Everybody knows —
or should know — that Abraham Lincoln was the one who put through the first
Homestead Act in 1862 . . . right?
 |
| Do you really need to be told who this is? |
Not exactly. Lincoln is credited with the Homestead Act,
but there were other Acts previously.
The problem was that all previous initiatives had required a cash
outlay, and even ¼¢ per acre discouraged a lot of people. What Lincoln’s Act did was make the land
available at no cost . . . which still caused a problem when people lacked cash
or credit to develop the land adequately, but that’s another story.
What we’re
looking at today is the initiative by the Emperor Heraclius in the early
seventh century that probably saved the Byzantine Empire for the next three
centuries or so.
The fact is, Roman
history, Latin or Greek, demonstrates the importance of widespread ownership to
national security — and the inevitable tendency of the rich and powerful to
concentrate ownership, whether privately (capitalism) or publicly (socialism)
to the detriment of national wellbeing, even disaster — and there were some
might big disasters, such as when in the early seventh century the Avars,
Persians, Arabs, and everybody and his brother was out to grab a piece of the
once-mighty Roman Empire, weakened almost fatally by the efforts of Justinian
the Great to reunite both the Eastern and Western Empires a generation before,
using up resources that were desperately needed to keep enemies at bay, not
bring (alleged) friends back together.
 |
| Tiberius Gracchus being murdered for saying ordinary people should own |
People have known
about the political as well as economic importance of widespread capital ownership
pretty much forever. As Plutarch had Tiberius Gracchus declare in a speech in his
Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans
(the classic John Dryden translation, that makes even made up speeches sound
pretty good),
He
told them that the commanders were guilty of a ridiculous error, when, at the
head of their armies, they exhorted the common soldiers to fight for their
sepulchers and altars; when not any amongst so many Romans is possessed of
either altar or monument, neither have they any houses of their own, or hearths
of their ancestors to defend. They fought indeed and were slain, but it was to
maintain the luxury and the wealth of other men. They were styled the masters
of the world, but in the meantime had not one foot of ground which they could
call their own.
 |
| Heraclius & Son |
In the year 610 Heraclius,
whom the historian John Julius Norwich called “the First Crusader” (and we are
calling “the First Homesteader”) became “Basileus” or ruler of Byzantium (“emperor”
was a military honor, not a civil or political office). Heraclius had usurped the throne (to much
rejoicing) from Phocas, a bloodthirsty tyrant (and that’s not just a way of
saying nobody liked him; he really was a murdering S.O.B.), who had brought the
Empire to the very edge of total disaster.
Greece had been
lost to the Slavs, while the Persians were rampaging throughout Asia Minor. Jerusalem
had fallen, and the True Cross and other sacred relics of the Crucifixion had
been carried off. A number of shrines, including the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher, had been pillaged and burned. Chaos reigned.
Instead of
rushing headlong into battle and dying with great glory and even greater
futility — at which many subsequent historians expressed complete bafflement — Heraclius
set about completely reorganizing the Imperial government and the economy. Faced
with an empty treasury, a demoralized army, and a hopelessly corrupt bureaucracy,
his was a daunting task.
Sound familiar,
yet?
Heraclius’s first
act was to divide the territory remaining to him into “Themes,” a term
previously used for a division of troops. In place of the former complete
centralization, power was devolved, with each Theme being semi-autonomous under
a Strategos (from which we get the term “strategy” and “stratagem,” obviously),
who served as both civil governor and military commander, while riding his
hippo (horse) to the potamus (river).
 |
| Byzantine Cataphracti (Heavy Cavalry) |
Large numbers of
new villages were established, colonized by soldiers and potential soldiers. These
received what amounted to freehold grants of land, subject only to hereditary
military service by the landowner or his eldest son whenever demanded. Each
received a small stipend, which helped defray the cost of arms, armor, and the
horses and mules — essential to campaigning over great distances — which each
man was expected to maintain.
At one stroke,
Heraclius created a solid national army of native, land-owning, battle-ready
reservists who could be called up at any time and who, simultaneously, began a
restoration of the tax base. This replaced the haphazard use of conscripts and
mercenaries, both notoriously uncertain in number and unreliable in battle as
well as untrained in organized warfare.
 |
| Persian coin showing the Sacred Fire |
The economic
benefits were not immediately realized, however, and Heraclius still had to
raise money for his campaign to drive out the Persians and conquer the Slavs. Increased
taxes, forced loans, advances from rich relatives and friends, and heavy fines
on corrupt bureaucrats provided some funding.
The primary
source of cash, however, came from the Orthodox Church. Somewhat
apocalyptically, the Patriarch Sergius considered the war the final conflict
between the holy armies of Christ and the fire-worshipping Zoroastrians.
Sergius
overlooked certain irregularities in Heraclius’s private life (he married his
own niece after his first wife died) and patriotically put the financial
resources of the entire Church, from the smallest parish up to the largest
monastery and archdiocese, at the disposal of the Basileus.
Finally, after
twelve years and a series of adventures that sound like the plot of a bad
historical novel (Norwich gives an exciting outline in his book, Byzantium: The Early Centuries), Heraclius was
ready. He carefully selected as training ground an area only a few stadia (and guess what word we get from "stadia"!) from
where Alexander the Great had landed in his campaign against the Persians.
 |
| Heraclius recovering the True Cross |
There the
Basileus spent the entire summer of 622 engaged in intensive training and
morale building. He told his soldiers repeatedly that they were God’s Chosen
Instruments against the forces of Antichrist. The Lord of Hosts would Himself
ensure their victory.
Modern skeptics
might be tempted to argue or sneer, but the appeal to faith and patriotism, although not actually an exhortation to "holy war" à la the Crusades or Jihad, was
effective. Heraclius succeeded, although the war that began that autumn was
long and difficult.
Heraclius’s
reforms saved the Empire, but even they could be improved. During his reign,
despite the reorganization, a few great magnates still controlled most of the
land. A century later, as reflected in “the Farmers’ Law” of the late seventh
or early eighth century, small holdings had proliferated, thanks to Heraclius’s
colonization program, a sort of medieval Homestead Act.
This created a
great and growing reserve army for the Empire composed of provincial militia
whose strength derived from the economic power of widespread capital ownership.
This social arrangement maintained the security of the state until the bureaucratic
party, envious of the economic independence of the common people and fearful of
the military, began undermining both by destroying small ownership and
concentrating power in the hands of the government administration that they
controlled.
Maybe today’s
politicians could take a page or two from Heraclius’s book, and have a Capital Homestead Act
for peace, instead of a land program for war.
It sure beats
anything else around.
#30#