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!