Land Reforms in Rome's last Century B.C - Gracchus Reforms (2)

By

Sampson I.M Onwuka

Juvenal describes “Rome is supported on Pipe Stems match sticks; it’s cheaper thus for the landlord to shore up his ruins, patch up the old cracked walls, and notify all the tenants. They are expected to sleep secure through the beams are about to crash above them.” The promotion to power which Rome experienced in later half of the last century before Christ merit interesting historical contention, but it serves little purpose for what happened in the years leading from the rise of optimates and the Counselors to primus inter-alia (land owners), leaves us what the real vintage of Roman character – that it was revolutionary in many ways than one, especially in psychology of voting and deciding their leadership. For all intent of history – even if the laws are added to history – that Greeks are oversized as those who champion modern democracy; such claims make sense in the light of the cultural and military exploitations of Rome. For if we place the histories of the Greeks to the rest of world, the privilege seeded to Greeks and the Athenians pale to other Easterners including Africa. Once, we compare the facts Rome is military by privilege, the politics of popular citizens and the deeds of those in frontier leaves us with a hint of the years that Julius Caesar led Rome – both politically and militarily. For Sulla – one of the earliest Normads (Africans) and Roman General to have reached Rome, crossed the Rubicon with the might of the stations in the so-called East, he was not at least publicly interested in transforming land laws and agrarian rules that divided Rome in his time.

The other Nomad of an adopted familiar would be Cornelius Scipo whose reforms were tempered by politics and land laws in Rome. It could be said that these were spared the contagion of murder and conspiracies that will dominate Julius Caesar reign. But neither Scipio or his counterpart Marius were reform minded, they may perpetuated the class problem that developed from the conflicts – even when Jurguthen, his Nomads and Rio Tinto (Tarteus) – or what would become Spain were  Tiberius Gracchus - The Elder – father to Tiberius S. Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus – was historically believed to have taken a side against one of the two Sons of Scipio – one was Scipio Africanus who is badly said to have gotten his name from the continent which he conquered. But this is not far from the tree; since these were trading tackles over the Red Sea and Mediterranean made Syria a must have for Barbarians, a problem that Roman faced centuries earlier, a problem of empire, accumulation and wealth angst to migration and demographic.  Africa was and is still an Island in what is now Tunisia and the story the connection of Publius Cornelius Scipo to Cornelia Africana more than sealed the support of Tiberius Gracchus, and impresses that the reason for the opposition against Hannibal and Cartage was the problem of Rights and Responsibility. 

For Juneval – he presents the argument that the Plebs and proletariats, “has no standing in court…Men do not easily rise whose property hinders their merit.” this remained the case in Rome till the 2nd century –B.C when more lands were acquired by Roman Citizens and war veteran. The tribunes were appointed to deputize on their behalf and Roman Senators were in central position to question some of the more daring petition over. If Roman fractured during Caesar official reign, it was not the power that he showed in office but on why the end could be dragged by the Republic that offered as many leaders as they were politically dangerous and desperate men and women. Rome following the multiple graces they share abroad and the expansion of troupes were faced with a large and powerful numbers of immigrants – some from conquered territories and others part of what could be classified as Nomads and Barbarian. Unlike others, we may begin to see that Caesar’s problem was partly a matter of experience and knowledge of Roman power which the dusty and narrow paths of the City and the frontiers of the empires were not ready or brooded for. Yet it was gradually an empire – for sure Sulla could have handed Rome the East - created the pathways into Europe and made Rome a military station for than one nation. Why Caesar’s views was not easily available, the tension in Rome was reaching reasonable proportions, for sure, these land owners or rulers were not amazed at the end of their days – they were partly accepting the idea of new Rome.

According to Michael Parenti, “In 121, in response to Gaius’s initiatives, the Senate passed what was later called the Senatus Consultum utimum, a decree that allowed for a suspension of republican rights “in defense of the defense.” It gave magistrates license to discharge absolutist power, including political repression and mass murder.” I shall heretofore state that the informed consent that Gaius material information about the right to self-defense includes the security that the Senators offered, excludes the premise of military leadership including those who ventured in areas long reserved for others.  The 2^nd century is not what it was at the time of Roman partisanship but there are obvious clauses that tend to suggest that the defense or right to defense was not only for States against the States but the States against the power of private military. 

The tension between those who ruled by force of arms left many at mercy of foreign legions and those who ruled through the court reached entertaining levels, that policies created did not acknowledge those in the front, some wounded and other stabbed to death in line of conflict and certain instance, a compromise rendered and reached between Romans and the confrontations was resolved through unhappy exchange. One of the confrontations was in later years the powers that forced Julius Caesar to remain outside Rome for very long period of time – and in one period, it narrowed down to his stay in Brittany where he couched up as a woman for reasons not very clear.  Perhaps he was not an absolute ruler and the privilege of his juniors at war vested to transform their leagues of nations reached proportion that required actions in Egypt under the shadows of the Pharaohs.

In Parenti account of the transition that was possible at this time, he considered the reasons why Gaius an earlier reform minded politician faced death, that “After repeated threats against his life, Gaius and 250 supporters including another popularis, Fulvius Flaccus, were massacred by the Optimates’ death squads in 121 B.C. These assassins then rounded up and summarily executed an additional 3000 democrats. The victims’ relatives were forbidden to mourn publicly for the dead.” It leads here that the rooms for democracy in room and the power that judges were vested on to exercise merited a consideration, which policies failed to transform the exploitation of the soldiers who return from war, and the exploitation that governed the possession of lands. For Gaius and his brothers, their popularity was not a small container but their wealth was no match for the later saviors such as Sulla who nearly confiscated all land in Rome, no match for Julius Caesar who was directly influenced by the reactionary wars of Sulla and against the rise of Spartacus.   

With the increase of population, it was a question of time that Rome began to expand the Agrarian laws between 121 B.C – 111 B.C. Rome entered period of street fights and blood baths and according to Cicero, and the people could not tolerate the ‘King-like power’ exhibited by Tiberius Gracchus and by consequent others such as his brother Gaius Gracchus and Flavius Flacca.

Using a similar argument by Michael Parenti, he noted that popularity led to street fights and it was the optimates and the people who backed Rome sought to remove by sword or by prinile thus in the words of Otto Kieter…”Gracchi perished in furious street fighting” “That the Senatus consultum ultimum was used to cut down Gaius Gracchus and thousands of his followers” that, that some of the legislative intent of Gracchi was riddled with reforms that stepped on the privileges of the few. It was his understanding as well many that the age of Rome following a hundred years of wars with Samnite was a society politically and religiously divided and direct military and autocratic leadership was necessary.  Thus the faith of the young empire depended on this very premise of a collective and oval office and a Maximus Pontiff as elected by the people of Rome. Parenti marginalized this view by citing an alternative reason that the so-called highest law was ‘often a cloak for the lowest deeds.’ In the next ten years, the selective process and the reform perpetrated a decade earlier brought Lucius Saturninus to an end, following long spells of disagreement and fights in the street.

P.A Brunt interpretation of Gracchi reforms was that the division created problems of stability and the Senate had little power over the mobs and middle men and the reforms was a disregard for the magistrate but on the premise that  “…the highest law was the public safety’ and perhaps nothing more. The Eastward expansion of Rome to Africa and Asia Minor swelled the number of poor and placed people, whose lands were collateral for the survival of the Senate. It soon fetches problems for Rome and it was tethered against the wish of the State towards Civil war as earlier as 120 B.C.    

But these were popular lives and not military men, local champions with long held family values – some with some military or war experience and other not - including Sulpicius Rufus who dies in 88 B.C during next City-wide bloodshed. Popularity was important, protection of personal and inherited property was also necessary but above, Rome had some strange to Persia where they inherited their earliest attitude to life and where the customs of Republic of opinionated elders without Kings and excessive entitlement was prominent.   

The question that we may not likely ask is if the Gracchi reforms were a form of ‘endangerment’ to the old established society or that the power of few who held Rome in its balls were threatened? Or could the reforms of Tiberius and those of his brother, Gaius, considered a threat to Roman ancient regime and therefore placed Senate and the magistrate under unusual conditions? Or was it some it something else, that Gracchus saw a future that demanded the central authority – perhaps no necessarily a dictator who would direct the affairs of the State and who’s birth will coincide in lesser affairs of Rome in 100 B.C, a decade after the death of Gaius

In the words of Michael Parenti, the pressing needs for land reforms, housing authority, agrarian and grain reforms was in the end between 121 B.C and 111 B.C could not have force the reaction from the public saving for the reason that Tiberius Gracchus was not only the leader of Roman Society, that his rules were initiated for his good and perhaps in the name of good and goodwill for Rome. In spite of the temptation to handle the question of welfare in Rome and the transformation of voting in popular election and by the elects, the pressing issues of the day including housing and reform of the least approach to growing population sponsored the nerve to act out the frustration on both the Romans and their counselors and those who reasons not certain led their lives in the Eternal City. There was hardly any protection for these Plebes as they were described that even in Nero periods, lands were forcefully taken by some politically connected gangs – centurions for their property and the trials took forever and in the end, both Judges and politicians were bribed out of the censorship or many cases died away.

What Sulla brought was a sense of order to Rome and the Republic but the Republic with growing expansion, was a victim of trials and reforms placed the angst beseech elders of the Republic against the newer class of Romans and others. The public reception of military politician Gaius Marius and one of the great Roman general – perhaps responsible for the spread of Rome’s influence in the East - Lucius Cornelius Sulla. But as more Plebs entered Rome and more lands confiscated abroad, the State experienced bigger problems of control, and some of the older families could not held accountable for any deeds performed against the State.

If we compare the last years of Julius Caesar and the problems that the Romans faced, we can be eager to claim that his early years including the long years of Cicero were a testimonial to the power of oratory and rule of law – pursuant to Roman past – pursuant to Greek orthodoxy. But it yielded something, a gangster with career in military whose idea of self-defense and defense of defense was mainly military, but was faced with Rome that must change or perish. In Plutarch words “Caesar achieved great popularity at Rome through his skill as a speaker, while the Common people loved him because of his friendliness in dealing with them. He was most endearing for someone so young.” But the youth after many years at the war front, especially a crucial decade, was no longer a charming servant of the society and friends of both the common and not so common people; he had what is believed to a job to do and had to do it. He was no longer a friend yet his popularity waxed easily inviting veterans to justify his power and himself. Would he play the game like others before him, if he didn’t, would he take leadership from the magistrates’ undue power over Rome and endangered even those at the war front for Rome?

The other issue which was not expected was the presence of military veteran from the East, who were now resident in Rome, who participated in Roman politics and goodwill but whose lands were appropriated by less members of the Senate – especially among totally corrupt families that placed too much emphasis on Agrarian land policies. There were those who were blocked from political authority – some seasoned for many reasons other than military – some of where not Romans by birth others were. Although the stated path of honor for Roman leaders in politics required them to attempt military prowess as Tribune then tribute to Plebs or Aedile (as argued by experts) then the Praetor and then an elective process that determined the Consul. The process is not different from world polities in recent years, between the local, the states and the national election as issues of polities, decided no different Romans, but earned their rights in history through Augustus. Many of these would be politics followed rules that were not new but could have made it until the reforms.

What can we consider an example in Roman Civilization was not how many wars they won under exceptional leaders, but on how the Republic handled their own problems – in terms of Agrarian laws and the promising defense of welfare of Citizens. Take into account the information from Lucian Canfora’s Julius Caesar – that ‘acute need more money determined series of political steps’ taken by Julius Caesar – gives us impression that Romans held to everything they had largely out of the concern for poverty. The Class structure was open and arbitrary – the wealth was severe and smaller than the tax from a century proved, and the desperate search for power was an escape. He mentions that after the long and tutored career in the military – Julius Caesar being a father to Rome was forced by necessity to abandon certain old ways which endangered his personal career and made in a case study for optimates  - his party that propelled his addiction to influence and popularity, so to speak, he stated that “…in the end he had to renounce it account of “the opposition of the aristocratic party (optimates)”.

   

For it need not to be said that the year 63 B.C may been the beginning of Rome the Command power in the East but in the larger world, it was a year that the Caesar’s Agrarian propaganda pitched between in an open political conflict – if not warfare between the Optimates and the Populares – including the Plebs. It seems doubtful the civil consequences that led to him to power was based on the understanding, that the reforms were necessary – especially protection of rights of citizens but also with understanding that “…the change of course; once installed in power he would not promulgate any “agrarian laws” or “cancellations of debt”, but instead extend the Rights of citizens…” Whether or not his actions deferred from the expectation is second matter but with time, it was an understanding that the visions for empire would thaw and perhaps prosper….

Land Reforms and Welfare in the Rome's last Century B.C

By

Sampson I.M Onwuka

 

Julius Caesar

“If a man were called upon to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.” Edward Gibbons.

 Rome – by the description of Edward Gibbons was the Apex of expansion during the age of the two Antonine. This period is perhaps between Nerva and Pius Antonius and Hadrian finally forged the strategy for the empire and its military tactics. 

Social Stratification rested on several principal categories which can be understood by George Dumezil trifunctional society that, (1) Priestly and Judicial class – headed by Pontiff (2) Warrior – the General, military, the adjutants and tax collectors, (3) Production Class - Servi and the Plebs, many of whom are working and some of whom are middle class men and women. 

The historian’s description of the ‘best people’ politicians called optimate proved an object dissent,  Assembly Grand Continuum and military assembly (Comitia centuriata). The Republic was constituted for the interest of Rome – particularly the poor among whom where the Plebs and proletariat who were raked into Roman territory following the displaced issues of their land.

People whose land was disposed due to war, were re-arranged by the Senate and Tribune, a practice which gained official status during Scipio Aemilianus whose account of C. Flaminius struggle with the Senate to have portions if not all of the lands of the defeated opponents transferred to Rome and distributed among the Senate, elder families and War Veteran. 

Writing a dispatch in 232 B.C, “the Romans divided among their citizens the territory in Gaul known as Picenum, from which they had ejected the Senones whom they conquered them.”  That “C. Flaminius was the originator of this popular policy which must pronounce to have been one may say, the step in the demoralization of the populace.” 

The citation is derived from Polybius whose argument on the arrangement of Rome concerning the issue of land and attempt at Gracchi reforms cites the issues of three tie Roman society Alvin Bernstein (78) mentions that the problems of Greek East and that Cheilon who lost an office to Lycurghas through the ephor was determined to push through land reform which some considered a threat to the Spartan oligarchy. 

The Land reform fetched Cheilon unexpected popularity among the public and the exception of his energy fetched him attention he didn't expect and it was considered public policy parallel to Cleomenes. 

It seem that Saturninius died in 100 B.C and the general assembly (Comitia tribute) had to resort to the use of military force which was only temporary in Rome – until Gaius Marius who brought permanent military troops into Rome under the administrative role of Sulla.  

The virtue which Rome enjoyed later was a product of realistic thinking and experience, they pursued a lifestyle that has several divine versions, and especially the fate of many Roman was to die in Combat. 

They hat they enjoyed from war – mostly from war and from experience with combined practical experience especially the nature of violence and virtues of other forms was enhance by their involvement in the East of Africa and by Easterners who lived in Rome and who supported them.

Rome believed in gifts of divinity, in pure military power and a vision of Rome which the world was not ready to accept. They believed the existence of the gods was central to their existence, especially in Apollo and Jupiter who ruled the gates of Rome and who in human and spiritual form intervenes for Rome when provoked. 

That these forces like Aphrodite and the goddess of war exhibited their presence every so often.

“Our hearts you see not; they are pitiful; and pity to the general wrong of Rome” - Julius Caesar Act III Scene I

The Chief duty of all Roman in the protection of fellow Citizens,  who were either employed or unemployed, especially those who helped or who considered men and women without property who they called the plebs, and Proletarii (proletarian).

To rise in Rome and in Italy, one was required to perform fits of military deeds. This was so important or proved important given the principal reason of politics and policy which inveighed against military intervention.   

That it could be said that Julius Caesars earliest reports from Europe was nothing compared to the wealth of information that propelled him to the top, vitiated by his victory during civil war in Rome. 

 It was only a question of time that the military became the principal order of the day and the height of their power, there was hardly anyway forward for Rome but downwards. 

It could be said that the revealing accounts of 121 B.C through 111 B.C and leading to the birth of Julius Caesar in 100 B.C, forbid this arrangement of Dumezil, for it seems that the culture of representation which Rome enjoyed favored a reflection of interest and privilege, that the power of the many was with the Plebian so to speak, that the principal domestic concern for Rome was Welfare of its inner City and Citizens and that this factored in the issues of Plebs and poor.

“He doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus” (Cassius in Julius Caesar)

Not the military or the few determined the administrative function of the magistrate.

In erecting downtown areas or urban centers for temples, sites and emporiums, in public forums,  theaters and coliseum for the Plebs, it was the offices of Tribune and Consul that saw the adequate measure of resources for these buildings, some of it like old buildings inside did not have adequate running water and toilet conditions. 

These places including buildings of private and public interest, or what is now called Welfare were commissioned State project, that constituted a section of election, especially for old families that kept counts of all the sins committed against them for and against them leading to the beginning of the Rome when 7 families led a coup against Etruscans in what now Rome leading to decades of freedom fighting.

It is important to note that among the chief revolutionaries in Rome against Etruscans (in a story that may have taken place around 300 B.C - 350 B.C and probably not ageless era that Livy and Plutarch gives it) was a family called Cassius, who led the revolution and was later accused of making himself king over all – or having what Cicero called ‘King-like Power’ in Rome. 

Or could it ever be said to be possible that Iulus descended from Venus. He was assassinated by starving by heads of other six families and among those who signed and etched their name was Iulius (Iulus, Julius?) on the stones – perhaps the place Cassius was murdered.

It could not ever be said that Iulus (Julius) descended from Venus in thrifty accounts of Livy or so translated, but we can say that attempt to persuade the Senate and the People of Rome that no one Citizen was fit to be King or have ‘King-like powers’ is largely a borrowed item from the Greeks, yet it could be considered part of Rome’s evolutionary social circumstances which some pin point to the 512 B.C following the Rape of Lucretia – Daughter of Roman Senator. 

This is not the case, for Livy and Plutarch did not materialize this story as accurately as possible, for if we consider that an empire such as Rome was ever even significant in the 3^rd century B.C, it will surprising how it was never mentioned anywhere and by any historian until the eve of the 2^nd century B.C. 

We can argue that this is perhaps not untrue, for when we compare the deeds of Queen Tarquina in the 5^th Century A.D against Rome and the Rape of Lucretia, we may be sending a wrong history. But the issue which gave meaning to the State was the survival, especially for the increased number of plebian.   

There is however something missing in the century in which Rome was plunged into conflict with the Samnite – that old Egyptian breed and the Latium in Greco-Magna whose language – Latin – would predominate Rome for all times-, it was the issue of political interest and the question of lands confiscated from war which by tradition was divided by among the few families. 

How to handle the problem of the poor was the Chief concern of most Romans, especially when as Juvenal mentioned that Rome in his time “…supported on Pipe Stems match sticks; it’s cheaper thus for the landlord to shore up his ruins, patch up the old cracked walls, and notify all the tenants. They are expected to sleep secure through the beams are about to crash above them.”

By Ancient and modern laws, Citizens exercised the right to represent the majority who either supported by Plebs or Proletariat, that these men and very really women were considered worthy for reasons of public service and welfare of the State. 

 Between the proconsul and the main office were educated people of Italian origin and people of East, and these were popular individuals with a future or past as controlling influence, who would tender to Rome according to ‘privileged interest’ or what the people so demanded. 

Some argument that Greek East influenced brought their own wealth to Rome and their own think-tank.   

For any number of reasons, these men and very rarely women would buy their seat if elected; they would need the voice of the people – people of Rome – to enjoy a staying power in office and to ensure that the decision prevailed; Rome stationed their military outside the City, far from the City without compromising the gates.

 But to marry into any of the main families was another way of ensuring a future with a past. In essence, the leading families will have to sponsor their candidate to be approved by the Senate that’s assuming if they find such a person worthy the position worthy of the calling. 

The Chief issue was Security and Public Welfare but the problems of privilege and the question of tribune which pass from father to Son or whoever they so choose rendered the equestrians above the law to the modest degree that were likely to commit crimes without questions. 

By year 121 B.C There was also the practical problem of lands and property, for if we conclude that the success was based on the property as rights, it could be said that the wars in Africa and the extension of Rome to Carthage proved several reasons for new landlords especially from East and Near East, to enter the privileged class in Rome.