Over the previous two to three decades, interaction between elites and masses has increasingly become a focal point of studies about Roman Republican politics. The topic has been problematised in discussions which can – oversimplified – be presented as an opposition between proponents of ‘democratic’ and ‘oligarchic’ interpretations of Republican politics. In the 80s and 90s, Millar completed several articles which ascribed to the common people an institutional role in an ongoing dialogue with the elites (Millar 1984, 1986, 1989, 1995: 236–43). He published The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic in 1998, and became the leading proponent of the ‘democratic’ school. His monograph was intentionally provocative, and suggested that the popular assemblies were the key-stone of Roman politics, which was a competitive stage presided over by the plebeians (Millar 1998). The true start of the ‘oligarchic’ reaction can be ascribed to the book Demokratie in Rom?, a collaboration from 1995 by three German scholars (Jehne 1995). 2 This group advocated the image of a Roman Republic characterised by a ‘Grundkonsens’, both among elites and between them and the masses. This scholarship gave an impetus to international research, which began to focus on political culture and collective ideology. Overall, the debates have been very fruitful, especially in the fields of ‘Begriffsgeschichte’, oratory, and public rituals. Unavoidably, some aspects of the Republican socio-political system have been harshly under-studied. The purpose of this discussion is to shift attention to these new or previously neglected questions. After all, the intricacies of interaction between masses and elites are crucial to any political study, and as much today as in antiquity.