[Edited 9/1/14]
The Beginnings
of the Roman Revolution: The Gracchi
You’ve
all
hear the line, “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” and, as you’ve seen in the
last
couple of lectures, it wasn’t. Rome grew
through centuries of almost constant warfare, wars in Italy, Spain,
Africa, and
Greece fought against Etruscans, Gauls, Macedonians and Carthaginians.
Rome’s
success
in these wars had created a mighty empire: the Mediterranean was now a
Roman
lake, or, as the Romans called it “mer nostrum,” our sea.
The city of Rome was filled with booty:
money, slaves, luxury goods. Subject
peoples
had to pay tribute to Rome so that the Romans themselves were relived
from the
burden of taxation. Not only that, Rome
acquired land, land, and more land: a potentially great source of
wealth. Rome was rich and powerful: but
there was a
price to be paid. In enslaving others,
one often enslaves oneself, and, in depriving others of freedom, Rome
sowed the
seeds that would eventually lead to the destruction of republican
government:
the Romans would no longer be able to govern themselves.
It
was a slow process,
there were 100 years of sporadic civil war before the republic was
finally
toppled. This period (133-31 BC) we call
the Roman Revolution.
The
revolution
was largely the product of Rome’s many wars, particularly the Punic
Wars. But there was another cause as well,
the
selfishness and short-sightedness of the ruling class of Rome: the
senators. Perhaps the best example of
this is the story of the Gracchi brothers.
Rome’s
successes in warfare created a complicated political situation in
Rome—and were
beginning to affect Roman virtus as well.
Rather
than
just two competing classes, Rome now had lots of competing interests.
1. A
few
of the most successful plebian families joined with the patricians and
became
what we call the Senatorial class.
2.
Other
successful plebeians formed a slightly less privileged group, the
Equestrians.
3.
Many plebeians,
however, lost their farms, came to the cities, and found few
opportunities for
gainful employment. These people constitute what we call the
proletarians.
4.
Rome’s
Italian Allies constituted yet another interest group, cities that had
aided
Rome in its victories over Carthage and in the Macedonian Wars.
5.
Rome also
governed many subject peoples, people who sometimes preferred Roman
governors
to their native rulers, but who might prefer independence as well.
6.
Finally, there were tens of thousands of often cruelly treated slaves
who might
stage a revolt at any time.
Perhaps
Rome
could have once again solved its problems peacefully as it did through
the
struggle of orders, but the Roman Republic had developed some problems.
1. Constant warfare had undermined the lex
hortensia. Plebeians were away fighting,
so the assembly met seldom while the senate continued to meet all the
time.
2. Clients and freedmen distorted the political
process as well, as did the beginnings of the “bread and circuses”
policy. The government sponsored six sets
of games per
year, and subsidized grain.
3. Religious scruples could be used to check
political action. All it took was one
priest to declare that the omens were unfavorable, and political
meetings were
cancelled.
4. The senate was less open to new blood than it
should have been. There were “new men,”
but typically offices went to those already in the senatorial class.
5. The court system was badly distorted. Roman citizens might get off with a slap on
the wrist whereas provincials might be sentenced to death after a very
perfunctory hearing.
6. Rivalries among the elites became
counter-productive. The Roman search for
fama, gloria,
auctoritas, and dignitas should have been positive, but it led to
bitter
rivalries.
7. The government system that worked for a
small-city
state and to be jerry-rigged to fit and empire.
This is done through “proroguing” an office.
After a year as consul, praetor, or quaestor,
one became a proconsul, proprietor, or proquaestor.
8. Probably greatest problem: decay of Roman
character. In their treatment of Carthage
Rome showed a different face than it had earlier…and the destruction of
Corinth
was similarly harsh. But to some, it was
multiculturalism that was the problem: Rome’s *failure* to keep aloof
from the
corrupting influence of other culture--and perhaps this was partly so.
Cato
(234-139
BC) is a good illustration of the worrisome nature of cultural change. Cato constantly reminded the Romans of the
danger Carthage posed to Rome and its culture. He conclude all
his
speeches (no matter the topic) with the words “delenda est Carthago,”
Carthage
must be destroyed. Cato worried likewise
about the corrupting influence of Greece. One text describes Cato
this
way:
As
censor he
attempted to preserve old Roman ancestral custom, the mos maiorum. He
supported, in 181 BC, the law against luxury, lex Orchia, and in 169
BC, the
law that limited a woman’s financial freedom, lex Voconia. He is also
known as
Cato the Censor due to his austere scrutinization of Senate officials
in 184 BC
and the removal of those who he considered too liberal or open to new
foreign
ideas, and those who were extravagant or who he felt lived luxurious,
immoral
lives.
Cato’s
puritanical approach wouldn’t
be terribly popular today, and it wasn’t popular with many affluent
Romans. But Cato won the admiration and
support of many. Plutarch says this:
The
common
people, however, liked Cato’s censorship. When they set up a statue in
his
honour, the inscription in it did not refer to his military triumphs,
but
simply to the fact that this was Cato the Censor, who, by his
discipline and
temperance, kept the Roman state from sinking into vice.
The
following quotes from Cato give
a pretty good sense of what this man is about:
·
After
I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no
monument than why I have one.
·
Anger
so clouds the mind, that it cannot perceive the truth.
·
I
think the first virtue is to restrain the tongue; he
approaches nearest to gods who knows how to be silent, even though he
is in the
right.
·
Lighter
is the wound foreseen.
·
Patience
is the greatest of all virtues.
·
Wise
men profit more from fools than fools from wise men;
for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate
the
successes of the wise.
·
Even
though work stops, expenses run on.
As
I say, in
these days of cultural relativism, academics typically aren’t fans of
Cato’s
point of view. But Cato clearly believed that Roman society stood for
something
good, that Carthage stood for something evil, and the Greeks, if not
evil were dangerous.
And the truth of the matter that change is dangerous.
But trying not to change can also be
dangerous. “You are beset with dangers
on every side, Gimli—and you yourself are dangerous.”
The
Roman
Revolution begins with the Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius
Gracchus.
The Gracchi were from one of the most distinguished patrician families
of
Rome. Nevertheless, in 133 BC, Tiberius Gracchus decided to run,
not for
Consul, but for Tribune, wanting to be one of the ten sacrosanct
spokesman for
the people of Rome as a whole.
Once
elected, T. Gracchus proposed a plan to restore the plebian small
farmers. He proposed taking public land and selling it to
landless
proletarians on good terms. Why? Well, without land and a decent
income,
Roman soldiers couldn’t afford the proper equipment, and Gracchus had
realized
that an inadequate base from which to recruit soldiers was going to
mean
military disaster for Rome.
His
plan was a
good one…but the senate said no. Why? Because senators were
using
that public land as if it were their own, and they simply did not want
to give
it up.
Gracchus
decided the issue was too important to give up on, and so he took the
matter to
the assembly which, by the lex hortensia of 287 had the right to pass
legislation binding on the Roman state with our without the consent of
the
senate.
After
some political maneuverings (and some legally questionable actions on
both
sides), T. Gracchus got his legislation passed. Well begun—half done:
but only
half done. T. Gracchus decided to run for a 2nd term as
tribune, and
the senators just wouldn’t put up with this. They armed their
followers
and chased Tiberius Gracchus through the streets, eventually clubbing
him to
death and killing some 300 of his followers.
The
senate was back in charge, and all was right with the Roman
world. Except
that it wasn’t. Tiberius Gracchus wanted his reforms for an
important
reason: restoring the Plebians was essential to the success of the
Roman army,
and some of his surviving supporters could see this.
In
123
BC, Gaius Gracchus decided to take over where his brother had left
off.
He ran successfully for tribune in 123 and 122, and carried out a
series of
reforms somewhat broader than his brother had championed him. He was
unsuccessful in his third try for tribune, and, losing his sacrosanct
status,
he was all of a sudden vulnerable. The senate took advantage:
armed the
followers for an attack. The attempts of Gaius Grachhus and his
supporters to defend themselves were all the excuse they needed. Gaius
Gracchus
was killed—and this time 3,000 of his followers.
The
senate was
in charge, and all was right with the Roman world. Except that it
wasn’t. The senators attempt to hang on to
the status
quo meant that fundamental problems weren’t addressed when they were
still
possible to solve peacefully. And,
ironically, the senators themselves were abandoning and important part
of the
mos maiorum, the tradition of resolving internal political problems
through
persuasion rather than violence.