The agrarian reforms of Caius and Tiberius Graccus

[unmerged(8606)]

The agrarian reforms of the brothers Gracci, Caius and Tiberius, are usually considered as very revolutionary, some even claim that they were the very first "socialist" statesmen, but I think that somehow these reforms can be, in fact, considered very conservative. I'll explain myself: thanks to the settlements of small agrarian landowners a lot of urban mob was intended to be converted in quiet, grateful farmers that, somehow, had a debt with the senatorial class, thus leading to a stabilization of the republic. Moreover, this contributed to the army recruitment, so these new owners became more interested in the common defense of the state... so, again, a stabilization of the republic in a conservative way.

All in all, this strengthens my opinion that qualifying ancient policies as "progressist" or "conservative" is somewhat misleading. The Gracci's agrarian reforms could really improve the quality of life of a great part of the roman population, regardless its present-day consideration.

What do you think? Any comments?

Regards

Marc

 

[Keynes]

I agree 100% and that is why I disagree with those who cite the gracchi as the root cause of the end of the Republic. As you claim, the Gracchi tried to save the Republic. It was the forces *opposing* the Gracchi that sent in train the trends that would eventually destroy it.

 

[unmerged(8606)]

Exactly, no one dared to apply a similar policy until Julius Ceasar, but then the republic was alredy dead.

OTOH, the political oppositors of the Gracci learned to use their policies against them, in the demagogical style of "If he gives you 10 I'll give you 20", obviously without any intention of fulfill their promises.

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by Keynes
I agree 100% and that is why I disagree with those who cite the gracchi as the root cause of the end of the Republic. As you claim, the Gracchi tried to save the Republic. It was the forces *opposing* the Gracchi that sent in train the trends that would eventually destroy it.

Agree. IIRC they are called "socialists" because part of their reform was to limit the amount of land people could own. Especially wealthy individuals would have to part with some of their holdings.

 

[unmerged(8606)]

Yes, you remember correctly , the lex sempronia of Tiberius, passed in 133, limited the amount of land possessed by an individual to 1000 iugera. The remaining land was to be given to landless citizens, with an extension of at least 30 iugera. In order to manage this a three-men commission was appointed. The lex of his brother Caius, passed in 123, added to the former dispositions the creation of three colonies of roman citizens (two in Italy, one in Africa).

The interesting point is that a previous law existed, limiting the possession to 500 iugera (maybe from 367 bC), but it was never carried out. The lex sempronia simply wanted to make this old law compulsory again.

Marc

 

[unmerged(3420)]

I think it's impossible to describe the Gracchi as anything but revolutionary. Their reforms gravely threatened the interests of the most powerful members of Roman society, and so did constitute a revolution. Their methods were also extra-legal, which contributed to a weakening of Rome's unwritten constitution and a beginning of a downward spiral into violence, intimidation and general lawlessness.

That being said, I also think it's clear that the intent of the Gracchi was to restore the values and virtues of the Republic. The increasing concentration of wealth in a few hands, the loss of viability of family farms (when competing with huge landed estates worked by slaves) and the resulting disappearance of the rural yeomanry that had previously been the source of military manpower, caused a fundamental corruption of the Republican institutions and resulted in the emergance of dictators, triumvirs and emperors.

Had the Gracchi succeeded in their goals, broken up the estates and restored small farmers as the bulk of the citizenry, the Republic would have gained greatly in health and spirit. The failure of the Gracchi cost Rome a great deal.

 

[unmerged(6160)]

Yes but the Gracci, were the first demagod tribune of the plebs, they icouraged others like Staurnis, and Setoruis to try and over through Roman socity.

Livius Drusus death started the downward spiral.

 

[unmerged(8606)]

Originally posted by historycaesar
Yes but the Gracci, were the first demagod tribune of the plebs,

I wouldn't qualify the Gracci as "demagogs"; they certainly favoured the plebs, but not simply to gain his support, but also because the reforms were necessary, regardless who were the favoured ones. The problem is that the senatorial opposition learned the lesson very well, so they began to promise wonders to the plebs in order to gain his support, but now their promises were absolutely irreal, irresponsable and innecessary, if not dangerous. Then the demagogical politics of the end of the republic began.

Marc

 

[unmerged(2868)]

Originally posted by historycaesar
Yes but the Gracci, were the first demagod tribune of the plebs, they icouraged others like Staurnis, and Setoruis to try and over through Roman socity.

Livius Drusus death started the downward spiral.

I agree. For some reason the senate did not want to distribute land to the proles. Tiberius Gracchus was tribune twice in a row, against precedent. I think the Senate not wanting to distribute land to veterans and proles is the reason for Sulla and the first triumvirate.

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by corbulo
I agree. For some reason the senate did not want to distribute land to the proles. Tiberius Gracchus was tribune twice in a row, against precedent. I think the Senate not wanting to distribute land to veterans and proles is the reason for Sulla and the first triumvirate.

Sulla? Wasn't he part of the "nobles party"? I would expect him to take the side of the senate. Or didn't the senate want to give land to his soldiers (that would actually explain alot).

 

[unmerged(5190)]

When the tribune Sulpicius passed a law to transfer the eastern command to Marius, Sulla's soldiers supported Sulla's march on Rome (88 bce), ie the soldiers identified their interests as being the same as Sulla's interests. The tribuni militum however, did not support Sulla, except for Lucullus. Soldiers by this time had been stiffed too many times by the Senate to believe the could count on any land after their term of service.
It was just short-sightedness of the Senate.

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by mfigueras
The agrarian reforms of the brothers Gracci, Caius and Tiberius, are usually considered as very revolutionary, some even claim that they were the very first "socialist" statesmen, but I think that somehow these reforms can be, in fact, considered very conservative. I'll explain myself: thanks to the settlements of small agrarian landowners a lot of urban mob was intended to be converted in quiet, grateful farmers that, somehow, had a debt with the senatorial class, thus leading to a stabilization of the republic. Moreover, this contributed to the army recruitment, so these new owners became more interested in the common defense of the state... so, again, a stabilization of the republic in a conservative way.

All in all, this strengthens my opinion that qualifying ancient policies as "progressist" or "conservative" is somewhat misleading. The Gracci's agrarian reforms could really improve the quality of life of a great part of the roman population, regardless its present-day consideration.

What do you think? Any comments?

Regards

Marc

Ave!

I agree completely. The only way the Gracchi were "revolutionary" was in their disregard of the Mos Maiorum. Their bypassing of the Senate to promulgate their proposed legislation with little or no input from the Senate. That, and their attempt to run for consecutive office.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by mfigueras
Exactly, no one dared to apply a similar policy until Julius Ceasar, but then the republic was alredy dead.

OTOH, the political oppositors of the Gracci learned to use their policies against them, in the demagogical style of "If he gives you 10 I'll give you 20", obviously without any intention of fulfill their promises.

Ave!

Thats not exactly true. There were attempts at other reforms...Tribune G. Apuelius Saturnius was one example. He ended up dying in the Senate house.

Tribune Sulpicius (during the Social War), I believe tried to establish other reforms and lost his head (by followers of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, before his dictatorship).

Once the Dictatorship of Sulla was established the Tribuneship was a shell of its formal self and took the Consuls M. Crassus and Gn. Pompeius to restore it a decade later. Once it was restored Tribunes once again tried various reforms.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by corbulo
I agree. For some reason the senate did not want to distribute land to the proles. Tiberius Gracchus was tribune twice in a row, against precedent. I think the Senate not wanting to distribute land to veterans and proles is the reason for Sulla and the first triumvirate.

Avete Omnes,

There was a reason the Senate was against these reforms. There was a law promulgated (iirc about a hundred years earlier) that prevented Senators from taking part in commerce. This limited their investment options to land or real estate investment. To have Tribunes essentially nationalize the land they have purchased would have resulted in many a senators being financially ruined.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(4303)]

Originally posted by Cornelius Sulla
Avete Omnes,

There was a reason the Senate was against these reforms. There was a law promulgated (iirc about a hundred years earlier) that prevented Senators from taking part in commerce. This limited their investment options to land or real estate investment. To have Tribunes essentially nationalize the land they have purchased would have resulted in many a senators being financially ruined.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

I dont think they owned it legally, I think the Land was considered "ager publicus", but they leased it or defacto owned it.
This is what is so interesting about the roman republic, understanding the rules by which the game was played for 500 years. I cant read Ciceros "De Re Publica" without getting misty eyed.

 

[unmerged(4643)]

Originally posted by laelius
I dont think they owned it legally, I think the Land was considered "ager publicus", but they leased it or defacto owned it.
This is what is so interesting about the roman republic, understanding the rules by which the game was played for 500 years. I cant read Ciceros "De Re Publica" without getting misty eyed.

Ave,

Thats correct, it was Ager Publicus, but over the course of the years...Senators, prohibited from investing in commerce and other business practices ended up increasing their lands by using Ager Publicus as apart of their own land....and over the years they sort of merged into ownership. Any attempt to change the status quo led to trouble because Senators who ended up doing this became accustomed to the increased finances and lifestyle they were able to bring in.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
www.novaroma.org

 

[unmerged(2868)]

Although T. Gracchus did not bring the bill first to the senate, there was precedent for a tribune going directly to the popular assembly of tribes (comitia populi tributa). Gaius Flaminius had done it before the outbreak of the second punic war. My sympathies are with Tiberius Gracchus, not with the Senate, who was crushing the poor with long service in the military and the import of vast armies of slaves.

 

[Vortigern]

The fact that Tiberius failed to bring his bill before the senate wasn't really the problem. It seems a bit of a strange decision, but as you say, it wasn't strictly illegal. The far greater issue was his appropriation of the funds necessary for his land commission to operate.

 

[unmerged(5190)]

The Optimates by this time had assumed all important legislation would come before the Senate first, for a review. I think you are right, it was the allocation of the Attalid bequest that put them over the edge. I cannot remember if that was in his first or second tribunate. The senate had had for a long time the perogative of allocating money. (exactly the opposite in U.S. Constitution, where it resides with the House).