Bonus Post: Tiberius' Farming Reforms

I realized earlier today that I neglected to detail what Tiberius Gracchus' reforms actually were, focusing instead on a narrative of his life and death. Basically, there was an old law in Rome that no one person could own more than about 308 acres of land, but this hadn't been enforced for centuries.  Tiberius' bills restated this law and planned on enforcing it, seizing the excess land and distributing it to the disenfranchised veterans.  He also planned on doling out conquered soil to Roman soldiers who had fought in the relevant campaigns.  The Patrician Senators most likely objected to the enforcement of the land limit, as many of them had estates comprised of thousands of acres.  The giving of conquered lands to Romans would have also been a revolutionary idea, and perhaps caused some of the more far-sighted politicians to fear that, over time, these colonial descendants would care nothing for Rome and lead well-trained armies in revolt of the mother city.  He also advocated distributing money to the poor so that they would be eligible for military service, something which today would certainly be labeled as Socialist.  His basic reforms of distributing land to the veterans were enforced after his death, but the redistribution of wealth, giving conquered lands to the homeless, and confiscating land of very wealthy nobles were brushed aside.  Hope that clears up any confusion or questions from yesterday's post.
On an unrelated note, next week will be Archimedes week, for no reason in particular.  Every day we will learn more about this famous mathematician who would move the world if he only had a place to stand.
Pax vobiscum

Famous Friday: Tiberius Gracchus

While Rome was busy establishing dominance over the Mediterranean in the 200's BCE, there were problems on the homefront. Various enemies had abandoned fighting toe-to-toe with the legions in favor of hit-and-run ambushes and guerrilla warfare. However, Roman pride would not allow them to disband a legion until its campaign was finished, so many of the legionnaires were fighting for ten years or longer in places like Spain, Asia Minor, and North Africa. Meanwhile, back on the farm, their wives and children were tasked with caring for their estates, which often fell into ruin.

The wealthier land owners had plenty of money to buy or make slaves (by calling in debts), and they could leave their expansive vineyards and ranches in the hands of capable servants, paying them only food in return for tending their property. Soldiers at the lower end of the middle class who had smaller farms and no money to hire hands or purchase slaves would return from a long campaign to find their animals poached or rustled and their orchards gone to seed. Some tried to make the best of it, seeking work to earn money and reinvigorate their family farm, but work became very scarce with every new batch of conquered slaves that arrived from wherever there was a campaign. These men were unwittingly putting themselves out of work.

This economic crisis is one of the many factors in the Republic's ultimate death, but it is a significant one. The droves of people who later supported Julius Caesar and Augustus after him were the disenfranchised middle class whose farms had been plundered by greedy oligarchs who took advantage of their absence while they were defending Rome from the Barbarians. To my mind, it is the chief failing of the Republic's political structures that they didn't adequately address the needs of those they derisively referred to as “the mob.”

However, some within Rome's political elite tried to enact land and economic reforms before it became such a widespread problem. The Gracchi brothers were two such Patricians who attempted to reverse the injustice of losing one's home while fighting for the Republic. Their payment for these attempts was brutal death.

Tiberius Gracchus, born sometime between 168 and 163 BCE, and served as a military tribune in Spain. Plutarch tells us that while returning to Rome after a campaign, he began to notice the need for reform. He saw the huge tracts of land throughout Etruria (northern Italy) which were being tended mostly by foreign slaves, as well as the smaller farms which had gone into ruin. When he came to Rome itself, he saw several large mobs of unemployed and homeless men wandering the streets looking for work. He knew something had to be done, so when he was elected as Tribune of the People in 133 BCE, he went right to work campaigning for reform. In one of his fiery speeches, he said, "The wild beasts that roam over Italy have their dens, each has a place of repose and refuge. But the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy nothing but the air and light; without house or home they wander about with their wives and children."

This made him popular with the people, but very unpopular with the other Patrician families and Senators, who were all enjoying the benefits of the situation, paying meager sums of money to gobble up the small farms around them when they came to ruin while their owners were away at war. In retrospect, it was quite a nefarious scam that the Senate was running on the people; sending them to war for years so that they buy the land cheap, staff the huge farms with slaves which were captured during these same wars, and profit from the whole scheme. Thus, as they were benefiting so much from the system as it was, they were more than eager to douse this fire of reform.

Believing that the Senate would never pass his reforms, he planned on submitting them instead to the Plebeian Council, since they had some legislative power. The Senate learned of his plan and was deeply offended. In fact, some of the moderate Senators who may have supported these reforms were now firmly against them and against Tiberius himself. They somehow persuaded Marcus Octavius, another Tribune, to use his veto against Tiberius and make him a lame duck. Tempers ran red hot at the Council assembly, as it became clear that Octavius was acting as a tool of the wealthy. The people voted to depose him, and he vetoed them, which probably didn't help matters. Tiberius therefore ordered that Octavius be forcefully removed so they could have a proper vote. In a moment of horrible clarity, Tiberius realized that he had violated the law by using force against a Tribune, something which was very illegal and severely punished since the formation of the Council. So instead of moving forward with voting on his reforms, he moved to basically shut the entire city down until the Senate passed the bills themselves. Businesses weren't allowed to open, temples were closed, and all commerce ground to a halt until the Senate decided to approve his reforms, which they did, but used a parliamentary trick to give his newly-created agrarian commission only minimal funding.

Later that year, King Attalus III of Pergamum died without an heir, leaving his entire kingdom and vast fortune to Rome. Tiberius jumped at an opportunity to give his reforms teeth and claimed part of the inheritance for his commission. The Senate, who was constitutionally in charge of the treasury, saw this as a direct affront to their authority; a check without a balance. They also sought to prosecute him for his unlawful and unconstitutional expulsion of his fellow Tribune Octavius, and waited eagerly for his term to end.

Knowing that the end of his term would likely mean the end of his life, Tiberius ran for re-election as Tribune, making outlandish promises, including giving Roman citizenship to foreign allies. Neither side much liked that particular idea, since the poor were already competing with slaves and didn't want to share the rights of citizenship with a bunch of smelly Barbarians. Quintus Pompeius told the Senate that, since he was Tiberius' neighbor, he knew that the populist Tribune had received royal gifts from a Greek named Eudemus of Pergamum, who prophesied that he would one day be the king of Rome. This, coupled with the testimony of one of Tiberius' cousins who claimed that this Gracchi was amassing power for himself in a play to become King, led the Senators to do something that most of us today feel was a bit . . . drastic.

During the re-election vote, the well-groomed and cultured Patrician Senators followed the accusatory cousin down to where Tiberius was, beat him to death with their chairs and threw his body in the the river Tiber. About three hundred of his loyal followers tried to protect him and were also killed by the malevolent politicians.

Since they had now also violated the law against harming a Tribune, the Senators worked quickly to mollify the Plebeians, who were ready to take up arms against an upper class that was entrenched within the status quo. They agreed to fund the land reform commission, and this satisfied the mob for the moment. At least, until Tiberius' younger brother Gaius came upon the political scene ten years later.

Pax vobiscum

Theology Thursday: The Cult of Artemis

Looking at the statue of the Ephesian Artemis reminds me of when I lived in Japan, as the slender statue looks more like a Shinto deity than a Greek goddess. In fact, if you were to compare the idols of the Greek gods with the statue of Artemis which came from Ephesus, you'd probably think you were looking at completely different religious icons. And, in a way, you'd be right.

Artemis is unique among the Greek deities because she never married or had 'relations' with the other gods. She preferred the hunt to a dinner party, and the human lovers who were lucky enough to win her affection always met with tragic death, sometimes at her hand. She was the goddess of the moon, but the forest and childbirth were also within her realm of protection. Hunters would often lay the skins and horns of their prey upon a tree branch before leaving the woods as an offering so that Artemis wouldn't hunt them down for killing the animals before she had the chance. Women would cry out to her during childbirth in hope of relief from their pain either by the child emerging or receiving a quick death. The Greeks of Peloponnessus, that's the European side of ancient Greece, far preferred Zeus or Ares as their important deities, but for the Ephesians, none other than Artemis would do.

The Artemis image from Ephesus sticks out like a sore thumb in the Pantheon of Greek gods, and that is because that image predates Greek settlement in Asia Minor. It seems that before the Greek colonists came, the Ionian natives had built a matriarchal culture around a fertility goddess whose name has been erased by the fog of time. When the Greeks came and conquered the place, they adopted the image and claimed that it was Artemis, since the Greeks were fond of syncretism (that means incorporating local deities into your religion – word of the day!).

The Greek culture was extremely patriarchal, especially in Athens. Though it is true that Spartan women could own land and personal property (something Athenian women had no right to), this was done mostly out of necessity since the Spartans practiced open marriage. Thus it became necessary for the Greek priests to first break down the matriarchal local religion before they could alter the culture as well. Since the ancient worldview was typically that reality reflected the divine realm, those Ionians who were conquered must have figured that their religion was backwards, and so gave in to the priests and renamed their statue.

Her unique appearance, combined with the need for ancient people to have a lot of children to hedge their bet, made her a popular deity, and her temple in Ephesus was three times larger than the Parthenon temple that the Athenians built for their patron god Athena. In fact, the Ephesian Temple of Artemis was one of the seven wonders of the Ancient world, making Ephesus a huge tourist attraction for people from every corner of the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Ephesus being a coastal town, its economy was dependent on trade and tourism, so much so that there was once a riot against Christian missionaries organized by idol craftsmen who feared the sag in their income that a more popular god would bring! You can read more about this uprising in Acts chapter 19, which is a very informative account of the fame of the Ephesian Artemis.

The cult surrounding Artemis, ironically, centered around her virginity. Priests who served this moon goddess would willingly castrate themselves while men who went off to war would swear vows of chastity before the idols and likely keep a pocket-sized version with them as a reminder. While encamped in rugged hills on campaign, I imagine many a veteran Hoplite telling a tale around a cookfire all about a foolish young soldier who broke his vow to Artemis and brought his entire army to ruin. There were many such tales, since the Greeks were so fond of Fables.

Though Artemis was widely beloved, she eventually fell to the cross, as did all her Olympian brethren. Over time, the Roman Empire became more and more Christian through either proselytizing or by political manipulation, and the old gods were cast aside like yesterday's newspaper. Artemis would hunt no more.

Pax vobiscum

Culture Wednesday: Democracy, Roman Style

When Romulus founded Rome, so the story goes, he appointed one hundred upstanding and powerful men to be Senators of the new city. These hundred men elected kings, raised armies, and administered the day to day needs of Roman citizens. Later this number swelled to 300 with the incorporation of the Sabine and Etruscan people, but those original hundred Latins would be important for hundreds of years to come, for they would be known as the Patricians.

The Patricians were the old money of Rome, and everyone who was not a Patrician was a Plebeian. Over time, these distinctions only made a difference for the sake of elected office and plain old discrimination, since several of the Plebes did pretty well for themselves. I find it helpful to think of them in terms of Jew-Gentile, that is, if you are not a Jew, you are a Gentile. Of course, being a Gentile means you could be black, white, asian, hispanic, or really any race on earth that isn't Jewish, making the Gentiles a diverse group by that sort of division. In the same way, while the Patricians were a specific group of old-money aristocrats, a Plebeian might be poor, rich, or even middle class. At the founding of the Republic, they just couldn't be a Senator.

After Rome exiled their king, allegedly in 509 BCE (the Roman historians probably chose this date just to predate Athens' democracy by a year), the Senate took command over the anarchy that ensues when a leader is deposed. They decided that executive authority should never rest with just one man, and thus the position of Consul was created. Every year, the Senate would elect two Consuls for a one-year term, the hope being that if one of them talked to his horse, the other could veto his decision to order the execution of all Rabbits in Italy (a hypothetical scenario, since our records from the early Republic are less than trustworthy). The Romans feared what absolute power could do in the hands of any given man, so they set up a complicated system of checks and balances as seen below:

Sorry if I just gave you flashbacks of U.S. History, but the founding fathers of the United States had a similar fear, which led to a similar system. However, the system displayed in the diagram is the final product; the original was basically Senatorial rule with no recourse for the Plebeians if those ruling Patricians did something they didn't like. Also, the Tribal Assembly wasn't for family tribes, but for regions, similar to our own congressional districts today, except you were part of the tribe that your father belonged to regardless of your current home. So I, for example, would still be included in the Tulare County Tribe even though I now reside in Fresno County because that's where my family comes from.

The tricky thing about Democracy is reassuring the citizens that each of them gets a fair shake. It's a little difficult to ensure the lower class that they're being represented fairly when one requirement for being a Senator was being a Patrician. And not just a Patrician, but a rich one, owning at least 100,000 denarii worth of land which would be several thousand acres (we think). Now, on the one hand, I can see the benefit of Senators who supposedly couldn't be bribed because they're already rich. But I can also see how the Plebeians may have begun looking fondly toward their pitchforks whenever the Senate did something they didn't like.

The creation of the Plebeian Council is, to my mind, one of the most brilliant compromises in the political history of the world. While it still did not give a voice to women or slaves, it did give an unprecedented amount of power to those at the lowest station of Roman life. The Plebeians were allowed to elect a Tribune who had veto power over the wealthy Patrician Senate, thus giving the common freemen of Rome a check against their wealthy and aristocratic overlords.

As the Roman Constitution continued to evolve, Plebeians were eventually given the right to become Senators, if they were elected as a magistrate. But who elected the magistrate? You guessed it: the Senate. In 342 BCE, however, a law passed that required at least one of the Consuls to be a Plebeian.

While this all sounds very progressive and looks wonderful on paper, there was still a huge divide between rich and poor. Most of the Plebeians who were elected to the Senate were very well-off, and the old economic separation between Patrician and Plebeian were already blurring, favoring instead a simple matter of have and have-nots. The one thing the rich could still claim was the protection of Rome, as the army was still staffed by those of the 5^th Census class and above, but even that would prove insufficient in later years and the army would eventually be opened to all citizens under the Marian Reforms.

Those reforms would forever change the face of Rome, both militarily and politically. The Senate and other Legislative Councils faced an identity crisis which they failed to deal with, leaving a power vacuum that the Emperors easily filled. The Plebian Tribune who still held veto power over the Senate became little more than just another wealthy and complicit politician whom the Senate could bribe if they needed to. What began as an ancestral caste system changed into an economic class system over time, and failure to recognize the role of economics in politics ultimately brought an end to the Roman Republic.

Technology Tuesday: Triremes

A few years ago I worked as a substitute teacher, and wanting to make Geometry interesting to high school students, I told them all about Thales, the Greek Mathematician who calculated the exact height of the Egyptian pyramids by measuring their shadows circa 500 BCE, and of Eratosthenes, who calculated almost perfectly the circumference of the Earth sometime around 220 BCE. They were astounded to learn that Geometry was, in fact, one of the oldest forms of Mathematics on the planet. However, the one theory they wouldn't believe was that of a Phoenician voyage to the Americas – which supposedly took place in the 400's BCE. One student remarked, “How did they get across the Atlantic? In rafts?”

And there it is. The all-too-common misunderstanding about history that constantly pervades Western culture. We think of the ancients as being nothing but primitive, superstitious fear-mongers who jumped at their own shadows and had no technological achievements of interest. This is one of the reasons I am writing this blog; to show that mankind has been ingeniously solving problems since long before the industrial revolution, and to remind us that some of the problems we face today may have a solution in the past. After all, those who forget the past are doomed to . . . um . . . something something.

Well, anyway, let's press on. The ancient people didn't get across the Mediterranean in rafts or skiffs, or any other short-range vessel. They used one of the oldest ships around: the Trireme. The Trireme is so old that no one is really sure who invented it, or even which people group started using them first. Yet they could travel fifty to sixty miles a day if the crew worked at a moderate pace. If they worked harder, they could travel more than a hundred and fifty miles (theoretically). What was the secret of their power?

Well, the Trireme gets the tri- from the number three, as in three rows of hardworking oarsmen. The ship's interior was designed with the two sides slanting inward toward a fairly pointed bottom. Holes were cut in the side for oars, and the ship was big enough to accommodate 170 rowers who were guided by a few midshipmen who gave the rhythm. Add 20 or so Marines on the deck to prevent boarding, and you've got yourself an authentic fully-manned Trireme, a fearsome weapon when wielded by those who used them the best: the Athenians.

Athens is a coastal city, just like most powerful Greek cities. However, Athens had a rich countryside in which they cultivated olives, wheat, and other foodstuffs, and its mountains were full of precious metals, of which the rich speculators in Athens took full advantage. Yes, this future capital of Greece had a lot going for it, and constant naval trade meant that this city was always ready to drive off invaders by sea.

The Romans would later spend several months out of every year training their soldiers, but Athens had no need to train its navy because they were constantly keeping in shape by serving the merchants and ensuring commerce to places like Palestine, Egypt, Carthage, and even Rome itself. Because of this, anyone hoping to attack Athens would have to do so by land, which is what inevitably led to its downfall.

The Athenian Trireme was built hull-first from soft, light woods, with the ribs and girders being added after the woodwork was finished. It was light enough that the crew could carry it to shore without much difficulty, but this also meant that it could fall prey to heavier ships. However, heavier ships were typically slower, and the main tactic used by Trireme crews in this time was to ram the other ships diagonally from the side to tear a huge breach in their hull. This was easy to do in a light, nimble Trireme, and heavier ships made from stronger woods often fell prey to these jackrabbits of the sea.

So could these ships, which were very expensive, time-consuming to produce (6000 man hours per ship!), and exhausting to operate have really traveled from the Western Mediterranean all the way to Brazil? Personally, I think it's possible, but I don't think it was accomplished. If they did, there's little evidence to suggest that any pan-Atlantic commerce was taking place, as some who promote this theory claim, and I can't imagine that such commerce would even cover the expedition cost, much less turn a profit. However, there is a Carthaginian coin that dates to 350 BCE which has what looks like a tiny world map near its edge that seems to depict some land beyond Spain. Perhaps they had at least discovered that there was land beyond the seemingly endless ocean, but short of a sudden windfall of evidence, this theory remains on the fringe.

While the odds are stacked against them, I think that this subject should be discussed in the classroom. What keeps most subjects alive and interesting are the questions which arise from them, and I think that the world of history education needs to stop being afraid of these kinds of questions, especially when the events that are in question happened so long ago. Again, after weighing the evidence myself, I find that it's only wishful thinking that makes me want to believe it, therefore I cast it out since it cannot be supported. But the act of weighing that evidence was fun, and I think that if school were more fun, more kids would give it an honest chance.

Pax vobiscum

Military Monday: The Early Maniples

The Phalanx had served Rome well. The Etruscans used it to dominate the early Romans in the 700's BCE, and the Romans were nothing if not very efficient copy-cats. So they worked toward overcoming Etruscan hegemony and in 509 BCE (or sometime thereabout), they succeeded in overthrowing their king and reforming their constitution to include separation of powers, election of Senators, and citizens' assemblies. Their Hoplite armies proceeded to subdue the cities in northern Italy, and established Roman hegemony in their region. However, the Phalanx proved problematic in several embarrassing battles.

The Roman Phalanx was arrayed with the wealthiest citizens in the front, center rank, which made sense because they had the best quality armor and weapons. A strong core meant a strong army, or so the wisdom of the time dictated. However, an army with weak flanks is just asking for trouble, which the Romans learned at a great cost at The Battle of the Allia around 390 BCE, where the Senone Gauls crushed their flanks and surrounded their core, killing them to the man. Later, in the Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE), the Romans learned from their enemies the value of small, flexible groups in a battle. And by learned from, I mean that they got beaten like little girls several times by these 'barbarians,' before numbers and brute force established their dominance over the hill country of central Italy.

So, whether through sweeping reforms as the later historians claimed, or through the more likely course of gradual tactical evolution, the Romans decided to do away with the single-line Phalanx and make way for a more effective army. This army would consist of three different types of heavy foot soldiers who were arrayed in three lines on the field in a checkerboard formation. Of particular concern, especially to the Roman upper-class, was the economic order of soldiers. Putting the most well-armed and protected soldiers in the front line made sense if you wanted the initial shock to truly penetrate the enemy line, but it meant that those soldiers may be unable to help if the battle was long and contentious. So the change in battle-lines began with placing the poorest of the soldiers (who were still members of that upper rung, just 'lower-upper' classmen) at the front of the army. These front-line soldiers were called Hastati, named for the spears they carried, the Hasta. Early on, all of the soldiers carried these spears, but the Hastati were likely named for it because they were at least wealthy enough to afford their own spear.

All of this would vary because all the equipment was self-provided, but a typical Hastati would be outfitted in leather armor and a bronze helmet, but no leg armor. Along with their Hasta, they would carry a scutum, one of those famous convex rectangular shields. After the Hastati was the Principe, who carried the same weapons, but had leg armor and chain-mail covering their torso, which was highly prized in the ancient world for giving protection without hindering mobility. The third line was composed of Triarii, who had the heaviest armor and highest quality weapons, and fought in a tight phalanx. The flanking units, who were above the Triarii, were the Equites, early cavalrymen rich enough to afford the best armor and weapons, and a horse. Incidentally, this is the reason that horse-related activities are referred to as “equestrian.”

Attached to each of the line soldiers was a compliment of Leves, or javelin-throwers who used light javelins to harass the enemy line before a charge. This proved especially effective against a Phalanx because it is hard to maintain a strong frontal formation while dodging javelins. Gaps could be exploited, and the enemy line could be divided and crushed. Discipline was essential for this kind of fighting, and lieutenants had to pay close attention to the banners and whistles coming from the main army to make sure their unit wasn't surrounded if there was a call to retreat. Training the individual soldiers took a few months out of the year, and it was considered the duty of the wealthy in Rome to protect the city and advance the Roman agenda throughout the world.

A typical Roman battle using the Camillian Maniples would go like this: Hastati charge, while Leves soften the line. If the Hastati couldn't break the enemy battle line, they would retreat in an organized fashion behind the Triarii in the back while the Principes charged forward, making their own attempt to crush the enemy. However, if they could not succeed, then they, too would retreat and the Triarii would charge.

Usually the Triarii could luxuriate behind the battle line and watch the show, but if a battle was going poorly enough for them to get involved, it was not a good sign. A Latin idiom meaning 'to be in a desperate situation' is ' rem ad Triarios redisse,' which literally means, 'it has come to the Triarii.' For example, "How close are you to getting out of debt?” “It has come to the Triarii.” Try it next time someone asks you about a hopeless situation, and the look on their face should lift your spirits nicely!

As well as this primitive strategy worked, it couldn't last forever. And as you may have guessed, it was  humiliating defeat that forced the Romans once again to renew their tactical and strategic methods and ensure their dominance of the Mediterranean. Hannibal, in particular, played a part in bringing the spearmen-based Maniples to an end, especially after a huge Roman army was crushed at the Battle of Cannae.

However, despite the resounding defeats they suffered, what kept Roman culture and influence alive for more than a thousand years was their ability to adapt. It's true that their pride was gravely wounded by massive defeats (especially from the 'barbarians'), but eventually they got over themselves, went back to the drawing board, and found something that worked. And the coming reform of the Legions meant that the class preference in the Roman army would be destroyed for a merit-based seniority system.

Pax vobiscum