kawaika
May 20th 2006, 06:14 PM
Here's an essay I wrote recently about Tiberius Gracchus. I'm interested in hearing what you think about this interesting subject.
Tiberius Gracchus is a controversial figure. Some see him as a man who was murdered trying to help the common, Roman people. Others feel that his actions were motivated by political gain. While Tiberius Gracchus' Agrarian Bill would have benefited Rome, there is no denying he had political motives. Tiberius Gracchus was motivated more by politics than a desire to help the Roman people.
First of all, it is important to understand what the agrarian bill was. The problem this bill was supposed to solve was nothing new. In fact, a man by the name of Laelius unsuccessfully tried to pass a land reform bill at around 140 B.C. although it is unknown how similar his plan was with Tiberius' plan. (Scullard, 22) Clearly the Romans recognized that there was a serious problem that needed to be solved. The problem was that wealthy Romans (such as senators, for example) were able to acquire large tracts of land while poorer Romans lost their land. Under Roman law though, the maximum amount of land someone could own was 500 iugera. (Scullard, 21) Despite this law, wealthy Romans were able to own (but not legally) more than 500 iugera because the government turned a blind eye. (Scullard, 21) This was a serious problem because the Roman Army was a citizen militia and only those with a certain amount of land could be conscripted. (Scullard, 22) Furthermore, since many of the poorer Romans were giving up their land to the wealthy (due to economic problems) a large mass of unemployed people milled about “whose presence would lead to social and political unrest.” (Scullard, 20) If Rome was to continue having a formidable army and economy then land would have to be given to the peasants, and consequently taken away from those who had over the legal amount of iugera. There was no problem with Tiberius trying to solve this problem, but “...Tiberius attempted to find a solution for the social and military crisis, with the political credit to go to himself and his backers.“ (Encyclopædia Britannica, “Ancient Rome”) The agrarian bill itself wasn't controversial, “The lex agraria specified minimum and maximum individual landholdings, with an allowance for male children of the family. Excess land would be expropriated and compensation paid for improvements.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, “Land Reform”) Henry Boren points out that the agrarian bill “...though thought unwise and even somewhat radical, was hardly a complete surprise, for it was not altogether unlike some measures previously undertaken by the political faction to which Tiberius belonged.” (Boren, 359) Subsequent actions of Tiberius will show that he seemed to be more concerned with gaining political credit than solving the problem and that was what concerned the Romans.
Tiberius Gracchus brought the lex agraria (his land reform bill) to the popular assembly first instead of bringing it to the Senate. H. H. Scullard notes, that “...Tiberius had friends in the Senate and if he had followed the normal procedure of bringing his bill to the Senate before taking it to the People, there is no justification for believing that it would not have been given a fair hearing.” (Scullard, 26) So why did Tiberius bring the proposal to the senate first instead of the popular assembly? The lex agraria would have affected the Senators because they had large tracts of land, so perhaps Tiberius Gracchus thought it would be a waste of time. It is highly likely that Tiberius' “proposal was bound to meet with opposition in the Senate.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, “Ancient Rome”) Yes, Tiberius' proposal may have received a “fair hearing” but probably not a favorable result. Lily Ross Taylor believes that “Tiberius was right in taking his land law directly to the people without the authority of the senate” because “A selfish aristocracy in control of the senate had rejected an earlier plan to rectify the situation.” (Taylor, 108)
Tiberius could have brought his bill to the Senate, and if his bill was rejected, he could have then brought it to the Popular Assembly as a last resort. Instead, Tiberius brought his agrarian bill to the Popular Assembly first. Technically this was not illegal, but he was following a hundred year old precedent when it was customary to consult the Senate first. (Scullard, 26) Unfortunately for Tiberius, his fellow Tribune M. Octavius, vetoed the bill “in the interests of the Senate.” (Scullard, 26)
At this point it is important to understand that Tiberius was not killed because he was hurting rich mens' pockets with his agrarian bill. Henry C. Boren points out that “If this were the casus belli, then the murder should have come months earlier when the agrarian law was first proposed or immediately upon passage, in order to prevent its going into operation. Instead, it is seen that neither before nor after Tiberius' death was any effort made specifically to undo the recovery and redistribution of land already accomplished. In fact, the land commission was reorganized and permitted to continue its work for at least three or four years after Tiberius' death.” (Boren, 358-359)
Tiberius tried to persuade Octavius to change his mind but failed. The only ways he could get his bill to pass would be if Octavius changed his mind or if another man who favored the lex agraria became tribune. Of course, Tiberius could have just given up, but he did not. Tiberius had the popular assembly to vote on whether Octavius should be deposed or not—he was deposed, another tribune took his place, and Tiberius' land bill was passed. Morgan and Walsh argue convincingly that Tiberius was determined to recover political power that was lost due to the Numantine affair, which explains why Tiberius did not consult the senate first (he wanted to get the credit for reforming Rome) and why he resorted to deposing Octavius when he vetoed the lex agraria. In 137 B.C. Tiberius was a quaestor and helped negotiate a treaty between Rome and Numantia when the Numantines trapped the Roman army. (Morgan, 200) When the treaty was sent to Rome to be ratified the senate rejected it, and opted to continue the war. (Morgan, 200) Morgan and Walsh state “It is seldom observed that his involvement in the Numantine affair very nearly ruined his career; or that a nobilis who had come so close to disaster would be especially reluctant to face the prospect of failure a second time and, therefore, likely to stop at nothing in order to get his own way; or that Tberius' peers, well aware of his predicament, would be more than usually suspicious of his motives and actions in the years which followed.” (Morgan, 201) Tiberius' next actions would make his peers even more suspicious.
Tiberius got his way and the lex agraria was passed, but now he needed a way to fund it. Public finance was controlled by the senate, and the senators humiliated Tiberius by funding him with a paltry two shillings per day. (Scullard, 27) Oddly enough, it was in this moment of difficulty that Tiberius learned that Attalus, king of Pergamum, had died and bequeathed his fortune to the Roman people. (Scullard, 27) Tiberius received the funding he needed by either bringing a bill to the popular assembly requesting Attalus' money or by threatening to do so. (Scullard, 27) Regardless of what exactly he did, the affect was the same. Scullard belives that “His action must have destroyed any sympathy that still remained for him in the Senate...” (Scullard, 27) Tiberius' next action would push the senators over the edge and would end in the death of Tiberius.
Tiberius had almost used up his time in office as a tribune and decided to run for reelection. While technically it wasn't illegal to run for reelection, it wasn't customary to do so. Scullard notes that “re-election was not illegal, but the last important case belonged to a period two hundred years earlier when the function of the tribunate was very different.” (Scullard, 27) There is more to this reelection though. It is possible that the reason Tiberius wanted to be reelected was to save himself from prosecution. “He was threatened with prosecution after the end of his tribunate, when he would have no formal means of protecting his law and would be liable to prosecution before the Centuriate Assembly, in which the wealthier classes had a voting advantage. The charge would have been violation of the immunity of the tribune Octavius.” (Encyclopædia Britannica Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus) During a discussion in which Tiberius' eligibility for reelection was discussed, a fight broke out and P. Scipio Nasica led opponent of Tiberius to where the brawl was at and Tiberius and some of his followers were beaten to death.
Tiberius Gracchus clearly had a political motive. While he may not have planned on becoming a tyrant, it certainly looked that way to his opponents. Time and time again Tiberius ignored Roman customs. He should not have tbrought the lex agraria to the Popular Assembly first—in fact, he should have brought this bill to the Senate. He should not have deposed Octavius and then bring his bill to the popular assembly again so that it would pass. Tiberius should not have tried to use Attalus' wealth for funding his agrarian bill. Finally, he should not have run for reelection as Tribune. The fact that Tiberius ignored customs immediately calls into question his motives as a man solely concerned with the fate and state of Rome. Had Tiberius started differently, he may not have been killed for his actions. If he had brought his bill to the senate first and had it been rejected, he could have been justified in taking the actions that he took. Instead, he started off in the wrong and was essentially forced to depose Octavius and use Attalus' money to fund his bill otherwise the lex agraria would have no affect and he would have suffered politically.
Bibliography
"Ancient Rome." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica
Online.16 Apr. 2006 <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-26628>.
Boren, Henry C. “Tiberius Gracchus: The Opposition View.” The American Journal of Philology. 82.4 (Oct., 1961): 358-369
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002- 9475%28196110%2982%3A4%3C358%3ATGTOV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J>.
"Gracchus, Tiberius Sempronius." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. 16 Apr. 2006 <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9037574>.
"Land Reform." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica
Online. 16 Apr. 2006 <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-61984>.
Morgan, M. Gwyn, and John A. Walsh. “Ti. Gracchus (TR. PL. 133 B.C.), The Numantine Affair, and the Deposition of M. Octavius.” Classical Philology. 73.3 (Jul., 1978): 200-210. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28197807%2973%3A3%3C200%3ATG%28P1B%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y>.
Scullard, H. H. “From The Gracchi To Nero: A History Of Rome From 133 B.C.
To Ad 68.” Routledge, New York, 2004.
Taylor, Lily Ross. Book review of “The Failure of the Roman Repbulic.” Smith, R. E.
“The Failure of the Roman Repbulic.” The American Historical Review. 62.1 (Oct, 1956): 107-108.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195%28196803%2983%3A1%3C122%3ACTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M>.
Tiberius Gracchus is a controversial figure. Some see him as a man who was murdered trying to help the common, Roman people. Others feel that his actions were motivated by political gain. While Tiberius Gracchus' Agrarian Bill would have benefited Rome, there is no denying he had political motives. Tiberius Gracchus was motivated more by politics than a desire to help the Roman people.
First of all, it is important to understand what the agrarian bill was. The problem this bill was supposed to solve was nothing new. In fact, a man by the name of Laelius unsuccessfully tried to pass a land reform bill at around 140 B.C. although it is unknown how similar his plan was with Tiberius' plan. (Scullard, 22) Clearly the Romans recognized that there was a serious problem that needed to be solved. The problem was that wealthy Romans (such as senators, for example) were able to acquire large tracts of land while poorer Romans lost their land. Under Roman law though, the maximum amount of land someone could own was 500 iugera. (Scullard, 21) Despite this law, wealthy Romans were able to own (but not legally) more than 500 iugera because the government turned a blind eye. (Scullard, 21) This was a serious problem because the Roman Army was a citizen militia and only those with a certain amount of land could be conscripted. (Scullard, 22) Furthermore, since many of the poorer Romans were giving up their land to the wealthy (due to economic problems) a large mass of unemployed people milled about “whose presence would lead to social and political unrest.” (Scullard, 20) If Rome was to continue having a formidable army and economy then land would have to be given to the peasants, and consequently taken away from those who had over the legal amount of iugera. There was no problem with Tiberius trying to solve this problem, but “...Tiberius attempted to find a solution for the social and military crisis, with the political credit to go to himself and his backers.“ (Encyclopædia Britannica, “Ancient Rome”) The agrarian bill itself wasn't controversial, “The lex agraria specified minimum and maximum individual landholdings, with an allowance for male children of the family. Excess land would be expropriated and compensation paid for improvements.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, “Land Reform”) Henry Boren points out that the agrarian bill “...though thought unwise and even somewhat radical, was hardly a complete surprise, for it was not altogether unlike some measures previously undertaken by the political faction to which Tiberius belonged.” (Boren, 359) Subsequent actions of Tiberius will show that he seemed to be more concerned with gaining political credit than solving the problem and that was what concerned the Romans.
Tiberius Gracchus brought the lex agraria (his land reform bill) to the popular assembly first instead of bringing it to the Senate. H. H. Scullard notes, that “...Tiberius had friends in the Senate and if he had followed the normal procedure of bringing his bill to the Senate before taking it to the People, there is no justification for believing that it would not have been given a fair hearing.” (Scullard, 26) So why did Tiberius bring the proposal to the senate first instead of the popular assembly? The lex agraria would have affected the Senators because they had large tracts of land, so perhaps Tiberius Gracchus thought it would be a waste of time. It is highly likely that Tiberius' “proposal was bound to meet with opposition in the Senate.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, “Ancient Rome”) Yes, Tiberius' proposal may have received a “fair hearing” but probably not a favorable result. Lily Ross Taylor believes that “Tiberius was right in taking his land law directly to the people without the authority of the senate” because “A selfish aristocracy in control of the senate had rejected an earlier plan to rectify the situation.” (Taylor, 108)
Tiberius could have brought his bill to the Senate, and if his bill was rejected, he could have then brought it to the Popular Assembly as a last resort. Instead, Tiberius brought his agrarian bill to the Popular Assembly first. Technically this was not illegal, but he was following a hundred year old precedent when it was customary to consult the Senate first. (Scullard, 26) Unfortunately for Tiberius, his fellow Tribune M. Octavius, vetoed the bill “in the interests of the Senate.” (Scullard, 26)
At this point it is important to understand that Tiberius was not killed because he was hurting rich mens' pockets with his agrarian bill. Henry C. Boren points out that “If this were the casus belli, then the murder should have come months earlier when the agrarian law was first proposed or immediately upon passage, in order to prevent its going into operation. Instead, it is seen that neither before nor after Tiberius' death was any effort made specifically to undo the recovery and redistribution of land already accomplished. In fact, the land commission was reorganized and permitted to continue its work for at least three or four years after Tiberius' death.” (Boren, 358-359)
Tiberius tried to persuade Octavius to change his mind but failed. The only ways he could get his bill to pass would be if Octavius changed his mind or if another man who favored the lex agraria became tribune. Of course, Tiberius could have just given up, but he did not. Tiberius had the popular assembly to vote on whether Octavius should be deposed or not—he was deposed, another tribune took his place, and Tiberius' land bill was passed. Morgan and Walsh argue convincingly that Tiberius was determined to recover political power that was lost due to the Numantine affair, which explains why Tiberius did not consult the senate first (he wanted to get the credit for reforming Rome) and why he resorted to deposing Octavius when he vetoed the lex agraria. In 137 B.C. Tiberius was a quaestor and helped negotiate a treaty between Rome and Numantia when the Numantines trapped the Roman army. (Morgan, 200) When the treaty was sent to Rome to be ratified the senate rejected it, and opted to continue the war. (Morgan, 200) Morgan and Walsh state “It is seldom observed that his involvement in the Numantine affair very nearly ruined his career; or that a nobilis who had come so close to disaster would be especially reluctant to face the prospect of failure a second time and, therefore, likely to stop at nothing in order to get his own way; or that Tberius' peers, well aware of his predicament, would be more than usually suspicious of his motives and actions in the years which followed.” (Morgan, 201) Tiberius' next actions would make his peers even more suspicious.
Tiberius got his way and the lex agraria was passed, but now he needed a way to fund it. Public finance was controlled by the senate, and the senators humiliated Tiberius by funding him with a paltry two shillings per day. (Scullard, 27) Oddly enough, it was in this moment of difficulty that Tiberius learned that Attalus, king of Pergamum, had died and bequeathed his fortune to the Roman people. (Scullard, 27) Tiberius received the funding he needed by either bringing a bill to the popular assembly requesting Attalus' money or by threatening to do so. (Scullard, 27) Regardless of what exactly he did, the affect was the same. Scullard belives that “His action must have destroyed any sympathy that still remained for him in the Senate...” (Scullard, 27) Tiberius' next action would push the senators over the edge and would end in the death of Tiberius.
Tiberius had almost used up his time in office as a tribune and decided to run for reelection. While technically it wasn't illegal to run for reelection, it wasn't customary to do so. Scullard notes that “re-election was not illegal, but the last important case belonged to a period two hundred years earlier when the function of the tribunate was very different.” (Scullard, 27) There is more to this reelection though. It is possible that the reason Tiberius wanted to be reelected was to save himself from prosecution. “He was threatened with prosecution after the end of his tribunate, when he would have no formal means of protecting his law and would be liable to prosecution before the Centuriate Assembly, in which the wealthier classes had a voting advantage. The charge would have been violation of the immunity of the tribune Octavius.” (Encyclopædia Britannica Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus) During a discussion in which Tiberius' eligibility for reelection was discussed, a fight broke out and P. Scipio Nasica led opponent of Tiberius to where the brawl was at and Tiberius and some of his followers were beaten to death.
Tiberius Gracchus clearly had a political motive. While he may not have planned on becoming a tyrant, it certainly looked that way to his opponents. Time and time again Tiberius ignored Roman customs. He should not have tbrought the lex agraria to the Popular Assembly first—in fact, he should have brought this bill to the Senate. He should not have deposed Octavius and then bring his bill to the popular assembly again so that it would pass. Tiberius should not have tried to use Attalus' wealth for funding his agrarian bill. Finally, he should not have run for reelection as Tribune. The fact that Tiberius ignored customs immediately calls into question his motives as a man solely concerned with the fate and state of Rome. Had Tiberius started differently, he may not have been killed for his actions. If he had brought his bill to the senate first and had it been rejected, he could have been justified in taking the actions that he took. Instead, he started off in the wrong and was essentially forced to depose Octavius and use Attalus' money to fund his bill otherwise the lex agraria would have no affect and he would have suffered politically.
Bibliography
"Ancient Rome." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica
Online.16 Apr. 2006 <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-26628>.
Boren, Henry C. “Tiberius Gracchus: The Opposition View.” The American Journal of Philology. 82.4 (Oct., 1961): 358-369
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002- 9475%28196110%2982%3A4%3C358%3ATGTOV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J>.
"Gracchus, Tiberius Sempronius." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. 16 Apr. 2006 <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9037574>.
"Land Reform." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica
Online. 16 Apr. 2006 <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-61984>.
Morgan, M. Gwyn, and John A. Walsh. “Ti. Gracchus (TR. PL. 133 B.C.), The Numantine Affair, and the Deposition of M. Octavius.” Classical Philology. 73.3 (Jul., 1978): 200-210. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28197807%2973%3A3%3C200%3ATG%28P1B%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y>.
Scullard, H. H. “From The Gracchi To Nero: A History Of Rome From 133 B.C.
To Ad 68.” Routledge, New York, 2004.
Taylor, Lily Ross. Book review of “The Failure of the Roman Repbulic.” Smith, R. E.
“The Failure of the Roman Repbulic.” The American Historical Review. 62.1 (Oct, 1956): 107-108.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195%28196803%2983%3A1%3C122%3ACTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M>.