Proposed at the start of the Second Punic War, the law prohibited senators and their sons from owning an "ocean-going ship" (maritimam navem)[3] which had a capacity of more than 300 amphorae.

After Rome's expansion during the First Punic War (263–241 BC), Roman imperialism around the Mediterranean Sea saw the beginnings of economic exploitations of newly formed provinces.

The development of coinage and credit systems as well as the advancement in communication through roads, rivers and harbours, meant that long-distance trade became a significant aspect of the empire's economy.

If so, the law would then serve to aid the equestrians' merchant ambitions, limit the influence of senators and provide commanders with ships large enough to carry troops and supplies.

However, the patrician class, made up of elite families, quickly began to dominate the political scene at the expense of the majority, the plebeians.

If a man was wealthy enough to pay his own ransom, then there were probably enough elite males with ample wealth and goods to contribute to war expenditure.

[19] They were the backbone with their financial investments which helped pave the way for Rome to introduce its precious metal currency to the empire.

[27] Furthermore during the Saguntum conflict, the two consuls may have also invested their money into their fleets to save for the potential wars to come and therefore were profiteering from their shipping, the kind of behaviour the lex Claudia would prohibit.

[33] The lex Claudia aimed to minimise the distraction from the life of leisure that was necessary for the political affairs of senators, as well as prevent corruption and conflicts of interests.

The title plebiscitum refers to resolutions which were passed by the consilium plebis, the plebeian assembly, which was convened a presided over by the tribune of the plebs.

Although they accounted for a significant amount of Roman legislation, they remained a pathway for challenging the authority of the senate and this is most likely why lex Claudia was passed using this method, given the senatorial resistance to it.

As a Tribune of the Plebs (232 BC), he apparently fought the Senate a lot in his attempt to pass a law providing needy settlers land in the ager Gallicus.

[37] Furthermore when he was Consul, Flaminius was refused a triumph by the Senate after his victory against the Gallic Insubres (223 BC) due to his disregard for unfavourable omens, only for this judgement to be overturned by popular demand.

[44] Since this law, by implication, restricted the amount of goods that could be transported at any one time, it was actually in-line with mos maiorum, the traditional way of doing things.

[46] In this view, the lex Claudia was a law that simply reinterpreted the tradition of patrician distaste for trade, applying it to all senators.

It seems likely the law became obsolete due to a combination of the senatorial class's dislike for it and the fact that as the empire grew, opportunities for corruption increased, meaning that trade was less of a concern.

Whilst most modern historians share an overarching view regarding the intention of the lex Claudia, it has been interpreted differently by many scholars.

Most modern scholars agree that the lex Claudia was created with the intention to restrict the economic, social and political power of the elite class who posed a threat prior to the introduction of the law.

Both Aubert and Feig Vishnia harmoniously interpret Livy's description[50] of the lex Claudia as a measure that was devised by politicians to weaken the economic interest of the elite.

[54] Furthermore, Feig Vishnia suggests that the lex Claudia could have been intended not only to forbid the senators and their sons from owning sea-going ships whose capacity exceeded 300 amphorae, but also to obstruct a growing senatorial inclination to compete for military contracts.

[56] She goes on to state that 'In the atmosphere of uncertainty, when people's anxiety and anger at their leader's miscalculation after the Second Illyrian War had yielded very little booty and senators who had opposed the Claudian measure withdrew their objection'.

[57] Tchernia refers to a more superstitious intention suspected by Boudewijn Sirks who believed the Lex Claudia derived from an old religious taboo: that senators must avoid the sea because it signifies death.

This alludes to old Roman fears and stories of the sea which was viewed as a tempting yet treacherous place of risk, evil, worry and "punic treachery".

[58] Whilst modern historians tend to share a similar, overarching view of the intention of the lex Claudia, the ways in which it actually had an effect appears to be a subject of debate.

Within his work, D'Arms mentions that the law is a reaffirmation of traditional values, particularly landed aristocratic ideal, a desire to have senators revert to their mos maiorum.

[65] Additionally, Bleckmann states that the law did in fact, lead to 'corrupt practices taking place among people of higher standing to make money'.

Whilst Livy's account[67] suggests that the economic interest of the elite would be weakened by the lex Claudia, modern scholars tend to agree that this is not at all the case.

She states that in 215 BC, the senate had to turn to 'those who had increased their property from public contracts'[69] to financially support Spanish armies with the promise that they would be reimbursed.

[72] Cicero alludes that since 218 BC the prohibition had become an unexceptional part of everyday life for the senators – and apparently this would continue until the fourth century AD.