Successful Gaius Gracchi WI

Alright, so the way is a slower system of reforms, letting his opponents' lies become apparent; and gaining other support than Scipio Aemilianus?

So maybe it's better for Scipio Aemilianus to die when he did; then Gaius Gracchus doesn't have to deal with him, and has the (possible) support of said Fabius Maximus and Domitius Ahenobarbus.

I'll look into it more.
 
I am not sure he could have had the support of his cousin Fabius. Politically, Fabius may well have been on his uncle Scipio's side.

Another nephew of Scipio, a Cato, was a partisan of Gracchus. And Domitius' son played the part of a popularis demagogue in order to be elected Great Pontiff, but it has never been proven that he supported agrarian laws.

The best way is Gracchus leaving Rome for Gaul in late 122, just after his electoral defeat. Then imagine that he becomes Domitius Ahenobarbus' best legate, that Domitius dies during his campaign and that, some way or some other way, Gracchus is proclaimed proconsul by the troops and that he find some political support in Rome to have a vote of the consilium plebis confirm him as new proconsul of the army led by the deceased Ahenobarbus.
 
The best way is Gracchus leaving Rome for Gaul in late 122, just after his electoral defeat. Then imagine that he becomes Domitius Ahenobarbus' best legate, that Domitius dies during his campaign and that, some way or some other way, Gracchus is proclaimed proconsul by the troops and that he find some political support in Rome to have a vote of the consilium plebis confirm him as new proconsul of the army led by the deceased Ahenobarbus.

Okay, this is simply not possible. When have troops, even after the marian reforms, proclaimed one of their commanders pro-consul? If anything, that's only going to make the senate's job easier-they can claim he is completely ignoring the constitution, and using the military to gain power. Since he's not going to march on Rome, he has to come back without an army sooner or later...and then he's cooked.
 
Why always putting things in terms of marching on Rome ?

My suggestion was Gracchus becoming a military hero in Gaul, becoming the darling of the soldiers the same way Marius or Caesar or Sulla or Scipio africanus maior did, then a situation where his partisans in the Senate propose as a solution to legalize a de facto command in Gaul (after Domitius' death) in exchange for reconciliation.
 
Why always putting things in terms of marching on Rome ?

My suggestion was Gracchus becoming a military hero in Gaul, becoming the darling of the soldiers the same way Marius or Caesar or Sulla or Scipio africanus maior did, then a situation where his partisans in the Senate propose as a solution to legalize a de facto command in Gaul (after Domitius' death) in exchange for reconciliation.

I don't see why you're having Gracchus go full Caesar on us.

First off, there's no way the soldiers would follow him. These aren't the politically ignorant or apathetic volunteers of the Head Count; these are the educated, propertied men of the Classes, and they know how Rome's system worked.
It would be complete anathema to them to even debate following a rogue into bullying the Senate (not that the Senate would comply) into giving him proconsular imperium (to a lowly tribune of the soldiers!).
It just makes no sense. They have a stake in following the Senate, and they all have lands or businesses in Italy to administer; they can't spend years following some crazy young roughneck all over the hills and mountains of gods-know-where.

In any case, all indications hint that Gracchus's talents lay in the legal sphere, not the military one. Why would he attach himself as a legate to Ahenobarbus, effectively exiling himself in the provinces, when he could do much more damage to the established order in Rome, with the mob?
 
There is no evidence that Gaius Gracchus was not à good soldier. Most good roman generals did not prove themselves before their mid-thirties.

If Gaius confrontes the Senate with just the support of a mob, he is doomed like he happened to be. He needed to cool things down if he wanted to survive.

You are mistaken if you believe most soldiers were all well-off. The centurions were well-off. But many among the rank and file soldiers were impoverished because of many years campaigning. This is precisely why there was the gracchan reform movement.

And you are also mistaken if you think things always went the legal way. Scipio Africanus and Scipio Aemilianus both forced their way through a legal system that normally forbade them holding the commands they held. They did it because they enjoyed strong support among people and soldiers, though younger than required.
 
Yes, but the soldiers NEVER proclaimed ANYBODY as pro-consul, or for that matter any other elected office. They might proclaim him imperator, which would still be extra-legal since he wasn't the commander, but that's it. He could instead serve admirably as a legate and possibly come back to Rome later as tribune again or maybe then consul.
 
Yes, the soldiers never proclaimed a proconsul. I used a shortcut in order to have an admirable legate become some kind of proconsul. Things must be added or can be delayed the way you jut proposed.

Could not we imagine an agonizing Ahenobarbus asking his officers and soldiers to obey Gracchus as if he were their legal proconsul until the Senate settles things ?
This does not seem impossible. And we can then imagine some enormous popular pressure to have the heroic legate appointed as legal proconsul.

PS: I know it's highly unlikely.
 
Ahenobarbus would never do that. He was an aristocrat and would obey the proper form of things: if he becomes severely ill or dies, his most senior legate would take command and await senatorial confirmation or replacement. This senior legate could never be a young man who'd never even been quaestor; it would be a man of consular, or at least praetorian, rank.

If Gracchus was such a good soldier, he would have stayed in that area; it's more than likely that he enjoyed, and was all in all better with, the legal and tribunal spheres.

Most soldiers were well off, and Gracchus's Reforms wouldn't help them much. Why would they blindly follow the promises of an aristocrat and rebel against the Senate? Gracchus's main reforms were to redistribute land among the Roman and Latin Head Count, and to enfranchise the Italians; pre-Marian soldiers were all propertied men with lands and businesses, how could Gracchus's changes help them much?
For the soldiers, it's a high-risk low-reward scenario. They can be defeated and killed, or deprived of citizenship and crucified or thrown off the Tarpeian Rock, and all their property confiscated and families left destitute; or they win and...maybe double their holdings after much civil strife and bloodshed, and work their asses off for the benefit of some lazy bums and non-Roman Italians (in their eyes).

Africanus and Aemilianus, and Gracchus, are two very different things. The two Scipiones were more centrist, and their commands were merely used to defeat an enemy and gain glory and gold for themselves (and the Treasury); they had most senators' support.
Gracchus would spend Treasury money and Roman ager publicus (in Italy, no less!) to enfranchise the poor; well, the senators could never stand for that! For one, more men in the Classes (because they're now propertied) means slightly less than complete domination by the Senate. Secondly, less ager publicus means less leasing contracts to the equestrians by censors (bringing in a lot of money for the equestrians who farmed and ranched on the leased land, and Treasury).

Also, everything the tasty fox said.
 
Most soldiers weren't well off. A huge problem with the Roman system that the Gracchi looked to reform was land reform, which the lack of hurt the soldiers the most. After all the money from Pergamum was supposed to be used by Gracchus to help his project of land reform, which would have benefited the soldiers.

In fact, most land reform that came in the late republic was to benefit soldiers. So they'd very much be happy with him.
 
Top