Home
Links
Entire Paper
Biography
Discussion of Aims
Plutarch
David L. Silverman
Source Analysis
Roberts &  Knox
Statue

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus

Introduction 

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was an ex army general who saw the need to reform the socioeconomic system of Rome as it was causing the downfall of the empire. What makes him such an important person in the history of Rome was the fact that his actions resulted in the first dramatic and public display of political violence. What Tiberius wanted to do was equally revolutionary as were the methods he undertook.

A number of issues arise when dealing with Tiberius. Most importantly are his aims for the reforms he undertook, this is the most debated topic in the life of Tiberius. Other issues include the justification of his actions. Were the methods employed by Tiberius really necessary and worthy of their cause? Finally were the senators themselves justified in their actions to repel Tiberius? And were they acting according to their duty, which was to protect the interests of the Roman citizens, or were they simply out to protect their own interests? Sources have many different ideas when it comes to these issues. Some are without evidence to support them and thus are not as reliable.  It is also difficult to estimate the level of bias within the classical sources as since many of the information they have used is now lost we are unaware whether they twisted it slightly to serve their purpose. The aim of this MRP is to evaluate the arguments of a number of sources. From these sources it aims to conclude who is the most reliable concerning Tiberius and whose arguments hold the most weight. It must elaborate on the bias one must be aware of and how can it best be dealt with. To achieve an accurate conclusion where the sources agree and disagree must be dealt with. From this the MRP will endeavor to evaluate the answer to the most debated question concerning the aims of Tiberius. What were his motives for his introduction of the socioeconomic bill.

Historical Review

David L. Silverman, 1996 The Gracchi  : The senate consisted of around 300 senators who owned land and controlled elections and legislation through the patron/client relationship. The senate was divided into two parties the Optimates ("aristocrats") and the Populares ("democrats"). The parties were distinguished by their different ideologies. The Optimates worked through the senate and traditional areas while the Populares worked through the tribunate and popular assemblies. The growing class of the equites had acquired increased influence with the growth of the empire in 2BC and at times rivaled the Optimates and Populares. They were legally allowed to practice business and did so mainly in the areas of banking, mining, public works, and the supply of arms. Joining the equites was an alternative to joining the senate. Farming was becoming more profitable as the rich brought up a great deal of land and exploited slave labor that was plentiful from overseas conquests. The 500-iugera limit was being widely ignored. Tiberius proposed to enforce this law and confiscate all land that exceeded the limit. Compensation was granted as the remaining 500 iugera would be untaxed. The confiscated land would be distributed in 30 iugera lots to Roman Citizens. Tiberius biased the senate and went directly to the concilium plebes. Not all of the senate opposed him, his powerful senator friends included P. Crassus, P. Mucius Scaevola, and Tiberius' father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher. At first Octavius vetoed the bill, but he was removed from office and the bill passed. It is not likely that this was technically illegal, it’s just that no one knew whether it was or not as it had never happened before. A commission of three was established to ensure that the bill was to be carried out. On this commission was Tiberius, his brother Gaius and his father in law.

Many ancient sources believe Tiberius’ motive was it was a grudge he held against the senators though this is not likely as Tiberius had other means with which he could have got his revenge. Stoicism may have also played a part in his motives. Most likely it was a direct response to the underlying socioeconomic causes of the recent slave uprising in Sicily; the displacement of the small farmer, who was the backbone of the Roman army, had reached crisis proportions, and the results were all too visible in the mass of former ploughmen gravitating to the city.

Optimates emerged as leader to the opposition of the Graccian party. They intended to prosecute him for illegally removing Octavius from office. Tiberius answered by standing for tribune for another year. This was strictly speaking legal but custom was against it. The elections deteriorated into a riot where Tiberius and many of his supporters were killed. The senate upheld the legality of his land bill after his death. A good case can be made out that the most offensive of all of Tiberius' actions was not the land bill, nor the iustitium (the suspension of public business, omitted by Appian and hence doubted by some modern writers), nor the deposition of his colleague Octavius, but his threat to encroach upon the senators' traditional prerogative in foreign affairs by referring the matter of the legacy of Attalus III to the popular assembly.

Statue This is a statue of Tiberius. It portrays all his valued qualities. His mood is one of contemplation and an almost divine wisdom. In his right hand he holds what appears to be the bill that he fought so had for a gave his life. He holds it in a triumphant way, suggesting that it was something he was proud of.

J. M. Roberts 1992 History of the World : “There was a widening gap between the rich and the poor as peasant farming gave way to large estates bought (stocked with slaves) with the spoils of war.” The Gracchi brothers wanted to do something about this through land reform as well as reducing senatorial power and giving equites a bigger role in government. They wanted to distribute the empires wealth. They both died through their efforts. This itself marked a raising in the stakes of politics in the last century of the republic factional because politicians knew that they risked their lives.

Dr. Ellis L. Knox 1996 History of Western Civilization : “Tiberius was an experienced commander who saw real need for serious reform.” He was not a revolutionary but went to extremes to achieve what he wanted and his opponents mirrored these extremes in their efforts to stop him.

            Once a soldier had served in his twenty campaigns and paid for his equipment by the time he returned his farm was in debt. Wealthy Romans who created larger and larger estates bought it up. Meanwhile the soldier would join the growing unemployed in the cities. All of this was ignored until in 146 both the Fourth Macedonian and the Third Punic wars ended together and large numbers of men flocked back to Rome with nowhere to go.

            Tiberius’ solution was to give land to the veterans who would raise a new generation of Romans. Thus with one reform he would address the quality of the army and the neglect of army veterans. But the land was in the hands of the rich aristocracy, essentially the senate, who had to pass the bills. There were no funds for compensation. Then King Attalus III died leaving his wealth and empire to Rome. The land reform could now be implemented with no burden to burden on Roman finances. The senate opposed his bill, so Tiberius ran for tribune though this was not common and brought him unpopularity. The senate persuaded the other tribune to veto the bill, though before he could do so Tiberius’ men grabbed him and dragged him away. The bill was passed. It was the first dramatic and public display of political violence. The senate was furious. The bill however was only the first step for Tiberius, he decided to stand for a second term. The senators now claimed that Tiberius wanted to be a demagogue. Tiberius and 300 of his followers were killed by the senate, who praised themselves and went about their business.

Plutarch 75 A.C.E. Tiberius Gracchus : The land which the Roman’s conquered was partly sold and partly turned into common land. Laws were made to prevent the rich driving out the poor. This law restricted the amount of land someone could own to 500 iugera. The wealthy disregarded these laws and the poor were no longer able to go to war or educate their children. This resulted in a significant decrease in the population of freemen. When Tiberius was elected as tribune he immediately intended to right this wrong. He may have done this because some learned friends inspired him, or because his mother wished for him to achieve something great, or perhaps because he wished to surpass Spurius in fame and influence, by attempting “a popular enterprise of this difficulty and of such great consequence.” It may have been Tiberius himself who first thought of what needed to be done when he saw the situation that existed in the country. However it was more likely that the people themselves inspired him to do so. He drew up the law with citizens that were eminent for their virtue and authority. His support was great, but the rich tried to diminish this by saying that Tiberius was trying to overthrow the government through his reforms. Octavius disagreed strongly with Tiberius bill and both were aware that one of them needed to leave their office. Octavius is almost voted to be disposed, but Tiberius stops the voting before he can be voted off, saying that he did not want to harm Octavius’ honor and Octavius hesitates swayed but Tiberius to let the bill pass but he cares more about the rich men and proprietors of the estates and refuses. Tiberius has him dragged from the rostra and the bill is passed. The great men of the city were utterly offended. Tiberius then decides to run for a second term, but does not heed the warning signals of his impending doom and is killed by the senate, along with the people who try to defend him. Once dead, his body is disrespected and thrown in the river and his friends exiled and murdered.

There is much conflict between sources over the life of Tiberius, though the general consensus makes up the structure of his actions. That is Tiberius recognized a need for change to the structure of Roman socioeconomic system. Then, whether it be for personal reasons or for the plight of the people, Tiberius went all out in order to achieve the reforms. Tiberius got his bill passed by bypassing the senate; this is a little hazy in some of the accounts but all stress strongly that he was elected into the tribune where he could now pass his bill un obstructed. That was except for Octavius who vetoed the bill after pressure from the senate. Tiberius decided to run for tribune for a second year, an act that had never been done before and was deeply frowned upon by the senators. The senators then assassinated him or he was killed in a riot.

            The conflict between sources generally entails Tiberius’ motives. Plutarch looks towards many opinions before drawing his conclusions, as does Silverman. Roberts however combines Tiberius with his brother and gives them the same goals in a broad overview. Knox offers a well thought argument but does not back it with any sources, diminishing the reliability. Appian offers a reason that appears to be based on what Tiberius said publicly and therefore is not as trustworthy. The statue of Tiberius suggests that Tiberius’ aims were pure and noble, using Tiberius’ stance and expression to portray this. It also suggests that the bill was something that was important to Tiberius. Though this source too cannot be trusted as it an amplification of all Tiberius’ good points with a disregard for any bad. Greg Ong looks at this subject in detail closely examining a variety of sources before giving his answer.

            The reliability of the sources also varies. Of the most reliable would have to be Silverman. He considers the views of a number of historians before concluding; with the fact he deems the most viable, giving a reason for why he thinks it’s so. J. M. Roberts, while his view is less reliable it is also a valuable source. Roberts does not go into as much detail as other sources and his work suggests a lack of research. Although because he is not focusing on Tiberius specifically unlike many other sources and he give a good idea as to the importance of Tiberius in the big picture. Knox appears to have a wide understanding regarding Tiberius, offering a highly developed argument as to many aspects of his life. However he does not show evidence in his work of any other possibilities other than his own conclusions, so his reliability has an ambiguous quality. Therefore his work must be considered as less accurate and viewed suspiciously. Plutarch is another reasonably reliable source whose work was written a longtime prior to the modern sources and so for that fact alone may be more relevant. He probably had access to more primary sources than are available today, and he does regularly demonstrate that he has considered them. Appian is not as reliable as Phutarch as he borrows heavily from many other sources. Party because of this however, he is still invaluable to the study of Tiberius as lost sources can be accessed through his work.

            As far as bias goes Knox would have to be the guiltiest. It is obvious that he looks affectionately on Tiberius painting him as noble. He does not suggest that Tiberous was trying to do something for the common man, but rather do something for his entire country. Roberts sees Tiberius in a very socialist light. This may not be because he admires him, is a socialist and wants to put him in a socialist light, but is more probably because it suits his theories regarding the state of the Roman empire more so than any other view on Tiberius would. This could mean that his view is more accurate because it does fit in with the big picture while others may not be able to be accounted for. Finally care must be taken to observe Plutarch’s bias. While at times he appears to be providing a very subjective argument, he is in fact being rather bias. Plutarch too, admires Tiberius and can at times overlook some negative evidence towards Tiberius.

Discussion

Tiberius was born to an aristocratic family with lots of political connections. He joined the army, which during his career revealed the weakness of Rome. Its army was already stretched protecting Roman interests in the Mediterranean, added to this was the decline in supply of Roman citizens both in general and those who were in a position to join the army. The reason for this was the wealthy land owners who benefited from the poor mans inability to afford his property after he had returned from war, which could last decades. The landowning peasantry, who were the basis of a roman army were declining while the population of landless poor was climbing. Tiberius whished to stop this by reinstating the law that restricted the amount of land someone was allowed to own. He met great opposition to this because the ruling classes were also the ones who were profiting form the abandonment of the old law. To do this Tiberius bypassed the senate and was elected into the tribunes. The practice of the Peoples assembly to pass reformist measures without the advice of the senate was becoming more common in recent years. Tiberius was now able to pass his new bill save for Oictavius who would have vetoed it if Tiberius had not first had him dragged from the rostra. This alienated many of Tiberius’ supporters who believed this action undermined the authority of the tribune. It also caused the senate to agree to prosecute Tiberius for his actions after his term was over. Hoping to avoid this Tiberius ran for tribune yet again but before he could do so the some senators hoping to incite a riot and prevent this caused the death of Tiberius.

There were various factors, which may have prompted Tiberius to introduce the bill. These included a moral obligation that he felt to the people of Rome, an almost nationalistic feeling on his behalf by which he did not want Rome to deteriorate any further, power that he thought he could obtain, to seek revenge on the senate or, he may have wished to relive the economic burden on the lower social classes.

            A moral obligation that Tiberius felt he had to the people of Rome is suggested vaguely by a number of sources, but never really backed by them. Some feel that his education by Diophanes and Blossius, who taught him Greek philosophy and ideals, may have sparked this obligation but even the most avid supporters of Tiberius cannot support this. Even it Tiberius did fell this way, this factor alone would not have been enough to cause the passionate display shown by Tiberius to achieve his political goals.

            As outlined by Plutauch when Tiberius returned from his military career He observed how much Italy had deteriorate agriculture with poor being driven off the land and the increase in slaves, who out numbered freemen. These homeless poor could no longer have families as they had nowhere to settle. Tiberius may have feared the threat of a slave uprising and with the declining roman army this was getting more plausible. Not only this but Rome was in decline if it no longer had a serviceable army, Tiberius being an accomplished general could accurately foresee the consequence if this was allowed to continue. Rome would no longer have a powerful army, thus be at a threat from their slaves as well as their enemies. As Silverman points out this could only continue as long as Rome was victorious in battle and the strain on their military power was beginning to show. Tiberius may have for seen that the only to rectify the situation was to pass the bill which would as Knox puts it “thus with one reform he would address the quality of the army and the neglect of army veterans.”

            A view clearly promoted by the senators at the time was that Tiberius wished to gain power through his actions. The senators even went so far as to say that he wished to seize the crown. Though obviously there is much exaggeration to this point, the question is; was power a factor in Tiberius’ aims? The answer is, probably not, or to such a negligible degree that it is hardly a factor. Tiberius came from a wealthy and highly respected family, he could have easily achieved a great deal of power by going through the traditional channels. As to him wishing to achieve ultimate power, it is equally if not less viable. The senators, threatened by Tiberius and not wishing to loose their land, mealy exploited a possible reason for Tiberius’ reforms that be believable and make him unpopular with the people.

            Most sources agree that revenge was clearly not a motive for Tiberius. As Silverman points out the mention of it in ancient sources can probably be accounted for the fact that “ancient writers of history love to ascribe public actions to personal grudges.” This theory can be discredited by the fact that Tiberius had many other options other than the one he chose to seek revenge. However all this aside this factor may have contributed partly to the vigor at which Tiberius perused his aims.

            Finally the possibility that Tiberius wished to equally distribute the wealth of the empire and relieve the economic burden on the lower social classes as outlined by Roberts is a possibility but not really that plausible. If it were true then how can the fervor at which he perused the reforms be accounted, surely it was not in the character of a man hardened by war to give his life and be ostracized by many of his friends merely because he wanted to help the common man, she war veteran maybe, but surely not the common man.

            Tiberius clearly set out with the goal; to save Rome from the gradual decline it had found itself in. He recognized that he must do this in a radical way otherwise; it would be unlikely to occur. He knew that the only viable way to renew the population of freemen was to allow them land so that they might be able to have children and have a stable income to provide for their families when they returned from war. Tiberius was unable to get this bill passed in the senate because it conflicted with the interests of the senators. The lengths he went to for the bill were great because he feared the magnitude of consequences for Rome if his bill was not passed. In a way he did it for all the reasons mentioned. He felt a moral obligation toward Rome; he wanted to halt the deterioration of the empire; he wanted power, but only so he could achieve his goals, he was not driven by it; he may have wished partly to get revenge on the senate; and finally he wanted to relive the economic burden on the lower social classes but this was more about the war veterans and the ‘production’ of more freemen to protect and serve Rome. He was a soldier. It was his duty to defend Rome with his life and that’s what he did.

Conclusion

This MRP successfully managed to evaluate the arguments of five sources regarding Tiberius in detail. Using these sources and others it then went on to establish the reliability of each of the sources, compare and contrast them to one another and determine their level of bias. From this, determining the true goal for the MRP, which was to establish Tiberius motives for implementing his reform bill. Taking into account the conclusions reached from the evaluation of the sources it was possible to determine the most likely motivation of Tiberius. This conclusion showed a deviation from that of other sources. It revealed Tiberius not as a person seeking revenge, or obsessed with power. Nor did it show him to be pursuing the rights of Roman citizens. It was merely a way for Tiberius to rectify the situation he saw in Rome. As a returned soldier he wished to continue fighting for Rome and respect those whose efforts did the same. Perhaps it was the effort that he had already invested under the name of Rome that allowed for his revolutionary persistence and methods that finally brought his downfall.