The Gracchan Revolution
Firstly, I will look at the Gracchan land proposition and why it might be considered a revolution. In the time of the Gracchi Rome suffered from a manpower crisis. Tiberius believed that this crisis could be solved if the state were to undertake certain land reforms. In the aftermath of the Second Punic War, Rome punished those allies that defected by taking away some of their land. This land, however, was never redistributed and thus it became public land. This public land, however, was farmed illegally and was largely used by the wealthy. Those who used the land therefore used slaves meaning that it was slaves and not free citizens who farmed the land. This naturally would have decreased Rome’s available manpower seeing as one needed to be a landowner could be considered fit for military service. Tiberius’s idea thus was to take some of the land that was farmed illegally and redistribute it to the landless. The idea was that this would increase the farming population and thus also Rome’s available manpower.
Tiberius was a tribune of the plebeians at the time and as such he discussed his proposal with the senate. The senate however did not approve of his proposition. Tiberius then proceeded to bring the proposal to the popular assembly without the senate’s approval. Here Tiberius made use of a loophole in Rome’s government system. No written rule stated that a tribune should get the senate’s approval before they brought a matter to the popular assembly.This was not the only time Tiberius broke the rules. We can for example also see him throwing another tribune who did not agree with him out of his office and getting himself elected as a Tribune a second time in a row. Naturally, none of this did sit well with the senate and this created tension between the senate and the Tribunes of the plebeians (Gracchi to Nero) (Roman Republic).
By taking the matter to the public assembly without the consent of the senate he effectively reduced the sway the senate had over events. One particularly good example of Tiberius undermining the Senate was when he took some of Rome’s financial matters into his own hands. The Senate refused to properly fund Tiberius’s endeavors. As a result, Tiberius threatened to introduce a bill that would give some of Attalus’s (a king who had recently died and made Rome his heir) money to Tiberius to use for his settlers. Normally finances would have been in the jurisdiction of the senate. This therefore was a boundary that Tiberius was not allowed to cross(Gracchi to Nero). This is why Tiberius could be described as a revolutionary. He broke the accepted rules of the state and in doing so he undermined the senate. We cannot say to what extent he could be described as a revolutionary seeing as we do not know to what extent he planned to break the rules.
The Gracchi seems to have touched quite an important matter in the Roman mindset. They did get involved in land distribution (which in itself was an important matter to the Romans), but in doing so they also touched on a subject much more important. Through how Tiberius went about getting his land policies accepted, he inevitably challenged how Rome was governed. We just do not know to what extent he would have challenged it if he had not been murdered.
Regardless if we could consider the Gracchan land policies as a revolution in the contemporary, it seems that the ancient Romans did see it as one. We for instance have a source that describes Tiberius Gracchus as a liberator:
Thus
Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus… begun to vindicate the liberty of the people, and
to expose the misconduct of the few. Sallus, The
Jugurthine War 42.1
Sallus most certainly saw Tiberius as a revolutionary.Although Sallus is not the only ancient writer who saw Tiberius as a revolutionary. We also have an account by Cicero in which he identifies Tiberius as a revolutionary. Cicero Tiberius Gracchus in a much more negative light:
Tiberius
Gracchus tried to obtain regal power – or rather, he actually did reign for a
few months. Cicero, Brutus 103
Here we see that Cicero even goes so far as to liken Tiberius to a king (something which was extremely detested by the Romans). Whether Tiberius was a Liberator or a Tyrant it is clear that he made a long-lasting impression on the Romans and that they did in fact see him as a revolutionary. Both these authors seem to be quite opinionated about what Tiberius Gracchus signifies. It is clear that that the Gracchan land prepositions were quiet and influential in the mindset of later ancient authors. If Tiberius was intent on making himself a king, he was in fact a revolutionary. The same could be said if he was a liberator. We can say this seeing as in both of these cases he would have changed the way the state was governed. If he wanted to establish himself as a tyrant, the state might have become a monarchy. I was a liberator Rome might even have become more democratic.
It is of course possible that he did not see himself as either one of these things and that he simply wanted to solve Rome’s manpower crisis. If this was the case he was not a revolutionary seeing as in this case he only would have changed some of Rome’s legislations meaning that he was a reformist rather than a revolutionary. Tiberius Gracchus has both been described as a liberator and a tyrant, but did he ever see himself as either of these things?
Tiberius’s intentions are an important thing to consider when debating whether the Gracchan land policies were a revolution. It is important seeing as it is his intention would inevitably have affected the course of events if he had not been killed. I therefore would start by looking at why Tiberius could have been seen as a liberator. He could be described as a liberator seeing as his actions would inevitably have benefited at least some of Rome’s urban poor. Although he can mainly be seen as a liberator seeing as his actions gave the popular assembly political power, this of course gave the people more political power.
I do, however, find it much more likely that Tiberius’s end goal was in fact to find a solution to Rome’s manpower crisis. There of course also is the opposite augment: that he was a tyrant (or rather that he wanted to become a tyrant).
One might argue that Tiberius did not really care about the land crisis and that he simply used it as a means of gaining power and that his ultimate goal was to overthrow the senate and thus establish himself as a tyrant. There are some reasons why one might think that this was the case. We can for instance see that the Gracchan land prepositions would by no means have solved the crises of manpower.
At
most 15000 small farms could have been created on this land. This would not
even remotely overturned the results of the land distribution.
(roman republic)
Here we can see that Tiberius’s land reform would only have made a miniscule contribution to helping with Rome’s manpower crisis. It is, of course, also is possible that Tiberius simply did not realize that his proposal would not solve the manpower crisis and simply used it to further his own interests. The same argument could also be made if we saw him as a liberator. It is possible that he merely used the land prepositions to give more political power to the public assembly.
There are of course other factors that might hint at Tiberius’s possible motives. While on campaign in Spain Tiberius’s army suffered a humiliating defeat. Tiberius then negotiated with the enemy to get the captured soldiers released. The senate looked down on this and Tiberius’s reputation with the senate was seriously damaged. (Roman Republic). It is possible that he was desperate to mend his damaged reputation and that he saw his land proposition as a means to do so. If this was the case then it seems likely that he did not want to overthrow the state, but simply wanted to repair his reputation. This could easily be paired with the idea that Tiberius had ulterior motives. It is possible that Gracchus bore some resentment towards the senate and that therefore tried to gain power through another avenue seeing as the senate effectively had locked him out of the conventional way of gaining power in the republic.
It, of course, also is possible that Tiberius was quite clueless as to how his actions would affect the government and that his land prepositions were just that: land prepositions with no secret hidden agenda(Gracchi to Nero). It is possible that Tiberius simply thought that he had a viable solution to the manpower problem and simply did not realize that his proposal would not even get near to solving the manpower crisis. There are lots of possibilities as to Tiberius’s intentions, none of which seem more likely than the other. Although we can say that if Tiberius did intend it to be a revolution it was a failed revolution seeing as Tiberius never did overthrow the senate.
The aftermath of the Gracchan land preposition is of course also quite important when considering the Gracchan land prepositions. The Gracchi never did succeed in overthrowing the senate, but they in change certain things. They for example caused the balled that the tribunes to be cast to be a secret baled. The land reforms they introduced also remained in place for quite some time. In this aspect, the Gracchan land prepositions were not a revolution seeing it did not change the government system.
The Gracchi however did make way for other revolutions (Gracci to Nero). The senate used violence to enact their political will and the Gracchi used the masses to enact their political will. We can for example see this in Julius Caesar’s overthrow of the senate. He made use of both these things. We can never really know what was on Tiberius’s mind when he made the land prepositions and we therefore also can not say what he might have done if he had not been murdered. We can never say whether the Gracchi intended to overthrow the Senate. If this was the case it could be considered as a revolution (albeit a failed one). If they simply he simply wanted his land prepositions to be accepted, we can not see it as a revolution. The Gracchus land prepositions was not a revolution seeing as it did not overthrow the government, but it could have been a failed revolution if the Gracchi intended to do so.
References
World Book.
Gracchi to Nero
Roman republic
copyright reserved © Baloyi 2024
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment