Hello Everyone and welcome to the part of the Show Where I talk About the flags we screwed up and the Walpoles we missed?
But first I want to start off today by giving another shout out to our special guest Mike Duncan his
Podcasts on The History of Rome and
Revolutions
Really set the standard for history podcasts. They're incredible
Go listen to him Uh-huh it was an honor to have him on the show and
It was just amazing to do an episode and in fact Mike caught some of our lies
When we were talking about script he mentioned I was playing a bit fast and loose With the Tributary Veto in Episode
2 and he's absolutely right
I had planned to talk about it here but I just couldn't find time in the episode to fully explain the thing because the ancient Roman veto
didn't work like our modern Veto. It wasn't done after a bill was passed
But rather the Tribune would veto the bill just getting read and
Thus if it's never read it can never be voted on
And so in Episode Two
When i said that Tiberius got
his bill passed and then it got vetoed
Total Lie. The bill was going to pass. Everyone knew it was going to pass; and so when it came up for a vote uh
It was vetoed before it could even be Read.
But here Mike actually provided me with a succinct explanation
That, that was the explanation I couldn't manage. So here's Mike's much better explanation of
basically everything that happened in the episode:
Alright, so One:
Tiberius floats a soft version of the Lex Agraria; hopefully mollifying Senatorial opposition
Two:
During subsequent weeks of debate it becomes clear that opposition Is not mollified
So he withdraw the original bill and introduces a much harsher version.
When
the vote comes. Number Three: when the vote day comes, then comes Octavius vetoes the Reading of the Bill and so the vote can't proceed
Four: Over the next week or so Tiberius pressures Octavius to drop the veto by
halting all other legislation and closing The Temple of Saturn and that sort of thing and then Five:
Octavius remained unmoved and so at the next Assembly, Tiberius moves to depose Octavius. then Six:
Octavius Is deposed. Which follows for Seven:
The bill is read, the vote precedes, the Lex Agraria becomes law, and then everything else happens um
So there you go. That's the much clearer summary of the order that things should be in but
Oh the other thing that might bind it out in Episode Four uh
Populus Liana
We talked about as being a praetor he was actually a consul. Now I would have never caught this one because
I was pulling from Plutarch here and he says:
"Of These laws of one had the direct effect of branding with infamy Marcus Octavius, who had
been deposed from the tribunate by Tiberius; and by the other
Popillius, was affected, for as praetor he had banished the friends of Tiberius." um
so
Plutarch's calling this guy a praetor, but as Mike pointed out
He pointed me to the Fasti Capitolini, which is basically the stone they dug up about five hundred years ago that had the ames
and dates of the offices for major Roman political figures on it. and Sure enough um
Popilius is Listed as Consul then
Which is much more correct most likely; uh and segues nicely to be talking about Plutarch because
Mike suggested that he might simply, be being a, little loose with his terminology.
Using praetor as a general term for official in the way that, we sometimes using word czar here in the US for
people who are in no ways Czars.
Or that he could just be wrong and here's the thing: Plutarch is our major source for these guys uh it's
something about every later historian for the period mentions at some point or other. Because Plutarch is an interesting case
Personally I love Plutarch, I
think he's fantastic and uh he certainly has influence on how I approach history but, if you're unfamiliar with Plutarch,
he's kind of the guy who, really, introduced or at least popularized the concept of the Biography and in his most
well known work, Parallel Lives, what he'd do is he'd side by side two Greeks Romans to either
contrast their lives or show how minor differences just made huge effects but what Plutarch cared about
Was the utility of history. He wanted his audience not to just memorize
facts or dates, but by seeing the lives of two incredible people put side by side,
he Wanted to force them to think about their own lives and the world they lived in; and hopefully
take from history something that would serve them in that world and in their modern day.
Now I completely love this approach, but it does mean that there are times where Plutarch is a little less of a stickler for
details than some of the other ancient historians.
He's concerned in honing the big picture and refining how he tells
that big picture to his audience so his audience sees how it's relevant to them today. Sometimes
on some of the small stuff he's just
let's say relaxed. Which is totally fine; it's great when he's not the only source, but when he Is
Well
sometimes you get things like this, oh
and also: Armor. It was the Run-Up to Pax. I
didn't get to see these videos before they went live and then like some of you guys When, I saw them I had that same wait
doesn't that kick come come around a bit later I had that moment too uh
Yeah you're absolutely correct but there were no flags so you know. What Can you do um?
But enough lies.
I actually want to talk about this Series because the parallels with the modern day seemed unavoidable.
Interestingly, I
kept seeing people in the comments liking the Graccis to one or the other of the candidates for president of the United States.
I think, I saw arguments for Basically all configurations of this Gracci equals this candidate
Usually had been Influenced by who the commentor supported
But though it's really
interesting to draw those sort of direct parallels between people in the ancient world and people influencing the world today; that
wasn't really what struck me when
I was writing this. What struck me
were the sort of sweeping actions that so clearly undercut Democracy that that we sort of see
happening now as well.
Because democracy depends on people believing that at the end of the day that whatever the vote says
We do. There may be all sorts of attempts to influence the vote,
there may even be major efforts to skew the map, right? but when their candidate loses in a democracy
people grumble about it and then they move on thinking:
We'll get them next time and they think that because they believe in Democracy.
They believe they have a voice and that even when
Shenanigans are going on that if enough, enough people speak out, there's a chance for a change and
but then when you have Politicians the very people who are most
embedded in this process calling votes Illegitimate
What recourse do people have but to tear the whole system down? if the vote doesn't work, what is left of democracy? and
while we usually think of people who believe the election was stolen away from them or their candidate as having a
grievance, when you start to call elections illegitimate, all those people who, did
honestly and sincerely vote for that candidate uh
are either left feeling anger that you're negating their vote by saying
oh it was just stolen, away, or past me start to sa
well good the system is broken
I'm not gonna fight for democracy because you've just told me the system is rigged to make me get my way uh and
How do you have a Democracy surviving right and
Then, within this episode
We saw the Populist Demagoguery and I'm a populare
right? i'm all for the will of the People but. I also know there's a reason
we have politicians.
In our day-to-day lives, we just don't have the time to be experts on every little sub-clause of every bill
we're on the Byzantine workings of foreign affairs
so
we elect people who are supposed to be just that.
They're supposed to be experts who have said I'll devote my life to this to studying, understanding it so you don't have to and
as such their job in some ways is to keep us from our worst voice from our shortest term thinking;
from our most from misguided and ill-Informed actions and if we really think, they're wrong I mean then?
We go vote them out of office in the next election, but that's the role they're supposed to play and, as we saw here,
when they no longer do that; when they no longer serve as experts; when this is just no longer the case
When when the tail starts to
wag the dog and politicians no longer serve the interest of the country,
But rather are so caught up in beating one another that they lose sight of what they're sworn to do>
I mean, when they start to compete to see who can appease the mob the most uh?
So the fickle desires of the mob ends up just moving the ponderous layers of State By Itself
Then everything collapses because democracy is built With checks against Itself, we all know the dangers [of democracy?
But if the history of the late Roman Republic teaches anything, so that a nation can look like a democracy
still carry the trappings of democracy
while spiraling into anarchy and
how do you pull out of that tailspin? once you start offering the mob whatever it wants
How do you, ever stop doing so and Maintain a democracy? It's a question I think This period of history asks but
tragically doesn't answer and
then there's the partisanship.
Rome had been bitterly partisan in the past but always with the caveat both sides
were working for the betterment of Rome. They just vehemently disagreed on how to go about it and yeah there were
egos and desires of power in there but if around all that you still have the same goal
compromise is possible and here's where that breaks down. Here's Where compromise ceases to be possible and without compromise how
can you, ever have that democratic system, oh
And then there's the introduction of violence into politics. Roman politics have never been the nicest place, but
here's where violence or the threat of violence
becomes a political tool and there's just no way that democracy can live through that. If we ever cover the following
century, we'll see just how this plays out, but coercion not only destroys democracy,
but actually makes the coercers slaves the very mob that serve as their muscle. Leading again
into that spiral that we have no answer for.
But alright I've I've talked long enough about this. ah
Let's get some anecdotes before I wrap up.
Remember
Gaius Mancinius the cowardly general from Episode One?
Remember how Scipio saved everybody else from the hostility of the Senate but they basically left him before hi?
Well. The senate essentially decreed that he be turned over to Numantians naked and in chains?
But when they hauled him all the way out there and present him to city gates?
Turned out the Numantians didn't want him either. oh and in Episode Two:
When they're stripping off Octavius of his trubunate?
This whole scene Is extra tragic because he and Tiberius had once been friends and I think that
even more than the fear of losing Is why he keeps why
Tiberius keeps pausing and offering the way out, sort of a way to leave with dignity.
Or if you're cynical, you can think about it as
Tiberius does not like to overthrow another major press in front of everybody but
And in some ways i took a testament Octavius's character that he, won't take it even After the cause is lost.
Oh and since we're here, I should talk about Roman voting. I know a lot of you guys know this but
when they called out the Centuries the divisions by which the Romans voted, they basically voted in order of wealth. and
As soon as one side had over 50% of the possible votes, voting just stopped. This meant that the lowest class
never actually got to vote, at least didn't most of the time.
But this is also why Tiberius stops right as there is one vote
away from the majority. Ah, to sort of give his former friend an opportunity to bow out before what
just appeared inevitable. Right, oh
And in Episode Three, remember how
Tiberius Has them doing a survey of the public lands to divide them up? Well
he appointed basically only his friends and relatives to run that survey i mean he said that it was because
they were the only people he could trust and this is probably true
But you can see how that might look and this ends up getting used against him Later, oh?
and Onto Episode Four. Here I mentioned that one of the reforms Gaius put into place
Was that Equestrians could now be judges. This is actually super Important because
senators got away with all sorts of stuff because
they knew that all the judges they'd, ever face would be senators. So for example,
rather than paying their taxes, there's basically this unspoken agreement that they'd all just bribe the tax collectors and
if any of them ever got
caught, because the judge they faced would be a senator,
even if they got convicted, the Census would be far less than having actually paid their taxes.
Which of course, was something the Equestrian class couldn't do and given that a fair portion of the Equestrian class
was sort of the up and coming?
entrepreneurial part of Rome, this stung.
So
Gaius, did away with the Corruption,
undercut his enemies power base, and got a whole section of society devoted to him because they figured as soon as somebody got rid of
him, they'd go back to not being able to be judges. uh
all sort with one stroke and
this Is an amazing political maneuver and I mean probably actually really solid policy.
But it also causes one to wonder a little bit which was first and foremost in his mind right?
To me, this almost brings up: was faction at this point already so important that that, was more important in the reform Itself
But on to Episode Five: Remember how, Gaius stabbed to death where his brother, Is sort of beaten with a parts an old bench>
um you might be wondering about that.
It was illegal to carry swords in the city of Rome. Which is why Tiberius gets clubbed with bits of a public park.
so how does Gaius get stabbed? um
Funny if somewhat morbid story: so get this: he was stabbed to death with pens.
Roman scribes had to carry around these metal stylus to inscribe notes on wax because it
was a lot cheaper than
always using Ink and parchment.
But to be effective for doing this,
mostly styli were just kept nice and sharp. So in Rome when you want to shiv someone real good you got a pen.
Um but all right I'm still recovering from PAX so i'm just gonna keep our
Walpole moment short this time and say that Walpole's son Horace, yeah the Gothic novelist Guy,
once said when sort of decrying his lost youth once said then how he always had this
former fire to to fight the political fight but joking about not wanting to tear the country apart any longer with internal strife
famously said I am no longer that Graccus.
So with that I'll leave you I will see you in a week when
we start with The History of Paper Money which has all sorts of neat scheming and crazy facts and a lot of
economic
heavy lifting as
well, but uh it's gonna be great and in the meantime as always please listen to the amazing music by the Brothers Kiner ah
It should be up right now. There should be another video right next to this one Playing Music for the series and it's so good
Thank you for joining us, I will see you all next week. Take care everybody.