How plausible would it be, and what would be the effect, of Gaius Gracchus's reforms succeed in lasting? This would mean citizenship for Italians come earlier, as well as land distributed to the people.
Not very plausible.
The effect would be almost certainly the establishment of king-like power (emperor if you prefer, since we're talking Rome) about 100 years before.
This would also mean that middle east (Pontus-Cappadocia-Armenia-Syria-Egypt) is likely not to be includes in the empire; there is the distinct possibility of macedonia surviving as a semi-independent state
Errr, what?
Wouldn't Gracchus' reforms were made to distribute lands to Roman citizens, thus reducing the power of wealthy landowners (which in OTL paved the way for Sulla, Marius, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, and finally Augustus)?
Because the passage from Republic to Empire slows the march of Conquest.And why on earth would Rome (as Republic or Empire) didn't annex the rich provinces in the East? And allowed Macedon to become semi-independent? I can't see that happening...
On the opposite, "Republic" in roman times means "Aristocracy", i.e. Senatus
This is incorrect. At the time, a Republic was understood to be a balanced polity, one that took aspects of Aristotle's three forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) and combined them into a unified whole. Hence the combination of democratic bodies (the citizen assemblies, the tribunes, etc), aristocratic ones (the Senate) and monarchic ones (the Consulate and Dictatorship) during the Roman Republic.
That's Polybius view of it, at least.
Technically, you're quite right (apart from the monarchic part, which was a complete misunderstanding by Polybius) since SPQR was meant to represent both the Senatus and the Populus.
What I meant was that the traditional barriers to one-man-power concentration was the oligarchic faction, not the Populares one
Why? Would Gracchus himself be the one in charge of land distributions?Land distribution reform would give a private army of clientes to him and would reduce the political power of the Senatus (since the one giving them land is Gracchus, in explicit opposition to the Senatus).
Thus, power to a single man (Caesar-like) and Republic becoming a one-man-dominated state.
Also Gracchus kingship (or dictatorship, or emperorship, or whatever) aspirations were quite patent
I think that's more because Rome had conquered everything that could be easily conquered and worth the cost than domestic politicsBecause the passage from Republic to Empire slows the march of Conquest.
Through all the imperial period, Augustus's time borders were not much exceeded.
If Ghraccus is the new Augustus (or whatever he choose to call himself), I expect the limes to be established at this time.
Roughly, up to the Anatolian plain and Taurus in Asia, up to the Lybian desert in Africa, Narbonensis and Baetica in western europe, Italy up to the alps, illirian coast and south balcans (including Achaia)
Because the passage from Republic to Empire slows the march of Conquest.
Through all the imperial period, Augustus's time borders were not much exceeded.
If Ghraccus is the new Augustus (or whatever he choose to call himself), I expect the limes to be established at this time.
Roughly, up to the Anatolian plain and Taurus in Asia, up to the Lybian desert in Africa, Narbonensis and Baetica in western europe, Italy up to the alps, illirian coast and south balcans (including Achaia)
I have to disagree with this. The slowdown of Roman conquests at Imperial period was caused by Augustus' view that Rhine, Danube, and Euphrates are the most easily defensible frontiers for Rome, and that the lands beyond it were too poor (Germania) or too strong (Persia).
In fact, the Romans were eager to conquer beyond their border whenever they can, and if they think the income from conquest is larger than the outcome. (Claudius' conquest of Britain, Trajan's conquest of Dacia, Severus' conquest of northern Mesopotamia)
Actually, IF Germania was as rich and as developed as Gaul and IF Persia was as weak and as fractious as Anatolia, I can imagine the Romans (again, either as Republic or Empire) were rushing to conquer them.
Yes, he would.Why? Would Gracchus himself be the one in charge of land distributions?
I'd say that one of the causes of the slowdown was the appearing of turning up of rebellious generals becoming would-be-usurpers.
In an imperial system this is certainly easier than in a republican one (the prize for the winner is bigger, and the loyality to power is usually lower).
This do not mean that there wouldn't be ANY conquest at all (as you referred, a few were done even in imperial time), but a slowing down of the pace of conquest -and thus a border moved somewhat west- seems reasonable to me .