Cunctando restituit rem

[unmerged(2868)]

Roman Constitution questions:
1-what month waselections for consuls held?
2-What was the original function of the Senate, when did it change?
3-Were any Agrarian Laws actually passed during Tiberius Gracchus as Tribune? What was Gracchus main fault, according to the Senate?

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by corbulo
Roman Constitution questions:
1-what month waselections for consuls held?
2-What was the original function of the Senate, when did it change?
3-Were any Agrarian Laws actually passed during Tiberius Gracchus as Tribune? What was Gracchus main fault, according to the Senate?

1 - can't remember

2 - it was the main governing body of the republic. It was primarily a legislative body, but the executive was filled from within its ranks, it had a judicial role as a court of appeal, and also had a definite religious role. So modern constitutional terms aren't the most helpful

3 - Yes, Tiberius Gracchus did pass an agrarian law in 133BC His main fault is that he was basically a populist - though not quite as much a demagogue as his brother was. To the Senate, composed of heirarchical interests this was an inimical policy.

 

[unmerged(2868)]

Your answers are correct, just want to add this as well:
1-July
2-Senate was originally the advisory body to the consuls, it also nominated officals to popular assemblies. After 2nd Punic War, The Senate became the dominant body in Republic.
3-He ran for 2nd term.

I agree about Sempronius Gracchus, he did the republic a lot of harm, but this would not have happened had not Tiberius been killed.

 

[stnylan]

To be honest I think the Gracchi are just the first sign of what is to come - populist vs boni, and the increase of mob violence.

It is a shame in some respects, the Late Republic has some of the most intelligent, versatile, and skilled men that Rome ever produced. Unfortunately she was too small for them all.

 

[Winkelried]

I think the Gracchi were actually right with some of their criticism. The punic wars impoverished the average man while latifundias (sp?) and slavery increased the wealth of the nobility.
Basicly the republic lost a large part of it's "middle income" population, which paved the way for more populists: Marius, Caesar etc. and finally led to the empire.


PS: The last time I read about their reforms lies several years back. I could be way off with this.

 

[King of Men]

I was under the impression that the Senate had no actual 'constitutional' powers, but largely ruled anyway by sheer prestige and economic clout. Maybe I'm remembering wrongly?
Of course, during 500 years institutions can change quite a bit.

 

[unmerged(8606)]

On the agrarian reforms of the Gracchi, we had an interesting, but brief, discussion nearly a year ago, in this thread. Have a look there.

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by mfigueras
On the agrarian reforms of the Gracchi, we had an interesting, but brief, discussion nearly a year ago, in this thread. Have a look there.

Wow, I completely forgot that I had posted in that one.

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by corbulo
Roman Constitution questions:
1-what month waselections for consuls held?
2-What was the original function of the Senate, when did it change?
3-Were any Agrarian Laws actually passed during Tiberius Gracchus as Tribune? What was Gracchus main fault, according to the Senate?

Ave!

1. It changed overtime. In Sulla's Constitution it was in July. Prior to that it was substantially later, if I recall correctly probably 3-4 months later. They took office in March/April, if I recall correctly. However, this gets even more convuluted if the Pontifex Maximus happens to add days to the calender.

2. The Senate was a consultative body. Magistrates would consult the Senate. The Senate was the body that dealt with foreign affairs...but their main power was dealing with finances. They could regulate taxes of provinca's they could fund or not fund military forces or legislation (bread and circuses).

3. Yes, Tiberius Gracchus's land reform was passed but, if I recall correctly it was not really enforced. Gracchus's main fault (according to the Senate) was bypassing that body as he tired to promulgate his legislation. He circumvented tradition and altered the Mos Maiorum.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by King of Men
I was under the impression that the Senate had no actual 'constitutional' powers, but largely ruled anyway by sheer prestige and economic clout. Maybe I'm remembering wrongly?
Of course, during 500 years institutions can change quite a bit.

Ave,

You might have been under the wrong impression. The Senate had alot of power. But, most of that power was based on the Mos Maiorum, the traditions of ancient Rome. Once magistrates started disregarding the Mos Maiorum, trouble was bound to occur. The Mos Maiorum set up a system of checks that once ignored erroded the balance of power between the executives (Magistrates), the Senate (aristocracy) and the Comitia's (The People).

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(3420)]

My understanding was that the constitution of the Republic put all power in the hands of the Legislative Assemblies and their designated representatives, the magistrates and tribunes. The Senate, as it happened, was not considered one of the Legislative Assemblies; the Assemblies consisted of the Centuries (based on the old military levy of Rome), the Tribal Assembly and the Plebian Assembly. The Centuries elected all the magistrates except the tribunes, who were elected by the plebes. The Tribal assembly passed most legislation, thought the Plebian Assembly could also legislate.

The Senate was originally formed by the Kings of Rome as a consultative body; it had no formal legislative powers. However, the Senate consisted of the wealthiest and most influential men in Rome, as well as the leaders of all the major families. These men also had the leisure time to attend to politics, and so were usually the best-informed and best-connected men. The Senate met regularly (unlike the Assemblies) and so had practical experience as well. In short, the Senate wielded a great deal of influence, and if it was united it effectively ran the city. The existance of the other Assemblies only mattered if the Senate was split into factions. It became increasingly so after the Punic Wars, and Roman politics became more violent and intense, eventually collapsing the Republic.

The Gracchi brothers had the right idea exactly in their reforms. By the time of their emergance, the Roman economy was dominated by immensely wealthy landholders using slave labor, driving out the smallholder that had made the Republic strong. Most of the large landholdings were not private property, but state land siezed during the Punic Wars and leased at bargain rates to influential senators. The Gracchi proposed breaking up the state lands to restore the smallholder farmers. The wealthy landholders objected for obvious reasons, but the Gracchi program was so popular that land reform legislation could not be stopped in the Assemblies. So the Gracchi were murdered.

 

[unmerged(4303)]

Originally posted by crooktooth
My understanding was that the constitution of the Republic put all power in the hands of the Legislative Assemblies and their designated representatives, the magistrates and tribunes. The Senate, as it happened, was not considered one of the Legislative Assemblies; the Assemblies consisted of the Centuries (based on the old military levy of Rome), the Tribal Assembly and the Plebian Assembly. The Centuries elected all the magistrates except the tribunes, who were elected by the plebes. The Tribal assembly passed most legislation, thought the Plebian Assembly could also legislate.

The Senate was originally formed by the Kings of Rome as a consultative body; it had no formal legislative powers. However, the Senate consisted of the wealthiest and most influential men in Rome, as well as the leaders of all the major families. These men also had the leisure time to attend to politics, and so were usually the best-informed and best-connected men. The Senate met regularly (unlike the Assemblies) and so had practical experience as well. In short, the Senate wielded a great deal of influence, and if it was united it effectively ran the city. The existance of the other Assemblies only mattered if the Senate was split into factions. It became increasingly so after the Punic Wars, and Roman politics became more violent and intense, eventually collapsing the Republic.

The Gracchi brothers had the right idea exactly in their reforms. By the time of their emergance, the Roman economy was dominated by immensely wealthy landholders using slave labor, driving out the smallholder that had made the Republic strong. Most of the large landholdings were not private property, but state land siezed during the Punic Wars and leased at bargain rates to influential senators. The Gracchi proposed breaking up the state lands to restore the smallholder farmers. The wealthy landholders objected for obvious reasons, but the Gracchi program was so popular that land reform legislation could not be stopped in the Assemblies. So the Gracchi were murdered.

An excellent summation, Thanks, incidentally, the same thing happened during the reconquista, Andalusia was taken over by wealthy families owning huge latifundia. I think Tiberius Gracchus was 100% in the right, but his brother, Gaius, accomplished more, both for good(land distribution) and bad (tax farmers in Asia, Equites as judges).

 

[unmerged(4303)]

Re: Re: Cunctando restituit rem

Originally posted by Cornelius Sulla
Ave!

3. Yes, Tiberius Gracchus's land reform was passed but, if I recall correctly it was not really enforced. Gracchus's main fault (according to the Senate) was bypassing that body as he tired to promulgate his legislation. He circumvented tradition and altered the Mos Maiorum.



Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

I think Tiberius circumvented Mos Maiorum (tribune twice in a two years, bringing law directly to comitia tributa instead of first to Senate, getting money from Attalid bequest, etc) because he knew the Senate would never pass his legislation, at least after his first mistake, ie, bringing legislation first to Comitia tributa). Recent evidence shows, as crooktooth noted, that the latifundia/slaves existed in the reconquered lands in the south, in the north there were still plenty of small farmers, although Tiberius Gracchus first noticed the shortage of farmers in Etruria, on his way to Numantia). Tiberius is a sympathetic figure, Gaius is not.

 

[unmerged(5190)]

by murdering Tiberius and Gaius, they showed themselves unable to control the comitia tributa. The resort to force was the death knell to the republic.

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Re: Re: Re: Cunctando restituit rem

Originally posted by laelius
I think Tiberius circumvented Mos Maiorum (tribune twice in a two years, bringing law directly to comitia tributa instead of first to Senate, getting money from Attalid bequest, etc) because he knew the Senate would never pass his legislation, at least after his first mistake, ie, bringing legislation first to Comitia tributa). Recent evidence shows, as crooktooth noted, that the latifundia/slaves existed in the reconquered lands in the south, in the north there were still plenty of small farmers, although Tiberius Gracchus first noticed the shortage of farmers in Etruria, on his way to Numantia). Tiberius is a sympathetic figure, Gaius is not.

Ave,

He also circumvented the Mos Maiorum by impeaching the Tribune who vetoed his item for promulgation. This showed to the Senate that he was willing to utilize public pressure to achieve his own ends (regardless if they were for the good of Rome). By removing that ultimate check, the check of having more than one magistrate in office to counter you, signaled the end of cooperation between the Optimates and the Popularies.

And I do agree with your assesment that Tiberius was a more sympathetic figure when compared to his brother, Gaius Sempronius. However, I tend to view them as pure politicans nothing more and nothing less. They just utilized the system to try to increase their own political clout and as a result they appealed to the masses.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by senex
by murdering Tiberius and Gaius, they showed themselves unable to control the comitia tributa. The resort to force was the death knell to the republic.

Ave!

The Senate never "controlled" the comitia populi tributa and the comitia plebis tributa. As a matter of fact, many of the members of the Senate were Patricians and were unable to even speak in the Comitia Plebis. This is where clients were important for Patricians to give them a voice in the Comitia Plebis, that they otherwise lacked.

The inability for both sides to work together, as they have prior to the Gracchian Tribuneships was the death knell of the Republic. Take away the Gracchi and the issues of animosity between the Popularies and the Optimates were still there.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(4303)]

Originally posted by Cornelius Sulla
Ave!

The Senate never "controlled" the comitia populi tributa and the comitia plebis tributa. As a matter of fact, many of the members of the Senate were Patricians and were unable to even speak in the Comitia Plebis. This is where clients were important for Patricians to give them a voice in the Comitia Plebis, that they otherwise lacked.

The inability for both sides to work together, as they have prior to the Gracchian Tribuneships was the death knell of the Republic. Take away the Gracchi and the issues of animosity between the Popularies and the Optimates were still there.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

Salve,
What Comitia did Tiberius Gracchus bring the agrarian bill before? I looked in the OCD last night, but could not tell which one. It may have been the comitia of all the people, called simply the "comitia". Is this correct?

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by laelius
Salve,
What Comitia did Tiberius Gracchus bring the agrarian bill before? I looked in the OCD last night, but could not tell which one. It may have been the comitia of all the people, called simply the "comitia". Is this correct?

Ave!

If I recall correctly it was the Comitia Plebis Tributa. As Tribune he could have easily summoned that Comitia to promulgate his legislation and by utilizing that Comitia, all Patricians would have been barred from speaking and participating.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla
www.novaroma.org