Tiberius Gracchus and mos maiorum (the Roman Senate)

Comparisons between America and ancient Rome are inevitable, they're the most culturally and militarily dominant empires the world has ever seen. But, contrary to likely popular belief, what we should look to in Roman history for these comparisons is the republican era, prior to Julius Caesar and Augustus, the first Emperor. America is a republic, at least still in theory, as was Rome for a long time, until their centuries-old system wore down and finally broke for good.

Last time I wrote about Rome it was through the eyes, or words, of Polybius, still one of the best books I've ever read for his timeless understanding of political systems and how they're corrupted. He, in the second century BC(!), described the Roman 'constitution' as a balance between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, taking the benefits of each while hedging against natural tendencies toward tyranny. What needs to be said about this, in examining what happened after Polybius' time, i.e. the downfall of the republic, is that this system was not based on a written constitution, like the American version. Instead it was carried forward by strict adherence to custom, called 'mos maiorum.'

Before attempting to explain these customs we should quickly aside and talk about the Roman Senate. I'd long been confused about how the ancient Senate worked, due to movies like Gladiator or shows like HBO's Rome for a couple examples, and because of a desire to compare with our own American Senate. The biggest aspect is that ancient Roman Senators were not elected directly to that office nor did they fill that position for set periods of time. Elections were held every year in the city of Rome, but not for Senator. The offices available were the various executive magistrates, namely quaestors, praetors and consuls. A quaestor was largely a supportive, administrative role. A praetor could be either similar to a judge or take a minor military command. A consul, of which there were only two at a time, would be a chief magistrate or take a major military command. After their annual term the men who'd served in any of these three roles would then be a Senator for life. Of course this is where the aristocracy piece comes into play. If you were a member of a prominent Roman family you'd be a shoo-in for quaestor at the appropriate age, there were a large number of these offices. But it'd take more, especially those higher offices, to become a power player in the Senate and guide wider policy. In the middle and into the late republic, the period we're discussing here, the Senate was where the power lied.

Helpful diagram showing a likely breakdown of the Roman Senate (click for link, Bret Devereaux)

How a young aristocrat would advance in ancient Rome (click for link, Bret Devereaux)

Now that we understand the Senate, let's get back to mos maiorum, the 'way of the elders.' The Roman system worked because everyone respected the unwritten rules, the social norms, that defined them. Powerful Roman families dating back to the founding of the republic, patricians, operated like clans and had various plebeian clients forming a base of support across class lines. This bound them all together. Certain rules were just always followed, and frequently had religious implications, like the fact the tribunes of the plebs, a position that could check the power of the Senate, were considered sacrosanct, they were not to be physically harmed (or you'd be cursed). Another custom was that no one ran for reelection. A Roman would be elected, serve for a year then move on. They'd also then be Senators, and could run for a higher office sometime in the future. Sometimes a consul (the highest ranking official) serving as a general would be renewed if a foreign war dragged on, but this was an exception. What's fascinating about this system was it created a large number of people capable in the various forms of the state, whether administering within Rome itself or carrying out the logistics of a legion. These would be who steered the Senate and official policy. Of course certain men showed a different level of talent and rose above the rest (see Scipio Africanus or Scipio Aemilianus), leading to outsized prominence. It was a series of increasingly ambitious politicians that led to the destruction of these long-held protocols over about a 100 year period and, eventually, the end of the republic.

There were quite a few problems beleaguering Rome and producing political battles. One was the rapid growth and sudden infusion of money from Rome's victory over its regional rivals in the second century BC (Carthage, Greece etc., see 146 BC). Rome had become a sprawling power, dominant over the entire Mediterranean. But not everyone saw the benefits of all that new wealth. One issue was how to handle an exploding population of landless ex-soldiers, a side effect of more far-flung wars taking men away from their homes for years at a time. Their abandoned farms would be acquired by the most wealthy, creating huge tracts of land for a relatively small number of people who also now had a plethora of imported slaves to work the land. In many cases it was the lower-class men who fought and won the wars that were most hurt by the victory.

A potential solution was called the Lex Agraria. The reform would seize publicly held land over a certain limit, at the time leased by Rome's wealthiest, and give it to landless citizens. A few powerful Senators backed and crafted the law, potentially because they cared about the plight of the plebeian soldiers, or more likely because they saw the long-term impacts of the consolidation of Roman land. One needed to be a land-holding citizen to be eligible for the draft, and it would become a real problem if there weren't enough soldiers to fill the ranks.

Tiberius Gracchus, a young politician, was chosen to spearhead the controversial change in 133 BC. Most of the Senate was opposed, it was they who controlled the land in question. But Tiberius, a man from a well-connected family on the rise, would not be deterred. His position that year was tribune of the plebs, whose role included, in addition to a veto power, the ability to propose legislation in the people's assembly. The law was not first discussed officially in the Senate, a small piece of mos maiorum broken, before it was brought to a vote before the people. But a couple weeks later, with the plebeian citizens gathered en masse and excited for a windfall, another tribune vetoed the proceedings in support of the majority of the Senate. Tiberius was not the only man in that position. The two were in a stalemate and tensions racketed up. The other tribune would not be swayed by various alterations to the law or side deals. After some time Tiberius decided to veto all other proceedings of the state and even locked the treasury. He started surrounding himself with a posse. Here, while Tiberius was acting rashly it was the Senators breaking tradition in not allowing the apparently popular bill from proceeding to a vote. But then Tiberius accelerated matters, attempting to have the opposing tribune removed for a defiance of the people. This was unprecedented, and the manner in which it happened was incredibly threatening. The opposing tribune allowed this vote to happen, he was removed, and at this point the law passed. Next came enforcement, where Tiberius placed himself and two other members of his family in charge. The Senate struck back by removing all funding to figure out what land needed to change hands. Tiberius, then, took advantage of a seismic international event (the death of King Attalus III and the bequeathment of Pergamum to the city of Rome) to find his funding. Here he really went to far, attempting to take power undoubtedly accustomed to the Senate. And when it first looked to many that he may want to become a tyrant.

This wasn't, however, Tiberius' fatal mistake and near the end of the year he declared he'd run for reelection. This also was unprecedented and broke all the rules. When election day came Tiberius, surrounded by a mob of supporters came into a conflict with one in opposition, armed with blunt objects like table legs (real weapons were prohibited). The pro-Gracchi side, unarmed, could not withstand the attack. In the end about 300 men were beaten to death, denied funerals and were instead left to float down the Tiber River. Mutual brinkmanship, constant pushing and defiance of traditional behavior led to mass political bloodshed. It was the first time in a long time something like this had happened, but there'd be a lot more soon (see also Gaius Gracchus and Julius Caesar).

Does any of this, the erosion of norms in particular, sound familiar to you? From my reading, so far, if Trump is anyone in ancient Rome he's the Gracchi. His reforms may be needed, but the constant escalation (of which he's not alone, to be sure) has the clubs, or rifles, out already.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much of the idea/content of this post came from chapter one of The Storm Before the Storm, by popular podcaster Mike Duncan. For more detailed looks at Tiberius (and his similarly fated brother Gaius), see blog posts from Bret Devereaux, creator of the diagrams above.