Why was Tiberius Gracchus killed by the senators?

[crazyorc]

Just because he wanna distribute the state owned land to the poor?
Or he was destroying the long lasting balance in the roman politics between the senate and the plebian?
Even if Tiberius broke the customs, his death was still a shame for romans, because he was the tribune then, who should not be hurt in the city of Rome.

[Arto]

Just like Caesar's and any other sane person in Rome...

[Pious Agnost]

Because he was a Communist!

Well, not really, but I suppose you could say he was similar

[EireEmerald]

Because he was a Communist!

Well, not really, but I suppose you could say he was similar

blame communism!

[crazyorc]

Tiberius didnt have the plan to overthrow the Republic, nor did he broke the laws of the Republic.
But the senate who claimed defending the Republic did kill the tribune, which was a great offence to the laws of the Republic.

[War&Politics]

Tiberius didnt have the plan to overthrow the Republic, nor did he broke the laws of the Republic.
But the senate who claimed defending the Republic did kill the tribune, which was a great offence to the laws of the Republic.

He did break the laws of the Republic. He used force to override the veto of a fellow tribune which was a violation of the Roman constitution, although arguably the tribune he overrode (Octavius) was acting against the wishes of his constituents. Still such a major violation of the constitution certainly provided the ammo his enemies needed to move against him.

[SonOfAlexander]

The senators were patheticly power-crazed men.

Good cop, bad cop.

A man trying to be fair was not what the senate wanted - they wanted results that they could control, like a pliable but talented general.

[Ahlerich]

politicians that want to redisdribute wealth always make mighty enemies

[John I Tzimisces]

We've just been covering the Gracchi in my roman history survey.

Essentially, he was upsetting the status quo. T. Gracchus was not actually breaking any laws, but his utter assertiveness in getting his legislation to pass must have been alarming. Many senators saw this as an attempt to override the senate as a body with a non-aristocratic force...and they took action against him (and his brother later). Furthermore while he and his brother weren't exactly screwing over the aristocrats who held the ager publicus, the legislation was still populist in nature.

Regardless of their motivation, events like this really shook confidence in the senate to remain top dog in the roman system. coupled with early defeats in the jugurthine war popularly attributed to aristocratic incompetence, it's not much of a surprise the likes of marius, sulla, cinna, and the like would soon pop up.

[pannonian]

He broke a number of customs, which made the conservatives fear for their establishment. He wished to redistribute land, but that wasn't unprecedented, and those plans were backed by a significant faction in the senate (the Claudians, including his father in law, who was princeps senatus). Moreover, unlike most other plans of this ilk, it made great efforts to address the concerns of the conservatives. The conservatives used an established method of obstruction to block this Bill, but Gracchus argued successfully that, as the plebs granted their support to a tribune of the plebs, so they could also withdraw it. This meant that the conservatives could not rely on this traditional mechanism to block revolutionaries.

While the Bill had passed, it still needed funds to enact its plans. The senate withheld funds for putting the LSA into practice, thus blocking it by another method. When the late King of Pergamum willed his kingdom to Rome, Gracchus used the authority of the plebs to seize those assets for his use. This significantly overstepped the normal bounds of the tribunate, whose usual concerns were the rights of the plebs and their auxiliary use as obstructive agents in politics. Still, Gracchus was only tribune for a year, and once his term was up, politics was likely to settle down again.

Perhaps fearing that he would be prosecuted for Octavius' deposal once he was out of office, and with his land Bill not yet fully enacted, Gracchus stood for a second successive term as tribune of the plebs. Since he was overwhelmingly popular with the plebs, and faced with the prospect of an indefinitely long Gracchan career of the kind seen in the past year, the conservatives took matters into their own hands and beat the presumed aspiring tyrant to death.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Let's not forget how the Gracchan dinasty was more or less a pawn of the Equites, and their support was essential for the continuation of their radical policy. Once the Equites were satisfied and began to distance themselves away from them, the Gracchi were doomed.

[pannonian]

Let's not forget how the Gracchan dinasty was more or less a pawn of the Equites, and their support was essential for the continuation of their radical policy. Once the Equites were satisfied and began to distance themselves away from them, the Gracchi were doomed.

His brother Gaius was the first to specifically court the equites, as an alternative power bloc to the conservatives. The Gracchans before Tiberius had generally been establishment figures, allying themselves with one faction or another.

[crazyorc]

Let's not forget how the Gracchan dinasty was more or less a pawn of the Equites, and their support was essential for the continuation of their radical policy. Once the Equites were satisfied and began to distance themselves away from them, the Gracchi were doomed.

The Gracchus' power was mostly from the class of Equites? In my memory, it was from the poor though.
Without the support of the Equites, can Gracchus control the city with the rabbles?

And as u say, the Gracchi were doomed after the Equites turned against him, why didnt the Equites support Gracchus then?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Gaius Gracchus made large concessions to the Equites, like making them dominant amoing juries\courts of law. If I remember correctly most judges\jury had to be of the Senatorial Class, whereas Gracchus just forced the Equites in and into almost complete dominance.

Most of Gracchus' standing and rabblerousing were thus actively backed by the Equestrian Class, thus allowing him to gain room with radicalism. Later it was when that same support waned that the younger Gracchus became more politically vulnerable, and was thus murdered in cold blood.

The Equites simply did not go on supporting him for most of their power urges had been satisfied, and even then Gracchus was probably becoming too dangerous and too much of an independent influence among the growing mass of the dispossessed to be just a political tool or asset.

[Octavius Vatco]

nevertheless it was the inflexibility of the senate that sealed everything.

[Dromikaites]

And to put the things into the correct perspective, Gaius was killed because he could be killed. Not in the sense he was mortal nor in the sense the senators had the opportunity and took it. He lost his life because the senators had the opportunity and knew they will get away with it. The same had happened to his brother.

While his reforms looked great on paper, there was a good reason for the wealthy people to get large tracts of the Ager Publicus: a lot of Roman preferred to do nothing and be supported through the client-patron system. Having to support their families through hard work, tiling the patches of land given to them by Gracchus' reforms was not exactly appealing for many citizens. They could pretty much enjoy the same standard of living by having the slaves of their patron do the hard work. All they had to do in exchange was to vote as told and on occasions to get involved into the brawls associated with the Roman politics.

Receiving land was more interesting for the rest of the Italians, who at the time weren't citizens and therefore didn't have the right to vote. They ended up making the bulk of the Roman armies for both the opportunities to plunder and for the land given to them at the end of the military service. This is why Gaius Gracchus insisted to extend the citizenship to people outside the city - they had not been used to the clientele system and therefore for them land grants were much more attractive.

Bottom line, both Gracchi were making waves without having a solid support for their land reforms. What they were offering was not attractive enough for the majority of the Roman citizens. Therefore the Senators could get rid of them without fear.

[pannonian]

And to put the things into the correct perspective, Gaius was killed because he could be killed. Not in the sense he was mortal nor in the sense the senators had the opportunity and took it. He lost his life because the senators had the opportunity and knew they will get away with it. The same had happened to his brother.

While his reforms looked great on paper, there was a good reason for the wealthy people to get large tracts of the Ager Publicus: a lot of Roman preferred to do nothing and be supported through the client-patron system. Having to support their families through hard work, tiling the patches of land given to them by Gracchus' reforms was not exactly appealing for many citizens. They could pretty much enjoy the same standard of living by having the slaves of their patron do the hard work. All they had to do in exchange was to vote as told and on occasions to get involved into the brawls associated with the Roman politics.

Receiving land was more interesting for the rest of the Italians, who at the time weren't citizens and therefore didn't have the right to vote. They ended up making the bulk of the Roman armies for both the opportunities to plunder and for the land given to them at the end of the military service. This is why Gaius Gracchus insisted to extend the citizenship to people outside the city - they had not been used to the clientele system and therefore for them land grants were much more attractive.

Bottom line, both Gracchi were making waves without having a solid support for their land reforms. What they were offering was not attractive enough for the majority of the Roman citizens. Therefore the Senators could get rid of them without fear.

At the time of Tiberius Gracchus, there wasn't yet such a problem with a workless proletariat who had to be won over with bread and circuses - the grain dole began with Gaius Gracchus, who offered subsidised grain (and who was trumped by his opponents, who offered free grain).

The land problem began with the 2nd Punic war, when Roman farmers were called away to fight in wars for years at a time, leaving their farms neglected. That Hannibal was ravaging Roman land up and down the Italian peninsula didn't help. Rich landowners could cope with this, as they could afford slaves to keep their estates running, whereas smallholders only had their family. This problem was magniified by the active Roman foreign policy after the Hannibalic war, which sent Roman armies all over the Mediterranean on one campaign or another. The wars of this period had the beneficial effect of adding to Roman territory, but the absent Roman smallholders couldn't be found to administer this influx of ager publicus, so it was turned over to the rich landowners who could afford to cultivate it with slave labour, and pay rent on the land to the state, thus at least generating useful income for the state.

Another problem which fed into this was the massive increase in slave labour available after successful campaigns abroad, eg. L. Aemilius Paullus' mass enslavement of Epirotes on his return from the Macedonian campaign. With such a large amount of cheap slave labour available, coupled with the savings in economy of largescale estates, smallholders couldn't compete in the market, and their farms were thus unviable. Many of them sold up to the rich landowners while their land was still worth something, and moved to Rome where they hoped to find new opportunities. Not many found them.

That the ager publicus was administered by the rich landowners wasn't a problem, as it was helping the state raise revenue from surplus land. However, as the land was held by their families through several generations, land was divided between family members, without differentiating between privately held land and ager publicus rented by the family, improving both alike. While the public land was ostensibly owned by the state and rented by private landowners, it had often been improved and built on. If the state ever reclaimed the ager publicus, some family members would be lucky enough to have inherited mainly private land, while others would find that the land they'd inherited was to be almost wholly taken away by the state.

Tiberius Gracchus' land Bill wasn't unprecedented, with a previous attempt by Africanus' friend Gaius Laelius having been dropped after heavy opposition. In many ways, it was more moderate than previous Bills of this kind, trying to address both the concerns of the landless and the landed. The main aim was to portion out ager publicus to the proles who wanted to return to the land. To ensure they couldn't be pressured by large landowners into selling up, this land was to be made inalienable - it couldn't be split up, nor sold, only inherited. Because this land was to be taken from the large landholders, they were allowed to keep large amounts of public land - 250 iugera per individual. The remainder wouldn't be confiscated, but bought back by the state. Also, they were allowed to designate which land they wanted to keep, so they could keep estates together, or keep the land which their family had most heavily invested in.

[SigniferOne]

And to put the things into the correct perspective, Gaius was killed because he could be killed. Not in the sense he was mortal nor in the sense the senators had the opportunity and took it. He lost his life because the senators had the opportunity and knew they will get away with it. The same had happened to his brother.

While his reforms looked great on paper, there was a good reason for the wealthy people to get large tracts of the Ager Publicus: a lot of Roman preferred to do nothing and be supported through the client-patron system. Having to support their families through hard work, tiling the patches of land given to them by Gracchus' reforms was not exactly appealing for many citizens. They could pretty much enjoy the same standard of living by having the slaves of their patron do the hard work.

There's a lot that is wrong here.

First of all: "Gaius was killed because he could be killed" -- that's a pretty bold statement, considering that it was the first political murder in the whole 400-year history of the republic. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase?

"a lot of Romans preferred to do nothing" -- Huh?

"be supported through the client-patron system" -- This shows a complete misunderstanding of the patronage system. Neither patrons nor clients were beholden in work to each other.

"enjoy the same standard of living by having the slaves of their patron" -- There is not a single shred of evidence that patrons would send their slaves to work the clients' land.

At the time of Tiberius Gracchus, there wasn't yet such a problem with a workless proletariat who had to be won over with bread and circuses - the grain dole began with Gaius Gracchus, who offered subsidised grain

Actually the grain dole was begun by Publius Clodius Pulcher, in the 50s BC. What Gaius did was merely try to subsidize the price of grain.

[Dromikaites]

There's a lot that is wrong here.

First of all: "Gaius was killed because he could be killed" -- that's a pretty bold statement, considering that it was the first political murder in the whole 400-year history of the republic. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase?

What's to rephrase? The Roman politics included supporters of various candidates beating each others up. Occasionally people ended up killed in the brawls. It just happens until then it was the "little guys" who got killed. It was a matter of time until that would escalate to the leaders.

"a lot of Romans preferred to do nothing" -- Huh?

Very much so. The poor are always much more numerous than the rich. When they truly want to get rid of the upper classes they do. Law and order disappears and the rich who don't run fast enough end up dead.

The senators correctly assessed the situation being nowhere near say a French Revolution, a Russian revolution or a Jaquerie.

In theory all the poor people should have been in favor of receiving land but surprise-surprise they were not. Why was that? Because there were better ways to earn a living than working.

Even more than that: in theory all the people should have been in favor of a system like the one practiced in the democratic countries: one man - one vote, etc. That never happened either during the times of the Roman Republic. Why was that? Because there were not enough people desperate enough to impose such a system on the elites.

"be supported through the client-patron system" -- This shows a complete misunderstanding of the patronage system. Neither patrons nor clients were beholden in work to each other.

"enjoy the same standard of living by having the slaves of their patron" -- There is not a single shred of evidence that patrons would send their slaves to work the clients' land.

The patrons provided clothes, food, legal support and so on to their clients. In other words they were buying them out. The slaves were working to support all that system.

At some point in time however it became too expensive for the patrons to take care of their clients properly. So first the price of the grain was subsidized and later on the grain was given for free. Rabble-rousers used such measures for their own political gains but in truth that reduced the burden on the rich guys while keeping them in power.

Same as the social security systems of today

[crazyorc]

Buying votes is widespread at the time of Gracchi?