Marius and Gracchus

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

Yes, I know this appears to be a rather odd combination but hear me out...

In "History of Rome" by Theodore Mommsen, he states that Marius was never a populist so to speak(he was never exceptionally close to the proletariat, but was just of a just and fair nature), but due to being rather "coarse" and despised by the more refined aristocracy, he was pushed forward as the champion of the Populares.

But in the same book as above, it states that Marius was not a competent politician, and therefore he tried to take a middle path between the old aristocratic families, the moneyed elite/merchants and the proletariat and led to the destruction of his movement.

However, I dispute this statement.

Gracchus, especially Tiberius, was a hardliner reformer. Of course in the latter stages he did so in order to gain protection from the elite he had challenged. But his hardline reforms actually led to death and an even more divided republic.

So... Moderate reforms or hardline diehards? Where do we draw the line? Any other examples in Roman history?

[Primus Pilus]

So... Moderate reforms or hardline diehards? Where do we draw the line? Any other examples in Roman history?

 

The entire history of the Republic is illustrated with such examples. The struggle of the orders that lasted from the founding of the Republic through the early 3rd century BC was ripe with political strife.

 

The Legal and Institutional Chronology provides a good starting point.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Regarding Tiberius Gracchus: I think a decent case can be made for the idea that he was principally interested in sticking it to the senate to avenge the treatment of his father.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

Regarding Tiberius Gracchus: I think a decent case can be made for the idea that he was principally interested in sticking it to the senate to avenge the treatment of his father.

 

So were there no revolutionaries that were "pure of heart" so to speak?

So far, in the Populares camp we see:

1) Ambitious people like Caesar using popular support(or buying it rather) for their own purposes

2) Lepidus who defected from his original class due to fear of persecution

3) Demagogues who wanted sway with the masses so they could gain bargaining power with the upper classes and gain a nice living

4) People who were unrefined and despised by the Senate and moneyed elite, like Marius, who was rather forced this way to join the Populares

5) Figures that were more or less neutral but were pushed by the masses to leading the Populares

6) People who were proscribed in the Sullan restoration or whose material interests were harmed by the Optimates and joined the Populares

7) Young ones who wanted to make a name for themselves by bashing the "fat cats"

(Add if you can figure out any other type I missed)

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The thing I think with Marius was he didn't give two hoots which side he was with unless it was the winning one which to be fair to Marius it usually was. I think in his later life he became so obsessed with the whole "seven time's consul " prophecy that his judgement became clouded and totally single minded, I suppose the numerous strokes didn't help his ailing mind either.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

The thing I think with Marius was he didn't give two hoots which side he was with unless it was the winning one which to be fair to Marius it usually was. I think in his later life he became so obsessed with the whole "seven time's consul " prophecy that his judgement became clouded and totally single minded, I suppose the numerous strokes didn't help his ailing mind either.

 

Yea but people like Sulla were diehard Optimates following the path to no end.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The thing I think with Marius was he didn't give two hoots which side he was with unless it was the winning one which to be fair to Marius it usually was. I think in his later life he became so obsessed with the whole "seven time's consul " prophecy that his judgement became clouded and totally single minded, I suppose the numerous strokes didn't help his ailing mind either.

 

Yea but people like Sulla were diehard Optimates following the path to no end.

 

Yea but I never mentioned Sulla.

 

Now that guy's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

Take a look HERE and HERE for discussions on Sulla

[M. Porcius Cato]

The thing I think with Marius was he didn't give two hoots which side he was with unless it was the winning one which to be fair to Marius it usually was. I think in his later life he became so obsessed with the whole "seven time's consul " prophecy that his judgement became clouded and totally single minded, I suppose the numerous strokes didn't help his ailing mind either.

Yea but people like Sulla were diehard Optimates following the path to no end.

 

Sulla an optimate? I don't think so. As a political term, 'optimate' is an invention of Cicero: "Omnes optimates sunt qui neque nocentes sunt nec natura improbi nec furiosi nec malis domesticis impediti--The optimates are all those who are neither criminal nor of morally unsound character nor wild nor living adulterously." By that definition, Sulla was no optimate (nor popularis for that matter).

[Kosmo]

So I'm an optimate?

 

Regardless of Cicero's definitions Sulla was an optimate at least because he killed many populares, but also because of his political decisions.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Kosmo

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

So I'm an optimate?

 

Regardless of Cicero's definitions Sulla was an optimate at least because he killed many populares, but also because of his political decisions.

 

The Sullan restoration was largely in favor of the nobility and its oligarchy no? Perhaps he felt that aristocrats were "the rule of the best".

[M. Porcius Cato]

Regardless of Cicero's definitions Sulla was an optimate at least because he killed many populares, but also because of his political decisions.

 

Optimate and populare are not mutually exhaustive categories. Thus, simply showing that Sulla killed many populares doesn't make him an optimate. He can be part of neither category.

 

If you want to ignore Cicero's definition of optimate, that's fine. Can you suggest an alternative definition that is consistent with actual Latin usage, that has the virtue of being applied in a straightforward manner, and that can actually be applied to a half-dozen or so cases? Cicero's definition can do all that.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Sullan restoration was largely in favor of the nobility and its oligarchy no? Perhaps he felt that aristocrats were "the rule of the best".

 

Nobility? Oligarchy? Aristocrats? Are we talking about the Roman republic or about 18th C. France? The Roman term nobiles translates as "the known": the nobiles were 'known' because their families were consistently ELECTED to magistracies by the public. Far from being an oligarchy, the nobiles failed to have even a majority of seats in the senate in Sulla's day, and Sulla himself opened up the senate to hundreds of New Men. Given the openness of the Roman republic to new men and its reliance on the votes of its citizens, the Roman republic was very different from the hereditary aristocracy of feudal Europe. Magistracies were not landed titles--they were one-year elected appointments.

[Primus Pilus]

The Sullan restoration was largely in favor of the nobility and its oligarchy no? Perhaps he felt that aristocrats were "the rule of the best".

 

Nobility? Oligarchy? Aristocrats? Are we talking about the Roman republic or about 18th C. France? The Roman term nobiles translates as "the known": the nobiles were 'known' because their families were consistently ELECTED to magistracies by the public. Far from being an oligarchy, the nobiles failed to have even a majority of seats in the senate in Sulla's day, and Sulla himself opened up the senate to hundreds of New Men. Given the openness of the Roman republic to new men and its reliance on the votes of its citizens, the Roman republic was very different from the hereditary aristocracy of feudal Europe. Magistracies were not landed titles--they were one-year elected appointments.

 

In defense of those who use the term oligarchy... it's not as if there was a defined election based turnover within the Senate throughout the Republic. While Senatorial membership was not necessarily limited to a defined pool of individuals, change in membership was a relatively slow process. Sulla's massive turnover was a direct result of his purge of the existing body. Without it, hundreds of new men would not have been enrolled... at least not in that single fell swoop.

[Gaius Octavius]

Wasn't there a financial qualification to be in the Senate?

[M. Porcius Cato]

In defense of those who use the term oligarchy... it's not as if there was a defined election based turnover within the Senate throughout the Republic. While Senatorial membership was not necessarily limited to a defined pool of individuals, change in membership was a relatively slow process. Sulla's massive turnover was a direct result of his purge of the existing body. Without it, hundreds of new men would not have been enrolled... at least not in that single fell swoop.

 

Two points:

 

1) The composition of the senate doesn't support the idea of an oligarchy. It's true that the senate was relatively stable over time, but that's the genius of the system--there was a mixture of short-term and long-term groups governing the state. And in this case, the long-term group (with its accumulated wealth of experience) had an important advisory capacity, but it was not the body that had actual legislative power. The actual legislative power belonged to the tribal assemblies, not the senate. With no power to legislate, no power to pass treaties, and no power to select magistrates, the senate could not have exercised oligarchic control even had it wanted to.

 

2) Sulla's massive purge of the senate shows that he wasn't an optimate--either by Cicero's definition or by the looser definition of "senatorial party". Sulla was a criminal who waged war on his enemies wherever they could be found (including the senate), and his reforms were designed to keep his enemies from rising again.