Some Questions about the Roman Pleblians

**MSB** · 12-19-2006, 10:41

Hello all,
I was just reading on the internet that by 130BC the poor were an increasing concern to the ruling classes by 130BC. Sadly it didn't say why, so I was wondering,
Why had the mob become an increasing political and economic concern for the ruling oligarchy by 130BC?

I think that it may have something to do with the politicians taking land from the poor due to the plebleians being unable to maintain them. Is this right.
All help most appreciated,
Avlvs

And at the same time I was also wondering:
Why was the mob becoming an increasing factor in the political life of the republic by 130BC?
Thanks
Avlvs

**Zaknafien** · 12-19-2006, 12:43

Man is this like a school problem or something? :) lol..there are several reasons but basically it boils down to the problem of the land-owning farmer of the early Res Publica not being able to maintian his indpendent land with the rise of the latifunda and corporate-owned industrial farming. Hannibal also had alot to do with it; throughout the later 200s BCE much farmland was destroyed in Italia, many farmers were made soldiers, long periods of fighting in Hispania for instnace kept them away from their lands that were gobbled up by hungry corporations, making them paupers when they returned from years of war. The government began to subsidize the poor, and veterans were implanted in colonia across the realm,etc.

There was also an ever-widening gulf between rich and poor in Rome. With the influx of treasure and taxes from Rome's new dominions, Senators became wealthier by the year--new luxuries unknown in older Rome were becoming popular by this time, with pleasure villas being erected up and down the Campanian coast, etc.

**MSB** · 12-19-2006, 12:45

Thanks Zaknafein

And it's not a school thing. I was incredibly bored so I decided to go reading the web. I don't even go to school, well I do, but not as a pupil.

**GodEmperorLeto** · 12-19-2006, 14:51

Many historians have tackled this problem... some of those historians have made quite a mark by doing so. If you are interested in a little (not so light) reading, I'd suggest looking up H.H. Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero, a fascinating look at the "Roman Revolution" during the Republic's last two centuries. And there is the very depressing Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution, which gives one the impression of such a corrupt patrician order that you can't help but imagine the entire system collapsing in on itself.

**abou** · 12-19-2006, 19:57

Don't forget about the massive influx of slaves and booty when Carthage was taken in 146. If that wasn't the turning point, then it at least exacerbated the problem tremendously.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 12-19-2006, 23:41

The gap between the Plebs and Patricians is really important. Patrician means "Father" basically and the term for the Senate was "The Assembly of Fathers and Conscripts." Increasing wealth meant increasing corruption, with the fall of Carthage Rome's last significant enemy was destroyed, over the next fifty years the Concorda Ordinum collapsed. With the consensus destroyed there was a real divide between the Plebs and Patricians, politically as well as ecenomically.

That's the crux of the problem. If the Senate had been doing it's job the corperations would never have gained a foothold, but by that time the Senate was riddled with corruption and no longer had the best interests of the Res Publica at heart. There's also the fact that as time went by, sufferage expanded and families died out there ended up being a lot more Plebeians than Patricians.

**Cheexsta** · 12-20-2006, 00:42

Originally Posted by Avlvs Libvrnivs Britannicvs Maximvs

Hello all,
I was just reading on the internet that by 130BC the poor were an increasing concern to the ruling classes by 130BC. Sadly it didn't say why, so I was wondering,
Why had the mob become an increasing political and economic concern for the ruling oligarchy by 130BC?

I think that it may have something to do with the politicians taking land from the poor due to the plebleians being unable to maintain them. Is this right.
All help most appreciated,
Avlvs

And at the same time I was also wondering:
Why was the mob becoming an increasing factor in the political life of the republic by 130BC?
Thanks
Avlvs

In the Roman military, you had to be a land-owning citizen to be able to join the army until the reforms of Gaius Marius, but by the 130s BC a huge number of plebian farmers had been driven off their land by patricians who could work the land using slaves (ie latifundia). Because there were less land-owning citizens, Rome's armies were dwindling, and the ex-farmers would swarm Rome itself and become part of the 'urban poor' that would then cost Rome money to appease (since they still had voting rights). There are plenty of other social, economic and military issues that were causing problems in the 2nd century, though - the ongoing Iberian Wars draining soldiers and morale, a hugely inflated number of slaves made them extremely cheap, etc.

Tiberius Gracchus was the first of the Gracchi brothers to try and implement social reforms during his time as tribune of the plebs in 133BC (traditionally, the tribune did not push for new laws but had the power to veto any laws that were to be introduced). The lex agraria stipulated that public land was to be divided up more evenly so as to produce more land-owning citizens for recruitment and to move the urban poor out of the cities and onto farms. It was about this time that King Attalus of Pergamum designated Rome as his heir, and Tiberius seemed to want to include Asia in his division of land.

Even more interesting is Tiberius' conflict with fellow tribune Marcus Octavius, who kept trying to veto his laws (probably due to personal gain). Tiberius simply turned to the people and told them that they, who had voted this man into office, could simply vote him out of office, too. Octavius was deposed, and the new tribune allowed Tiberius' laws to be passed.

The next year, Tiberius tried to stand for election again, but just before the election he and three hundred Gracchan supporters (according to Scullard) were murdered, the first Roman civil strife since the founding of the republic.

Tiberius' younger brother, Gaius Gracchus, became tibune in 123 and 122BC and introduced a law that prevented anyone who had been deposed from office to be able to be elected again, which IMHO was a direct attack against Tiberius' enemies (specifically Octavius). He also pushed forwards with the agrarian bill which had been stalled after Tiberius' death, increased the power of the Equites (ie non-senatorial patricians, to try and decrease the power of the senate) and tried to give the Latins Roman Citizenship (and give Latin rights to the Italian allies).

At the end of 122, Gaius and his supporters were attacked by senators on the Aventine Hill. Gaius was killed, and any survivors were executed without trial.

Hope that answers your question.

Edit: for more reading, have a look at H. H. Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero and Appian's Civil Wars (esp. Book I).

**Gazius** · 12-20-2006, 06:10

Originally Posted by Cheexsta

The next year, Tiberius tried to stand for election again, but just before the election he and three hundred Gracchan supporters (according to Scullard), the first Roman civil strife since the founding of the republic.

Were murdered I presume?

**abou** · 12-20-2006, 06:17

If I remember correctly, a number of angry Senators rushed out of the Senate house when the consul refused to stop the election, caught Tiberius in the streets, and beat him to death over the head with a chair leg...

Now that is politics!

**Avicenna** · 12-20-2006, 06:57

You hurt me, abou

**Cheexsta** · 12-20-2006, 07:15

Originally Posted by Gazius

Were murdered I presume?

Oops, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.

**NeoSpartan** · 12-20-2006, 07:33

HEY there was a 6 episode series about Rome on the Discovery Channel called: BATTLE FOR ROME

And the 1st Episode was about this guy Tiberius, what he tried to pull through as a Tribune, the opposition he faced form Senators and the other Tribune and how he was murdered on the streets by club wielding Senators.

Kinda sad to hear,

but later this type of social inequality is what Gauis Julius Ceasar exploited in his favor in his political/military manouvers to take over Rome.

p.s by the way this sceries was the 1st time that used the correct type of Legionaries for the time periods it discussed. 1st Tiberius, 2nd Ceasar, 3rd Nero, 4th Vespecian, and 5th Constantine. And FINALY the Goths under Alerix (sp)