WH1: The Rise of Rome 5: The Gracchi Brothers and
the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic
This was the first sedition amongst the Romans, since the abrogation of kingly
government, that ended in the effusion of blood. All former quarrels which were
neither small nor about trivial matters, were always amicably composed, by mutual
concessions on either side, the Senate yielding for fear of the commons, and the
commons out of respect to the Senate.
Plutarch on the beating death of the Roman tribune and reformer Tiberius Gracchus
and his followers with “fragments of stools and chairs” by a Patrician mob at the
capital in 133 BCE.
1) The Carthaginians had been defeated—what had been
their empire (Spain, North Africa, Corsica, Sicily, &
Sardinia) now belonged to Rome. And now, the year 133
BCE began a new age in Rome during which the
dominant themes were internal DISORDER,
VIOLENCE, and the quest for POLITICAL CHANGE.
Before, the subject had been EXPANSION, wars of
conquest and DEFENSE, and the development of Roman
Government. Especially in the face of common enemies
(e.g., the Gauls and the Carthaginians), there had been
general agreement/cooperation at home between the
various social classes; now the concerns were the
continuance of the institutions of the REPUBLIC and the
laws regulating the GOVERNMENT.
2) The rapid and sweeping changes which were the direct
result of EXPANSION and CONQUERING were the root
of the dissension; and now that a great common and
unifying enemy had been subdued such a heavy strain
was placed on the REPUBLIC that it began to rip apart.
The root cause lay in the military RESOURCES required
to manage this expansion and the stress that this placed
on the traditional AGRARIAN lifestyle of the small
Roman farmer who, though not owning much land, had a
sufficient amount to qualify him for MILITARY
SERVICE.
3) Rome thus became the first explicit example of the
modern problem of URBAN UNREST directed against a
narrowly-based OLIGARCHIC power structure;
RIOTING and BITTERNESS among the CAPITICENSI
were the result. This conflict, known as the ROMAN
REVOLUTION, lasted for more than a century, and its
course sank Rome into CIVIL WAR and finally ended
with the overthrow of the REPUBLIC and the
establishment of the IMPERIAL PERIOD under the
Roman Emperors.
4) A time occurred during which the political factions (the
OPTIMATE Senate and the POPULARIST Tribal
Assembly of the Plebs) were gradually overshadowed by
great leaders who used these factions to dominate the
state in the name of ORDER & STABILITY; for the
republic, this culminated when its last leader, GAIUS
JULIUS CAESAR, gained its leadership and then was
assassinated in 44 BC.
5) Next, there was a civil war between those leaders who
tried to seize Caesar’s power (Octavian and Marc
Antony); it ended with the establishment of a new form of
government by Caesar’s grand-nephew Octavian, called
(27 BCE) IMPERATOR CAESAR AUGUSTUS. Thus,
the Roman IMPERIAL PERIOD had begun. And so, the
dates for the period known as the Roman Revolution (the
transition from REPUBLIC to IMPERIUM) are 133 BCE
to 31-27 BCE).
6) THUCYDIDES’ analysis once again becomes relevant.
Rome had lost those traits of character that made the
REPUBLICAN form of government possible. Rome gave
up its sense of fairness, moderation, and respect for Mos
Maiorum. VIOLENCE and back-room deals became the
SOP for running the government—when one disagreed
with a political opponent one simply had him clubbed to
death and the issue was resolved!
7) The beginning of the Roman Revolution is traditionally
dated to 133 BCE and the GRACCHI brother’s efforts to
bring about land reform. The land question was raised by
Roman Tribune Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, and, in
doing so, he posed a serious challenge to SENATORIAL
PRIVELEGES and the hold of land-based aristocrats
over Romans who had been DISPLACED from their
lands as a consequence of rendering military service to
the REPUBLIC.
8) First, it is necessary to understand the institution of the
Roman TRIBUNATE. After the expulsion of the last
KING c. 509 BCE, the Romans maintained their
SENATE (Council of ELDERS) which was comprised
originally of the chiefs of the landowning family CLANS.
While the Senate grew in PRESTIGE and AUTHORITY,
it did not make any LAWS—it was more the sounding
voice of the Roman conscience and patriotism and a
refuge for the rich PATRICIAN class. Politically,
although it was not a LAW making body, it’s domain
included funding laws passed by the Tribal Assembly of
the Plebs along with foreign affairs.
9) The Senate was led by two elected CONSULS whose
combined authority replaced that of the single
KING and who governed jointly for a term of ONE
YEAR (limited tenure of office as per MOS
MAIORUM) and typically were not re-elected. In
the early republic, they resembled temporary
KINGS who wore the imperial PURPLE toga and
used an ivory chair. The Consuls also commanded
Rome’s Armies. Consuls were elected from the
SENATE and were lifetime Senators once their term
expired; often they were made military governors of
Roman provinces.
10) And so, how would the power of the consuls and the
Senate COUNTERBALANCED? This was through an
office invented by the early Romans: the TRIBUNES of
the PEOPLE. The duty of the Tribune was to insure
that the PLEBS (ordinary citizens) were not exploited
by the two upper classes: the PATRICIANS who
dominated the government and the priesthood, and the
EQUITES, or Knights, who ran Roman businesses such
as TAX FARMING. The Tribune’s authority was
empowered by RELIGION, and so he needed no armed
guard or escort to make an arrest. The penalty for
attacking a tribune was DEATH.
11)
A Tribune was prohibited from leaving the city of Rome,
and his home needed to remain open DAY and NIGHT so
that appeals could be heard. Initially, two Tribunes were
ELECTED, then four, and finally TEN for terms of ONE
YEAR. As the URBAN population grew, thy became
VERY POWERFUL and could prevent consuls from
enacting laws harmful to the Plebs by appearing and
simply saying “Veto” (“I FORBID”).
12)
It is important to keep in mind that the Tribunes
themselves were PLEBIANS. And yet, they could sit in
the Senate and participate in its DEBATES. They had the
right to call the people to ASSEMBLY (the Tribal
Assembly of the Plebs) and address them, and call for a
VOTE even if the consuls disapproved. And so, the office
of the Tribune was central to the definition of the
ROMAN REPUBLIC as it provided a vital BALANCE
between the PATRICIANS and the PLEBS.
13)
As SMALL FARMS were coalesced into large
estates because of Roman militaristic expansionism, free
labor was replaced by SLAVE LABOR. Rome acquired a
large number of unemployed, landless people—mostly
returning VETERANS and their families--without
enough property to qualify for military service. Much
public land was traditionally held by the SENATORS. As
TRIBUNE, Gracchus proposed re-dividing this land—
much of it taken at the end of the 2nd PUNIC WAR,
giving CLEAR TITLE to some of it to the NOBILITY,
and have the rest revert to the STATE to be subdivided to
the landless CAPITICENSI as HEREDITARY LEASES
for payment of a small rent. It was a start: it took away
no one’s rights and reverted to the old Roman policy of
LAND DIVISION. Remember---what Gracchus was
proposing was not a new law, but rather the
ENFORCEMENT of a law that was already “on the
books.”
14)
Problem: GRACCHUS guessed that the SENATE
would never relinquish their traditionally—and in
principle ILLEGALLY--held lands. These lands had been
in their families in some cases for generations; their
DEAD were buried on them; they considered the lands to
be THEIRS, not ROME’S. So, instead of taking the land
reform legislation first to the Senate for advice as was
required by MOS MAIORUM, T. Sempronius Gracchus
instead took it first to the TRIBAL ASSEMBLY OF THE
PLEBS; although this was his LEGAL RIGHT as
TRIBUNE—it was SELDOM USED, and was without
precedent for a bill of this magnitude. This “backdoor
strategy” set the SENATE against Gracchus and the bill,
but the masses were land-hungry, and it PASSED. This
amounted to a DECLARATION OF WAR against the
privileges of the SENATE. However, the senate refused to
fund the bill, but Gracchus circumvented this problem
by….
15)
Gracchus then took another unprecedented step by
announcing an election since he needed to PROTECT his
position in his office. This violated another fundamental
principle of MOS MAIORUM: Limited Tenure of Office.
This was the “final straw” for the SENATE. During a
gathering of his supporters, Gracchus pointed to his head,
signaling to his entourage to hold back the crowds.
Senatorial spies in the room ran to the senate house and
informed the senate that Gracchus was signaling for a
crown. Immediately, A SENATE-INCITED mob led by
SCIPIO NASICA fell upon Gracchus (then age 30) and
300 of his followers and clubbed them to death. Thus did
the dignified fathers of the state, masquerading as the
saviors of the REPUBLIC, degenerate to the level of a
street mob; by their own violence they became the first to
trample on law and order. The Senate now sentenced to
DEATH those followers of Gracchus who had spoken of
violence, while permitting NASICA to escape justice via
exile on the pretense of conducting a diplomatic mission
to Asia—where he quickly and conveniently DIED.
16)
These events of 133-132 were EPOCHAL in Roman
History. Selfish influence (again THUCYDIDES) had
prevented the peaceful re-interpretation of the
constitution to meet a new crisis. The result—at the time
unseen, was the not-far-off DESTRUCTION of the
Republic. Two bitterly opposed political parties, the
OPTIMATES and the POPULARES, emerged from these
events….
17)
The LAND LAW itself was not ended for FOUR
YEARS. It did effective work in redistributing land
ownership. In 10 more years, GAIUS GRACCHUS was
elected TRIBUNE; he envisioned even broader reforms
than his brother. But he, too, ran afoul of the SENATE
because his reforms were unpopular. In 121, he was not
re-elected as Tribune, and Senate attacked him—he
committed suicide –in rigged trials the Senate executed
3000 of his followers in the subsequent PURGE.
General Statement Regarding the Gracchi: They
interpreted the issue of land reform too simply.
They intensified class struggle; they did not create
it. They were sitting on the lid of a pressure
cooker that would have blown whether they had
lived or not; the trouble lay deeper, in the failure
(refusal) of the exploitive ruling class to create
the necessary economic reform. The great menace
to society is not the agitator, but rather those like
the Senate who insist upon holding on to the
status quo in an utterly changed society.