Which Gracchi had the most influence on Roman history Gaius or Tiberius?
Printable View
Which Gracchi had the most influence on Roman history Gaius or Tiberius?
I really wouldn't call either of them very significant, people are probably going to disagree with me here but in the end they didn't actually achieve all that much.
They created the ultimate polarisation of politics into a pseudo-class system, which in turn allowed for the increased split between the Optimates and the Populares. Thus a civil war became inevitable, it was only a matter of time. In tandem they had a huge effect. I'm not sure which one had a larger effect personally, but their ultimate and lasting effect was their collective one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
They were both equistrians who sided with the common people, they might be the first real populists that could make them special, but in the end they lost. There is a lot more then a little bit shaky about the latifundias being so horrible anyway, they probably saved Rome from mass-starvation. Land got scourged, people flock to town, completely normal the land stealing didn't even happen at all according to some historians.
They were the first populists. Without them, no Sulla, no Marius, no Caesar...
How is that really, the triangle was never of any consequence for them when they were alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Rome depended on grain from the conquered provinces, such as Sicily, Africa, and later Egypt. About the migration to Rome:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
1. Hannibal scourges land. Result: land is devastated.
2. Land conquered from enemies and confiscated from former allies turned rebels. There aren't enough small farmers to work all of it, so large tracts are rented out to large landowners who can work them with clients, and thus provide the state with taxes.
3. Roman campaigns abroad require men serving for extended periods. Result: small farmers called away for long periods, and smallholdings become neglected through lack of manpower.
4. Large numbers of slaves captured from Roman conquests abroad. Result: rich landowners can work their farms with slave labour, resulting in economies which small farmers cannot match.
5. Small farmers are unable to make a living from their farms, so they sell up and move to Rome in search of better fortune.
Among the Gracchi, Gaius was by far the most revolutionary and influential. Tiberius tried to effect land reforms that weren't revolutionary in and of themselves, and was killed before he had the chance to push on. But Gaius effected reforms that affected the very structure of Roman society, creating a fully realised split between equites and the senatorial class, setting up the corn dole, looking to extend citizenship to all Italians, and other reforms.
hmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Gaius actually did that??
I thought Marius and Sulla Reformed the army, not Gaius Grachuss. the Gracchi only cared to the people, not the army. neither Tiberius, or Gaius was a Good Commander. Tiberius was'nt strong enough to resist the Senate, and Wanted to be King of Rome (Rex Roma) according to the senators that are power hungry. in the end, the both died, and that is the failure of Democracy: Controling the Officials, and the People within itself
Large numbers of slaves captured from Roman conquests abroad. Result: rich landowners can work their farms with slave labour, resulting in economies which small farmers cannot match.
Bit old fashioned this, slaves were epensive to keep, and there are only so many harvests but hey need food all year, it is much more likely they relied on day workers.
Gaius reformed the juries so that the equite class controlled the courts, rather than the senatorial class. This was to break up the senatorial control of the state. There were a number of other reforms aimed at changing the balance of power between the various bodies in Roman politics. Rome wasn't just the Roman army, however much the TW audience focuses on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus
Admittedly my conclusions came from a variety of possibly dated books that I no longer have access to. But IIRC the economies came, not just from slavery, but also scale of farming which slavery enabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The disappearance of small farming because of slave-labour is controversial, the land-grabbing might not have been so widespread, and small farms leave no evidence. Even the combined output of the latifundia's with grain coming from abroad wouldn't have been enough to sustain the population.
But there is no argument that some kind of migration from small farms to Rome happened, nor some of the other effects, from looking at the details in Tiberius's Bill. His agrarian Bill was actually not that revolutionary in theme or detail. It was the latest in a line of similar agrarian Bills, and provisions were made to compensate the landowners. It was just that the landowners had been in effective possession of the land for so long, and the laws hadn't been enforced in such a long time, that they felt it was unfair to start enforcing them now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The land was in shambles because of the Punic wars, but Rome was getting back on it's feet again so no surprise there that people flocked to it. There are some problems with chronologically, but being a man of the people means you are not a man of the elite, was a constant strive between the peoples tribune and the senate and you got to rub them up a little, they were probably as power hungry as the rest of them. Gracchi's story of looking down from that hill unto the destroyed farmland, well he didn't travel that route he couldn't have seen that. I wouldn't rule out that confiscation of property were a necesary evil to keep the grain supply steady and that Gracchi's sought political gain by pretending to be a man of the masses.
The Lex Agraria Sempronia was a Bill with the support of the establishment, or at least one faction of the establishment. Tiberius Gracchus couldn't have pushed a Bill with such extensive powers just on his own. The main driver of the Bill was probably the Princeps Senatus, Appius Claudius Pulcher, his father in law, and the leader of the Claudian faction (opposing the Aemilians). Tiberius was probably the frontman, chosen because he needed the political credit, because he could be a tribune, and because his family had an especial interest in the area. Claudius provided the establishment support, and I suspect, the substantial foundation for the reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You obviously have looked more into the politics, can't say anything meaningful about that. But there is a lot unclear about the actual economical situation of at least the lands in close proximity of Rome and the actual effects of the so-called (massive?) land-grabbing. Not so sure, land destroyed, people move to town, people need food or they riot, popular movements arise, so need for mass production. That could be exactly what happened, find me a time machine. The Latifundia part is a real theory by the way, the rest is me being bored and liking to talk about Rome.
Some interesting stuff guys, this is far more interesting than the Greek stuff i have recently studied. Far more creditable texts to look at and info. Thanks for making this thread interesting.