Download The Decline of the Republic: The Gracchi

Discussion Thread 7: The Roman Revolution
This was the first sedition amongst the Romans, since the abrogation of kingly
government, that ended in the effusion of blood. All former quarrels which were
neither small nor about trivial matters, were always amicably composed, by mutual
concessions on either side, the Senate yielding for fear of the commons, and the
commons out of respect to the Senate.
Plutarch on the beating death of the Roman tribune and reformer Tiberius Gracchus
and his followers with “fragments of stools and chairs” by a Patrician mob at the
capital in 133 BCE.
The Carthaginians had been defeated—what had been their
empire (Spain, North Africa, Corsica, Sicily, & Sardinia) now
belonged to Rome. And now, the year 133 BCE began a new
age in Rome during which the dominant themes were internal
DISORDER, VIOLENCE, and the quest for POLITICAL
CHANGE. Before, the subject had been EXPANSION, wars of
conquest and DEFENSE, and the development of Roman
Government. Especially in the face of common enemies (e.g.,
the Gauls and the Carthaginians), there had been general
agreement/cooperation at home between the various social
classes; now the concerns were the continuance of the
institutions of the REPUBLIC and the laws regulating the
GOVERNMENT.
The rapid and sweeping changes which were the direct result
of EXPANSION and CONQUERING were the root of the
dissension; and now that a great common and unifying enemy
had been subdued such a heavy strain was placed on the
REPUBLIC that it began to rip apart. The root cause lay in the
military RESOURCES required to manage this expansion and
the stress that this placed on the traditional AGRARIAN
lifestyle of the small Roman farmer who, though not owning
much land, had a sufficient amount to qualify him for
MILITARY SERVICE.
Rome thus became the first explicit example of the modern
problem of URBAN UNREST directed against a narrowlybased OLIGARCHIC power structure; RIOTING and
BITTERNESS among the CAPITICENSI were the result. This
conflict, known as the ROMAN REVOLUTION, lasted for
more than a century, and its course sank Rome into CIVIL
WAR and finally ended with the overthrow of the REPUBLIC
and the establishment of the IMPERIAL PERIOD under the
Roman Emperors.
A time occurred during which the political factions (the
OPTIMATE Senate and the POPULARIST Tribal Assembly of
the Plebs) were gradually overshadowed by great leaders who
used these factions to dominate the state in the name of
ORDER & STABILITY; for the republic, this culminated
when its last leader, GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR, gained its
leadership and then was assassinated in 44 BC.
Next, there was a civil war between those leaders who tried to
seize Caesar’s power (Octavian and Marc Antony); it ended
with the establishment of a new form of government by
Caesar’s grand-nephew Octavian, called (27 BCE)
IMPERATOR CAESAR AUGUSTUS. Thus, the Roman
IMPERIAL PERIOD had begun. And so, the dates for the
period known as the Roman Revolution (the transition from
REPUBLIC to IMPERIUM) are 133 BCE to 31-27 BCE).
THUCYDIDES’ analysis once again becomes relevant. Rome
had lost those traits of character that made the REPUBLICAN
form of government possible. Rome gave up its sense of
fairness, moderation, and respect for Mos Maiorum.
VIOLENCE and back-room deals became the SOP for
running the government—when one disagreed with a political
opponent one simply had him clubbed to death and the issue
was resolved!
The beginning of the Roman Revolution is traditionally dated
to 133 BCE and the GRACCHI brother’s efforts to bring
about land reform. The land question was raised by Roman
Tribune Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, and, in doing so, he
posed a serious challenge to SENATORIAL PRIVELEGES
and the hold of land-based aristocrats over Romans who had
been DISPLACED from their lands as a consequence of
rendering military service to the REPUBLIC.
First, it is necessary to understand the institution of the Roman
TRIBUNATE. After the expulsion of the last KING c. 509
BCE, the Romans maintained their SENATE (Council of
ELDERS) which was comprised originally of the chiefs of the
landowning family CLANS. While the Senate grew in
PRESTIGE and AUTHORITY, it did not make any LAWS—it
was more the sounding voice of the Roman conscience and
patriotism and a refuge for the rich PATRICIAN class.
Politically, although it was not a LAW making body, it’s
domain included funding laws passed by the Tribal Assembly
of the Plebs along with foreign affairs.
The Senate was led by two elected CONSULS whose combined
authority replaced that of the single KING and who governed
jointly for a term of ONE YEAR (limited tenure of office as
per MOS MAIORUM) and typically were not re-elected. In the
early republic, they resembled temporary KINGS who wore
the imperial PURPLE toga and used an ivory chair. The
Consuls also commanded Rome’s Armies. Consuls were elected
from the SENATE and were lifetime Senators once their term
expired; often they were made military governors of Roman
provinces.
And so, how would the power of the consuls and the Senate
COUNTERBALANCED? This was through an office invented
by the early Romans: the TRIBUNES of the PEOPLE. The
duty of the Tribune was to insure that the PLEBS (ordinary
citizens) were not exploited by the two upper classes: the
PATRICIANS who dominated the government and the
priesthood, and the EQUITES, or Knights, who ran Roman
businesses such as TAX FARMING. The Tribune’s authority
was empowered by RELIGION, and so he needed no armed
guard or escort to make an arrest. The penalty for attacking a
tribune was DEATH.
A Tribune was prohibited from leaving the city of Rome, and
his home needed to remain open DAY and NIGHT so that
appeals could be heard. Initially, two Tribunes were
ELECTED, then four, and finally TEN for terms of ONE
YEAR. As the URBAN population grew, thy became VERY
POWERFUL and could prevent consuls from enacting laws
harmful to the Plebs by appearing and simply saying “Veto”
(“I FORBID”).
It is important to keep in mind that the Tribunes themselves
were PLEBIANS. And yet, they could sit in the Senate and
participate in its DEBATES. They had the right to call the
people to ASSEMBLY (the Tribal Assembly of the Plebs) and
address them, and call for a VOTE even if the consuls
disapproved. And so, the office of the Tribune was central to
the definition of the ROMAN REPUBLIC as it provided a vital
BALANCE between the PATRICIANS and the PLEBS.
As SMALL FARMS were coalesced into large estates because
of Roman militaristic expansionism, free labor was replaced by
SLAVE LABOR. Rome acquired a large number of
unemployed, landless people—mostly returning VETERANS
and their families--without enough property to qualify for
military service. Much public land was traditionally held by
the SENATORS. As TRIBUNE, Gracchus proposed re-
dividing this land—much of it taken at the end of the 2nd
PUNIC WAR, giving CLEAR TITLE to some of it to the
NOBILITY, and have the rest revert to the STATE to be
subdivided to the landless CAPITICENSI as HEREDITARY
LEASES for payment of a small rent. It was a start: it took
away no one’s rights and reverted to the old Roman policy of
LAND DIVISION. Remember---what Gracchus was proposing
was not a new law, but rather the ENFORCEMENT of a law
that was already “on the books.”
Problem: GRACCHUS guessed that the SENATE would never
relinquish their traditionally—and in principle ILLEGALLY-held lands. These lands had been in their families in some cases
for generations; their DEAD were buried on them; they
considered the lands to be THEIRS, not ROME’S. So, instead
of taking the land reform legislation first to the Senate for
advice as was required by MOS MAIORUM, T. Sempronius
Gracchus instead took it first to the TRIBAL ASSEMBLY OF
THE PLEBS; although this was his LEGAL RIGHT as
TRIBUNE—it was SELDOM USED, and was without
precedent for a bill of this magnitude. This “backdoor
strategy” set the SENATE against Gracchus and the bill, but
the masses were land-hungry, and it PASSED. This amounted
to a DECLARATION OF WAR against the privileges of the
SENATE. However, the senate refused to fund the bill, but
Gracchus circumvented this problem by….
Gracchus then took another unprecedented step by
announcing an election since he needed to PROTECT his
position in his office. This violated another fundamental
principle of MOS MAIORUM: Limited Tenure of Office. This
was the “final straw” for the SENATE. During a gathering of
his supporters, Gracchus pointed to his head, signaling to his
entourage to hold back the crowds. Senatorial spies in the
room ran to the senate house and informed the senate that
Gracchus was signaling for a crown. Immediately, A SENATEINCITED mob led by SCIPIO NASICA fell upon Gracchus
(then age 30) and 300 of his followers and clubbed them to
death. Thus did the dignified fathers of the state,
masquerading as the saviors of the REPUBLIC, degenerate to
the level of a street mob; by their own violence they became the
first to trample on law and order. The Senate now sentenced to
DEATH those followers of Gracchus who had spoken of
violence, while permitting NASICA to escape justice via exile
on the pretense of conducting a diplomatic mission to Asia—
where he quickly and conveniently DIED.
These events of 133-132 were EPOCHAL in Roman History.
Selfish influence (again THUCYDIDES) had prevented the
peaceful re-interpretation of the constitution to meet a new
crisis. The result—at the time unseen, was the not-far-off
DESTRUCTION of the Republic. Two bitterly opposed
political parties, the OPTIMATES and the POPULARES,
emerged from these events….
The LAND LAW itself was not ended for FOUR YEARS. It
did effective work in redistributing land ownership. In 10 more
years, GAIUS GRACCHUS was elected TRIBUNE; he
envisioned even broader reforms than his brother. But he, too,
ran afoul of the SENATE because his reforms were unpopular.
In 121, he was not re-elected as Tribune, and Senate attacked
him—he committed suicide –in rigged trials the Senate
executed 3000 of his followers in the subsequent PURGE.
General Statement Regarding the Gracchi: They
interpreted the issue of land reform too simply.
They intensified class struggle; they did not create
it. They were sitting on the lid of a pressure
cooker that would have blown whether they had
lived or not; the trouble lay deeper, in the failure
(refusal) of the exploitive ruling class to create
the necessary economic reform. The great menace
to society is not the agitator, but rather those like
the Senate who insist upon holding on to the
status quo in an utterly changed society.