Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink

Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Flobblem (U13967960) on Friday, 29th May 2009

  This is just an academic discussion really. My line of thought is this:
  Did Tiberius' use of the Mob as a means of control help to loosen the foundations for the Caesars to take control? There are many parallels with the way Julius Caesar acted, promising land among other things.
  If Tiberius had not been killed, would the Republic have continued, or was it enevitable that it would fall?

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 1st June 2009

  Hi,
  
  Gracchus is just before the period of Rome I am most interested in (Marius/Sulla leading to Pomey/Caesar) but my understanding of the era is that the Republic was largely doomed as an instrument of government the larger the Empire it controlled grew. The apparatus was not flexible enough to control both the provinces it gained nor the politicians required to administer it. Reforms under Sulla and others attempted change, but the reforms under Augustus leading to full Imperial control were largely inevitable.
  
  How much the use of the mob led to this however I'm not so sure. Given the nature of Republican politics in this era, the untapped potential of the mob would be found by someone for something. That Gracchus was one of the first marks him out, especially given his more radical ideas (radical to the ruling class anyway)
  
  Would the reforms that people like Caesar (though he wasn't the only one) later successfully introduced have been introduced and more importantly survived his absence from politics? You only have to look at Sulla. One of the most successfull rulers of the late Republican era. His reforms removed (in part by his own supporters) within a decade or two of his death.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 1st June 2009

  The mob was always there, though effectively disenfranchised by the Roman voting system which, though democratic in principle, meant that the elite could always force through their laws unless there was a fundamental split among the senators.
  
  What Gracchus did was, I think, inevitable. Violence was always a part of Roman politics, and sooner or later on eof th epopulares was going to get the mob on their side. As for laws surviving, the land reform tribunal proposed by Gracchus was still in place after his death, which seems a bit bizarre given that he was killed to stop the laws becoming effective.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009

  The key problem with the late Republic was the disturbed balance between the Senatorial and Equestrian upper classes and all the rest. A number of checks and balances had been worked out through the history of the republic: Plebeians had their own representative bodies and had won the protection of the plebeian tribunes with their right of veto. At some times even one of the two consuls was supposed to be a plebeian.
  
  Rome's conquest of the Mediterranean and the associated great increase in the number of slaves upset the balance. While the members of the upper classes assembled immense wealth, the small farmers and artisans generally lost out and were often reduced to the status of a proletariat dependent on handouts. This created a large group of people who had nothing to lose, and enough numeric strength to upset the balance of the state -- not just as a 'mob' but also as a body of soldiers, as after the reforms of Marius it was often from this class that the volunteers for the legions came. As such they would be "winners" of the civil wars, as the generals would destroyed the Republic and created the Principate where leaders of the Populares 'party'.
  
  Thus it could be argued that if Tiberius Gracchus had been able to leverage his popular support to work out a Republican new deal, a new balance between the aristocrats and the plebs, the life of the Republic could have been extended. Whether this was possible at all is something different: Essentially Tiberius Gracchus was trying to turn back the clock to what he and his followers regarded as the good old days, when Roman citizens had been though, simple, moral farmers. But even if these days had really existed, they were gone forever.
  
  If later history is anything to go by, land reform was a dead end, and Gracchus should have resorted to progressive taxation, inheritance taxes, the abolition of slavery, and the creation of a service economy -- concepts that must have been wholly alien to him.
  

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 4th June 2009

  Hi all,
  
  To throw my two-pennorth into this one - it wasn't so much the actions of Tiberius Gracchus which could be viewed as a "tipping point" in the long, painful collapse from Republic to Empire, but the fact that Tiberius Gracchus' actions led to the Senate taking up arms against him (well some of the Senate anyway). His actions were well within the political structure of the Republic, but it was the first time that a basically "political" argument was settled by violence and death, rather than a more civilised political fight.
  
  Both the Gracchi were somewhat maverick in their policies, but even after Tiberius was murdered the land reform commission continued to function, and continued to carry out Tiberius' policies. So, I'd say that while his reforms were radical, in my opinion it was the response of his political opponents which did initiate the eventual fall of the Republic. After all, no murder of Tiberius = no murder of Gaius when he went into politics, and this set the precedent for killing off your political opponents. Without the Gracchi, Sulla would never have marched on Rome, without the Gracchi he'd never have dared to carry out the Proscriptions. Before Sulla and Marius, the armies of Rome were loyal to the Republic (SPQR and all that), whereas after them they were loyal to their own commanders first, Rome second. So, without this change in military command, you'd have no Pompey Magnus, and no Caesar. Without Caesar, no Octavian and Antony, and therefore no Empire.
  
  Cheers
  DL

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 4th June 2009

  Hi DL,
  
  Not sure if you're implying that without Gracchi there would have been no Marian Reforms or not, so if I'm barking up the wrong branch sorry in advance.
  
  I don't see how the Gracchi Reforms would have had any impact on the Marian Reforms though (which led to armies being loyal and dependant on their general's generosity). The driving force behind the reforms was a need for men to serve in the Legions (as well as reforming the way they were organised) The rise in need for legions across the increasingly far-flung Empire and the resulting wars provided a huge drain on the traditional base (as well as leading to the rise in latifundi which was to prove a popular political hot potatoe in the near future of the republic).
  
  The political empowerment of the mob via the Legions was therefore a logical outcome of the alteration of the Legion recruitment base.
  
  I do agree that once the Marian Reforms were implimented then the rest is a progression. Both Pompey and Pompey Magnus are able to flaunt their almost private Legions, Caesar is able to use the Gallic Wars to forge a loyal army prepared to march on Rome and of course then the resultant civil wars that last till the assumption of power by Octavius.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 4th June 2009

  Hi Richie,
  
  Been a long time since we last had a chat mate, hope you're well! Anyway, back to business.....
  
  My point is that it wasn't the policies of Tiberius Gracchus as tribune of the plebs which was the earth-shaking event. Yes, they were a definite mob-pleasing reform, removing so much "public" land from the control of the patrician class (Tiberius' own class) and handing it to the plebs. Equally you can understand why the patrician senators were so against everything Tiberius stood for, they were doing very well out of the land they'd appropriated thanks very much.
  
  The major change in the Republic was (my opinion anyway) the way in which the Senate disposed of the Gracchi. The normal method of getting rid of your political opposition was through prosecution, get them charged with some offence or other and exiled (therefore out of the way). However, instead of this normal approach, a group of senators decided to act alone (though probably with majority support) and simply kill Tiberius (and later Gaius). The excuse used was very weak, that he apparently wanted to be named king of Rome. Instead of tackling him politically and having him exiled as would be normal, they killed him.
  
  This was the major change in the Republic in my opinion, as it took Roman politics into uncharted territory. Why bother with prosecutions and trials when you can simply have your opponent killed and thrown in the Tiber? It wasn't the empowerment of the mob which doomed the Republic, but the idea that you can simply kill your political opponents outside the law.
  This then paved the way for the "private armies" of Sulla and Marius, because you could now kill in the name of a political ideal. Once this had become acceptable, the Republic was doomed.
  You no longer had to face your opponent over the Senate floor, you could just send the boys round to bump him off. It's a clear path of degenerating law and order from there on - Sulla, Marius, then Pompey, Caesar, Clodius and Milo.... All downhill from there, and the precedent was set with the murder of Tiberius Gracchus.
  Cheers
  DL

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 4th June 2009

  Hiya DL,
  
  Yeah long time
  
  Gracchi, like I said, is just before the immeadiate period I am interested in, but I still resist the idea that his murder in fact rather than prosecution paved the way for Sulla and Marius et all.
  
  The use of the Legion as a primary political weapon is only born as a result of the degredation of the normal soldier class. Something which as far as I can see the Gracchi reforms/murder would have had no effect on positive or negative.
  
  And prosecutions and general Senetorial corruption contined unapaced. I mean they could teach Gordon a thing or two about state funded moats and duck ponds and remember that they tried to treat with Caesar via legal means almost to the end, so the murder was not the epoch making episode to me

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 4th June 2009

  Re: message 7.
  
  Hiya Darklight,
  
  happy to see you back on board.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  Hi DL.
  
  An important aspect to the point you make is that at the time of the Gracchi, and up even to the time of the Jugurthine War, the civil procedure for impeaching, removing or exiling those who "offended" the senate was reserved for a small minority of full Roman citizens. Latins (Italians) were even as late as then still excluded from such procedures and could be arbitrarily dispatched almost with impunity, even when they were ostensibly rich and powerful members of society. (The same disparity existed in the military where "non-Roman" soldiers were subject to martial law whereas Romans had recourse to civil courts).
  
  The treatment meted out to the Gracchi had a stark message which was fully intended on the part of the senators who opposed them. Extend citizenship (via agrarian reform) and you will necessitate the extension of harsher non-civic procedures to control the expanded citizenry. It was felt at the time by a huge conservative senate majority that the benefits of citizenship had to be confined to a small minority of Roman subjects, that it was a natural state of affairs which was dangerous to tamper with. Tiberius Gracchi's own recourse to violent agitation to prosecute the opposite view was considered proof that they were right. In the senate's view therefore they were not so much setting a precedent as imposing a natural check and balance which had always been present. Gracchi stepped outside the rules and got the punishmnent those who lived outside the rules traditionally received.
  
  That is why Richie is quite right, I think, to say that the violence which accompanied the Gracchi's brief dalliance with reform cannot really be seen as a precursor to that which accompanied Sulla and Marius's more concerted and wide-reaching societal restructuring afterwards. It was considered by many, right up to the time of empire and beyond, as an unfortunate but inevitable confirmation of true republican principles in action.
  
  Not that the brothers G. would have been so enamoured with that assessment!

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  Hi all,
  
  Nice to see you're all still lurking on here!
  As I see the general opinion is going against my view on what the Gracchi episode did to the Republic, why is that Tiberius' land reforms were still put into practice after his death? Not only that but his own younger brother is seen working on land re-distribution himself.
  (There has been direct evidence found of at least one land carve-up which has Gaius Sempronius Gracchus listed as being on the commission which handed out the land in question). So, if it was his political legacy which was so deep a change, why didn't the Senate simply cancel his legislation?
  Going back to Richie's favourite subject - Marius and Sulla, their reforms were very different (particularly Marius' army reforms), but I still stand by my view that none of this would have been possible without the Senate's murder of Tiberius (and later on Gaius) Gracchus.
  Nordy has it spot on - yes, the process for disposing of political enemies was reserved for the elite class of Rome's hierarchy (I think Sulla coined the phrase Optimates for them), and by right of birth, Tiberius Gracchus was exactly that - firstborn son of an ex-consul, decorated soldier (first over the wall into Carthage) and head of one of the most respected families in Rome. If he's not one of the elite, I don't know what is guys! The Senate should have handled him as they did everyone else, but fear of the mob drove them to simply kill him (but strangely not his Land Reforms).

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  My take on it, DL, was that they objected more to his populist appeal than the subject matter of his reforms (though we're only talking degrees here - they hated both). The logic of his agrarian reforms won out in the heel of the hunt, but a strong message had been sent to anyone else (such as his brother, for example) who might consider steamrolling legislation through in quite the same way.
  
  I am not aware of a single commentator from the time, or even throughout the next few centuries, who actually objected to the senate's behaviour or suggested they had embarked on a new and dangerous political philosophy which legitimised assassination. Even Cicero, who regarded himself as more republican than the next man, used the term "regrettably" when recording that this was the first blood spilled in Rome for political reasons in four centuries. It seems weird that a man should have been violently dispatched for pushing reforms which went ahead anyway, but only to us, I think, at this remove. In Rome, as with the mafia, it isn't what you do it's the code you break in doing it which counts.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  This is getting really convoluted now!
  
  Going back to the question of primary sources not criticising the actions of the Senate - that's just standard with anything in Roman history. Tiberius was killed, the senate faction responsible were therefore "victorious", and as with everything in Rome, the history was written by those who "won". Plus they did put the reason for killing him down as him wanting to be proclaimed king. As he was dead and unable to refute this, then it would have been pretty well accepted.
  
  I've hit a bit of a knowledge gap - is anyone aware of whether there was the same level of popular outrage over the killing of Tiberius as, say for example, Julius Caesar's assassination?
  The actual murder still remains the tipping point - you quoted slimy old Cicero's explanation, I'm in agreement with that completely. After all, the Land Reforms came long before any ideas of Roman citizenship for all free-born Italians - it took (in usual Roman style) the war of the Allies (Social War) to settle that issue. I still maintain it was the murder, and the legitimisation of using murder for political ends which set in motion the long process of the death of the Republic.
  
  As an afterthought - the UK could do with a reincarnation of Tiberius Gracchus now, looking at its political state!
  Cheers
  DL

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  The "king" allegation was an exaggeration of their real fear, as expressed by Scipio Nasica, that Tiberius was using his Tribune veto to excess - using it as back door to dictatorship in other words. It was also based on the fact that he had unconstitutionally removed his principal opponent from ofice. The deposing of Octavius was the point after which he could never be on fgood terms with his peers again (even though it went to a vote and the senate acquiesced). However the important point is that this was an allegation made while he was still alive and had the effect of galvanising his plebian support rather than tarnishing his image.
  
  I'm not aware of any popular outrage at his murder, at least not to the extent that any champions stepped forward to take up his "cause". In effect there wasn't much of a cause left anyway, he'd got his main reforms into law before he died and was at the time in the process of trying to cheat his way back into office using the strength of his plebian support to bypass the requirement for an interval between his tribuneships. While his supporters might have been rather miffed at his assassination I would imagine it wasn't only the senators who were a little concerned at just how cheeky he was getting!
  
  There is a sort of parallel with Caesar's assassination later. While the issue ultimately led to a civil war prosecuted by Rome's upper echelons there is no evidence of mass enlistment in the armies of either side from the hoi polloi for ideological reasons, nor of much partisanship generally from the masses expressed in any manner - for or against. Cicero acquired his "slimy" reputation largely for his ambivalence on this very issue which offended Mark Anthony but which, in hindsight, seems to have been one shared by the vast majority of Romans.
  
  As Don Corleone might say, I think you might be slightly exaggerating the significance of Tiberius's little "accident".
  
  

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  Some "accident"!
  
  I stand by my opinion, whether it's correct or not is purely that - a matter of opinion.
  The facts remain that prior to the Gracchi, things just "weren't done" in that way. After their deaths, things were never the same in the Republic. I personally feel that the Republic was doomed more by expansion rather than one single event. It was simply too big and powerful to be governed by an oligarchy (which is what the Republic was), and had reached the level where perpetual civil war was inevitable (as seen over the next 100 years).
  
  Anyhow, going back to the original question - did the Gracchi with their reforms and "accident" lead to the fall of the Republic and the start of Empire?
  I would say that the actions of Tiberius didn't, but the actions of both Gracchus and the Senate did. As an afterthought - wasn't Scipio Nasica a close relative of Tiberius?

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  
  I personally feel that the Republic was doomed more by expansion rather than one single event.
  Μύ
  
  Absolutely agree.
  
  
  I would say that the actions of Tiberius didn't, but the actions of both Gracchus and the Senate did. As an afterthought - wasn't Scipio Nasica a close relative of Tiberius?
  Μύ
  
  They were cousins, and had been more pally earlier, right enough.
  
  I don't like the idea of implying too much cause and effect to these developments in the sense the questioner implies. One can link events historically which in hindsight appear to have an obvious continuity to them, but the real danger is to deduce from that supposed continuity that an overlap can be found between, say, the motives of the Gracchi and those of Sulla, or for that matter the true nature of the tactics employed by the protagonists in either situation and time.
  
  There is no doubt that Sulla and Marius's actions precipitated the dismantling of an already weakened commitment to republicanism, at least as it had once been expressed. In a small way the Gracchi and what happened to them can be lumped in with that process. But that's where I'd stop, personally. Otherwise there's a real danger of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the motives in play during the senate V Gracchi era.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  Good post, can't really argue with that.
  I'm still sticking to my view though (you wouldn't expect any less!)...
  
  Hmm. Just had a thought - d'you reckon we've just written someone's Classics essay for them?
  
  Well, fair play so long as they reference it properly - I know of a couple of lecturers who do check this site for plagiarism!

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 5th June 2009

  for once I wouldn't mind if we have helped someone
  
  A thread I'm thourghly interested in and educated by
  
  

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Sunday, 7th June 2009

  Yes, it's been a good one and it got me back into posting on here again (there's a downside to everything guys!).

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 19.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 7th June 2009

  Given that the Gracchi reforms actually became legislation for the most part, and that neither the style with which they pursued their agendas nor the manner of their deaths (at the hands of senatorially sanctioned mobs) were reproduced in quite the same manner afterwards, I would still maintain that one should be reticent to place either incident at the start of a "chain of events" which led ultimately to the end of the republic.
  
  However if one such event could possibly be isolated then I would suggest a very strong candidate must be the decision by the senate to refuse Marius extra legions to prosecute the war which he had been appointed to win by the same people, the senate. When he responded by recruiting volunteers from the echelons below those hitherto regarded as the minimum "standard", and used these recruits to such great and rapid effect in North Africa (which seemed to have surprised him pleasantly at the time as much as it did the senate, suggesting it had all been something of a military "experiment" on his part, not a political decision at all) then the republic reached the first of those crossroads which ultimately led to its dissolution.
  
  One can only speculate now what Marius would have done had he received the legions he'd requested (probably won the war in Africa in any case), but a reasonable prognosis would have been that this might well have been the last we might ever have heard of him - a successful general in a particular war. But the "experiment" he was forced into conducting, and which launched his political career when he had to set about ensuring his recruits received reward for their effort, was the first step towards converting a society which had been successful in its pugnacity into a society which would be geared towards catering and being ever more dependent on ever more pugnacious policies.
  
  That seemingly small and pettily spiteful decision, ostensibly one based on economic considerations and a dislike of Marius, an upstart, receiving "auctoritas" above his station, turned out to be the one which set Rome on the path from a society defending its existence through aggressive treatment of its neighbours into one which depended on expansion in order to pay for the agents of that expansion. A republic could not accommodate that new ambition, one which automatically created powerful leaders of ambitious men.
  
  The real wonder is probably what took them so long to finally admit it, and how much turmoil Rome endured internally before the fact became a political reality.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message20

• Message 21

  , in reply to message 20.

  Posted by Aiwendil (U14036219) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009

  Hello all
  
  The Gracchi's actions highlighted that something could be done about the rising number of social problems in the Republic. The bill itself, whilst it passed, caused another set of actions that were dangerous to the very foundations of the Senate's control over certain aspects of administration, most notably it's 'foreign policy'. The Senate's ability to wield influence abroad was damaged by Tiberus' seizure of Attalus of Pergamum's fortune. Whilst here there is nothing spectacularly wrong what is seen is the beginning of a trend of one man refusing the will of the Senate.
  As Nordmann pointed out the Gracchan reforms became legislation, and in my view this cannot be seen as a precursor to Marius wielding his 'populist' power in his and the Republic's advantage. Perhaps one can say that Marius may have taken into account the action's of the Gracchi, as men who would champion the cause of the people, though his actions as Consul in 107 was not driven by a need to alleviate the needs of many of the vastly lesser well-off inhabitants of Rome, but to enlarge the Army and to tap into a resource not known before.
  The Gracchi were foremost crucial on highlighting the plight of many of the poor of Italy. Their reforms were not damaging to the Republic, merely prolonging an already worsening set of social circumstances. The manner in which both were dispatched is certainly questionable to a reasonable degree, but i'm inclined to think it wasn't hugely influential in later affairs of the Republic.

  Link to this forum: Debate: Did Tiberius Gracchus's actions initiate the fall the Roman Republic?

  Report message21

Back to top