Gracchus and Serapio:
133 BCE was a mixed bag for the Romans under the joint consulship of Publius Mucius Scaevola and Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi that would see both success and failure for the Republic. Frugi was sent to Sicily early on in the year where he succeeded in effectively ending the slave revolt although he failed to officially end it once and for all and the slaves would still nominally be an opponent until the next year even while Frugi had effectively secured Sicily. Meanwhile Scaevola became another in the long line of Roman consuls who failed to defeat Viriathus during his tenure as consul as he failed to force a battle and ended up taking relative casualties while he searched for Viriathus. Hispania Citerior was in complete chaos for the duration of 133 BCE as the Numantines tore the land apart in their near constant raiding and Flaccus was unable to keep up with the constant fighting and raiding. However what may have been the most important event of the year was the murder of Tiberius Gracchus at the hands of a number of senators including none other than the ex-consul and his cousin Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio the man who had been defeated while trying to fight Viriathus. This had followed Gracchus' re-election as tribune that very year which had been hotly contested by Serapio based on making a number of reforms such as reducing the length of military service, admitting allies to Roman citizenship and abolishing the right of senators to act as jurors. The murder largely stemmed from a series of events that had originated with his attempts to institute a land reform in which land would be taken from rich and redistributed to the poor. This idea was important and may have been one that could have greatly helped the Roman Republic as it would have alleviated the problem of manpower by handing out land to those who, previously, had been ineligible for military service but would be should the reform take place. Gracchus had three main supporters to this end, Consul Publius Scaevola, Appius Claudius, his father in law and Crassus, the Pontifex Maximus.
Gracchus had made his first move to push forward this law in 134 BCE but was continually opposed by the conservative factions in Rome who used Marcus Octavius, another tribune, to continually oppose Gracchus and veto the proposition. Events progressed from here during which Gracchus ended up moving to have Octavius removed from office who he argued had violated a basic part of his position by not protecting the people of Rome against oppression by the senate. However this was a move that began to worry Gracchus' supporters and, after basically shutting down the entire city for a time that very year, people began to fear for his life. Eventually Gracchus managed to push his law through but wasn't given the needed funds to carry it out until the death of King Attalus III of Pergamon in 133 BCE who left his kingdom and wealth to Rome, wealth that Gracchus used to push his law through which was considered an outright assault on the senators as the senate was the one responsible for managing funds and the treasury. Because of this move his rivals including one Quintus Pompeius began to claim that Gracchus wanted to overthrow the senate and establish himself as King of Rome. From this point on things went downhill as Gracchus found himself requiring escorts and guards wherever he was at risk of being assassinated which began to lead to minor skirmishes and fighting between Gracchus' supporters and those of his enemies. Appius Claudius was still alive but Gracchus was running out of supporters as Scaevola was in Spain and unable to protect him while Crassus was no longer Pontifex Maximus, a position that had recently gone to Serapio. With both consuls currently off on campaign, Serapio took it into his own hands to deal with Gracchus whom he claimed was planning to seize Rome and make himself king which would eventually lead to Gracchus' murder that very year. A land reform would come to be badly needed as the wars in Iberia continued to eat manpower and resources and other wars needed more and more men which, due to the restrictions on military service, began to create problems. Such a land reform would have alleviated this problem but with Gracchus' murder it was doomed to not take place at this point which would ultimately lead to some very real problems.
The Confederations:
The Lusitani and Numantines were both confederations of tribes but both were run in different ways to one another based on the nature of their origins and respective wars against Rome. The Numantines were more of a traditional confederation in which the various tribes were united by a common goal, to protect themselves against Rome and simply worked together to that end. This was a case of a confederation that was more of a collection of tribes rather than a unified force and in many ways the most decentralised to varying degrees of success or failure. So far this had been successful and this decentralised model had been effective with the raiding on Hispania Citerior as the tribes were able to work independently of one another but often came together when it was needed. However they were united by a common goal but this didn't stop disputes breaking out between tribes over land and resources which, although rare, could have a problematic effect on the unity of the confederation. By the end of 133 BCE this was starting to cause problems for the confederation as the success against Rome led many to want to push for peace with Rome while others were keen to continue the war in the hope of achieving greater success. Indeed the longer the war continued, the more some of the tribes began to try and move to end the war with Rome and the associated threat that came from this continued warfare.
In comparison the Lusitani rebellion had begun as a simple rebellion against Rome but under Viriathus who had become a strong and iconic leader for the Iberians in the region. Indeed Viriathus had already achieved a sort of cult-status in Iberia in which he was seen as a sort of saviour of the Iberian peoples against the infringing Romans. This wasn't a universally accepted view of Viriathus who was often seen as a menacing or downright nightmarish figure in the more pro-Roman regions of Iberia and controversial in the areas that were leaning neither way but in the more dissenting regions this was the generally accepted view of Viriathus. Indeed the tribes fighting underneath Viriathus were less of a series of equal tribes fighting for a common goal but, by 133 BCE, a set of tribes and soldiers largely loyal to Viriathus. In general it was Viriathus who held the tribes together and his presence as well as the number of victories he had gained were starting to bring the tribes ever closer together. The more victories that Viriathus gained, the more the tribes and warriors under him became closer and more unified as they became more loyal to the general. This gave the Lusitani and the tribes that had joined the confederation since the rebellion began a greater degree of unity as they were under the complete command of one strong leader.
Ultimately the Numantines were a confederation of numerous tribes brought together against Rome under their various leaders in a more decentralised model but in which they came together to fight Rome. This gave them more freedom and fluidity in many cases as well as a strength that may not have been exhibited otherwise but could lead to disputes. Whereas the Lusitani were united under a strong leader such as Viriathus but bound to one another by their loyalty to Viriathus as a general and as a leader. This is where we have to appreciate what made the Lusitani so strong as a confederation and so dangerous as an enemy. As mentioned previously, it's is arguable that the Numantines were more dangerous because it was less a case of Rome vs Viriathus or a strong leader who could be killed or assassinated but a case of Rome vs the Numantines or the Celt-Iberian tribes. But in truth it wasn't that simple as, in a way, Viriathus did represent the Lusitani as a people given that he, unlike most great generals to date, had come from very humble backgrounds and was, to most extents, very much a man of the people. Many great leaders to date such as Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great or even Cyrus the Great had come from some form of nobility or a lineage of leaders but Viriathus rose to power based on his own skill as shown by the aftermath of the slaughter of the Lusitani by the Romans. But what was maybe more important was Viriathus' cult image as this saviour and great freedom fighter for the Iberian peoples against the tyranny of Rome that had drawn many to his cause. Since some of these people were wanted back in Rome for crimes or for simply defecting to Viriathus and most others of those who had travelled to join him had left their homes behind to do so, these men were very dedicated to Viriathus and his cause. In fact there are accounts of the Romans making very distinct and major attempts to try and shut down the 'Viriathus Routes', these people who travelled to join Viriathus' cause and fight against Rome. Famously in July 134 BCE there had been a number of men executed when they tried to leave Roman territory to join Viriathus and were captured by the Romans en route. Since many of his men were so devoted to Viriathus, it meant that he was this incredibly dangerous figure because while he lived there was always resistance it was a constant incitement to rebel and the Lusitani weren't just going to be defeated and roll over passively to the Romans while he was alive. But assassination wasn't a good option given the backlash from both Iberians and Romans when Caepio triedand failed in 139 BCE and Viriathus had almost reached a point where, even if he died, the memory and idea of Viriathus was doomed to drag on for Rome given that he had entrenched himself. Viriathus was a man of the people in many ways and, because of this, the Romans would always have to be wary because the native Iberians who made up the majority of the populace were full of huge numbers of people who supported Viriathus and his cause. Everywhere Viriathus went saw both enemies from those pro-Roman Iberians and supporters from the pro-Viriathus Iberians although the latter were more common towards the borders and the former more common towards the East.
What we also have to take into consideration was the nature of the Lusitani as compared to the Numantines in the history and development of their conflict with Rome. The Numantines had risen out of resistance against Rome and had joined together for mutual protection but this meant that, once they felt they were safe, the Numantines were less willing to fight a bitter war to the end against Rome that would cost whatever it took. In comparison the Lusitani had risen out of bloodshed and treachery as the Romans slaughtered thousands during a supposed peace treaty and had seen the very same treachery when Caepio attempted to have Viriathus assassinated. While the tribes who had joined the Lusitani at a later date such as the Turdetani were less willing to fight a bitter war, and it was these tribes that made up the Lusitani peace faction, those who had fought from the beginning had come to despise the Romans and associate them with treachery because of those events such as the massacre of the Lusitani and the assassination attempt of 139 BCE. This had a profound effect on the Lusitani who really began to differentiate between 'us' and 'them' between Iberian and Roman with the Iberian ideals becoming these very central things as opposed to the Romans. After all by this point, many of the Lusitani were fighting less for mutual protection against Rome so much as a case of payback or striking out against this evil state that wanted to oppress them and destroy them. Originally the differentiation was between 'Lusitani' and 'Roman' but as more tribes became involved in the confederation, these more anti-Rome elements began to see this almost national identity of 'Iberian' and 'Roman' and really began latching onto this idea of the Iberian Viriathus being Regnator Hiberae Magnanimus Terrae or the most magnanimous
king in the land of Iberia. This elevation in their view from Viriathus being a leader of a confederation to a king of Iberia came from this growing identity of being Iberian as an opposition to the identity of being Roman and was profound because, by this point, many of the Lusitani weren't fighting for protection but for their perceived freedom from Rome. Historian Ben Miles describes it best in this quote:
"The two confederations of Iberia and their respective conflicts with Rome have been described as rebellions but this isn't really true for either of them, the Numantine Conflict was a war and the Lusitani Conflict was a revolution"