution members.
However, this strategy has an ethical risk.
If it is only division work, it damages Trust T.
But if the purpose is reconnection to the SP of the whole state OS and the legitimate purpose of the other side is not fully denied, it can become a strategy of consensus building.
The action of Fabius stands on this boundary.
He did not deny plebeian protection itself. Rather, he questioned the activation timing of the Terentilian proposal and its connection with state crisis response.
The conclusion of this study is as follows:
When the V of the central node is fixed, direct persuasion hardens the conflict. The key to consensus building is to work on the peripheral nodes inside the opposing OS and redesign not the purpose itself, but the activation conditions, connection conditions, and compromise conditions. Fabius tried to persuade the other tribunes instead of Terentilius himself because he treated the tribunician body as a composite OS with several nodes and tried to divide the output of the proposal application.
9. Sources
Titus Livius, History of Rome from its Foundation, Book 3. Japanese translation: Iwaya Satoshi, Roma kenkoku irai no rekishi 2, Kyoto University Press, 2008.
OS Organizational Design Theory R1.34.00.00.