WI: Tiberius Gracchus wasn’t disgraced in Spain?

Tiberius Gracchus was castigated for negotiating the peaceful surrender of an army during the Spanish Wars against the Numantines. As a result his prospects of successfully applying to an Aedileship were weakened and he was instead convinced to stand for the tribunate. On his election he promptly proposed the Lex Agraria which caused no end to trouble for Rome for the next several decades.

I was wondering if anyone had an idea what the results would have been if Tiberius hadn’t been disgraced in Spain and instead was able to successfully run for the Aedileship. First of all, what would the Claudian faction do in this case? Who would they turn to, to support the law? What would the effects on the Lex Agraria events be if it isn’t Tiberius Championing it?

Secondly, what happens with Tiberius? What role would he play in the future development in Rome if he isn’t the tribune putting forward the legislation? He has everything necessary to become a major player, so what impact does he have? Further, what would all of this mean for Gaius Gracchus?
 
Certainly he'll take a slower, more conservative route since he can become praetor after that, and then almost certainly consul, with Claudian and most importantly Cornelian (big C Cornelius Scipio Africanus Cornelian) support. With a few more years and much respect as a lawmaker under his belt (I'm assuming, he seems to have been a fine legal draftsman full of ideas), he might even gain support of much of the Senate. What turned so many against him, even his closer relatives, was that he just went right over their heads without even trying, straight to the Plebs.

Things will turn out much better for Rome, I think. While the conservatives of the time somewhat resented Aemilianus's liberal Hellenophile ways, they wouldn't whiplash as far into reaction as they did in OTL, if political violence didn't occur.
 
My gut feeling is it would have made no difference. Tiberius' opponents were determined, no matter what, to NOT let his reforms pass. IOTL they were quite willing to resort to out-and-out- murder & I
really doubt that Tiberius keeping his nose clean in Spain would have changed their minds in this ATL.
 
Certainly he'll take a slower, more conservative route since he can become praetor after that, and then almost certainly consul, with Claudian and most importantly Cornelian (big C Cornelius Scipio Africanus Cornelian) support. With a few more years and much respect as a lawmaker under his belt (I'm assuming, he seems to have been a fine legal draftsman full of ideas), he might even gain support of much of the Senate. What turned so many against him, even his closer relatives, was that he just went right over their heads without even trying, straight to the Plebs.

Things will turn out much better for Rome, I think. While the conservatives of the time somewhat resented Aemilianus's liberal Hellenophile ways, they wouldn't whiplash as far into reaction as they did in OTL, if political violence didn't occur.

That is an interesting thought. What would his presence mean later in the period. He was widely expected to do even better than his father, who was a widely successful two time consul and furthermore was connected to the Claudian, Aemilian and Cornelian factions. The building stones for a dominant political future are all there.

My gut feeling is it would have made no difference. Tiberius' opponents were determined, no matter what, to NOT let his reforms pass. IOTL they were quite willing to resort to out-and-out- murder & I
really doubt that Tiberius keeping his nose clean in Spain would have changed their minds in this ATL.

Tiberius only really went along with the Lex Agraria business because it allowed him to return to prominence politically. After that he got into a game of brinksmanship with the Senate, first by deposing Octavian, then by claiming finances from Pergamon which was traditionally under senate control and finally by standing for re-election. These decisions all escalated the conflict far beyond what the original law makers had planned for. It is far more likely that if they face too much opposition to the law, the Claudian simply withdraw it and then propose it again when they have enough backing.

I do wonder what Tiberius, willingness to break with mos maiorum would mean for a later career.
 
Tiberius Gracchus was castigated for negotiating the peaceful surrender of an army during the Spanish Wars against the Numantines. As a result his prospects of successfully applying to an Aedileship were weakened and he was instead convinced to stand for the tribunate. On his election he promptly proposed the Lex Agraria which caused no end to trouble for Rome for the next several decades.

I was wondering if anyone had an idea what the results would have been if Tiberius hadn’t been disgraced in Spain and instead was able to successfully run for the Aedileship. First of all, what would the Claudian faction do in this case? Who would they turn to, to support the law? What would the effects on the Lex Agraria events be if it isn’t Tiberius Championing it?

Secondly, what happens with Tiberius? What role would he play in the future development in Rome if he isn’t the tribune putting forward the legislation? He has everything necessary to become a major player, so what impact does he have? Further, what would all of this mean for Gaius Gracchus?

I think it will change almost nothing in Tiberius Gracchus' political course.

Tiberius did not create the political-agrarian crisis nor did he create the political strife about the agrarian issue.

Agrarian reform and distribution had been in debate for a decade. In the late 140's, Gaius Laelius earned the nickname Sapiens (i.e. the wise) when he withdrew a bill he had proposed to settle only a part of the problem of Agee Publicus.

There had always been political agitation and violence at Rome, and strong opposition between some magistrates and some prominent tribune.

What went wrong in 133 is that one party (the nascent optimates) accidentally killed a tribune who was not a mere tribune but one of the most prominent roman aristocrats and already the most popular figure in Rome.

I will also add that the Sempronii Gracchi had always been allied with the Claudii Pulchri. They just tried to enlarge their political alliances with the Cornelius Scipiones in the previous generation. But the dynastic alliance fell apart. And it began to do so because the nexus around the Cornelii Scipiones was too unstable to last.

We have sources that show that Scipio Aemilianus, that is an Aemilius Paullus adopted by the maternal uncle of the Gracchi, could not get along with his adoptive mother (Scipio Africanus maior's widow) who also was his paternal aunt. He did not either get along with the Scipiones Nasicae. Nor with his mother in law Cornelia and his wife Sempronia.

To put it politically, Scipio Aemilianus did not fulfill his part of the adoption deal : he kept on playing as if he was an Aemilius Paullus.

The point concerning Tiberius is that he was uncompromising. He really meant what he said and did not just take this political course to further his career and increase his popularity. If he had been more opportunist, he would have backed away and said to his supporters : "I did all I could but our opponents blocked me. Elect me to higher positions and I will have more means to override them."

And I will add that Tiberius was probably short-sided. He did not realize that his measure would severely damage relations with the Italian allies.

The real genius of the family was Gaius Gracchus who was a really outstanding character.
 
I think it will change almost nothing in Tiberius Gracchus' political course.

Tiberius did not create the political-agrarian crisis nor did he create the political strife about the agrarian issue.

Agrarian reform and distribution had been in debate for a decade. In the late 140's, Gaius Laelius earned the nickname Sapiens (i.e. the wise) when he withdrew a bill he had proposed to settle only a part of the problem of Agee Publicus.

There had always been political agitation and violence at Rome, and strong opposition between some magistrates and some prominent tribune.

What went wrong in 133 is that one party (the nascent optimates) accidentally killed a tribune who was not a mere tribune but one of the most prominent roman aristocrats and already the most popular figure in Rome.

I will also add that the Sempronii Gracchi had always been allied with the Claudii Pulchri. They just tried to enlarge their political alliances with the Cornelius Scipiones in the previous generation. But the dynastic alliance fell apart. And it began to do so because the nexus around the Cornelii Scipiones was too unstable to last.

We have sources that show that Scipio Aemilianus, that is an Aemilius Paullus adopted by the maternal uncle of the Gracchi, could not get along with his adoptive mother (Scipio Africanus maior's widow) who also was his paternal aunt. He did not either get along with the Scipiones Nasicae. Nor with his mother in law Cornelia and his wife Sempronia.

To put it politically, Scipio Aemilianus did not fulfill his part of the adoption deal : he kept on playing as if he was an Aemilius Paullus.

The point concerning Tiberius is that he was uncompromising. He really meant what he said and did not just take this political course to further his career and increase his popularity. If he had been more opportunist, he would have backed away and said to his supporters : "I did all I could but our opponents blocked me. Elect me to higher positions and I will have more means to override them."

And I will add that Tiberius was probably short-sided. He did not realize that his measure would severely damage relations with the Italian allies.

The real genius of the family was Gaius Gracchus who was a really outstanding character.

I don't really understand why things wouldn't be different for Tiberius. As an Aedile he can't propose legislative changes and wouldn't be directly involved in the issue. He wouldn't become the figurehead for the Agrarian problem. Instead he would be firmly on his way up the cursus honorum. If timed correctly, he could very well be the Praetor sent to end the war in Asia.

The Agrarian reforms and the strife around them would still occur certainly, but without Tiberius having gambled his career on it the stakes would never reach as high and the struggle would probably be resolved more quietly in the long run. If the Claudians put forward someone else, he seems unlikely to have the same degree of gravitas, popular support nor ancient heritage which Tiberius had. I always read the Agrarian Crisis as Tiberius being forced to act in an effort to restore his prestige (and hopefully regain his place on the cursus honorum), and thereafter - having gambled his political career and dignitas on the Agrarian issue - he was pushed to go ever further. When he had Octavius deposed Tiberius repeatedly asked Octavius to step down voluntarily, but through Octavius' intransigence and Tiberius' inability to back down the whole issue escalated. By the time he had passed the Agrarian reforms he could have bowed out, but by that point he had broken with mos maiorum and was widely disliked by the senate and many of its factions, leaving his only avenue to power as the tribunate.

I always saw Gaius as the idealistic, and more skilled, one of the pair but Tiberius never seemed particularly idealistic. He was uncompromising because if he had compromised his political career would have come to an end. I always thought of him as more ambitious than anything else. I don't think he could have given ground against Octavius without losing his support and political career, however once the Agrarian reforms had been passed he could probably have gone along with the senate's move to defund the entire comission. However, by that point his name was inextricably bound to the Lex Agraria and its failure would have been viewed as his failure. Once again, without gaining funds in some way his career would have failed. Furthermore, by this point in time his relationship with the senate had been completely destroyed, not just by their decision to heap blame and scorn on him for his actions in Spain, but also when he asked for mediation in his disptue with Octavius in the Senate.

The Lex Agraria wasn't fashioned by Tiberius, he didn't actually have anything to do with drafting it, so blaming him for its negative effects on the relationship with the Italians seems rather unfair. It wasn't his legislation, he was simply the figurehead for the movement - a disgraced noble who had a lot to gain from successfully passing the law.

Scipio Aemilianus's departure from Rome is what triggered the crisis, without him leaving for Spain the Claudians wouldn't have a hope of passing the Lex Agraria. His departure is what created an opportunity for proposing the land reforms.
 
I disagree with several of your points.

Scipio Aemilianus's prestige and influence had been waning since 137/136. At the precise moment when the great alliance of reformers was concluded between the Claudii, the Fulvii, the Licinii Crassi, the Mucii Scaevolae and the Sempronii Gracchi, and other less prominent aristocrats. The agrarian legislation was a mere consequence of this great alliance which won most major elections from 136 to 133 and 131 to 130.

I don't think Tiberius was uncompromising because of the Spanish humiliation. His election as tribune was the sign of the redeem of the population. If he was uncompromising, it was because of his character and extremely prestigious lineage on both paternal and maternal side.

And as you said he was but a member of an alliance, and a rather junior one, although highly vocal and prestigious.

There were a lot of unpredictable hazards in the crisis. Tiberius and his allies had not guessed that his friend Octavius would betray him nor that Octavius would for the first time use the veto against a measure so widely supported by the people.
And Scipio Nasica did not intend to murder his young cousin but just to oust him and his supporters away from the forum.

There were other cases of violent opposition between magistrates and tribunes in the decade preceding 133, the most famous with a Servilius Caepio.

Tiberius could have backed down without your WI, as I said in my previous post. Many others had before him, many others did after him. This did not prevent from having a brilliant career afterwards although others had a poor or even disgraceful military record (Publius Clodius for example).

Tiberius was basically consul from the cradle. Promoting agrarian reform and finally compromising would have guaranteed him further political success.
 
Last edited:
I just watched the Extra History series on the Gracchus brothers - fascinating men, who I'd shamefully never heard of previously.
 
I, too, tend to think the differences would be greatest for T Gracchus himself. Class conflicts would have found other outlets and moments of escalation.
 
I disagree with several of your points.

Scipio Aemilianus's prestige and influence had been waning since 137/136. At the precise moment when the great alliance of reformers was concluded between the Claudii, the Fulvii, the Licinii Crassi, the Mucii Scaevolae and the Sempronii Gracchi, and other less prominent aristocrats. The agrarian legislation was a mere consequence of this great alliance which won most major elections from 136 to 133 and 131 to 130.

I don't think Tiberius was uncompromising because of the Spanish humiliation. His election as tribune was the sign of the redeem of the population. If he was uncompromising, it was because of his character and extremely prestigious lineage on both paternal and maternal side.

And as you said he was but a member of an alliance, and a rather junior one, although highly vocal and prestigious.

There were a lot of unpredictable hazards in the crisis. Tiberius and his allies had not guessed that his friend Octavius would betray him nor that Octavius would for the first time use the veto against a measure so widely supported by the people.
And Scipio Nasica did not intend to murder his young cousin but just to oust him and his supporters away from the forum.

There were other cases of violent opposition between magistrates and tribunes in the decade preceding 133, the most famous with a Servilius Caepio.

Tiberius could have backed down without your WI, as I said in my previous post. Many others had before him, many others did after him. This did not prevent from having a brilliant career afterwards although others had a poor or even disgraceful military record (Publius Clodius for example).

Tiberius was basically consul from the cradle. Promoting agrarian reform and finally compromising would have guaranteed him further political success.

I don't see why you would state that Scipio Aemilianus' prestige waned before the Numantine War, when it would seem like he was at the height of his power when he was given dispensation to become consul so soon after his last consulship to widespread acclaim. He was very demonstrably able to assert his dominance in the political scene when everyone turned to him to solve the humiliating problems caused by the Numantine War. I agree with you that the alliance of reformers were developing at this point, but it wouldn't be until after Scipio Aemilianus left that they were able to act agains this interests. It is very telling that Tiberius is elected tribune and puts forward the Lex Agraria in the gap where Scipio Aemilianus was outside Rome and unable to act politically. The agrarian legislation was at the heart of the developing alliance of reformers, but the wider plank of reforms only really came into being under Gaius Gracchus, whose reforms in turn became the main planks of future Populare politicians.

Tiberius was hailed for his peace treaty in Spain by the plebs, but was attacked by the senate for his actions there. His election as tribune wasn't so much a sign of his redemption by the population, as him building on the support which was built in Spain. The treaty in Spain prevented him from running for the Aedileship, but left him popular with the people - thus he became a tribune of the people.

When he became tribune he went from being a junior member of the alliance to being the figurehead for the entire alliance as a whole.

I really think that you are giving Scipio Nasica far more credit than is his due, if he wanted to simply oust Tiberius' supporters he wouldn't have killed more than 300 people and then followed it up with a systematic purge of numerous Gracchan supporters.

I am not sure what cases of violence you are refering to, could you specify which Servilius Caepio you are refering to and other examples? Sources would be fantastic as well.

I am not saying he couldn't potentially have rebuilt his political career, but backing down would have been a major blow to his only remaining pillar of support. Also, keep in mind that he was the first to actually try to pass a land reform through the assembly, which meant that he had to create a lot of the precedenses which later politicians could build on. He was paving the path which later politicians would follow, and differentiate their careers from. Tiberius didn't really have anyone to base his actions on.

I just watched the Extra History series on the Gracchus brothers - fascinating men, who I'd shamefully never heard of previously.

I would really recommend reading up on them, they are very interesting. I am currently reading Mike Duncan's book on the period, which was where this WI started.

I, too, tend to think the differences would be greatest for T Gracchus himself. Class conflicts would have found other outlets and moments of escalation.

The conflict over economic inequality was definitely coming, but from everything I have seen T Graccus was being paned as the next "First Man" of Rome before the fiasco with the Numantines. The Lex Agraria wasn't Tiberius' favorite cause, but rather something that he supported in an effort to return to political relevance. If he doesn't have some sort of black mark on his career to work around, there really isn't anything preventing him from becoming exactly what people thought he would become.

This WI is basically focused on two points with a third logically following 1) what effects would Tiberius have in his further career on Rome, 2) Without Tiberius to spearhead the Lex Agraria - who takes up that role and how do their actions differentiate from Tiberius, and 3) Without Tiberius having established the Agrarian reforms and Populare approach as the focus of the Gracchans, what would Gaius Gracchus do instead?

Gaius Gracchus built a lot on his martyred brother, using him as a basis on which to build his supporting framework. With Tiberius not having died for a popular cause, would Gaius still have developed a Populare platform?
 
@Zulfurium
Fully agree. T Gracchus would pursue a different agenda.
As for your questions, I have no idea. My knowledge of the time is too limited. 2) may indeed be someone we don`t know because his client network and agenda were overshadowed by the polarisation after the Gracchian initiatives, and it might take as long as another decade, for all we know.
 
Top