Ancient History - Rome - Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus - Essay Example

The Gracchi – Tiberius and Gaius In Ancient Roman History two of the earliest populares were Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and his brother Gaius Sempronius Gracchus. In his speech for Sestius (96-105) Cicero describes populares as men whose character or behaviour is seditious and meant to gratify the multitude - whose interest often diverges from the advantage of the state (Astin, 1967). Tiberius Gracchus Tiberius Gracchus was a member of one of Romes aristocratic families. His mother Cornelia was the daughter of Scipio Africanus; his sister was the wife of Scipio Aemilianus. Instead of seeking a career in Senate by rising through the cursus honorum, Tiberius became tribune of the plebs in 133 BC. Tiberius wished to restore the status of small-holders and thus revitalize Romes citizen army simultaneously breaking the hold of the nobiles over the vast amounts of "public" land that they held. There had been growing signs of popular discontent with the situation, including recent activism on the part of certain tribunes. Taken together, such considerations convinced Tiberius that his best option was to employ the tribunate to take on the Senate directly. Tiberius introduced before the concilium plebis a bill that would free up much of this land by establishing a limit of 500 iugera (300 acres) of public land that could be controlled by a single individual, and would redistribute any re-appropriated lands among the people. The bill was not quite as radical as it might appear: it assured the present tenants reimbursement for any appropriated land and granted them rent-free ownership of the land that was left under their control. A similar bill had in fact been put forward by C. Laelius in 145, with some support from nobiles. This bill was biased toward the masses. Adshead (1981) suggests that while Tiberius may not have had any direct contact with Egypt, these reforms were similar to Ptolemaic agrarian reforms of that country; in this he may have drawn inspiration from Scipio Aemilianus. Of Scipio, Astin (1967) writes “not only he had done much to prepare the way for Tiberius, to develop the political attitudes underlying so many of Tiberius’ actions, but he had created a situation of exceptional and extreme factional hostility in which popular appeal was a key factor”. This guided the path chosen by Tiberius. Tiberius use of the concilium plebis was highly disturbing even to those nobiles sympathetic to his cause. Annoyed by Tiberius methods, the Senate took advantage of the established political mechanisms by having another tribune, M. Octavius, use his veto to block a formal vote. At this point Tiberius had Octavius impeached and passed his land bill. He appointed a board of three commissioners (himself, Gaius, and Claudius Pulcher) to begin implementing its measures. The Senate blocked any financing for the board, using one of the checks and balances praised by Polybius. Tiberius threatened to challenge the Senates authority over finances by passing a bill in the concilium plebis that would have appropriated the bequest of Attalus III for use by the board. In an attempt to protect himself and ensure that his board would remain in operation, Tiberius sought a second tribuneship in 132 BC - a manoeuvre that was not necessarily illegal. Tiberius Gracchus saw himself as the champion of the oppressed and was determined to defend their interests. His desire for re-election to the tribunal was driven by his conviction that he should continue as their spokesman and patron and was willing to use violence to defend what he conceived to be his and their rights. Scipio Nasica and his supporters treated Tiberius as a tyrant and ultimately killed him. This is not because they were opposed to the land bill but by the tactics which he employed – “the deposition of Octavius, the proposal to use Attalus’ legacy and the candidature for re-election” (Lintott, 1991). The difficulty with any question about Gracchus’ intentions is that enough evidence does not exist and we have to interpret these through reference to an overall view of Gracchus’ political aims and personal character. Some historians argue that the main beneficiaries, targeted by Tiberius Gracchus, were the Romans, and this was because he believed that they would first pass the test and then vote for him – i.e. his motivations were political. Others argue that the reason why Tiberius failed to include Italians in his programs was that he was only interested in helping Roman citizens, who could enrol in the legions. If this were so he would not have distributed land to non-Romans. For many people, Tiberius actions no doubt suggested the possibility of a political coup, with overtones of the rise of another Tarquinius Superbus, and the only resort, in the Roman system of the time was to resort to violence. In the run-up to the elections, a riot broke out on the Capitol. In the ensuing violence, the Senate and its followers (led by the ex-consul Scipio Nasica) clubbed Tiberius and 300 of his followers to death. “The agrarian law of Tiberius Gracchus is on any reckoning a significant piece of legislation in the history of the later Roman republic…..ask who he intended its beneficiaries to be….This is of especial concern because the problem affects not only the interpretation of Gracchus himself….but also the whole complex of attitudes and actions which make up the turbulent half-century which followed his death in 133 B.C” (Richardson, 1980). “The picture of Tiberius Gracchus as a pure altruist is unconvincing, but at the same time it is unnecessary to exaggerate his desire for power and minimise his honesty, simply because he was prepared to use force when physically obstructed” (Lintott, 1991). Gaius Gracchus Gaius Gracchus (154 BC-121 BC) was the younger brother of Tiberius Gracchus and, like him, pursued a popular political agenda that ultimately ended in his death. Where Tiberius was the consummate politician and orator, Gaius is generally portrayed as an idealist. Gaius started his political career in 126 BC, as quaestor to Consul Lucius Aurelius Orestes in Sardinia. He was elected for the tribunate of the plebs in 123BC. Gaius had similar ideals as Tiberius, but he had time to learn from his brothers mistakes. His program included not only agrarian laws, but also laws that regulated the price of the grain and, presumably through the same law, provided for the construction of state granaries (Erdkamp, 2000). Gaius continued and expanded Tiberius plans in a methodical and calculated way, with a comprehensive program of revitalizing the Italian countryside that included improving the system of roads and establishing various colonies — both of which would have invigorate local economies, support the growth of industry, and offered a future to members of the urban plebs. His most daring proposal was a new Roman colony on the former site of Carthage. For the plebs, he instituted a regular grain subsidy, designed to put an end to uncertainties in supply and the attendant fluctuations in price. For the equites he instituted a series of legal reforms, the most important of which was altering the constitution of the quaestio de rebus repetundis (the court that dealt with malfeasance on the part of provincial governors). Gaius also passed a measure that caused provinces to be assigned to the various annual magistrates before elections were held, thus limiting the Senates ability to employ such postings as prizes. Again, this measure served to undermine the authority of the provincial governors. He also tried to limit the number of years and campaigns a man was obliged to serve in the army. Other measures included the reformation of the extortion court, which prosecuted illegal appropriations of money by members of the senate and a law concerned with the constitution of the jury, which was previously composed only of senators, subject to bribery, who would be judging their peers. His law changed the jury-draft pool to include equites. He also proposed the extension of Roman citizenship to several Italian allied nations. All of this displeased the senators. In 122 BC, Gaius ran for another term as tribune of the plebs – and got it, with the overwhelming support of Romes lower classes. During this year, he continued to pursue his reforms and to deal with increasing opposition of the senate. Gaius tried to run for a third time, with Marcus Fulvius Flaccus as his colleague and partner. But in this year, they lost and could do nothing besides watching the removal of all their laws by the new conservative Consuls (Quintus Fabius Maximus and Lucius Opimius). Gaius downfall was the direct result of his attempts to extend franchise to Italy, a move that displeased the nobiles and the urban plebs alike. This proposal, along with the fickleness of the voters, caused Gaius to lose his bid for a third term as tribune. In order to prevent the loss of all his work, Gaius and Marcus resorted to violent measures. The senate responded by tagging them as enemies of the Republic and they had to flee. Fulvius Flaccus was murdered along with his sons, but Gaius managed to escape with Philocrates, his faithful slave. Gaius was murdered by his slave who was most likely ordered to kill Gaius by the senate. Following his death, about 3,000 men suspected of supporting him were killed and their estates confiscated (Rowland, 1969). Once Gaius was out of the picture, the Senate set about annulling his various measures. Gaius employed many of Tiberius methods and met with a similar fate yet the lesson of his career is different. His fall reveals the way in which general inertia could scuttle even a rational effort at reform. The Senate and other vested interests vehemently opposed measures that would dilute their political authority and income. The mob was just as selfish regarding their power at the polls and their consequent ability to win special treatment from the various magistrates. The Gracchi Tiberius raised issues that affected the economic status of the Roman people, as well that of the ruling class. “That such proposals should throw existing political affiliations into turmoil is scarcely surprising…It is precisely at moments of great political strife, when genuine issues arise, that allegiances are liable to change…the issues raised in 133 were…liable to rouse more passions. Each individual had to make up his own mind on the issues raised by the Gracchi…”( Briscoe, 1974) Sallust recognized that revolution began only when ‘men from the nobility were found to prefer true glory to wrongful dominance’. Tiberius and Gaius to whom he alludes were the only politicians, except Cato, to whom he concedes purity of motive, though they showed too little moderation in success (Brunt, 1998). “It is naïve think that Tiberius was indifferent to the popularity that any benefits conferred on the masses always tend to win” (ibid). Polybius had written that a tribune should “always do what the people thought fit and most of all aim to compliance with their will.” Tiberius’ defence was a claim that the people were sovereign and the tribunes its creatures (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 15). The Roman revolution, which transformed an oligarchic Republic into the Principate of Augustus, had its origin as per Sallust, partly in the misery of the poor and a social crisis which originated with the Gracchi and with agrarian reform. The urban nature of the problem which the Gracchi faced is highlighted by the fact that Tiberius Gracchus came to power “in a time of deflation, of drastically lowered government spending” (Boren, 1958). To the People of Rome this was like a depression. Boren (ibid) further states that the ancient emphasis on the agrarian problem was overdone, primarily because Tiberius’ solution to the problem of the ranks of the unemployed was to get them out on ‘old-style’ farms. “It is probable that Gaius’ reforms were also in response to continuation of the same situation and the rise in government spending “at least temporarily corrected the depression” (Boren, ibid.) “Tiberius’ efforts to win over the urban plebs and the equites had been un-premeditated and came too late, according to Vellcius (II,3,2) ‘the greater part of the Equites and the plebs untouched by Tiberius’ wicked designs had joined in lynching him. Gaius sought to detach them from their patrons…but to what end. He must certainly have hated the men who perpetrated or condoned his brother’s murder”, yet he continued to work towards bringing in the reforms that his brother initiated and some of his own (Rowland, 1969). It is a conundrum of history that the Gracchi, who were originally so confident, resolute and well organised offered n resistance in the end. They turned to flight and were slaughtered. Plutarch and Appian say that the Gracchi yielded to the dignity of Nasica and the senators (Linderski, 2002). The people set up statues to the Gracchi, and regarded as sacred the places where they were killed. Some people even made daily offerings and worshipped as at shrines (Keaveney, 1999) References: Adshead, K., Further Inspiration for Tiberius Gracchus, Antichthon 15, 1981, 118-28 Astin, A.E., The Tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford, 1967, pp.190-226, 211-26 Boren, H.C., Numismatic Light on the Gracchan Crisis, American Journal of Philology 82, 1958, 140-55 Briscoe, J., Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus, Journal of Roman Studies 64, 1974, 125-35 Brunt, P.A., Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, 74-92 Brunt, P.A. 1988, The army and the land in the Roman Revolution in Brunt, P.A. The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays, Oxford: 240-75; revision of 1962, JRS 52: 69-86 Erdkamp, P., Feeding Rome, or Feeding Mars? A long-term approach to C. Gracchus lex frumentaria, Ancient Society 30, 2000, 53-70 Keaveney, A. The Tragedy of Caius Gracchus; ancient melodrama or modern farce? Klio 85 (2003), 322-32 Linderski, J. The Pontiff and the Tribune: the death of Tiberius Gracchus, Athenaeum 80 (2002), 339-66 Lintott, A. Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1991), 174-203 Richardson, J.S., The Ownership of Roman Land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians, Journal of Roman Studies 70, 1980, 1-11 Rowland, R.J., The Development of Opposition to C. Gracchus, Phoenix 23, 1969, 372-9 Read More