Gracchi successed

Typo

Banned
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.
 
Hmm, I don't know very much about this, but...AFAIK the entire Senate, several Tribunes, as well another Roman politicians were opposing Gracchus' reforms...
But if he succeed, well...earlier distribution of citizenship? Delayed rise of the Empire?
 
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 included in the empire; there is the distinct possibility of macedonia surviving as a semi-independent state
 
Last edited:
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)?
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...
 
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)?

Nope.
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

Also, I feel a big misunderstanding in your line of thought: you are translating "Republic" with "Democracy".
On the opposite, "Republic" in roman times means "Aristocracy", i.e. Senatus
Historically, the main opposer to concentration of powers in the hands of one man, were not the Populares, but rather the oligarchs.
On the other hand, Populares (e.g. Marius, Caresar) tried to outdo the Senate by calling directly to the masses.

Thus: Sulla, Pompey => Republic goes on
Marius, Caesar, Augustus => Republic becoming a one-man-dominated state.


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...
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)
 
Last edited:

elder.wyrm

Banned
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.
 
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. :rolleyes:

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
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
That's Polybius view of it, at least. :rolleyes:

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

Right right, I don't dispute that. Just pointing it out.
 

Typo

Banned
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
Why? Would Gracchus himself be the one in charge of land distributions?


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 think that's more because Rome had conquered everything that could be easily conquered and worth the cost than domestic politics
 
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.
 
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.

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 .
 
Why? Would Gracchus himself be the one in charge of land distributions?
Yes, he would.
The Senatus was doing its utmost to oppose the move and he was trying to make the Senatus powerless by means of direct (and not-too-legal) laws directly voted by the comitia.
He had also his own "Counter-Senatus" [his own word] made of Equites.

Anyway, he built all his political career on that issue, and he it was very clear that he was THE man representing that.
People wishing for a redistribution would not accept a Senatus man to do the job (fearing the redistribution to be voided by means of tricky land assignment), and he would not accept it himself (acquiting power by means of raising that issue was his aim)
 
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 .

So...the entire Gaul, Hispania, Illyria, Syria, and Egypt would be conquered slowly in Imperial period, then...?
If that was the case, then we're in full agreement here... :p
 
Not really.
probably a part of Iberia would (except the Asturias region, which is impervius and unprofitable).
Gaul, I don't know (nobody really cared for it OTL, until Caesar used it as a starting position to get the power)

Conquering the East (Syria-Egypt) poses the classical imperial dilemma:
-either the emperor lead the army himself, thus being away from the political center of power, and thus risking an usurper rising there who has the advantage of controlling the capital
-or the emperor delegates the army to a general, thus risking the general himself to rebel, and having to cope with a would-be-usurper who has the advantage of controlling a sizeable part o the army.

OTL the thing was managed mainly by delegating a only a small fraction of the army (so that the general has not too much power).
The net result (apart from the situation when the general rebelled anyway) was usually that the style of war was switched to a low-intensity warfare and new conquest were limited to an exchange of a few provinces with powerful neighbours (the struggle with Parthia/Persia for Armenia is the classical example).

If this kind of things begins 100 years earlier than OTL, the two powers to be reckoned with are Macedonia in the Balcans and the Seleucid emipre in Syria.
They are probably not able to counter a full-scale war with Rome, but they could manage to endure a low-intensity warfare scenario (which is imposed on Rome by internal political constraints)
Thus I suggest more or less those boundaries.
 
Top