WI Tiberius Gracchus had succeeded?

Tiberius Gracchus was a Roman politician of the 2nd century BC, notable for his attempts at land and social reform in the Roman Republic of the time. To quote wikipedia,

Gracchus proposed a law known as Lex Sempronia Agraria. The law would reorganize control of the ager publicus, or public land; meaning land conquered in previous wars that was controlled by the state but leased to citizens. Under Ti. Gracchus' proposal, no one citizen would be allowed to possess more than 500 iugera (that is, approximately 310 acres, or 130 hectares) of the ager publica and any land that they occupied above this limit would be confiscated by the state. To mollify these landowners, they would be allowed to purchase and own their land, instead of just renting it from the state.

The land freed up would be used to settle Roman citizens and retired legionnaries, many of whom were approaching a state of poverty. In 133BC, the huge honeypot that was the Roman inheritance of Asia (first stepping stone to the E.R.E!) was opened, and a flood of wealth began to flow towards the Republic. Gracchus proposed that much of it be spent on this land reform, but worried elements of the Senate, and was beaten to death, setting in motion a train of events that would lead, after a century, to the Republic becoming merely a cloak for the early Empire.

But what if Gracchus had succeeded? Could he have succeeded at all, given the conditions of the fast expanding Roman Empire in the second century BC? Discuss.
 
In the long run, the social impact would probably not have been what he was aiming for, but if the setup had been accepted, it could ave had interesting repercussions down the line. Rome would need new public lands to resettle new generations of citizen soldiers, and they would most likely try in Italy. Tension with the socii is likely to be exacerbated by this. The focus on property in Italy for the ruling classes is probably going to be less feasible (senators are unlikely to be expected to own as much land there as they were OTL). That could translate into an earlier move into provincial estates - Sicily and Cisalpine Gaul, my guess would be.

If the policy continues (it would have to, if it is to have a lasting effect), coming generations of poor Romans will have to be settled in the provinces. I'm not sure how much greater than OTL this movement would be, but if it reached major proportions, it could change the demographics and politics of conquest.

All of that is assuming this version of Rome survives its crisis, of course.
 
I doubt it. Land reform was the political maelstrom that started the Civil Wars, and it was mostly due to Italia's demographic explosion that it became such an important topic. Not to mention that the effective geographic control distance between the Senate's control and the initiatives of private commanders (such as Pompey) became physically disconnected as the 'empire' expanded outward.
P.S., wasn't this one of the infamous Gracchi brothers (if I'm remembering correctly)? Such a rabble-rouser could hardly hope to pass lasting legislation in the face of Senatorial opposition.
 
I doubt it. Land reform was the political maelstrom that started the Civil Wars, and it was mostly due to Italia's demographic explosion that it became such an important topic. Not to mention that the effective geographic control distance between the Senate's control and the initiatives of private commanders (such as Pompey) became physically disconnected as the 'empire' expanded outward.
P.S., wasn't this one of the infamous Gracchi brothers (if I'm remembering correctly)? Such a rabble-rouser could hardly hope to pass lasting legislation in the face of Senatorial opposition.

Before the land reform thing blew up in their faces, the Gracchi brothers were actually considereed reasonabnly respectable and certainly came from the right kind of family. If it had worked as a model, the senate might well have adopted it as a policy tool the weay they did so msany other things. Imagine the kind of power to reward allies and punish enemies that getting your men on the land allocation commissions could give you.
 
I think the reforms need to be done further back- around the issues that sparked the Social War between Rome and her Italian allies. Something needs to be done in order to give citizens living in the provinces a say in the affairs of the Empire, so that settling armies in the provinces becomes a more attractive option to the Legions. If a federal system comes out of the issues around the Social War, then I think representation of provincial citizens will be able to grow out of those reforms.

This kind of a system would probably end up supplanting the Roman Senate, as the pan-Roman body is able to speak for a greater number of citizens, as well as having representatives from the very important veterans, whose voices represent the Legions. It could also make soldiers less reliant on their commanders for pensions and rewards and such, since the soldiers would have a way of directly impacting the decisions made in Rome through the ballot-box.
 
P.S., wasn't this one of the infamous Gracchi brothers (if I'm remembering correctly)? Such a rabble-rouser could hardly hope to pass lasting legislation in the face of Senatorial opposition.

I think that the rabble they were trying to rouse were the people that their reforms intended to help (whether they would've is another thing) it was their political enemies that labeled them such (like how Lord North saw Adams or Hoover saw MLK...) but the Grachii (and Ceasar) lost and the winners wrote the books
 
I doubt it. Land reform was the political maelstrom that started the Civil Wars, and it was mostly due to Italia's demographic explosion that it became such an important topic. Not to mention that the effective geographic control distance between the Senate's control and the initiatives of private commanders (such as Pompey) became physically disconnected as the 'empire' expanded outward.
P.S., wasn't this one of the infamous Gracchi brothers (if I'm remembering correctly)? Such a rabble-rouser could hardly hope to pass lasting legislation in the face of Senatorial opposition.

You sound just as bad as the damn Optimates who took common land. I mean, Tiberius only wanted to stand up for these people(and get elected consul). He just did it the wrong way and was foiled due to the Senate's manipulations:mad:
 
I think the reforms need to be done further back- around the issues that sparked the Social War between Rome and her Italian allies. Something needs to be done in order to give citizens living in the provinces a say in the affairs of the Empire, so that settling armies in the provinces becomes a more attractive option to the Legions. If a federal system comes out of the issues around the Social War, then I think representation of provincial citizens will be able to grow out of those reforms.

This kind of a system would probably end up supplanting the Roman Senate, as the pan-Roman body is able to speak for a greater number of citizens, as well as having representatives from the very important veterans, whose voices represent the Legions. It could also make soldiers less reliant on their commanders for pensions and rewards and such, since the soldiers would have a way of directly impacting the decisions made in Rome through the ballot-box.

The Social War started about fifty years after the first of the Gracchi were assassinated.

The problem with the Roman army and its soldiers at that time, and for some time afterwords until Augustus started paying and then settling the whole army out his pockets, wasn't that the Roman government wasn't representative of them. Not only do I believe that a federalized Rome was an impossibility, I don't think any serious Roman would ever even reach the level of laughing at such a proposal. The Roman Senate deciding to adopt a federal or a even a representative system of government is about as likely as the Al Saud Family waking up tomorrow and deciding to turn Saudi Arabia into a matriarchal democracy. The problem of the Roman system for its army and soldiers was that Roman needed a professional army and didn't (or even couldn't) make one.

It is my understanding that the permanent numbering of legions didn't begin until at least Caesar. That is because there was no standing army. Each legion was, in theory not so much reality. raised for a specific campaign or a specific commander, as they always had been. If Gaius Consulus Thisyearus needed an army, he would recruit one and then march it off to war. If he proceeded to win the war (or even lose it), he would bring his troops home and they would be disbanded. If the war dragged on and a new general was sent out, the new general might bring new troops or he might take over the existing army. But those troops would still be sent home once the war was over. Effectively, in the eyes of a Roman at least, the army was still a militia and soldiers were part timers. It was only because of the scale and distances of empire that it seemed like soldiers were out there on long spells.

Since soldiering was not an actual career option, that created a problem: land. Soldiers needed land in two ways. They needed land for pensions as land was the only real "annuity" available to the Roman system at that time. In theory, though, they didn't really need pensions and the Republic probably could have gotten away (and probably did) with saying thanks and sending its demobilized troops on their ways. The second problem of land did affect the government. Until the Marian Reforms about 30 years after Gracchus was assassinated, only landowners could serve. If too few citizens owned land, there wouldn't be enough soldiers for the legions. If too many men were gone for years on end, they wouldn't be able to keep their land and the property owning class would shrink. From the POV of the establishment, giving more land to the soldiering classes would be a good thing. Gracchus' problem was that he wanted to give land controlled by that same establishment to create a new class of yeomen farmers.

If Gracchus wanted to avoid getting stabbed in the Forum, he needed to either be more pragmatic or more greedy. He might have gotten away with stealing land from the Socii (at least until he started the Social War a generation earlier) or he might have gotten away with opening provincial land to veterans with provisions that they retain full citizenship, and hence full military obligations. If he managed to do either through the machinery of the Republic, he would have avoided the problem of troops looking to their generals. From Marius down to the end of the Republic, troops HAD to look to their generals if they wanted any sort of a secure future once they left the legion.
 
I think Gracchus has to play his cards a little better. He overstepped the boundaries and went for too much too fast imo.


Another thing to consider would be to have another one of his brothers, one closer in age to himself than Gaius was, survive childbirth and work their way up the political ladder at the same time he did. If they work together, they might have a better chance.
 
Top