Tiberius Gracchus And His Radical Reforms

This essay will attempt to explain the motives that have led to the rise and fall of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the late second century B.C. Although very few sources remain of these accounts, which are based mainly on works of the historians Appian and Plutarch, the Gracchi have been the subject of study by several scholars. If on the one hand earlier historians tend to represent them as heroes and revolutionaries, on the other, more recent ones have regarded them as two controversial figures which were politically motivated by personal gains. They proposed and passed a series of legislations and the most controversial one is the agrarian law about the redistribution of the land. It can be argued that their motives have been certainly and thoroughly selfless for the good of the people of Rome in the specific period of history which spans from 133 B.C to 121 B.C. On the contrary, as it will be explained below, their methods have not always been ‘orthodox’. There could be three main areas that will help this essay to conclude if they were truly heroes of the people or political opportunists; the first is to evaluate what their true motives were, the second is to assess if there was an agrarian crisis and the third to establish who the beneficiaries of their legislations were. Overall, as all political figures, the Gracchi have to be taken in the context of the specific roman society of their time.

Thus, the aristocrats should not have found a fault with him being dictator for life even if it went against their traditional beliefs, ultimately, the aristocrats of the Senate were suppose to govern Rome to the benefit of its people and Caesar's rule was proving the most beneficial. Meier (1996:18) stated Roman society had failed as a republic ruled by liberty and had faced many problems of organization, reorientation and integration. "Liberty" had failed to solve the problems that Caesar was now curing.

This new republic was plagued by tension arising from the class differences of the patricians and plebeians. The Gracchi brothers attempted to equalize things, Gaius Gracchus proposed a redistribution of farm land that would benefit the plebeians. The end result was rather unfortunate as he was killed; his other brother was also killed ten years later for similar reasons.

Tiberius also assisted individuals to meet the financial qualifications of the senatorial group. The senate offered Tiberius titles and honours, which he refused, due to the failure of senators to uphold their responsibilities. An example of this is in AD 21; Tiberius reminded the senate that the province of Africa required a new governor who would control the rebellion that was occurring there. The senate showed itself to be inadequate at this point, for it wanted

In 132 BCE, Tiberius Gracchus was elected tribune of the plebs. Tiberius proposed massive land reform that would break up some plots owned by the wealthy and powerful and give it to poor and landless Roman landlords. Naturally, this legislation was supported by the plebeians and opposed by the wealthy patricians. The Senate was especially opposed to this proposal. Therefore, there was a large clash (relatively unheard of in the past) between the Senate and a tribune. The other consul, Octavius, blocked Tiberius’ proposal using his power as tribune to block any business. Tiberius was able to use his power as tribune to extraordinarily remove Octavius from office. This was unprecedented to use these powers for this purpose and it purported to open the Pandora’s box for other politicians to use their powers in extraordinary ways to subvert Roman republicanism. Tiberius was killed but his brother Gaius came to power as tribune nine years later to carry the mantle for populism. Gaius expanded his populism past land reform into cheap grain and making juries in corruption trials come from the equestrian and not senatorial class. Because

Nero and Tiberius both started off as great leaders of Rome. Throughout their leadership many events occurred that caused the general publics view to change on both of them. Comparing Nero, the careless leader to Tiberius, the leader with great accomplishments I found that they are complete opposites. Analyzing the accomplishments, treatment of people, and the overall personality of Nero and Tiberius it can be concluded that Tiberius is a better leader than Nero.

Tiberius Gracchus and Cicero were two men who were both concerned with wellness of the citizens of Rome; however, they had different opinions on the best way to achieve political advancements. Throughout the different generations of the two men, the same issues plagued Rome, and throughout their lifetimes the separate factions of the senate became more polarized as they continued to disagree about the fate of Rome. Cicero wrote letters to his friends and family which today offer great primary information about what it was like in Rome during the late republic. In our virtual reality game, Saeculum, I get firsthand insight into the issues that plagued Rome when my clients come to me with the issues of land, food, and water. I am tasked with

Much has been written about Tiberius in both modern and ancient sources, although some are divided on his motives while others strive for his selflessness. Orosius, an ancient source concerning the Roman Republic stated that Tiberius was “angry with the nobility because of the Numantine Treaty, decided that the land possessed hither to by private individuals, should be divided amongst the people,” and this caused him to reform against the Senate (Bishop, 1988). There are a trio of vital ancient sources reliable on the breakdown of the Republic. Cicero, Appian and Plutarch. Cicero is one of the few that actually lived during and participated in the events he comments on, so was

In 91 BC, some of the most moderate members of the senate allied themselves with Livius Drusus (the son of that Drusus, who had been used to undermine Gaius Gracchus' popularity in 122 BC) and aided him in his election campaign. As tribune, he proposed to add to the senate an equal number of equestrians, and to extend Roman citizenship to all Italians and to grant the poorer of the current citizens new schemes for colonization and a further cheapening of the corn prices, at the expense of the state.

Background Cicero was one of the greatest orators in Ancient Rome. He was not of noble birth, but in 64 BCE became consul, one of the most powerful offices in the Roman Republic. Cicero's time as consul was difficult, and he successfully prevented an overthrow of the Republic and his own assassination. Once Julius Caesar began to amass more and more personal power, however, he receded from active politics because he believed the ideals of the Republic would be diffused with tyranny. Once Caesar was assassinated, Cicero again became popular but because of his dislike (public and private) of Mark Antony, as Antony's power grew, Cicero's diminished. He was killed in December 43 BCE after being declared an enemy of the Republic.

Based on ancient Greek belief, Caesar’s work as a man had already been done and he was awarded the title Divus after his death, symbolizing his apotheosis to divine status. Caesar was deified after his death, at a level that had been done before only in honor of Romulus, the founder of Rome. Caesar had transcended man and become a god that once walked among men. Caesar’s accomplishments were not beyond conceivable for a man, although rare. By awarding Caesar honors and awards while he was alive, the Senate was creating a dictator that was beyond their own control. The Senate had deified Caesar as more than a man so they could justify his assassination. However, by the time Caesar was assassinated he had already changed the course of history, leaving an heir and a trail of followers that saw it was more than possible for one man to control Rome. Caesar’s apotheosis was a turning point for the Roman republic that impacted and attributed to its decline in 27 B.C.E.

However, this influence that the Senate had on the magistrates and popular assemblies was meant to protect the Republic from “popular whims” or the stupidity of the commoner (Gwynn, 24) . Although one could argue this made Rome an aristocracy, this in no way downgrades the justice of the government. The system of checks and balances ensured that the Senate could never be in complete control. More importantly, “the People, who by their votes, bestow honors on those who deserve them” (Tingay and Badcock, 45). The Populus had the right to reject or pass laws or choose war or peace.

Tiberius, who served as emperor from 14 to 37 AD, began his rule after the death of his father-in-law, Augustus. Tiberius was a weak ruler, and he understood that ruling Rome was like “holding a wolf by the ears.” When conflict arose in Europe, Tiberius sent his nephew, Germanicus, to deal with it. Germanicus did his job, and this resulted in Tiberius fearing the newest war-hero. To avoid the issue, Germanicus was appointed governor of the remote eastern provinces by his uncle. After the sudden death of Germanicus, people believed that Tiberius had poisoned him. He denied this, but the accusations never died. When he was in need of advice, Tiberius sought the assistance of Sejanus, a cavalry officer and town cheat. Tiberius sought the

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was the son of a Roman aristocrat whose family had regularly held the highest offices of state for the past century. Tiberius achieved much in his life and was a man of high distinction in political circles. He was a man with a prominent background- coming from very powerful families. It seemed also, that many had high expectations of him, and his potential was not seen to its full extent. To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion. Today I will be critically analysing and assessing the significance of three key areas which have been the crux of historical debate for centuries. Today I will be touching on Tiberius' family background, education, and early career to 134BC, the aims

Julius Caesar is perhaps the most well known in the history of Roman Emperors, yet there is no denying that his reign was filled with controversy, no reason more so than his devious rise to power and his mischievous ways of suppressing the senate. There is no doubt that in ruling as a Dictator; Caesar lost the support of the Roman people, who had fought for freedom against an Etruscan King, a role in which Caesar was playing. His death in 44BC coincided with what many believe to be the year in which the Republic completely its eventual ‘fall’ that it had been plummeting to since 133BC, and it is only by looking at the differences in the end of his reign to that of Augustus’ in 27BC that