TIBERIUS GRACCHUS
IA3 Ancient History 12A
By Smith Smith
Word Count 1658
TIBERIUS GRACCHUS
It is consensus among historians that the fall of the Roman Republic began with the tribunate
of Tiberius Gracchus. Born into an aristocratic Roman family, the man had strong political ties with
leading families. On his father’s side he was descended from Scipio Africanus, a key player in efforts
to defeat Hannibal. He gained power early on in religious positions as an augur in his youth and
engaged in military service as a quaestor in Numantia. Elected as a tribunate in 133 BCE, his main
focus was to solve Rome’s socio-economic crisis and redistribute land. The influx of slave labour and
foreign assets fuelled an extreme class divide that left many citizens without land and therefore Rome
with a lack of military recruits. The combination of Tiberius Gracchus’ controversial methods and the
senate’s drastic responses were what initiated the fall of the Roman Republic, though Tiberius’ bill
was not revolutionary in itself. Additionally, Tiberius Gracchus was one of the first forces that began
a divide in politicians between Optimates and Populares, and contributed to a trend which encouraged
appealing to the masses and disregard for order and tradition.
Tiberius Gracchus’ career Many often credit Tiberius’ first transgressional move as bypassing
the senate and presenting his bill lex agraria directly to the assembly. However, this action was not
illegal in any way and had been done by Tiberius’ predecessors and even contemporaries just years
prior (Pina Polo, 2017; Bradley, 1990). The senate was still displeased and felt disrespected –
tradition was extremely important to Roman culture. As a result, they had another tribune Marcus
Octavius attempt to veto the bill, something the senate themselves were unable to do. In response,
Tiberius went to the people and had them vote to remove Octavius from his position, a “…measure
which was illegal and unseemly..” (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 11.2), on the grounds that Octavius
was “…acting contrary to the welfare of the plebs…” and was not fit for his office (Appian, The Civil
Wars, 1.1.12). It is notable that Plutarch takes a very moralistic approach to his biographies, however
Appian corroborates thus improving reliability. This was truly Tiberius’ first radical measure in his
career, and this measure exemplifies its controversial nature. After the senate failed to stop the bill at
this stage, they retaliated by blocking the necessary funds to sustain the bill, continuing the trivial
abuses of power by both Gracchus and the senate. In another radical measure, Tiberius proposed
directly to the assembly that the freshy acquired treasury of the recently deceased king of Pergamum
be allocated to finance his bill. This response was completely overstepping the bounds of his
tribuneship (Boren, 1961) and challenged the authority of the senate even more directly than the
deposition of Octavian. One valuable secondary source author is Pamela Bradley, an Australian
historian and author of several books on ancient civilisations. In Ancient Rome: Using Evidence, she
writes that “…his aims were conservative but… he adopted methods which, though not deliberately
revolutionary, threatened… (traditional) constitutional practices of Rome.” Bradley’s work is a well
sourced, critical book with an educational purpose and useful ideas about Tiberius’ methods,
motivations and relationship with the senate. Thus, it was Tiberius Gracchus’ methods rather than his
policies that made his tribunate so controversial and what made him a threat to the senate.
After Tiberius Gracchus began interfering with state finances the senate began to threaten to
try Tiberius in the court of law, this threat being corroborated by numerous ancient and modern
scholars, the senate was furious. The senate needed to wait until Tiberius had finished his tribuneship
and to trial him before that would be a violation of his sacrosanctity. Aware of this, he ran for a
second tribuneship. Though this move was atypical and broke tradition, it was not written into law
that a tribune couldn’t run for office again. Though this move was largely for his own safety, the
senate saw it as a way to sustain influence and exert power for a longer amount of time. Henry C.
Boren’s book Tiberius Gracchus: The Opposition View (1961) is an excellent modern source delving
into the senate’s perception of Tiberius and his measures as well as the consequences of such
measures. He writes, “…Tiberius initiated measures which ultimately harmed all the aristocratic
groups, even the Claudians. The division of Roman politicians into Populares and optimates… was a
consequence.” (p364) While historians are divided on Gracchus’ motivations for reform being
genuine or for his own political gain (or his associates of the Claudian faction), Boren offers a
nuanced interpretation. Regardless of his intentions, his career resulted in the Populares-Optimate
division and a rise in populism and demagoguery that would be the Republic’s downfall. Cicero is a
notable source of evidence for how the conservative senate and the opposition to Tiberius Gracchus
viewed the man and his methods. Cicero is quoted saying that, “…if we can speak of a Populares
ideology, it is clear that the Gracchan period was pivotal in shaping it.” Though Cicero writes a fairly
neutral account of the events, this application of the events into a context that didn’t exist at the time
should be noted in consideration of his reliability as a source. Still, ancient and modern writers would
be correct in the assumption that the Gracchan period was the beginning of a rise in Populism and
political factionalism (as opposed to the old system of politicians divided by their families) that would
be the downfall of the Republic.
Figure.１- Silver coin. Head of Alexander the Great
The senate’s final response to Tiberius Gracchus, essentially pre-emptive tyrannicide, was
one of the first major instances where violence was used to solve political conflict – an approach that
would be instrumental in the breakdown of the republic. During the Republic, the Republic was
sacred and anyone who prevented a tyrant from taking control was regarded as a hero (Pina Polo,
2017). Despite this, some ancient sources are critical of the murder of Tiberius Gracchus and place
blame on the senators who used violence against the tribune for beginning the downfall of the
Republic. Appian, a Greek-born historian with Roman citizenship cites the Gracchan era as the
beginning of the fall of the Republic and is the reason most modern historian do the same (Swidzinki,
2008). Appian believed that the Roman republican government was “…ultimately a corrupt and
inefficient one that needed to be destroyed in order to make way for ‘harmony and monarchy’…” and
wrote during the reign of three different emperors which gives his writings a somewhat prejudiced
perspective (Swidzinki, 2008). Appian also differs from Plutarch by regarding the reforms as a way to
increase the number of men eligible for military service rather than solely to help the poor. Sallust
also writes with a unique perspective of the Gracchi, born a Plebian Italian raised in Rome around 300
years after the tribuneship of Tiberius Gracchus. He vehemently opposes the senates’ murder of
Tiberius and the subsequent extermination of large numbers of his supporters saying, “…the nobility,
however, using their victory with wanton extravagance… increased, for the time to come, the dread
with which they were regarded, [rather] than their real power…” While Sallust rightfully condemns
the systematic murders of hundreds of Gracchus’ supporters, corroborated by Plutarch’s account of
the life of the Gracchi, Sallust’s narrative is severely partial against the Roman aristocracy. Sallust
was a Populares politician and close friend and fierce defender of Julius Caesar. With this in mind,
historians should be wary of a possible agenda against the ruling class and idealisation of the Gracchi
brothers in his works. Even so, the senate’s drastic and violent responses did little to achieve their
goals of suppressing the insurrection against them. Evidently, Tiberius Gracchus’ effect on the Roman
republic was only amplified after the senate’s responses.
Following the evaluation of this evidence, it is clear that though Tiberius Gracchus’ attempts
to alleviate the socio-economic crisis in Rome would impact the ruling class, this was not the reason
for the opposition to him. After Tiberius’ death, his laws were still passed, suggesting that his policies
were not what triggered the extreme responses from the senate (Bradley, 1990). Using multiple
ancient sources documenting his career, we can interpret that the methods with which Tiberius used to
achieve his policies were what drove the senate to such extreme measures. Deposing a fellow tribune
to prevent the veto of his bill – even if the use of this tactic by the senate was unjust – revealed one of
many flaws in the Roman Republic’s constitution and unveiled an avenue for more ambitious men to
gain power. By overstepping his bounds as a tribunate and attempting unorthodox (though not
necessarily unconstitutional) acts, Tiberius massively destabilised the structure of the Republic and
had a large part in its collapse. The senate however had an equal part to play in beginning the
breakdown of the Republic at this moment in history. Their actions, whether born of fear, arrogance
or both, began the first violence in the Republic since its birth. The campaign to legitimise the
violence used against Tiberius as pre-emptive tyrannicide began a trend of violence which would be
seen in the following century, regardless of the legitimacy of the claims. Whether his motivations
were self-serving politically or noble, Tiberius Gracchus’ career was devastating to the tradition and
stability of the Roman Republic and was only the first step in a series of violent, ruinous events that
would result in the transformation of Rome into what the senate was trying so hard to avoid – a
monarchy.
REFERENCES
Appian. The Civil Wars. trans. John Carter (1996). Penguin.
Boren, H. C. (1961). Tiberius Gracchus: The Opposition View. The American Journal of Philology
Vol. 82. Accessed via:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/292017?refreqid=excelsior%3Af802a0002f51918219e4fb433fea
e1b6
Bradley, P. (1990). Ancient Rome: Using Evidence. Cambridge University Press.
Cicero. On the Republic, 1.31. trans. C.W. Keyes (1928). Harvard University Press.
Pina Polo, F. (2017). The “Tyranny” of the Gracchi and the Concordia of the Optimates: An
Ideological Construct. University of Perugia. Accessed via:
https://www.academia.edu/31646743/The_Tyranny_of_the_Gracchi_and_the_Concordia_of_
the_Optimates_An_ideological_construct
Plutarch. Parallel Lives: Tiberius Gracchus, 11.2. trans. B. Perrin (1921). Harvard University Press.
Sallust. The Jurgurthine War, 42. Trans. Rev. J. S. Watson. Harper & Brothers.
Swidzinki, A. (2008). Tiberius Gracchus: A Study. Hirundo - McGill Undergraduate Journal for
Classical Studies Volume VI (2007-08). Accessed via:
https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2007-8-08.pdf