Stratfor: Strategic Challenges of Italy and Greece

I've posted two videos today detailing the strategic challenges facing two Mediterranean nations

 

Shanggui and Proscriptions - Extra-Judicial Punishment

One thing I like about blogs are the comments that often follow. Some of the blogs with a lot of followers can generate a fair number of comments, many of them insightful, many of them not so much.  In regards to comments that fall in the latter category the one that elicits the most eye rolls from me is the claim that the United States is the most corrupt country on the earth. The United States has undoubtedly seen a decline in regards to our civil liberties and corruption, but I can think of many governments that are far more corrupt than the US; Venezuela anyone? 

Constitutio Antoninana Redux

I have an old post about an edict by Emperor Caracalla that had immense ramifications for the western world of antiquity. It may very well have been the most important and unfortunate law passed post the fall of the Republic. Erudite Knight had a good observation that “during a collapse, wouldn't the imperial legions look more attractive?”  My answer is that it depends on the kind of collapse. As I have outlined in my posts about the death of the Roman Republic, Roman society underwent a collapse starting with the tribuneships of the Gracchi brothers and ending with the dictatorship of Sulla. While most historical texts mark the end of the Republic around 32 to 30 BC, it had really ceased to exist as an effective functioning entity after Sulla. The turbulent decades between the death of Sulla and the rise of Octavius were the chaotic interregnum before the order of the principate would emerge. Numerous wars, 12 if we count the Social War as the first civil war, were fought during this chaotic period.

When Augustus became the first sitting emperor after defeating Mark Antony in 30 B.C, it ushered in a new era of peace that would last 98 years. There were still wars that were fought but they were wars of conquest fought in the far off frontier, and for the first time in nearly a century Roman legions did not face one other on the battlefield. For the average subject of the empire, it was a time of great peace. There would be civil wars during the early to middle imperial periods, but they usually coincided with the end of a dynasty and were rather infrequent. As time went on, however, the wars would not only be fought more often but, coupled with the economic malaise due to the ever growing bureaucracy, would be more damaging as well.

After the end of the Julio-Claudian line in 68 AD, there was a year of infighting between emperors, would-be emperors and usurpers. It was a time of instability, but fortunately for the Romans, it was a very short period and the next 124 years would not see any major fratricidal bloodshed. This would all change after the death of Commodus, famously and somewhat erroneously portrayed in the movie Gladiator. The next four years saw numerous battles as five emperors claimed and subsequently lost the throne. The rise of Severus, the fifth claimnent, would begin the Severan Dynasty and while it marked a 41 year period of peace, it also was the beginning of major decline.  The 1st century AD had been a minor renaissance for Roman society due to the skill and foresight of their first emperor, however, it had also sown the seeds of eventual collapse.  The 2nd century the fall out from the destruction of the republican system but Rome benefitted from a period of rule by a series of very competent and skilled emperors.  By the 3rd century AD the empire's luck had run out. It was during the Severan Dynasty that saw the beginnings of the crisis that would plague the 3rd century, nearly bringing down the empire and sowed the seeds for the fuedal society that would eventually emerge.

It was during this relatively peaceful but economically and socially stagnant period that Caracalla crafted his short sighted law in order to increase the flow of silver to his coffers. The ramifications for such a law were not initially felt, after all the empire was at peace with itself, but the growing barbarian threat and increasingly poor economic situation of the empire were taking a toll. In 235 AD, with the collapse of the Severan Dynasty, the empire entered a period of crisis that would not abate until the ascension of Diocletian in 285 AD.


The crisis of the third century was the greatest challenge Rome had faced since the collapse of the Republic over 200 years ago. The series of crisis that would assault the empire were heralded with the civil war that I would call the Year of the Six Emperors in 238 AD. This was most disturbing as it was an indication that civil wars would become more frequent. While a man could go his entire life without experiencing a single civil war, the 3rd century marked the beginning of a period of extreme bloodshed. No fewer than 22 emperors were crowned, deposed, assassinated, killed in battle or died from plague during this period. The average reign was only two years and a few months; this was during a period when strong leadership was desperately needed.

The civil wars between the potential men of the purple were bad enough for the empire, but for most Roman subjects it was hardly a major concern. They were the matters of generals and as long as the imperial order didn't appear threatened it was largely beyond the care of the common man. These later civil wars were a different matter entirely. In 260 AD, two large swaths of the empire seceded and formed their own seperate empires, the Gallic and Palmyrne empires, and it would take 14 years of bloody civil war until they were finally brought back into the Roman fold. Less than 12 years later the Britanians would attempt and later succeed in 296 AD of establishing their own Brittanic Empire. Diocletian would manage to quell the upstarts and unite the empire under a new system of governance known as the Tetrarchy, but the empire fell back into civil war after his death.

In the early 4th century, there was a series of civil wars from 306 AD to 324 AD and only 26 years of peace until another civil war in 350 AD in addition to another civil war nine years later. There were two more civil wars towards the end of the 4th century, one in 387 and one in 394. The empire post-260 AD was very turbulent, rocked by civil war after civil war, and I haven't touched upon the numerous foreign and barbarians wars that were also fought concurrently.

The prospect in fighting in the many civil wars, which often had higher fatality rates than fights against the barbarians, would be enough to disincentives serving in the legion much less the auxiliary. Without the added incentive of citizenship, why would a non-Roman choose to serve in the auxiliaries, who weren't as well trained or paid, when he could serve in the legion? Moreover why would anyone want to serve in the auxiliary and face the prospect of fighting a Roman legion or be left alone on the frontier to face the barbarians unsupported during a period of civil war? Lastly, the waning years of the empire saw epidemic after epidemic and the military legions were often prime festering grounds for the plague. The prospect of swearing loyalty and service to one of the local wealthy aristocrats, the proto-barons of the feudal ages, would certainly look a lot more enticing than slogging around a collapsing empire facing foreign barbarians, fellow legionaries and disease in the name of far-off emperor you never saw.

The outlook for serving in the military during the fall of the Republic was very different for a Roman than a citizen of the empire a couple of hundred years later. During the collapse of the Republic, even with the risk of dying in a civil war, the standard of living for soldiers was much higher than the common Roman. When you also factor in the chance for wealth, riches and the ever enticing grant of land, and after Claudius, citizenship at the end of a term of service it isn't hard to see the allure. Contrast that with the soldier of the 3rd and 4th century with the civil wars without end, constant barbarian attacks, the plagues and being paid in a rapidly depreciating currency. Why would anyone, save the most desperate or blood thirsty, wish to serve in the legions must less the auxiliary?

This helps to address why, for those of us who think America is in decline, that military enrollment is up while in the late Imperial period it saw a decline. Despite the historical struggle the military has had with meeting recruitment quotas, this has all changed. Some of it has to do with lowering the quota goals for the military, but as some recruiters have noted the declining economic situation coupled with the benefits for those who serve have kept the recruitment pool at higher levels than anticipated and there are now waiting lists. It isn't hard to see why since the risks of conventional combat with another nation are low. Even in the insurgencies that we have fought this past decade the likelihood of a soldier being killed is low. There isn't a challenger who wants to fight the United States on the open battlefield.

Whether the United States is more comparable to late Republican Rome or late Imperial Rome is a matter of personal opinion that is made based on the available historical data. I have made my opinion clear, that we are more like the late Republic, which is why we have not seen a major decrease in military enrollment that was seen in the late Imperial period.

Roman Progessivism Part 2: Gaius Gracchus

Earlier I did a post about Tiberius Gracchus, the times he lived in, and how many of his actions were detrimental to the republic in the long term.  His younger brother would prove to be an even bigger force in the eventual collapse of the republic.  And while it would be disingenuous, and not entirely fair, to portray Gaius as the sole villain, he does bear much of the blame. Yes the senate was equally corrupt, spurned the roman constitution, and helped devolve the rule of law into rule by thuggery, but the simple fact is that many of Tiberius' rivals are now unknowns, while his name is still remembered.

While Gaius may have helped the demise of the republic along; in the social obligation and customs of Roman society left him little recourse. His older brother would have been the paternis familiar of the family, the head of the household, and his death, arguably the caused by his political opponents, demanded revenge.  Moreover his elder brother was the head of a new political group and his supporters were anxious to cast Gaius in the same cloak as Tiberius.  Knowing this, much of Gaius' actions may have been largely out of his control.

It is also an interesting turn of fate that the very law Tiberius had helped championed and successfully passed would be the cause of new grievances for the people of Rome, and Italy.  The corrupt senate, and those who had the senate in their pocket, were abusing the land reforms to further enrich themselves.  Political activists should take note, that even if you are able to get your wanted law or act through there is a near certainty that it will be abused by the elites; in effect you are only aiding them.

Gaius first made his own mark while he was a questor in Sardinia, it was a matter of course that the Roman nobility would serve throughout the empire, and history, legend, or perhaps propaganda, tells us that he forced the local legion stationed there to return grain that they had absconded with during a particularly harsh winter. True or not, it was virtually assured that he would be elected as a tribune to the people when he first became eligible, which was in 123 BC.

Much had passed since the nine years of his brothers death, most of it for the changes were for the worse. Things were so bad that when Gaius proposed to reaffirm his brothers land law, and in addition establish small holdings in Roman territory abroad, it was passed. The new sempronian laws another round of Roman colonization throughout the Italy.  This was how the Romans maintained control of their lands, and kept their allies in check.  The senate, for all its corruption, was not a body of fools and they new that there was growing resentment among their non-Latin allies. The scattering of Roman colonies, and the colonists who had all served their time in the legions, served as a way to remind their allies that no matter how much they might resent Rome, they couldn't beat Rome. However, this law also proposed something that the Romans had never done before. Establish a colony outside of Italy.

The first colony would be found upon the ruins of Carthage, not only to send a message across the Mediterranean, but also because of its great maritime location and ample farmland; Rome was increasingly becoming more dependent on overseas grain.  Gaius new this, and since he was planning to double down in his brothers populism, and seized upon it. One of his first series of legislation that he enacted was essentially an open bribe to the people, from now on the city of Rome would offer corn to the people at half its market price. Of course the difference was going to come from the coffers of the senate and the city of Rome.

The second law he based was nothing less than a shot across the bow at the Senate itself. He then proposed, and passed, a measure that would allow the equestrian class, think upper middle class today,to hold judgement in court cases over provincial governors accused of wrong doing.  This was a double broadside aimed at the Senate. Firstly because it was a reduction over senatorial power over the provincial governors. Secondly because provincialism governors were always ex-consuls and ex-praetors; praetors were members of the senate elected to take some of the duties and powers of the consul. These proconsuls and propraetors were, be definition of having held the two highest offices in Rome, members of the senatorial class.

Gaius was not finished however, he further sought the favor of the equestrian class. Using his great powers as tribune to the people he awarded them the right to collect the tax dues from the newly created province of Asia. In ancient Rome tax collectors collected a percentage of all taxes collected. And he also pushed through Roman era stimulus by commission more expenditures of public works, which benefited the equestrian business men.

Gaius did all this because he had learned a lesson from his brother. That lesson was, that while the patricians and the senators of Rome wielded vasts amounts of power throughout the empire, within Rome itself it was dwarfed by the power of the mob of the plebeians.  Their sheer numbers alone could overpower almost all of the patrician families and their hired guards. Moreover, Gaius realized that the lesser administrators of the city, and the empire abroad, were the equestrians. For every Quaestor or Aedile with in the city of Rome, and the empire at large, held by a patrician, there were dozens of lesser magistrates that would assist the Quaestor or Aedile, and these were the equestrians of Rome. Gaius sought their power and influence in order to further his political agenda, punish those who were his brothers opponents, and protect his person

It is a mark of his success as a politician when he ran again, unopposed, for the tribune of the people, he won. An action that had cost his brother his life was his with little vocal opposition despite that fact that it running for reelected was expressly prohibited.  This single action more than anything shows how much Tiberius' actions had changed Rome.  Nine years ago breaking the Constitution  and violating many unwritten rules of Rome, caused near rights and serious political infighting. Nine years later when Gaius did the same thing, there was nary a peep.  This was largely due to the massive following, by promising ever expansive entitlements, of the common people that Gaius had built around himself. However, Gaius did misstep  and it was a costly one.

Gaius misstep was the result of a real, and very serious, issuing that was growing in Rome. The issue was the growing resentment of Romes Latin and Italian allies.  I will go into further detail went I discuss the Social War in my next post about Rome, but for many decades, and some instances centuries, the other Italian and Latin cities were in a series of alliances with Rome herself.  The there alliances were far more complex then what I will describe, there was in fact a citizenship tier that separated Latins from Italians, the long and short of is that the cities were free to manage their own lands but Rome was responsible for all treaties and dealings with non-Italians.  Moreover, during a time of conflict, the allies had to muster as many legions as Rome, and these legions would be put under Roman command. To add insult to the arraignment in the eyes of the allies the spoils of war were not divided up equally. Eventually a war would break out, as it did, and perhaps Gaius saw this eventuality. What he did not anticipate was the hostility he would receive.

Gaius proposed a franchise bill that would see Romes allies become full fledged citizens of Rome. This would mean that the allied cities would now have to receive equal spoils from any military conquest, and have equal say in the Senate of Rome.  The senate, not unexpectedly, was hostile to this measure, however, it was the plebeians themselves who were most opposed. The Roman plebeians were not open to the idea of sharing their new found entitlements with the rest of Italy. This is something modern day populists and progressives should take note of as this fractured his support base.

The Senate had not sat idly during all of this. They had also learned from the tribunalship of Tiberius and were now engaging in populism themselves. Finding sympathetic, or bribable, Tribunes the obstructed, delayed or in some cases co-opted Gaius platforms.  For example, when Gaius had granted the most needy small plots of land the senate accused him of buying the people, and then turned around had one of their tribunes propose a measure were the most needy would receive plots of land for free.  And so this game of tit for tat went throughout Gaius' time as a tribune.

Gaius downfall started with the death of his powerful political rival Scipio Africanus the Younger. Scipio Africanus, though not an staunch conservative, was decidedly opposed to the laws and political movements of the Gracchi brothers. This is rather significant considering that his wife was the sister of the two brothers.  Ancient Roman traditions of family dictated that Africanus and the Gracchi brothers should have been political allies, or at the very least, not publicly opposed to each other.  This was not the case though, as Scipio was decidedly unsympathetic when he heard about the murder of Tiberius (it is rumor he quoted a line from Homer's Odyssey "So may all who engage in such lawless conspiracies perish). Scipio was found dead, allegedly with marks on his body, while Gaius was off in Carthage overseeing the establishment of a new colony.  Gaius trip, and Scipios death, proved ill for the young politician.

Rumors were abound, some said that Gaius had paid an assassin to kill his political opponent, while others thought that Sempronia had murdered her husband. The truth will never be known, though I personally doubt that Gaius had ordered the murder. Gaius was a political super star, even with the recent fracturing of his political base, and I doubt Gaius would have seen much upside to the sudden death of his brother in law. Gaius, knowing the ill-rumors being spread about him, rushed back to Rome to ameliorate the damage, and more importantly, ensure his safe keeping.

Gaius term was coming to a close, and he stood on increasingly shaky ground. Lucius Opimius, a staunch foe of Gaius, was elected to the consulship.  A fierce foe of Gaius now occupied the position in Rome that made him a temporary king in all but name. Moreover, another Gaius foe, Minucius Rufus, was also elected to the tribunalship.  There now steed three men, known foes of Gaius, who held political power to not only obstruct Gaius but also reverse his achievements.  But that was not all, like Tiberius before him, a long line of aggrieved individuals were waiting for Gaius to end his term as Tribune. The senate put forward their own candidate for Gaius position, Livius Drusus, who put forwarded proposals more populistic than even Gaius with the sole aim of unseating him.  The senate was successful, because while Gaius was still very popular with the people, his failed measures, and the actions of Drusus, eroded his support enough that he failed to secure a third term as tribune.

At the news of Gaius loss his supporters marched upon Aventine hill, some of them made the mistake of carrying weapons.  This was exactly the type of event the senate needed, they gave the Consul Opimus the senatus consultum ultimum (final degree of the senate), that was only exceeded by the position of dictator in terms of power. Opimus moved quickly and decidedly to to put down the demonstration.  Militia and legionary infantry were brought to bear on the demonstrates, and a bitter, but one sided fight ensued.

The result of the fight was never in doubt though. Gaius did not enjoy the universal support among the plebeians he once had, so while he could command a large contingent of supporters, the numbers were too few to stand up to armed soldiers.  Many of Gaius erstwhile supporters also changed their allegiances, populist support is only good so long as you can provide entitlements, and he soon found himself without an ally. Legend has it that he cursed the people of Rome to be forever enslaved by their masters because of their betrayal and then committed suicide. Opimus had his head cut off and his body, along with hose of his supporters, thrown into the Tiber. (Opimus would see his own fortunes fade as he will be convicted of accepting bribe from the Numidian Jugurtha years later.)

Gaius short time in consulship is notable, like his brother  continued many of the ill-fated policies, and committed some of the same actions, that would further erode the republic. Though I do have to weigh in and say that he was probably less Machiavellian than his brother and more naive.  Gaius correctly identify issues that would plague Rome in the future, the status of the Latin and Italian allies, and attempted to take actions that he hoped would prevent war.  We can debate whether or not his course of action was the proper one but he did correctly identify the issue that would consume Rome forty years later. Moreover some of his reforms were not ill-conceived. Some of his measures were aimed to reduce the burden of military service upon the small land holding Romans, such as making the senate responsible for the arming and equipping of the military. Still some of his laws, such as the reduced grain, were obviously little more than open bribes to the public.

Lastly, Gaius illustrates the dangers of populism.  While Gaius was loved by the plebeian masses when he offered entitlements and new privilege their support did not extend to Gaius when he sought to remove their privilege position in the empire, via the franchise bill, or when he could no longer provide entitlements. Once his ability to grant them cheap grain was gone his support faded and he was quickly deposed. Gaius mistake was to not recognize the fickle nature of the people but future ambition men would learn from Gaius mistake. Gaius, and his older brother, Tiberius, actions opened the door for even more unscrupulous men. Frankly, in my opinion, the republic died with the the Gracchi brothers. All respect for republican convention had been destroyed, and Rome was no longer effectively ruled by a senate. But by strongmen, the mob, and those with armies at their back.

And this is what we see today in America. Politicians have increasingly relied on populism and a fickle mass to garner temporary short term support.  Social Security, medicaid, housing credits, and a whole host of other incentives 'provided' by the government are analogous to the the grain subsidies that were created by the Gracchi brothers.  Though it is often overlooked by historians, the grain subsidies are important as it became increasingly important for Rome to not only acquire the funds needed to purchase them, which required increased taxes and conquest, but also additional lands were grains could be grown cheaply, which resulted in increased conquest and the spreading of Roman colonies outside of the Italian Peninsula.  This issue will be re-raised during the Social War of the early 1st century BC some 40 years later, and the rise of Marius and Sulla.

Roman Progressiveness: Tiberius Gracchus

As I mentioned in a recent post, I was planning on expanding upon the arguments I made before about America being in a very similar situation to Rome during the late years of its republic.  While not every event that happened in Rome's history can be correlated directly to the America, the fact is that the similarities between Rome and America are hard to deny.  There are also a great many similarities between the late republic and America today. So while we cannot with absolute certainty that something will happen, we can make reasonable guesses.

One of the most important, but surprisingly little known, events in Romes history is the rise of the Grachhi brothers.  While class struggle had always existed in Rome and political games had always been played by politicians; their careers marked the beginning of militant populism, violent class warfare, bloody political intrigue, and the dismantling of the Roman constitution.

Many histories paint the Gracchi brothers as revolutionaries, reformers, and good men.  This is all too simplistic view of these men and their actions. If you want a pretty balanced historical account of both men then I recommend listening this podcast for Tiberius, and this one for Gaius. 

Tiberius Semporius Gracchus was born to similar conditions that so many activists were, privilege.  His father was Tiberius the Elder, a prestigious states man who had held the office of tribune, consul, and censor, and also a member of the plebian class. His mother was Cornelia Africana, daughter of the famed Scipio Africanus the general and later statesman who defeated Hannibal, and a cross between Eisenhower's brilliance with the vanity of McArthur.

Now just because history mentions that his father was a plebeian it often causes individuals to stop right there in ascertaining why he became a ancient Roman progressive. The fact is that you can not divide patricians and plebeians into the wealthy and poor classes that so many individuals do. Plebeians could be incredibly wealthy, and powerful, and patricians could become impoverished.  What patricians had over the plebeians was blood line. Patrician families were direct descendants of the founders of the Roman republic, and political privilege.

In America today the equivalent patrician class would be members the Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Bush and Kennedy families. Families that do have a lot of wealth, but more importantly have a highly regarded pedigree.  Individuals like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, and Donald Trump would be plebeian, incredibly wealthy and influential yes, but plebeian non the less.  The best description of Tiberius mother and father would be likening Tiberius the Elder to Arnold Schwarzenegger and his mother Cornelia to Maria Shriver. It isn't the best comparison, but it is the closest one I can think of off of the top of my head.

Now unlike many children born to wealthy and powerful parents, he wasn't drawn to activism out of a sense of crusaderism. Roman cultures culture largely made this an impossibility, and crusaderism for crusaderism sake is very much a recent phenomena. No, he had much more personal, and Machiavellian reasons. Like many young Romans he served a stint in the military, during the 3rd Punic war, and served with distinction, though  the story about him being the first soldier over the walls of Carthage is most likely a political fabrication by his political supporters.  During the Numantine war he had the misfortune to being assigned to an army that was horribly defeated.  In efforts to spare more bloodshed he brokered peace with the Numantines, using his family name and their respect for his father as leverage; unfortunately for Tiberius he broke Roman law, the first of many laws he would break in the future.

Only a legate, the equivalent to a modern day general, and his brokering of peace with the Numantines was a serious break of protocol. Even more horrifying to the patrician senators though was that the kind of peace he brokered, in their minds, made Rome look weak and losers of the war. Tiberius was called back to Rome, and the treaty he brokered never ratified. This was a major humiliation for Tiberius, and probably the impetus for his populism. Prior to the war he was a staunch supporter of the patrician class privilege, it was only after his recall from Spain that his politics took a populist bent.

At this point in time there was very many things wrong with the Roman empire. Much like today select patricians benefited greatly, acquiring more and more property, while most other plebeians suffered.  There was a real need for land reform the economic situation for the common Roman was becoming increasingly dire, fewer manual  labor jobs were available for non-land owners due to the influx of slaves after Romes victories over Greece and Carthage. Much of the recently acquired land, which was supposed to be rented to members of the populace, instead went to relatively few set of connected patricians.  Adding salt on the wound, many of plebeians who had smaller land holdings, off fighting Romes numerous wars, . Add in the burdens of ever increasing taxation and you had a society that was on the brink of major civil unrest.

The bankruptcy of the Roman soldiers, and the subsequent loss of land, was the biggest potential problem. It was twofold issue. One was that eligibility for military service required that a person be a landholder. The idea in ancient Rome was that only those that had something to lose would fight to their fullest to protect Rome. There was some merit to that line of thinking as the professional soldiers of the later republic and empire had no compunction on turning their arms against their own, something that was much rarer in the early and middle republic. The shrinking size of the landholding class of Romans severely threatened Romes ability to muster the military that it required to defend its territories. The more immediate threat though was that instead of the mere rabble agitating against the patricians, you now had members of proper society baying for blood; and they knew how to fight.

It was under these conditions that Tibreius was elected as tribune to the people (Tribunis Plebis), a position that granted him with much power.  The Tribune to the People was a position that was created after the conclusion of the many political battles between the plebeians and the patricians of Rome.  Outside the consuls, the two executives of Rome and had executive power throughout the empire where the tribune of the people only had power within Rome itself, the tribune to the people enjoyed great power within Rome. They could summon the senate, propose laws, overrule magistrates, veto, and perhaps most important, he was sacrosanct. Which meant that laying hands on a tribune of the people was sacrilegious and the tribune could have the person executed.

Tiberius used the powers granted to him by his position decisively and aggressively. He proposed a land reform law known as the Lex Sempronia Agria, which aimed to strengthen previously ignored land reform laws that had been passed to ensure that public lands, lands conquered by the Roman state, did not end up in the hands of a few rich patricians. What made the law particularly controversial, is that it sought to confiscate the land of wealthy men who owned more than what was specified with in the various laws that had been passed through the centuries, though Tiberius did offer exceptions to allow for families with a lot of sons to own more than the legal limit as well as promises of payment to landowners that saw their property taken.

If Tiberius had simply tried to ensure that land distribution had gone out impartially, and in accordance with previous laws, then the law would not have been as controversial as it was. However, as controversial as his redistribution proposals were, it was how he pushed the law through that truly angered the Senate, and began the eventual dissolution of the Republic itself.

Laws were typically announced and passed within the senate halls. But Tiberius, knowing that the senate would never agree to his proposed law, decided to circumvent them altogether. He went to the plebeian council and proposed his bill. It was received enthusiastically. Now the ancient Roman republic had a myriad of legislative councils with varying degrees of authority and power, they had the senate, the plebeian council, century assembly, and the tribal assembly, but to keep things simple, the law was now about to be passed it the senate would be unable to overrule it. 

What Tiberius did was not against any law, or even against any custom. But it did insult the senate, and potentially alienate what senate support he did have. Think of someone being elected president and then refusing to appoint certain cabinet positions because he felt that those particular departments should exist. There is nothing legally requiring the president to appoint those positions, but tradition has made such appointments a certainty.

 Now the senate was not without a back up plan. Tiberius wasn't the only tribune to the people, and the senate was able to persuade Marcus Octavius, according to Plutarch Augustus was one of his direct descendants, to use his tribunal powers to veto the bill.  Tiberius was incensed and moved to have Octavius deposed by popular vote. He argued that Octavius had violated his oath to be a representative of the people and therefore was unfit to be a tribune to the people.  However, Octavius, using his tribunal power, vetoed the vote itself.  There was nothing Tiberius could do legally, he had been out maneuvered by the senate.  It is here that Tiberius crosses the point of no return. He had his supporters forcibly remove Octavius from the building and then called the vote to have him deposed.

It is here that the first major fissure that would eventually tore the republic apart appeared. Tiberius had violated the Roman constitution and had committed sacrilege, tribunes were sacrosanct, and he had just violated their sacrosanctity.  Tiberius justified his

 Now many of Tiberius supporters were fearful of what had just transpired and refused to vote on the deposition of Octavius. They had already broken Roman constitution and any further action would only be more outrageous. Instead, they convinced Tiberius to use his veto power to bring Rome to a halt. Every bill, proposal, or item, no matter how trivial  was vetoed by Tiberius.  This brought the civic, commercial, and even religious items that required passage by the assembly, to a complete halt. Tiberius was playing a game of chicken, one that he won.

The passage of the law made Tiberius a hero, however, the manner with which it was passed made him a hated man to many other Romans.  This was not lost on Tiberius and his supporters as they formed a protective guard to escort him to and from the chambers of the Senate. Perhaps even worse was that there was no real working relationship between Tiberius and the Senate, each one taking every opportunity to antagonize the other.  But it wasn't until the passing of Attlas of Pergamum, modern day western Turkey, that events boiled over.

King Attlas of Pergamum had been a long standing ally of Rome during his reign. He had no heirs, and sensing the risk of that his kingdom would be torn apart by civil war, so he willed his kingdom to the people of the republic of Rome. This would be the event that would lead to Tiberius downfall.  When the will stipulated that the kingdom go to the people of Rome it wasn't all that entirely clear what he meant.  Did he mean the actual people of Rome? Or did he simply mean the republic of Rome?  The word republic is from the word res public, which translates to thing of the people, so the literal translation of res publica roma is the thing of the people of Rome. Tiberus and the Senates differing views on what Attlas intended lead to their final show down.

Tiberius saw the gifting of Pergamum to Rome as a literal gift of land to the Roman people.  This meant, in his mind that the land should be distributed people of Rome.  And using his tribunal power he tried to allocate the newly gifted land to fund his agrarian law. But this proved to be the last straw for the senate as this was a direct attack on powers reserved to the Senate, and moreover, outside the bounds of imperium for the Tribunis Plebis.

Traditionally the Senate had jurisdiction over the Roman treasury, which had caused Tiberius no small headache as this meant that the senate could fund his agrarian commission with as much, or as little, money as the senate wished. Because of Tiberius previous actions, circumvention constitutional law, and because of the many enemies he had made, the senate crippled his bill. Tiberius move to use the lands of Pergamum to fund his commission was a direct move against powers reserved for the Senate; however that is not what incensed them the most.

The Tribunis Plebis had many powers within the city of Rome, however, they only existed within the city of Rome. Tribunes were not consuls, who held executive authority over all the empire, and his decrees had no legal weight, or power, unless backed by senatorial mandates. His action had no legal legitimacy, both Tiberius and the Senate knew this. But Tiberius was counting on popular support to win him the day. But Tiberius had a problem, his term as tribune was coming to an end.

Tiberius had violated the sacrosanctness of a fellow tribune, aggravated the senate, and exceeded the bounds of his power.  Despite his previous actions violating sacrosanctness of an elected tribune,  which the senate had already publicly declared illegal, he was safe from prosecution as long as he held his office. Moreover, Tiberius realized that it was not just the senate he had angered. He had also alienated some of the plebeians as well by his actions.  Senators publicly denounced Tiberius as a man who wished to reinstate himself as a king of Rome, and this left many Romans uneasy. And given the long line of men who would bring charges against him, and he current attitude many Romans had about him, he knew that he was in a precarious position

So Tiberius did the only thing that he could do to ensure his safety and avoid disgrace, he violating another Roman tradition and re-ran for a consecutive term.  Tiberius won his second term, promising to shorten military service requirements for citizens, abolish the exclusive right of senators to act as jurors, and increase the ranks of Roman citizenship with the allies of Rome. His latest victory would be his last.

The political situation of Rome had deteriorated drastically. The two political groups of Rome, the populares lead by Tiberius and the optimates lead by the senate leaders, were openly coming to blows in the streets of Rome. In a preview of the later years of the republic and early empire riots were becoming more frequent.  One day when Tiberius was traveling the Senate chambers, along with 300 of his supporters who acted as his body guard, were slain by a mob of senators and their supporters in the ensuing riot. A deadly preview of the murder of Caesar almost a century later.

It is tough to say whether Tiberius was simply a Machiavellian figure willing to grab the reigns of power through whatever medium was most available or if he truly believed in his populist causes and thought they would better Rome; it may have been a bit of both. But one thing is certain, the actions that he undertook, despite whatever intentions he had, were highly damaging to the Republic.

Tiberius, like many progressives, correctly identified many social ills that needed to be remedied. However, his proposed cures were worse than the ills he sought to solve. I wonder that if Tiberius had, instead of trying to take the lands of the wealthy patricians, had instead simply tried to ensure that future allotments would be distributed honorably and justly, that when he called for Pergamum to be distributed to the people of Rome that he wouldn't have been stymied by the senators. Not every patrician who possessed massive land holdings had earned through nefarious methods. But ultimately it wasn't the laws he tried to pass that hurt the republic, it was how he tried to pass them.

Tiberius had acted aggressively when pushing his agenda, so aggressive in fact, that he ended up circumventing the very laws that made republic, a republic.  It is one of the reasons why I, unlike so many other students of history, have a rather dim view of the man. Like so many progressive he justifies his actions because, while breaking the very foundation laws of Rome, he sought to improve the lives of the people.  Also like so many progressives, he arrogantly claimed that his actions were the will of the people he supported. Here is Tiberius, in a history written by Plutarch, justifying his actions of violating sacrosanctness.

"because he (Octavius) was consecrated to the people and was a champion of the people... If, then he should change about, wrong the people, maim its power, and rob it of the privilege of voting, he has by his own acts deprived himself of his honourable office by not fulfilling the conditions on which he received it; for otherwise there would be no interference with a tribune even though he should try to demolish the Capitol or set fire to the naval arsenal. If a tribune does these things, he is a bad tribune; but if he annuls the power of the people, he is no tribune at all... And surely, if it is right for him to be made tribune by a majority of the votes of the tribes, it must be even more right for him to be deprived of his tribuneship by a unanimous vote."

Here, if these words are remotely true, we see the true arrogance and naivete of Tiberius, and progressiveness  laid bare before us. The arrogance is shown  from Tiberius argument that he represented the will of the people while his opponent, Octavius, did not. This is dangerous because even if Tiberius is right, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to realize how this concept could be abused. What happens if there is opposition to Tiberius, or any populist politician for that matter, purely on the grounds of principal? Is a man acting in accordance with what he believes is right, and within the bounds of societies laws, and votes against popular will, is he truly an enemy of the people? Just because a law is popular doesn't mean its prudent or just.

The naivete is from the inability of many progressives, or perhaps the utter lack of concern, about how dangerous such precedents are.  Twisting the meaning of the constitution, from a sacred and eternal written laws to a base fluid living document opens up many terrible doors.  The tactics used by the progressives in their fight for a more egalitarian and equal society can be used against them by men of great greed and little principal. Every time you give more power to government, and its agents, to try and create a just society you also give them the power to do exactly the opposite. I highly doubt progressives ever imagined that their actions would help create a state that would waste its resources busting groceries that sold unpasteurized dairy.

Lastly Tiberius, if he were a true reformer, did great damage to his cause because of the actions he took. Even if he were acting in the interest of the people, by violating Romes sacred laws he lost moral authority.  You cannot say you act in the interest of the people, when you very actions lay those same people open to abuse by future despots.  This is were progressiveness really loses itself.  While preventing environmental degradation, abuse of the poor, and other causes of progressives are not inherently wrong, the actions they undertake are. What good is the victory if it only sets one up for greater defeat down the road?

This is why I have a rather dim view of Tiberius, as whatever his intentions were, they are overshadowed by his actions and the results of them. Tiberius alone wasn't the cause of the fall of the republic, the senate, patricians, and other politicians deserve their share of the blame as well. But if it were not for his actions, then his brother might not have even further eroded republicanism in Rome, and the crossing of the Rubicon may never have happened.

Crusaders, activists, progressives, and reformers take note. The beast that consumes our republic may be the beast that you unleash.

The Fall of the Roman Republic. Is This A Glimpse of Our Future?

I was thinking about the event, otherwise known as the collapse, and thinking how it has and will affect society when something began to creep into my mind. I was reflecting on the increasing number of young individuals living at home with their parents, even if gainfully employed, and realizing that this was a return to the norm. That young men going off on their own, excluding instances of dire need, to work and live in their own apartment and start their life was strictly a 20th century phenomena. Most guys I know around my age either live with their parents, or are subsidized by their parents if they live alone or live with roommates. And I am not talking about an early 20 something fresh out of college, but guys whose 20s are starting to come to an end.  Where 22 used to be the point that a young man was completely independent now it is 25 and they are only partially independent.  But I digress, while I was thinking about this another thought came to the forefront of my mind as I thought about family structures going back to antiquity.

As often happens, having studied Latin in high school and college and spend much of my free time studying the foundational societies of western civilization, I began to compare and contrast Rome to America; as I often do. Aurini, a man who often says things that I find uncomfortable, but then comfort should never be the metric upon which we measure truth or insight, articulated how someone should approach history perfectly; I honestly could not have said it better myself. That is that a person needs a hypothesis when looking at history. During your first run through it is fine and good to learn just the dates, names, and the general basics to get you somewhat familiar with the landscape of the era. But if you fancy yourself a historian, or even an educated individual, you should revisit history with a definite hypothesis. I had always read Roman history with a few specific questions:

• Why was Rome and not Greece the most powerful civilization in the west during the age of antiquity?
• What about Rome, specifically their society, made them more powerful than their neighbors?
• Why did the Republic fall and what lead up to its fall. Or more specifically, what conditions lead to the rise of men like Marius, Sulla, Caesar, and Octavian?
• Assuming that there is something about Roman society that made them the power of the ancient world; what similarities exist between ancient Rome and America?

Approaching history in this manner is how a person gains insight.  The fact is that most individuals understanding of history is pretty limited and covers only a few points of history very shallowly. I would say, and being generous, that most Americans know that there was a man named Julius Caesar, a narcissistic emperor named Nero who fiddled while Rome burned, and that Rome ultimately fell. Those with a larger breadth of understanding would know that there was the Roman republic, that formed after it broke away from Etruscan influence, that there was a Roman Empire that rose around the time of Caesar and Augustus, that Rome became increasingly unwieldy was unable to deal with barbarian incursions and then eventually fell.

A view of this history isn't wrong, but it is lacks nuance into the hows and whys. When you delve into Roman history in depth you will notice that Rome had been beset and plagued by barbarians throughout its history; it was sacked twice during its formative years. You then ask was the deposition of Romulus Augustulus by Odoacer, a barbarian who was a higher up in the Roman military establishment, marked as the end of the empire? When throughout Roman history the emperor had been deposed. And why did the Eastern Roman Emperor not seek to exert hard influence, a public display of submission, on the usurper? Approaching history in this context you begin to gain real insight and learn to see fundamental trends and causes. And this is how I approach history.

As my mind drifted off to sleep I worked my way through the differing periods of Rome and then suddenly my drowsiness dissipated and I was fully awake; the gears in my mind spinning vigorously. I had remembered something about Roman patronage and how it worked in the early and late republics.  Patronage was the practice in Rome were men would pledge loyalty, service, and commitment of varying degrees to their patrician benefactors.  The patrician benefactors would give their patroness gifts, money, government positions if they could, in exchange for their loyalty; which meant votes in republican Rome. That is perhaps the most condense summation I can give as there were various types of 'partonage' in ancient Rome.

There were obligations for both parties involved and though many obligations had no legal basis, only dishonorable men (and this is a society were it was considered proper for dishonored men to commit suicide) would break an obligation of patronage; and patronage didn't just exist between plebeians to patricians. Other patricians could be patrons to other patricians and very complex familial and honor based ties were created within Roman society. However, towards the end of the Republic these systems began to change, and even break down. But before I go into the change I need to cover one very important aspect of Roman society.

Republican Rome, much like colonial and early Republican America, was oriented around the ideal of the citizen farmer. Participation in the military and civil government required that a man be a landowner, and a man wasn't really a true Roman unless he was a farmer. The society of Rome was oriented around owning land. If a man did not own land, the goal was to eventually be able to purchase some, he often was employed as a laborer on a farm, and one day, if he was driven, frugal, he may purchase his own land to farm and join the ranks of the noble citizenry.

However, many had changed from the foundation of the republic after the end of the third Punic war in 146 BC.  Rome had risen from a city state, overshadowed by the Etruscan and other Latin cities of the time such as Alba Longa, and considered a backwater by the wealthier and more culture Hellenistic city states. To the foremost military power in the Mediterranean after their only major rival, Carthage, had been completely defeated and subsumed into the Roman Empire. Coincidentally, 146 BC is also the point when Rome started occupying large parts of Greece, whose city states had long since been the lesser 'partner' in military alliances with Rome.

All that remained for Rome was the constant harassment of the barbarians to the north, and even they had been reduced from an existential threat to a mere nuisance, the pirates of the Mediterranean, and the growing disgruntlement with her Italian allies.  The Social War, the attempted secession from the Roman confederation by Italian city states tired of what they viewed as an unfair alliance with Rome, ended with a Roman military victory but with concessions granting full citizenship to Italian cities who remained allies with Rome. By 88 B.C Italy was truly unified under a Roman government. The other major event was the Third Servile War, lead by Spartacus, and relatively easily put down. However, the two wars illustrated two important changes that were happening in the ancient world.

One was the increasing difficulty in finding suitable land with which to settle their citizens. The Social War largely resulted because of unequal distribution of newly conquered lands, most of them going to Rome, wealthy Romans specifically. Rome herself was facing great strain with an increasingly restless Plebeian population due to the lack of adequate farmland. The strain was becoming so great that it bolstered the career of two political activists who sought land reforms for the plebeian poor, the Grachhi brothers, Roman era social activists and progressives of their era. However, like many activists, they broke the rules and abused their power when it suited their ends.

Tiberius Gracchus fell from grace when he tried to push through reforms that sought to redistribute land from patricians to the plebeians. As he tried to run for reelection the Senators gathered a mob of 300 like minded individuals stormed the Senate and club Tiberius and his supporters to death, the first time blood had been shed within the Senate in more than 400 years; and a glimpse of the politics of the next 100 years.

Tiberius' younger brother Gaius was more successful. He included the middle class, known as the equestrians, plebeians in his cause and gathered large support around himself. The equestrians also made up much of the judiciary of Roman society so he was able to use this power to get patricians removed from the ranks of the Senate for misconduct and replace them with men loyal to him.  Gaius did things such as fix the price of grain, accelerate land redistribution, and win an unconstitutional third as the Tribuni Plebis.  However, like his older brother he over extended himself. When he sought to extend rights to non Roman citizens he lost a large portion of his power base. Eventually he was killed during street fighting between the optios, patrician oriented political party, and the populares, his political party.  But rather than end the civil strife within Roman society, it only became more strained.

The other was that large influx of slaves in Roman society and their increasing prevalence in the labor force. Slavery had always existed in the ancient world. But during the formative years of the Republic slaves they were a much smaller portion of the labor force. This meant that poor Romans, or Italians, who did not own land could find work as a laborer or a field hand. With the influx of slaves that resulted in the defeat of the Greeks, Carthaginians, and other enemies of Rome, they increasingly edged out the lower rung of Roman society.  This, along with the death of the Gracci brothers, helped contribute to the outbreak of the Social War.

Moreover, the with the Marian Reforms of the Roman military, easing the requirements needed and establishment of a standing military, it helped lay the ground work for the rise of Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, and finally Augustus, signalling the beginning of the end of the Republic.  With few ways for poor Romans to earn a living, and middle class Romans increasingly seeing themselves squeezed out by richer patricians, it left those classes few choices. Joining the Roman military, organized crime, gladiatorial games, prostitution, and patronage. Patronage started to become the method of choice for many of the urban dwellers living in Rome. However, it had changed slightly.

Whereas before the patronee had only one patron, the lower classes had soon discovered a way to game the system.  Traditional Roman values had decline and honor was not regarded quite like it was.  Many Roman men, not all of them members of the lowest social classes, would begin their day by visiting their patrons paying respects and collecting sums of money for paying their respects.  They would do this throughout the morning, and then spend the rest of their day drinking, gambling, or watching the games.

And so the common Roman was reduced to holding out their hand and expecting coin to be put in it for simply saying a few sweet words of adoration to the man who held the purse strings.  Moreover, the patricians were not oblivious to what was happening, in many ways they encouraged it. They knew that they simply had to offer more coin than their rivals to buy the persons loyalty. And if patronage alone was not enough, there were the games, and frequent allotments of free bread that would be distributed under the name of the right and honorable so and so.

Politics increasingly became a game of occupying office, abusing its power to gain wealth and prestige.  There had always been corruption in Rome, more so than what would have been acceptable in America, but there were understandings that came with it.  Corruption had to be quiet and discrete and within reason. That was no longer the case. The office of consul, with its legal immunity while in office, became a means for wealthy men to enrich themselves.

This is the world that Caesar grew up in. Were men used their private armies to bully the Senate into submission. Were political enemies were exterminated. And where all it took was money, and buying the love of the masses with it, to wipe away those sins.  Caesar was no different than Sulla, Crassus, Pompey or the legion of others who abused their power for person gain. He just was bigger, louder, and more flagrant than anyone before him. He pushed the boundaries, what little remained of them anyways, of Rome sociopolitical norms and was put in a position where, he either had to take power, or be ruined. Later on his nephew, and adopted son, Octavian, was the victor of a series of wars that resulted from Caesars depth.

He was very different from Caesar, and his predecessors in that his formative years were amidst the worst in terms of the decay of Roman society and civil strife.  He sought to restore Rome's stability, which he did, and return it moral society with it, which he largely failed to do. He made a great show of returning power to the senate, restoring the Republic, but the truth was that he controlled everything behind closed doors.  And in actuality the Republic been effectively dead for almost 70 years at that point.

While mulling this information over in my mind I couldn't help but notice the eerie similarities during the late Republican era of Rome and now. There is a lot more that I have not put in my blog post for the sake of brevity, which I will elaborate on in future posts, but here are some of the similarities I have noticed:

• Calls for land redistribution then. Calls for income redistribution now.
• Decreasing ability for citizens to find farmlands then. Decreasing ability for individual Americans to start businesses now.
• Growing coalescent of farmlands in the hands of a few politically connected patricians then. Growing conglomeration of business companies in the hands mega corporations now.
• Labor crowded out by slaves then. Labor crowded out by illegal migrants now.
• Growing flagrant corruption and disregard for their constitution then by their elected leadership. Growing flagrant corruption and disregard for our constitution now buy our elected leadership.
• Government increasingly reliant on warfare for wealth and economic health then. Government increasingly reliant on warfare for economic health now.
• Middle and lower classes of Roman society increasingly reliant on patronage of patrician leaders for their livelihood. Middle and lower classes of American society increasingly reliant on entitlements for their livelihood.
• Excessive inflation during the waning years of the Republic. Excessive monetary printing now.
• Absolute control of the Mediterranean by the Romans. Absolute control of the oceans by Americans.

The list could go on and on but my post is rapidly approaching three thousands words so I will wrap it up here with the plans to explore these items more closely in subsequent posts. I have always posited that America is closer to the fall of the Republic rather than the fall of the empire. While there are no guarantees in history, as you could make sound and legitimate arguments for America being circa the fall of the empire, my research has convinced me that it isn't quite the case. And this is very important. When the Republic fell it was a travesty, but the travesty wasn't felt for many years later. The reign of Augustus was a good one, and it seemed that reign under an enlightened despot was preferable to the chaos of the late republic. But then came the reigns of lesser men, and with it madness, blood, economic decline, and eventually total societal collapse. And the worst part was, that when Rome finally did completely and utterly disintegrate centuries later, no one even cared to try, frankly they didn't even know how, to put the pieces back together and start over.