e446eaf7016ef5f13e03dac326a6406b.jpg


The brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were plebians from the Sempronia family who became famous for their radical populism, attempts to improve the living conditions/livelihoods of Rome's underclasses and varingly successful attempts to push land reform. Tiberius, popular but virulently hated by the Optimates, was beaten to death with chairs by pro-aristocrat senators after running for tribune an unprecedented second time (which he probably would have won.) The younger brother Gaius took up his brother's torch, also became Tribune of the Plebians, and passed many land reforms as well as instituting free grain rations for the poor. Having successfully gotten himself re-elected as tribune, the feat over which his brother was killed, he lost a good deal of his support for trying to extend citizenship to non-citizen allies of Rome and commited suicide before a mob whipped up by the Optimates set off to kill him.

I got to thinking about these guys because of a post @Skallagrim made on the Favorite Mythological Heroes thread. Using whatever POD you'd like, make it so that the Gracchi are successful in pushing their populist reforms through and instituting them as firm components of Roman society (i.e: not something that would be reversed by the Optimates shortly after their deaths.)
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
Tricky! They really are the total opposites of Coriolanus, of whom I spoke in that other thread. But just as he represented an idea whose time had really reached its expiry date about then, the Gracchi represented an idea whose time had not yet fully come when they were up and about. I think the best bet is actually to have them institute their reforms and then do exactly what you say shouldn't happen: have the Optimates pull a coup and reverse everything. Have them rule Thirty Tyrants-style.

Nothing, nothing I tell you, would be more effective in making the Optimates hated by enough of the population to have their power broken forever. The next generation of Populares could then re-institute the Gracchi reforms (even expanding/improving them a bit), to great acclaim.
 
Tricky! They really are the total opposites of Coriolanus, of whom I spoke in that other thread. But just as he represented an idea whose time had really reached its expiry date about then, the Gracchi represented an idea whose time had not yet fully come when they were up and about. I think the best bet is actually to have them institute their reforms and then do exactly what you say shouldn't happen: have the Optimates pull a coup and reverse everything. Have them rule Thirty Tyrants-style.

Nothing, nothing I tell you, would be more effective in making the Optimates hated by enough of the population to have their power broken forever. The next generation of Populares could then re-institute the Gracchi reforms (even expanding/improving them a bit), to great acclaim.

This is really good thinking - I'd hate to see what the people of Rome do to the senators who remove their grain welfare and boot smallholding farmers off land they just recieved. The mob is not forgiving.

Is there a way to reduce the outcry over the extension of citizenship? I remember reading (I'm not sure where, I'd have to look for it) that Gaius actually softened this provision from Tiberius' original plan to extend citizenship and extend the Latin Right. If they can get it through, that's another big crop of newly-enfranchised supporters who will be absolutely furious at the Optimates following the coup.
 
Last edited:
In fairness, a lot of the program of the Gracchi did become permanent fixtures or were later enacted. For example, full citizenship for Italians, even if only because of War, and the grain dole.

Even the dream to give lands to the landless was eventually fulfilled, sort of.

Tiberius' commission, from everything I've read, were able to distribute a lot of land to the landless even after his death. And the triumvirs, proscriptions, mass settlements of veterans on Italian land, all of those effectively redistributed land to the landless, at least landless soldiers, so by the time of Augustus, Italy was not as empty of small farms as it was during the time of the Gracchi. After all, the commission of Tiberius Gracchus, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antony, Augustus, all settled hundreds of thousands of landless farmers, either as farmers or proletarian soldiers, on Italian land. A lot of those lands given to farmers were purchased from the owners of latifundia, outright confiscated from their political opponents, or were from the estates of those proscribed.
 
Is there a way to reduce the outcry over the extension of citizenship? I remember reading (I'm not sure where, I'd have to look for it) that Gaius actually softened this provision from Tiberius' original plan to extend citizenship and extend the Latin Right. If they can get it through, that's another big crop of newly-enfranchised supporters who will be absolutely furious at the Optimates following the coup.

The problem is that it is Gaius' original supporters who would be furious about it. I mean, giving the citizenship to Italy would mean that the Roman poor and middle class would have to share with the Italians, and in their eyes, would dilute the privilege of citizenship. Romans, whether poor or rich, were chauvinistic and looked down upon non-Italians.

Gaius actually lost support from his supporters just because of that. It would fail in the citizens' assembly, as the citizens would want to protect their feeling of exclusivity.
 
In fairness, a lot of the program of the Gracchi did become permanent fixtures or were later enacted. For example, full citizenship for Italians, even if only because of War, and the grain dole.

Even the dream to give lands to the landless was eventually fulfilled, sort of.

Tiberius' commission, from everything I've read, were able to distribute a lot of land to the landless even after his death. And the triumvirs, proscriptions, mass settlements of veterans on Italian land, all of those effectively redistributed land to the landless, at least landless soldiers, so by the time of Augustus, Italy was not as empty of small farms as it was during the time of the Gracchi. After all, the commission of Tiberius Gracchus, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antony, Augustus, all settled hundreds of thousands of landless farmers, either as farmers or proletarian soldiers, on Italian land. A lot of those lands given to farmers were purchased from the owners of latifundia, outright confiscated from their political opponents, or were from the estates of those proscribed.

Quite right, but like Skallagrim said, I don't think the issue is that the Gracchi reforms were impossible, just a good deal ahead of their time. I think the grain dole was kept because it would have been political suicide (and perhaps literal suicide) to remove after the Gracchi instituted it, but for the others, it takes several decades (and many autocrats) to really get the ball rolling. If this gets accomplished earlier, the playing field of politics as a whole gets shifted closer to the Populares side and future debates would probably be building on that with the Gracchi reforms being just accepted practice.
 
The problem is that it is Gaius' original supporters who would be furious about it. I mean, giving the citizenship to Italy would mean that the Roman poor and middle class would have to share with the Italians, and in their eyes, would dilute the privilege of citizenship. Romans, whether poor or rich, were chauvinistic and looked down upon non-Italians.

Gaius actually lost support from his supporters just because of that. It would fail in the citizens' assembly, as the citizens would want to protect their feeling of exclusivity.


Hmm, perhaps then this could be something instituted by a post-coup Populares government that basically has a mandate to do as it likes for returning the Gracchi reforms and "saving the Republic?"
 
Hmm, perhaps then this could be something instituted by a post-coup Populares government that basically has a mandate to do as it likes for returning the Gracchi reforms and "saving the Republic?"

Or simply have the Italians revolt earlier after another failure to get the citizenship. That would scare the Roman mob and the senate into granting them citizenship.

Then confiscate the estates of the leaders of the revolt, and give it to landless veterans.

There, two birds in one stone.
 
Or simply have the Italians revolt earlier after another failure to get the citizenship. That would scare the Roman mob and the senate into granting them citizenship.

Then confiscate the estates of the leaders of the revolt, and give it to landless veterans.

There, two birds in one stone.
The problem of course, is getting the Italians to revolt earlier. They're not nearly as willing to resort to armed insurrection as they would be 30 years later.
 

Toraach

Banned
The Gracchi weren't populists. Their program wasn't populist in nature, especially Gaius as the later one, and who probably knew and though more about how to improve the Republic. Tiberius wanted to help with the main issue of his time, that is the lack of able recruits. Gaius went further and wanted to solve problems, which ultimately were solved much later and with much higher prices of cassulaties and civil wars. Granting citizenship for italian allies was unpopular, and probably lead to his death, but that was the thing, which needed to be done, and was done, a generation later after a war. Colonies outside Italia were also done later, and a bigger and sooner programe of colonisation might have lead to sooner and deaper romanization. Gaius was a giant, which was killed by midgets. Just like his later name sake another Gaius. Gaius Iulius Caesar. Luckily for Rome this one had a worthly heir: Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus.
 
Gaius Gracchus did not lose support for championing the extension of the Roman franchise to the Latin allies and Latin franchise to the non Latin Italian allies.

This point of his program, which had already been proposed by his friend and ally Marcus Fulvius Flaccus was the precise solution he had devised to overcome the opposition of the Italian allies to Tiberius Gracchus land grants.

Tiberius Gracchus’ and his allies’ (in the beginning Tiberius was but the junior partner of very powerful statesmen like his father in law Appius Claudius Pulcher, Publius Mucius Scaevola and Publius Licinius Crassus) program antagonized the Italian allies since it was mainly non-roman Italian lands that were to be granted.

That’s why Scipio Aemilianus stood for the Italians against gracchan legislation.

What undermined Gaius Gracchus’ political support was mainly the fact that the optimates doubled down on Gaius Gracchus’ land grants proposals (proposing more land grants and less obligations for the benefactors) without intending to enforce this fake proposals. And the other main causes for Gaius Gracchus’ loss of support was a mud-slinging campaign against the creation of a colony in Carthage and the fact that many of those who had benefited from land grants did not want or could not keep on coming to Rome to support their patron.

Given the structure of the Roman political system called the Republic, nobody would ever gain enough political support to overcome the opposition and the many powerful checks and balances.

The only way to overcome it, if the opponents did not realize and accept the necessity of enforcing such a policy, was the Caesarian-Augustan way.

The Gracchi has shown what was the necessary reforms policy but it was still impossible for them to resort to the political ways to make sure this policy would be enforced.

Sulla had shown what was the way to successfully enforce a reforms policy but he used it in a way to prevent the enforcement of the popularis agenda.

Caesar resorted to sullan ways to successfully enforce the popularis agenda.
 
Last edited:
Top