FMOR - Unit III Review

[julie]

Hi,
In Unit III of Famous Men of Rome, Tiberius and Gaius Grachius are listed as rulers of the Roman Republic, but as far as I can tell from the text and online they were never elected consuls. Can someone explain?

Thank you,
Julie

[Jon Christianson]

Hello,

Rulership does not necessarily equal consulship! Both brothers ruled (at different times) not as consuls, but as tribunes of the plebs, who led their own assembly that had veto power over the consuls and the senate. While the consuls are best thought of as the typical top dogs of the Roman Republic, the system was a layer-cake of different assemblies and authorities that defies any easy answer to who is in charge. As with our modern republics, the relative power of each office waxed and waned throughout history, and the Gracchi might rightly be said to have held the government in their hands, even without the consulship.

- Jon

[julie]

Jon,
Thank you! How do you usually explain this to 5th graders? I noticed that the question asked for rulers, not consuls, but my son is a little more literal. Do you just explain that the people featured in the sections were the most powerful men, and therefore the de facto rulers, in Rome during their era?

Makes you wonder what the list of rulers of the US will be 2,000 years from now...

Julie

[Jon Christianson]

I'd say something like this: when the power to rule a country is split up between many men, they are all "rulers" in a sense. Deciding who "the ruler" is is irrelevant, unless a) one office can reliably exert greater-than-usual power by nature of the office itself b) one office can situationally exert greater-than-usual power by nature of the circumstances in which the officeholder finds himself. The consulship might readily be called "the ruler" at most times in the former sense, while Tiberius Gracchus might rightly be called "the ruler" during his tribunate in the latter sense.

Perhaps paint some hypothetical pictures of America where this situational power arises. For example, say a charismatic senator of Party X is the senate majority leader and exercises a veto-proof ability to advance an agenda that the Party Y president has no power to override. The senate might even grant the senate leader some degree of executive authority (let's just say the Supreme Court doesn't step in!) and make the matter of "rulership" official. Or, perhaps more simply, say a president simply does not fulfill the duties of the office, and an appointed executive deputy steps in to exercise those powers while the president is out windsurfing. In both situations, history would likely remember a man besides the president as the leader of the country, even if the president is still the ruler on paper.

- Jon

[howiecram]

Well, I'm glad I stepped into this little gem of a conversation! *saving for a few months from now when we get here!*

[julie]

Jon,
Thank you for the explanation - that's a much better way of explaining than mine. I appreciate it.

Julie