The_Motives_of_the_Roman_Gracchi

The Gracchi's aims in carrying out their various reforms within Rome are impossible for modern day scholars to pinpoint. While primary sources such as Cicero and Appian feel they've come to a definite conclusion, their views are filled with bias and make uncovering the truth for secondary scholars, more difficult. H.H Scullard believes that the Gracchi's motives should be "sharply distinguished from their methods." (37) On close inspection, the enormous sacrifices of both brothers appear to outweigh the potentially self-interested motives, indicating that the Gracchi were indeed reformers, with the intention solving the issues of poverty and inequality within Rome. The eldest of the two Gracchi: Tiberius, was born into a family of high class Patricians and as such, began climbing the Cursus of Honorum. He reached the position of Quaestor and then in 133 he became Tribune, possibly in an attempt to escape the petty rivalries between the families within the senate. It was then that he proposed the Lex Agraria, a reform to the current Roman land laws regarding the distribution of the latifundia and ager publicas. The lex required that the ager publicas, which was being used illegitimately by the Patricians, be divided into small properties for the Plebians to rent and support themselves. These holdings were inalienable and reduced the number of people starving within the city. Furthermore, in an attempt to win over the oligarchy, Tiberius proposed that 500 iugera be made private for each patrician, as well as 250 extra for each of 2 sons or daughters. Tiberius' methods for passing his lex aroused a stir amongst the senate. Tiberius' friends and legal advisors predicted that the senate would oppose the reform, as they had with their previous attempt at land reform. Hence, Tiberius took the lex directly to the assembly, alienating the senate. Tiberius had many supporters in the senate due to his father's previous triumphs, however he must not have felt that this would be enough to persuade the senate. Thus, his actions set precedent, which paved the way for future disruption to the status quo, terrifying the senate. Furthermore, the disagreements suspended public business, placing more pressure on the senate. Because of this, the senate advised the tribune Octavius to veto the lex and Tiberius' orating talents failed to change his mind. Tiberius, who was prepared for this situation, influenced the assembly to discard Octavius as Tribune and re-elect someone who would not veto. Thus the Lex Agraria was passed and was funded, by money Tiberius swindled from the SPQR, which they'd received from the kingdom of Pergamum. As re-election approached in 132, Tiberius looked for the votes of the assembly and as the senate became desperate to stop him, they requested that the consul assign a Senatus Consultum Ultimum (SCU). Their request was declined and in an outbreak of fear, the senate, lead by the Pontifex Maximus rioted and killed Tiberius and 300 of his followers without trial. Not a single member of the oligarchy was prosecuted for the bloodshed. The ideas regarding the motives of Tiberius Gracchus vary amongst primary and secondary scholars. Cicero believes that, Tiberius' actions were motivated by self-interest as he tried to regain his dignitas and get revenge on the senate, after his failure to maintain fides with the Spaniards of Numantia. However if this were the case, one would think that he would have enhanced his lex to disadvantage the senate further, possibly reducing their land ownership even more. By offering private land to the senate in the lex agraria, It can be assumed that he was attempting to keep the peace with the senators. Appian believes that Tiberius was a true reformer, interested in helping the poor. Plutarch supports this theory; writing about Tiberius' travels to Numantia, where the homeless inscribed his name in monuments, begging him to fix their situation. It is possible that Tiberius' motives whilst assisting the poor were based around gaining clientela, however his desire to escape the selfishness of the oligarchy and become tribune suggests that mentally, he had moved past that self-interested way of thinking and was genuinely trying to balance out the flow of wealth and power within Rome. The younger of the two Gracchi Brothers: Gaius, was a high-profile lawyer and an incredible orator. He was a strong supporter of providing rights for the Italian and Latin allies of Rome, who at the time were completely neglected. In 127 Gaius became Quaestor and travelled to Sardinia for two years. Prior to this, Gaius had had nine years to carry on his brother's work. Hence, he designed a vast program of reforms to develop Rome's socioeconomic and political framework. Within his reforms he made illegitimate courts with the power of capital punishment illegal. This law was retrospective by ten years. The Lex Rubria proposed the foundation of oversees colonies in an area called 'Junonia', where the battle of Carthrage took place. It was proposed that the land be divided amongst 6000 settlers and allies, allowing them to support themselves. The Lex Frumentaria proposed that the SPQR buy up all of Rome's grain supplies and distribute the grain in rations slightly lower than the market price. (6 1/3 Asses a Modius) Gaius' most controversial law proposed that all allies be given full citizenship of Rome. As Gaius continued to support the allies, the Romans' support for Gaius deteriorated, as they felt they were superior to the allies. While Gaius was in Junonia, Fulvius Flaccus, a close friend of Gaius and fellow supporter of the allies was accused by the senate of causing trouble. This notion was lead by Opimius who made sure that his unpopularity rubbed off on Gaius while he was away at the province. As a result, Gaius lost his sacrosanctity when he failed to be re-elected, he was strongly advised to protect himself. Opimius had become consul of 122 and when Gaius' supporters gathered on Capitoline Hill, Opimius' servant was killed. Opimius took that opportunity to claim that the state was under threat and, authorised an SCU. Gaius and Flaccus' son attempted to negotiate, but failing that, 3000 Gracchan supporters were executed by senatorial thugs. In addition, Opimius informed the people that: "Anyone who brought him the head of Gaius or Fulvius would be payed its weight in gold" (Plutarch) Unwilling to be dishonoured, Gaius had his servant slit his throat. Primary scholars Appain and Plutarch both agree that Gaius' primary goal in passing his reforms was to break the power of the senate but at the same time, he wanted to relieve the suffering of the unemployed. The retrospectivity of his reform regarding the ban of illegitimate courts clearly suggests that Gaius wanted revenge on the senators who had killed his father. However the severity of their actions cannot be ignored. They completely disregarded the consul's decision not to pass an SCU and brutally murdered hundreds. The law could have prevented the deaths of hundreds more in the future. The Lex Frumentaria provided many jobs and a reliable source of food for each and every Roman, it can be assumed without a doubt that his aims for this reform were purely altruistic. The Lex Rubria, would have allowed Gaius to gain thousands of clientela which could be viewed as a tyrannical motive. However the enemies he would have made for himself by providing homes for the allies would have far outweighed the gain of the clientela. Finally, the reform which ultimately lead to his death was his proposal to give the allies citizenship. In this sense, he was a true martyr to give up his life in support of this reform. It doesn't make sense to say that actions were motivated by greed, when he was willing to give his life for them. Although the Gracchi's motives cannot be known for certain, either way, they identified weaknesses in the political and economic systems of Rome and set new precedents, signifying the beginning of the Roman Revolution and the end of the Res Publica. Cicero said: "A person therefore who wishes to gain true glory should perform the obligations of justice." While their methods in relation to the senate may not have been entirely successful, the basis of their reforms suggests however that their hearts were presumably in the right place.