The Honestly podcast tells the story of how a populist uprising followed by the elites’ response of political violence brought about the fall of Rome. It argues that “The Roman system like our own, relied on unwritten customs or norms in addition to formal law to keep the delicate republic in balance” (25:49).
In the following quadrants, the characters or groups in the historical account are placed analogous to their roles in U.S. political parties or positions. For a condensed version of the transcript, you can read the story in roughly chronological order by following the numbered paragraphs. Alternatively, you may find it easier to read the same in the section Repeat of Quadrants Content.
Thanks for reading. Here’s a related post about the plunder of the commons.
Repeat of Quadrants Content
This section repeats the writing in the quadrants, for any who have difficulty reading in that format.
1. [Representing auth-right] This endless flow of treasure relied on endless warfare. A massive military was needed to invade, hold, and milk foreign lands. (17:44)…. Wars needed soldiers, and these soldiers would not fight if it meant losing their farms (19:56)…. And so just like our politicians today, the Patrician Senate sat around and argued on what to do about it. One faction didn't wanna do anything. It wasn't as if the farmers weren't paid in booty from Roman conquest abroad. (19:13)
2. [Representing lib-right] So a farmer is forced to go to war to make money for the elite rulers. In his absence, his farm collapses. So the same elites take this farm for next to nothing, and they staff all farms with slaves, effectively eliminating the job of farmer, profitable as hell for the Patricians, but an incredibly raw deal for that farmer. And this was a political problem for the Republic because Rome relied on the plebeians and small landowners such as farmers to fight their forever wars. They needed them invested, not rebellious. (19:13)
3. [Representing auth-left] The reformers favored measures such as appointing public lands to the plebes. You might say it was the socialism of antiquity. (19:56)
4. [Representing lib-right] Tiberius…he decided to run for Tribune of the Plebs. He would represent the common man, and in turn they would elevate him to office…. Theoretically, the Tribune of the Plebs was a powerful position. In reality though, the Tribunes rarely made waves as the Patricians bought most of them off. Tiberius would be different. He may have been a blue blood related to the oldest families of the Senate, but Tiberius was genuinely distressed by the treatment of Rome's dispossessed farmers and their terrible living conditions.…These were the victims of the globalization of antiquity. Tiberius thought this was an outrage. This conviction would lead him to challenge the establishment of Rome like no other reformer before him. It started with a piece of legislation….It proposed that public lands be apportioned to small Roman farmers. The complication was that much of the public land that technically belonged to the republic had been in effect, swallowed up by the elite Patrician mega farmers. (22:46-24:08)
5. Tiberius was about to steamroll these norms in order to pass the land bill.…They found a more compliant tribune, Marcus Octavius, to be their proxy inside the People's Assembly. And Octavius vetoed the introduction of the bill time and again. Tiberius at first tried to reason with Octavius in debate.…But none of it worked. He took a drastic step. He argued that a tribune that defied the will of the people was no tribune at all, and called for a vote to strip Octavius of his office. That had never been done before; the way of the elders be damned. After the plebs voted to give Octavius the boot….imagine if you're a blue blood senator at this point and you're watching all of this; you're horrified. Never in Rome's history had a tribune used its power like this. (26:34)
A senator who was also a high religious official known as the Pontus Maximus. His name was Nasica, and he hated the land reform bill. He hated how Tiberius ran roughshod over the ways of the elders. Who was this young Tribune who thinks he can ignore tradition and strip authority from the Senate? (30:06).
6. [Representing auth-right] The Senate conservatives seized. Their next move was one that any contemporary politician would find familiar. They couldn't stop the land reform bill from becoming law. So they did the next best thing and starved the Land Commission of Funding. (28:01)
7. The next move from Tiberius would confirm all of Nasica's suspicions. He would run for an unprecedented second consecutive term as Tribune of the Plebs. Again, if there was a rule against it, it was an unwritten rule, but nonetheless, it was unprecedented. Now, the people had to vote for him. Tiberius said, because if he wasn't re-elected as Tribune, the Senate would prosecute him….So Tiberius with a flair for the dramatic campaigned in black mourning clothes as if to suggest he may even be killed if he lost the election. (30:06)
8. [It could be argued that Nasica would represent the elite in the progressive left, some of whom are willing to say the ends justify the means. He could also represent the pro-establishment elite, as a powerful Senate member.] Nasica boiled; he implored the council at the time to stop this affront to Roman tradition. Tiberius Gracchus was becoming a king, a tyrant. He warned, if he's not stopped, then we will lose the republic forever….The council at the time only promised to stop Tiberius if he violated a law, but he would not condone violence against a Roman citizen, let alone another Tribune without a trial (31:28). Nasica then says, according to a Plutarch quote, “well then, as the council betrays the state, to those who wish to maintain the laws, follow me.” Nasica led a mob of like-minded senators to the hill outside the temple where the voting was taking place. They broke the legs off of tables and chairs and began filing through the crowd swinging their crude clubs at the plebs….Tiberius was beaten to death along with 300 of his plebeian supporters….Nasica broke the prohibition against political violence inside of Rome, and that prohibition would never be restored. The next century for Rome was soaked in blood. (31:28)