THE ILLUMINATI Optimates versus Populares The nobility of ancient Rome were referred to as patricians and the commoners as plebeians (“plebs”). The plebeians sought better treatment and enhanced rights from the patricians, but it was always a struggle to win any concessions. Without credible political representation, the plebeians had little chance of gaining a true voice in the Roman Republic. To try to improve their lot, the plebeians on several occasions carried out an act of mass protest, similar to a general strike. Each time, they abandoned the city en masse in an act known as a Secessio Plebis (Secession of the Plebs; withdrawal of the commoners) and left the patricians to themselves. All shops and workshops closed, and all commerce in the city halted. On one occasion, the pleb soldiers refused to fight for the patricians. On another occasion, the plebs threatened to build a new city, free of the nobility. The patricians were forced to come to terms and offer political powers to the plebeians. Isn’t it time for a modern Secessio Plebis to show the Elite who’s really in charge? The word veto is Latin for “I forbid”. Shouldn’t we forbid the ever-widening gap between the rich and poor? The people can change everything at any time of their choosing, just as the Roman plebs did by going on general strike. The plebeians were permitted to elect ten political representatives called tribunes (from the Latin tribus = tribe) who were empowered to convene the Plebeian Council (People’s Assembly), act as its president, and propose legislation. It was illegal for patricians to do tribunes any harm; their lives were sacrosanct because they were regarded as the personal embodiment of the plebeians. They had the power of veto in many matters, and were entitled to intervene legally on behalf of plebeians. A tribune had the right to summon the Senate and submit policies for consideration. It was illegal for any patrician to serve as a tribune. In the 2nd century BCE, two remarkable brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus (known as the Gracchi) were elected as tribunes of the plebs and used their power in an unprecedented way to challenge the Elite. Roman politics was changed forever. Certain issues such as who had the right to become a citizen and how and where land and property should be allocated to citizens were becoming causes of increasing tension between patricians and plebeians, and the Gracchi became the vox populi – the voice of the people – demanding radical reform. The stage was set for an almighty political showdown. Thanks to the Gracchi, a political movement emerged known as the Populares (“favouring the people”; the Popular Party). They wished to curb the power of the patrician Senate, and enhance the rights and livings conditions of the people. Leaders of the Populares movement were known as populists or “demagogues” (leaders of the people). In general, they campaigned for the extension of citizenship to provincials, for cancellation of debts where they had become extortionate, and for the fair distribution of land and property. The political faction that opposed them was called the Optimates (“Best Men”). They were also known as Boni: “Good Men”. The Optimates were the establishment party, the advocates of firm, patrician, Senatorial rule. They were conservatives, defending the traditions of Rome and the existing ruling order. They strove to maintain the power and privileges of the Elite and limit the power of the people. They exercised their power through the Senate. This was just the Roman version of the Washington D.C. political establishment. It is perhaps unsurprising that America has its own patrician Senate, with the plebs having the House of Representatives. In the UK, there is a patrician House of Lords (unelected) and a House of Commons. Labels such as “Lords” and “Commons” shows how anachronistic, absurd, divisive and elitist British politics remains. The Optimates promoted the interests of the “nobiles” (noble families i.e. the typical OWO dynastic families of privilege and power) and fought hard to hold back the rise of novi homines (“new men”, often from the provinces and outwith the Roman nobility, and often advocates of the People’s Party). The most famous and talented novus homo was Cicero, the first of his family to enter the Senate, and who, ironically, chose to be on the Optimates’ side. He ingratiated himself with them by the simple tactic of always taking their side. This won him their support, but they never liked or trusted him. He was always an outsider; “not one of us” – lower class, unrefined, lacking patrician taste and manners, despite the brilliance of his mind. The Optimates sought to restrict the extension of Roman citizenship and to preserve the ancient traditions of their forefathers. They strove always to uphold the oligarchy of the noble families. They dominated the Senate and acted as a continual block on social reform. They particularly feared popular generals who enjoyed the support of both the people and the army. The members of both political factions belonged to the wealthier classes; no ordinary people ever had any power in Rome; no plebeian without influential connections ever served in the Senate or in formal government. No plebeian without influential connections had the benefit of an education. Members of branches of patrician families that had fallen on hard times and lost their status were regarded as plebeian by the snobs of the nobility, but such “plebeian” families had nothing in common with the masses of true plebeians i.e. all the common people living in slums. Often, these plebeian “nobles” were determined to regain former glories. They turned to the people for support since they certainly wouldn’t get if from the established nobility. At the zenith of the Optimates’ power, the dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla posted throughout Rome long lists of Populares to be executed. The named individuals were stopped on sight and summarily put to death. This was true terror – having to check lists of the condemned to see if your name was on there, knowing that you could be killed instantly if it was. Caesar Julius Caesar was a member of one of Rome’s oldest and most respectable noble families, yet he championed the Populares’ political faction. He was opposed by Pompey the Great, a novus homo, who fought on behalf of the Senate and the Optimates. Behind his public mask, Caesar had complete contempt for plebeians, but nevertheless continually courted their support against the Senate. To achieve his goal of becoming the supreme leader of Rome – a king or emperor – he had to smash the power of the Senate, hence he cynically exploited the plebeians. He was assassinated by a combination of Optimates defending the interests of the Senate and the nobility, and Populares, who foresaw that Caesar would become a tyrant and an enemy of the people. The civil war that followed Caesar’s death led to the end of the Roman Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire under the first emperor, Octavian (Augustus Caesar), nephew and heir of Julius Caesar. Imperial succession then followed on a mostly hereditary basis, although eventually rival generals fought it out for the crown. Caesar, a patrician, was no supporter of the lower classes, but he was prepared to use them to advance his own personal cause. Likewise, many Roman politicians appealed to whatever constituency served their interests at a particular time. They had no principles or political ideology. Self-interest was their only guide. It has been said by historians that the clashes between the Populares and Optimates were nothing whatever to do with political stances and concerned only raw power. A patrician who had no interest in the people would nevertheless pander to them if it were politically expedient (just like today!). The Roman patricians were infamously devoted to power. The entire Roman culture was brutally militaristic and power driven. Imagine America being run by hundreds of vigorous, ambitious, ruthless, battle-hardened generals in the prime of life rather than soft, decrepit politicians, and you will get a flavour of the savage power politics of ancient Rome. Politics was conducted like war. The ends always justified the means. Victory was everything. It didn’t matter how it was achieved. Bribery, corruption, blackmail, and assassination were all perfectly acceptable. After all, if you won and then ordered the execution of all of your rivals for treason, who would oppose you? Since money bought power, the Roman Elite were infamous for their corruption (just like the modern politicians of nations like America and Britain). Jugurtha, King of Numidia (Algeria) said of Rome’s fatal weakness for money, “Urbem venalem et mature perituram, si emptorem invenerit”: “The city’s life is for sale, and it would kill itself if it could find a buyer.” Doesn’t that sound like Wall Street, Washington D.C. or Hollywood? Ancient Rome has been reincarnated in America.
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 02:25:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015