Successful Gaius Gracchi WI

So everyone always focuses on Tiberius Gracchus, but Gaius Gracchus was arguably a much better and more potent politician than his elder brother. He was also arguably the greatest orator of his day, and some would say the greatest Roman orator up until Cicero.

(If you know the story of Gaius Gracchus skip to the last two paragraphs).


To paraphrase Dan Carlin a little: Gaius was an expert at being able to divide the senators, equestrians and the common people through political maneuvering. He was the first to propose the corn dole, of which a modified proposal would be passed by Clodius Pulcher later. He gave the equestrians a boone to pry their support away from the Senate, by hinting at doubling the size of the senate by adding men from the equestrian class, and of putting them in charge of the lucrative tax collection in the wealthy province of Asia.

He began making promises for land reform and promised the soldiers that the state would pay for their equipment. He did what his brother couldn't, by getting elected to the tribuneship twice in a row.

Now he made a mistake that would prove fatal by lobbying for giving the Italians citizenship. This damaged his support with the commoners and the equestrians, allowing the Senate to pounce and get another tribune (Marcus Livius Drusus) to combat Gracchus by promising more than him every time he made a proposal, thus undercutting his support further. This allowed Gaius to be defeated in running for tribune for a third term in a row, and thus allowing the senate to start undoing everything Gaius and Drusus did, giving Gracchus his support back, and leading him to march to the voting ground for the repealment of the laws. A scuffle followed, and Gaius and his supporters were forced to retreat, the next day being attacked and forced to commit suicide.


So what if Gaius treaded more carefully and didn't press for Italian citizenship? This would prevent him from losing his support and thus losing his run for the tribuneship for a third time. How far could he go in this case before the inevitable conflict? What more can he accomplish? How would this affect Roman society/politics in the future?

Alternatively, what if he manages to escape Rome when the fight breaks out the next day? Suppose someone was brave enough to lend him a horse so he can flee the city? What can he do from there? Is there possibly any army he can flee to to rally support for his cause and perhaps provoke a civil war? With Gaius alive, the butchering of 3,000 Roman citizens in the aftermath of the fight would almost certainly cause outrage with the mob in Rome and cause trouble for the senators in the city. How would it go from there?
 
The problem is : what was Gaius Gracchus' support among the legions ?

At that stage he was too young and had not commanded significant armies nor proven himself a great general. The best he could hope was some kind of Catilina's rebellion, which means very weak hope of success.

Gaius Gracchus' decisive of weak point was the lack of military support.

This was perfectly understood by his successors. You definitly could not beat the senatorial majority on the sole political stage. Force was necessary.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The problem is : what was Gaius Gracchus' support among the legions ?

That question doesn't really apply. This was before the reforms of Marius, so the notion of the legions being loyal to a particular politician or commander rather than to the Republic itself had not yet entered the Roman mindset.
 
Oh yes it does. You are overestimating the Marian reform.

There had already been, before the Marian reform, citizens that did not fit the census prerequisites in the roman army. And there had already been soldiers serving many years under the same general.

So what I meant was that Gracchus needed force to succeed. He was crushed by force, at the hand of the consul Opimius, not by legal trickery.
 
He didn't need force to succeed. It was still considered unthinkable even up to Sulla to march on Rome with an army, and Marius didn't even consider it an option. All but one senator left him when he started marching.


Plus as Anaxagoras pointed out the legions had no loyalty to a particular commander. They still supplied their own weapons and their own armor and even or the property qualifications were often ignored, most of them still owed their allegiance to the state not to their commander. They were still payed by the state. They also still weren't fully professional yet.

What gracious needed and what he had to sine extent was support from the roman mob. The mob outnumbers the senators and can prove a potent weapon. Clodius and Milo are some of the most famous to use the mob to get what they want done.
 
The point is not about personal loyalty of the soldiers like Marius, Sulla or Caesar enjoyed.

The point is that Gracchus needed to convince soldier citizens to back him : at that stage he was doomed because he had angered to death too many nobles. If he had enjoyed the kind of prestige and support Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Scipio Aemilianus or Marius had because of their victories, he could have come out victorious.
 
The point is not about personal loyalty of the soldiers like Marius, Sulla or Caesar enjoyed.

The point is that Gracchus needed to convince soldier citizens to back him : at that stage he was doomed because he had angered to death too many nobles. If he had enjoyed the kind of prestige and support Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Scipio Aemilianus or Marius had because of their victories, he could have come out victorious.
But again, it was unthinkable to use the army to march on Rome and Graccus is no Sulla. Support of the legions could give him a better chance, but they are not going to be used to suppress his senatorial opponents. On the other hand, using the mob to his advantage is an option that is perfectly viable for his day and can be enough to let him muscle his will through the Senate and keep them from attacking him.
 
But again, it was unthinkable to use the army to march on Rome and Graccus is no Sulla. Support of the legions could give him a better chance, but they are not going to be used to suppress his senatorial opponents. On the other hand, using the mob to his advantage is an option that is perfectly viable for his day and can be enough to let him muscle his will through the Senate and keep them from attacking him.

Well, the much-honored Scipio Aemilianus was Gracchus's brother-in-law, and commanding legions in Hispania at this time. It's not inconceivable that if Gracchus were to slow down his reforms, and wield his support from the people more efficiently, Scipio Aemilianus might support him; whether the legions would follow Scipio Aemilianus, I don't know.

Also, an ironic aside: Gracchus was stopped from giving citizenship (and then forced to commit suicide) to all Italian Allies in part by Marcus Livius Drusus; it was this Drusus's son that was murdered for attempting the same thing, thus causing the Social War.
 
Well, the much-honored Scipio Aemilianus was Gracchus's brother-in-law, and commanding legions in Hispania at this time. It's not inconceivable that if Gracchus were to slow down his reforms, and wield his support from the people more efficiently, Scipio Aemilianus might support him; whether the legions would follow Scipio Aemilianus, I don't know.

Also, an ironic aside: Gracchus was stopped from giving citizenship (and then forced to commit suicide) to all Italian Allies in part by Marcus Livius Drusus; it was this Drusus's son that was murdered for attempting the same thing, thus causing the Social War.

I believe that is the elder Gracchus you are thinking of on the second part.

As for the first, Aemilianus was dead by 129, 8 years before Gaius Gracchus died. He was not opposed to land reform, but did not like Tiberius' methods. Though it is interesting that he was killed on the day he was about to give a speech supporting the cause of the Italians. Had he lived, I think it might provide for some interesting common ground he can find with Gaius: Gaius was also an advocate for the Italians.

Now there's something to think about. The two real times an advocate was found for supporting the Italian cause, it failed because there was only one, and deposing of one isolated person was much easier: Drusus, Gaius Gracchus, and Scipio Aemilianus.

But if you have someone as popular as Gaius Gracchus teaming up with someone as respected and popular as Aemilianus with the Scipio name and a military record to go with it...the Senate is going to have a serious problem on their hands, and I doubt they can just clumsily murder them like they did with Gaius, Drusus, and Tiberius. It is interesting that Aemilianus' death is the one that happened very cleanly and quietly, to the point where they were able to pass it off as a suicide, to the point where foul play being involved is still not certain, compared to the deaths of the two Gracchi and Drusus.
 
As for the first, Aemilianus was dead by 129, 8 years before Gaius Gracchus died.

Now there's something to think about. The two real times an advocate was found for supporting the Italian cause, it failed because there was only one, and deposing of one isolated person was much easier: Drusus, Gaius Gracchus, and Scipio Aemilianus.

But if you have someone as popular as Gaius Gracchus teaming up with someone as respected and popular as Aemilianus with the Scipio name and a military record to go with it...the Senate is going to have a serious problem on their hands, and I doubt they can just clumsily murder them like they did with Gaius, Drusus, and Tiberius. It is interesting that Aemilianus' death is the one that happened very cleanly and quietly, to the point where they were able to pass it off as a suicide, to the point where foul play being involved is still not certain, compared to the deaths of the two Gracchi and Drusus.

Oh :|

As for the "something to think about", that is indeed interesting. It seems like an overarching conservative conspiracy to prevent reform!--while it's probably just coincidence, and the preeminent politicians of the age reacting to the personalities of the Gracchi brothers, and sudden reversal of Aemilianus's opinion.

I think this makes for an excellent POD!
Aemilianus lives and touts Gaius Gracchus as his brother's natural successor as Tribune of the Plebs. With this support he might be elected earlier, and the dynamic duo embark on a trail of reforms, gathering supporters among the populist Romans and the wealthy Italian non-citizens.
Would there be more civil conflict? Probably!
 
Aemilianus lives and touts Gaius Gracchus as his brother's natural successor as Tribune of the Plebs. With this support he might be elected earlier, and the dynamic duo embark on a trail of reforms, gathering supporters among the populist Romans and the wealthy Italian non-citizens.
Would there be more civil conflict? Probably!

I just had to re-read this paragraph in the voice of Yes-Man in Fallout New Vegas.
 
But again, it was unthinkable to use the army to march on Rome and Graccus is no Sulla. Support of the legions could give him a better chance, but they are not going to be used to suppress his senatorial opponents. On the other hand, using the mob to his advantage is an option that is perfectly viable for his day and can be enough to let him muscle his will through the Senate and keep them from attacking him.

Of course not. I never meant Gracchus behaving like a Sulla.

I meant he needed military prestige and some kind of military clientelae in order to deter the optimates crushing him by military force.
 
Of course not. I never meant Gracchus behaving like a Sulla.

I meant he needed military prestige and some kind of military clientelae in order to deter the optimates crushing him by military force.

Gracchus can't use any kind of military support in Rome, and--since you're admitting in your post that Gracchus is very likely no Sulla--military force would do him no good.

The Senate was unsure of Scipio Aemilianus in any case, and yet still murdered Tiberius Gracchus. Short of having an armed bodyguard in the streets of Rome--unthinkable at the time--the best protection Gracchus had was the mob...which still didn't help him when the time came.

I think that, yes, he needed aristocrat generals and governors and executives (Praetors and Consuls) as supporters, and the mob as support (which he already had), and (this is crucial) a slower, more comprehensive system of reform that doesn't threaten the moderate Senators or the wealthy Italians as much.
 
Gracchus can't use any kind of military support in Rome, and--since you're admitting in your post that Gracchus is very likely no Sulla--military force would do him no good.

The Senate was unsure of Scipio Aemilianus in any case, and yet still murdered Tiberius Gracchus. Short of having an armed bodyguard in the streets of Rome--unthinkable at the time--the best protection Gracchus had was the mob...which still didn't help him when the time came.

I think that, yes, he needed aristocrat generals and governors and executives (Praetors and Consuls) as supporters, and the mob as support (which he already had), and (this is crucial) a slower, more comprehensive system of reform that doesn't threaten the moderate Senators or the wealthy Italians as much.
Actually, both him and his brother used members of the mob basically as armed bodyguards when things got rough.


Also, Matteo, that's where Scipio Aemilianus comes in.
 
Actually, both him and his brother used members of the mob basically as armed bodyguards when things got rough.

Well I know that; freed gladiators and other assorted bullyboys were used from Tiberius Gracchus to Saturninus to Clodius when it came to the Plebeian Assembly's storms.

To clarify, I meant an armed, professional bodyguard; basically, literal soldiers or legionaries in the streets of Rome.
 
Well I know that; freed gladiators and other assorted bullyboys were used from Tiberius Gracchus to Saturninus to Clodius when it came to the Plebeian Assembly's storms.

To clarify, I meant an armed, professional bodyguard; basically, literal soldiers or legionaries in the streets of Rome.

Well I guess lictors could count as that. Though I understand what you are saying, I'm just being intentionally difficult.
 
I know, I was just saying lictors could be considered the professional bodyguard of the day.

You know, you are being intentionally difficult! :p

Anyways, beyond psychological staying power, and the ability to somewhat dazzle foreigners who are amazed by cleanliness and purity, I'm not sure the lictors--though undeniably professional--would be such an effective bodyguard for anybody seriously considering an attack.
 
Gracchus can't use any kind of military support in Rome, and--since you're admitting in your post that Gracchus is very likely no Sulla--military force would do him no good.

The Senate was unsure of Scipio Aemilianus in any case, and yet still murdered Tiberius Gracchus. Short of having an armed bodyguard in the streets of Rome--unthinkable at the time--the best protection Gracchus had was the mob...which still didn't help him when the time came.

I think that, yes, he needed aristocrat generals and governors and executives (Praetors and Consuls) as supporters, and the mob as support (which he already had), and (this is crucial) a slower, more comprehensive system of reform that doesn't threaten the moderate Senators or the wealthy Italians as much.

Of course it is extremely difficult for Gracchus to have any military support. I just say he needed some kind of such a support to avoid Opimius and his mercenary soldiers/archers slaughtering Gracchus, Fulvius and their supporters.

Other point : you are making a countersense about Scipio Aemilianus. Sure, he was married to Gracchus's sister Sempronia. But he had become the enemy of the Gracchi probably even before Tiberius Gracchus was murdered and Scipio, back from Spain, justified Tiberius' assassination.
Tiberius Gracchus had married the daughter of Scipio's main opponent : Appius Claudius Pulcher.
Gaius Gracchus and his sister were even accused of murdering Scipio in 129. So if Scipio lives longer, you are never going to have an alliance between Gracchus and Scipio.

Scipio had used the popularis way in his youth in order to obtain support from the people/mob of Rome for his illegal (before legal age) election as consul. But he had made his convictions clear after Tiberius' death, in a way where there was no turning-back possible. Scipio definitly was a conservative, like his real father had been before him.

When he mobilized support among the ruling elite of the italian cities, this was not for reform. This was in order to strengthen opposition to the enforcement of Gracchus agrarian law which conflicted the material interests of these italian elites.

So if Scipio had lived longer, there would have been a fierce competition between him and Gracchus to keep or snatch the support of the italian elites. In our real history, Gaius Gracchus' master coup was to forge an alliance between roman and italian equites (by giving them control of the courts that judged senators and control of the revenues of the Asia province) on the one hand and on the other hand roman poor citizens against the conservative majority in the Senate.

His failure was that he finally lost support of the roman plebs because Livius Drusus did outbid him by lies (promising more agrarian colonies for the poor, which were never created) and clever demagogy ("with Gracchus'law giving citizenship to italians, you would have to share the ressources of the empire with the italians and your part would be smaller").

Gracchus would probably have own this contest against longer living old Scipio. But he certainly never would have had Scipio's support.
In 121, he needed either a friendly consul or to go away serving as legate under a friendly proconsul. Not sure the best choice would have been his cousin Fabius Maximus (in Gaul) or Domitius Ahenobarbus (in Gaul too). He should not have resisted too much to the repealing of his laws. He was young and had time to come back and let his opponents fail.
 
Top