A lesson for the present: the day Rome crossed the red line

At a recent conference , US Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that his country had made many decisions in preceding decades that failed to take into account the nation's real needs. As a result of these mistakes, the US suffered from strategic weaknesses, especially in terms of productive capacity, and was mired in social disarray. "We allowed many things and allowed other countries to take advantage of us," Rubio lamented. He is right that the global regime that was established, with the US at its center, undermined elements that were essential for the country's hegemony to be maintained and for its citizens to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. But he is wrong when he pointed the finger at other states. The US looked the other way as its economy relocated because it suited its elites : globalization brought them enormous revenues. Perhaps other countries, and especially China, benefited from the global era, but the American elites were the ones who benefited the most.

What happened to the United States after the demise of the Soviet Union was very similar to what happened to Rome after the fall of Carthage . The disappearance of the rival power gave way to complete Roman hegemony over the Mediterranean, which meant the incorporation of rich and fertile territories into their dominion, the acquisition of large amounts of capital, and the capture of many slaves who served as labor. This could have translated into a source of material well-being for the Romans, but the opposite occurred: it produced enormous inequality that was at the heart of the tensions for a long century, the time it took for the Roman Republic to fall. The wealth, instead of benefiting the city as a whole, was accumulated by elites who grew more powerful and ended up falling apart in disputes.

According to some historians, the young soldier who was the first to scale the walls of Carthage , Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus , was also the first to open the cracks in the hegemonic city. Tiberius, son of Cornelia Africana , grandson of Scipio Africanus , was strictly trained by his mother to honor his origins. Great goals were destined for him and he was educated to achieve them. However, despite having stood out for his courage and intelligence, or probably because of it, he made enemies among the Roman aristocracy. When he embarked on a political career and was elected tribune of the plebs in 134 BC, everything began to go wrong. Nothing went as the Gracchi had hoped .

The enormous literary production about Rome, which has continued to thrive in recent years, has paid little attention to the Gracchi, both Tiberius and his younger brother Gaius , despite their importance. Two recent novels, Ingrata Patria by Elvira Roca Barea and Tiberius Gracchus, Tribune of Rome by Luis Manuel López Román (the second part of Tiberius Gracchus, Tribune of the Legions ) mitigate this absence.

The Republic was showing signs of internal weakness, which a nobleman like Tiberius Gracchus tried to resolve. The senators prevented him from doing so.

Roca Barea opts for an epistolary narrative centered on Cornelia , the mother of the Gracchi. Rather than unpacking the social tensions of the period, he prefers to highlight a little-known figure and delves more deeply into the characters than the events. López Román's work is more detailed regarding Tiberius and everything that surrounded him. In one way or another , both describe a period in Roman history that was more significant than it seems .

The explanation for Roman decline , for Roca Barea, lies in the transformation that its armies underwent. They were made up of landowners who fought for a few months a year , since wars usually took place in relatively nearby places. But Rome's expansion forced the formation of armies that fought in foreign territories, sometimes for several years. These prolonged absences caused the ruin of many soldiers, who returned long afterward to neglected lands or those that had been acquired by unscrupulous landowners who took advantage of the remoteness of the pater familias . The logical effect was that it was difficult for Rome to recruit soldiers. All this occurred at a time of concentration of land and wealth, of scarcity of means of livelihood due to the arrival of slaves, and of migration of the population to the city.

The Roman aristocracy did not want to give in: it was prepared to do anything to retain its power.

The Republic was showing signs of internal weakness, which a nobleman like Tiberius Gracchus attempted to address with a measure that would solve both major problems simultaneously . Tiberius managed to pass an agrarian reform whose objectives were to prevent the concentration of property, allow small landowners to earn a living, and distribute public lands among Romans with limited resources. In this way, the army would have soldiers and Rome would achieve greater social cohesion. His reforms, which were intended to stabilize, were perceived as an intolerable challenge by the senators. Tiberius (and later Gaius) was singled out as an aspiring tyrant and as the gravedigger of the Republic. The Gracchi enjoyed the support of peasants, artisans, merchants, and urban workers, but the real strength lay in the hands of the senators. The Roman aristocracy refused to give an inch : it was prepared to do anything to retain its power. The tragic end of the brothers was the consequence of this refusal.

The senators achieved their goal, but they deepened a wound that they could no longer heal. Instead of resolving political disputes through institutional arrangements or punishments such as exile, they crossed the red line. The exemplary character they sought to give to Tiberius's assassination turned the Gracchus into a martyr for the plebeians who had supported him. The senators had not fought a potential dictatorship, but had destroyed any confidence in the system : with Tiberius's body, they threw all the symbolic power of Roman institutions into the Tiber. From then on, anyone who dared to challenge the power of the aristocrats knew that violence was at the end of the line and acted accordingly.

Rome was plunged into a period of habitual disorders and went through massacres, slave revolts, all kinds of fraudulent elections and several civil wars until the conversion of the republic into an empire .

It's hard not to draw some lessons for our time. Returning to the story of the Gracchi is useful because it marks the moment when the republic collapsed. The elites' refusal to introduce changes in the power structure and in the material conditions of Roman citizens was the essential cause of the problems that continued to recur and worsen. The lack of flexibility in political regimes, caused by the insularity of their elites, is a frequent cause of their decline and disappearance. The West is at a similar moment: analyzing the difficulties faced by the Roman Republic and the poor solutions adopted is a source of lessons for the present .

At a recent conference , US Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that his country had made many decisions in preceding decades that failed to take into account the nation's real needs. As a result of these mistakes, the US suffered from strategic weaknesses, especially in terms of productive capacity, and was mired in social disarray. "We allowed many things and allowed other countries to take advantage of us," Rubio lamented. He is right that the global regime that was established, with the US at its center, undermined elements that were essential for the country's hegemony to be maintained and for its citizens to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. But he is wrong when he pointed the finger at other states. The US looked the other way as its economy relocated because it suited its elites : globalization brought them enormous revenues. Perhaps other countries, and especially China, benefited from the global era, but the American elites were the ones who benefited the most.