Empires: Rome - Pandora's Box Part One

The bequest of Pergamum to Rome must have ignited some fires of an almost all-consuming greed in the hearts of men in the Republic. Pergamum was known for the collossal majesty of her monuments, and also the wealth of the cities under her rule, indeed this was the most magnificent bequest in history. However--the wealth of Pergamum posed a huge question for Rome. How was the enormous wealth of the kingdom to be handled? The Senate was supposed to have responsibility for the way the wealth of Pergamum was to be appropriated. Membership in this body of three hundred of Rome's best and brightest was not guaranteed by birth, but by achievement and reputation. The Senate's deliberations carried enormous moral and guiding authority, however its decrees did not have the technical force of the law. Even so -only a very brave or foolish magistrate would ignore them. It was the Senate that cemented the foundation of the Republic together with the people. "Senatus Populusque Romanus" or "SPQR" was the shorthand that referred to the constitution of the Republic. This phrase or its abbreviation was stamped on everything from the smallest of coins to the most majestic official buildings and temples, that described the bond between the Senate and the people.

However, the bequest of Pergamum was about to open up a Pandora's Box of troubles for the Senate, the people and Rome herself. First of all, news of the new wealth from the East, literally seemed to appear as a gift from the heavens for the previously mentioned Tiberius Gracchus in his quest to help the poor of Rome. He wanted the treasure to be spent on funding his ambitious reforms. Of course, the people agreed with him, but his fellow senators did not, and ended up being partly responsible for his murder. Some other things showed just how paradoxical this 'gift' from the East were: Romans had long associated gold with moral corruption and the idea of inheriting a fabulously wealthy kingdom was anathema to ancient Roman values. The matter of governance was a more pragmatic and immediate concern to Rome than the lofty upholding of ancient values. The Republic had always considered provinces bothersome to administrate. Rather than impose direct rule on the kingdoms of the East, the Senate practiced a delicate maneuver of exploitation, but from a distance preferrably-only intervening when absolutely necessary.

This policy was practiced in Pergamum, until the kingdom started to disintegrate into anarchy, which threatened the stability of the surrounding areas. Rome sent in an army. It took several years before the region was brought back under control, and even then, the Senate didn't establish Rome's first province in Asia until 129 BC. The commissioners sent to oversee the kingdom were told to enforce the laws of the kings they were replacing. This was part of the unique 'isolationism' Rome practiced. Respect was what the Republic truly demanded from the people it conquered and ruled over. As long as there was sufficient deference in the way the ambassadors from the East came to learn of the Senate's every desire; as long as the barbarians of the West feared any military engagements with the legions in Gaul or Hispania, everything was fine. It was all fine and good for the senatorial elite, who already had more than their fair share of wealth and status to feel this way about respect offered to Rome. But what of the people of lesser status in Rome, to say nothing of the vast mass of the poor-they wanted their share of the Pergamene loot too, and they found a spokesman for this in none other than Gaius Gracchus.

To anyone who reads this blog-I am going to be posting information to it as soon as I can. I have a long way to go before I have anything remotely resembling what I wanted this blog to look like.I am working on a very large project for my other blog-and I hope it does not 'die' as I get things together. My health is becoming an issue again, and I had to finally decide to concentrate on the 3 things that most interest me. The 3 things being history-as I feel we can still learn from it-the second being my major subject (topic) for my other blog which I have no clue how long it will take to get together-and also the new 'book' :-) I have decided to write-and keep my personal life story to myself-although having said this, I agree with a dear friend overseas who I have never met-but feel I have known him all my life-that everyone should write "their" story-whether for public or private. The thing I most had to discard was constantly doing 'little subjects' constantly in between at my other blog-although this is not to say anything against them as I think the study of paranormal phenomena is of immense value-what I had to do was slow down the speed over there with always getting into a new subject so quickly-I would love to be able to do it-but I know longer have the energy to juggle that much at one time-I may have another post here by the am-as I have to do an all-nighter tonight-providing connection holds and my back pain is at a tolerable level. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -Winners and Losers Part Four

Twelve years after Tiberius was clubbed to death in a violent brawl, Gaius in 121 BC, was also killed by assassins allied with the aristocracy. His corpse was decapitated and lead was poured into his skull. Shortly after his brutal murder, three thousand of his followers were executed without a trial. These explosions of civil unrest were the first to see bloodletting on Roman streets since the expulsion of the kings. The grotesque and obscene overreaction showed how great the ruling classes suspicions and fears ran of any would be reformers, who would also help the 'mob'. The Gracchi brothers had raised more concerns than tyranny in the minds of their peers. By taking refuge at the location most sacred to the plebian cause, the Aventine, Gaius's attempt to provoke a class struggle, even though it failed, evoked strong negative reactions in the minds of the nobility. Indeed it was thought by many of them to be a terrifying act of irresponsibility. However, the lead-weighted skull of Gaius Gracchus also provoked a sense of foreboding.

Many in the aristocracy had felt the reprisals against Gaius Gracchus and his followers had gone too far. It didn't take much imagination to see what could be the future if the social norms and conventions of the Republic were trespassed and its foundations crumbled. Perhaps this was a warning more suited to Roman temperments to pay attention to. What was the Republic after all, if not a community bound together by its culture, traditions, precedents and glorious past? To deny this inheritance was to gaze down a chasm that led into Hades. Tyranny or barbarism-these would be the only two outcomes if the Republic were to fall.

A few more things need to be said about the horrific fate of the Gracchi brothers and Rome herself. The tragedy of the brothers has to be looked at through the ideals of the system and society they came from. Roman society bred into its citizens, a hunger for wealth and status. This laid the foundations for a society where competition was so aggressive that it overwhelmed all who had come up against it. However, along with this same hard-driving and cut-throat dynamism, this also provoked paralysis. The brothers had been concerned about their own fame and fortune--they were Romans after all. But they had also had a very genuine desire to improve the lives of their fellow citizens, especially the poor. The fate of the Gracchi had proved, without a doubt, that any attempt to propose or impose very serious and new reforms on the Republic would always be interpreted as tyranny--whether this really was the case or not. Any policy of radical change-no matter how idealistic its origin and inspiration would always disintegrate into internecine rivalries. The idealistic and unfortunate Gracchi brothers put an effective stop to the very reforms which they had died for. The tribunes who came after them would be much more careful in the causes and proposals they championed. Social revolution and real reform in the Republic would be put on permanent hold. I hope to have the next post here either tonight or Thursday, after my 'offline' day to get caught up on research and other things. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -Winners and Losers Part Three

There were even times when he would go to the point of affecting the accent of a plebian from the slums. The Romans called politicians with a gift for the common, folksy touch, "Populares." Some of the more conservative elements of the nobility were suspicious of the office of the tribunate. It required great skill for a tribune to not only look after the interests of the common people, but also to respect the wishes and interests of his own class. For the elements that had some fear of the powers of this office, they felt that a true populare might be tempted by the lure of easy nobility-becoming a leader of what they felt was a 'mob'. The risk of this situation grew as time went on and the condition in Rome's slums worsened and their population was almost overflowing.

In one of ancient Rome's more fascinating historical moments-both as a republic and an empire, two brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, the Gracchi brothers did indeed make attempts at massive reforms that would have benefitted Rome's poorest citizens. I found the tale of the Gracchi brothers to be very sad in many ways. It almost seems to me that the Gracchi could have been the ancient equivalent to many different kinds of men and women in the modern industrial age who have tried to help the condition of the poor, hungry and homeless in nations around the globe. The brothers were both well connected with the ruling elite, and descendants of Scipio Africanus who was famously known for defeating Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. It was Tiberius, in 133 BC and then Gaius, ten years later that used their tribunates to push for reforms to help the poor. Some of the radical measures they called for were that publicly held land be divided into allotments and handed out to the common folk; that corn be sold to them below the market rate; even, that the Republic should provide the poorest of its soldiers with clothes! The arisotocracy, predictably, was outraged. To most noblemen, there appeared to be something ignoble and sinister about the devotion of the Gracchi brothers to the people.

Tiberius was not the first among the aristocracy to be concerned with land reform, however his social class thought that his reforms went too far. Gaius Gracchus, more disturbingly, had a very revolutionary vision. This vision was of the Republic instilled with the values of Greek democracy. If Gaius' vision were to come to pass, the balance of power between the classes would be completely transformed, and the people, not the aristocratic nobility would be guiding the ship of state. The nobility of their time was left to wonder: How could any noblemen propose reforms such as these, unless their true goal was to establish themselves as a tyrant who ruled through the power of the mob? One of the events that hit them with particular alarm was the fact that Tiberius, having finished his year of office, had immediately sought re-election, and that Gaius, in 122 BC, had actually succeeded in obtaining a second successive tribunate. His peers could only wonder where the illegalities would end-if they were to end at all. The person who occupied the office of tribune was considered sacred in many ways, however the office of the tribunate or the person occupying that office was not as sacred as the preservation of the Republic itself. I hope to have the next post here very soon-Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!