Gayatri Gogoi

What conditions led to the Gracchan agrarian legislation and ensuing turmoil?
The events of Tiberius Gracchus tribuneship in 133BC brought about civil strife and violence, which
Appian tells us in his civil wars was unprecedented in Rome. We might wonder what circumstances
brought about such unprecedented tumult, and we can see that it was in some way related to the
controversial agrarian legislation brought about by Tiberius Gracchus, which sought the
redistribution of the ager publicus in Italy. However, it is important to note that the conditions
which motivated Gracchus to create agrarian legislation are not necessarily the same conditions
which brought about the tumultuous events of 133BC. I would argue that while the agrarian
legislation was prompted by genuine need for land reform, which interlinked with military issues and
the number of free and propertied citizens, the violence itself was largely due to the very nature of
Roman politics and power struggle between the popular assemblies and tribunes and the senate and
its magistrates. While the people ultimately had legislative control, the senate had enjoyed immense
control over laws and statutes put before the people. However, Gracchus upset the already
unsteady status quo in Roman politics, by utilising his tribunician power. Nevertheless, we cannot
deny the part that the agrarian bill itself and its motions played in sparking the violence which led to
Gracchus death, as well as Gracchus own actions in enacting his legislation and subsequent
behaviour.
In Rome and Italy in the second-century BC, Appian (7) tells us that land which had been once
conquered in Italy by the Romans which had not been colonised or cultivated was leased to the
public. However, it came to be that rich landowners ended up cultivating vast swathes of land even
after the Licinian laws were passed which limited cultivation of the ager publicus to 500 iugera per
person, as Plutarch tells us in chapter 8 in his Parallel Lives of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, keeping
hold of their large allotments through the use of false transfers in the name of relatives. Slaves in
Italy were growing in number due to successful Roman conquest abroad and were used as labourers
on these farms. The effect of these large slave run farms, latifundia, was that the free Roman
peasantry was reduced to homelessness and poverty, often drawn towards Rome and contributing
to the overcrowding and poor living conditions within the city, but meaning that as free families
were forced from their farms, their numbers decreased.
Furthermore, this had an effect on the Roman military issues, as Appian tells us the peasantry were
being oppressed by penury, taxes, and military service (7), and Plutarch that they no longer showed
themselves eager for military service (8). In this period only free Roman landowners could be
conscripted into the army, meaning as the Roman peasantry and Italian allies, as Appian mentions in
chapter 7, were removed from the land they possessed there were fewer to fight on behalf of
Rome. We must also recognise that military service itself contributed to the problem of population
decline, not least because of the number of men killed abroad. Military expeditions were taking
place further and further afield, meaning men had to serve longer times in the army than previously,
when they could return quickly to their farms at the end of the fighting season. Therefore as de Light
notes it became easier for the rich to absorb these allotments when the head of their household was
on campaign and that booty from conquest often fell into the hands of the elite enabling them to
buy yet more land.1 She also shows how the displacement of the peasantry to become part of the
urban proletariat, who were the market for the surplus created by the latifundia, stimulated the
production of cash crops further.

1
P593 de Light (2006)
Gayatri Gogoi
Because of these conditions, Gracchus proposed an agrarian bill proposed that those who possessed
over the legal limit of 500 iugera, and an extra 250 for each son, give up their excess land in return
for reimbursement by the state. There would then be the creation of a commission of three men to
oversee the redistribution of the ager publicus to the poor, in order to increase the free population
who could serve in Roman armies or as Italian allies. However, it is unclear whether the peasantry
who possessed the realloted land would have been able to serve in the military as was ostensibly
Gracchus aim as it was of unclear legal status until the land reforms of 111 during which the
conversion of ager publicus to privatus was clearly defined.
Having examined the conditions leading to the creation of the agrarian legislation, we must consider
how this feeds into and sparks the ensuing violence and unrest. This was caused for a number of
reasons : firstly because of the agrarian legislation itself and what Gracchus proposed; secondly the
symbolic implications of the bill and how it was interpreted by Gracchan opponents; thirdly the
actions of Gracchus himself, both in bringing the legislation to fruition and other activities in his
consulship, and finally, and most importantly, the political system and the power struggles which
entailed, which allowed the other conditions come about, combine and agitate leading ultimately to
the turmoil which led to the death of Tiberius and three hundred of his supporters.
The agrarian bill itself, while serving a practical purpose for the Roman poor, would have practical
implication, mostly in the form of loss of land and revenue for many rich landowners, of whom there
were many in the senate and among the political elite. Therefore, from the outset, many rich and
powerful politicians were personally disposed to oppose the bill. Indeed, what ultimately provided
the conditions for such violence to erupt was the political system in Rome, which was still flawed up
even into Cicero's time. The election of magistracies, unpaid as they were and with costly election
campaigns, was a system that privileged the rich, many of whom were directly affected by the land
bill. Furthermore, senators were not technically allowed to engage in business, such as
moneylending, and farms and land formed a large part of their property and income. Had the bill not
been so personally detrimental to many senators, including, it is said, Scipio Nasica, the pontifex
maximus who owned much land and led the mob of senators who killed Tiberius, it may be that they
would have had less cause to oppose the legislation.
However, as Lintott notes, despite the practical reasons for the bill and practical and personal
reasons against it, the argument was usually framed in ideological terms.
2
The bill faced opposition
not for what it actually proposed but what it represented the shaking of the foundations of Roman
politics and inciting revolution, as we are told in Plutarch (9). Aside from the land bill, we can also
see how Gracchus other proposed policies aimed to shake up the existing state of affairs and
undermine the power of the senate, for example by advocating that juries be made up of both
equites and senators, rather than senators alone. However, he more overtly undermined the
authority of the senate in the passing of the agrarian bill by not originally bringing it to the senate
but before the people, which while was legal, was not customary practice. Indeed Plutarch goes so
far as to say he was trying to maim the power of the senate (16), and Appian clearly highlights the
power struggle of which Gracchus situation was the utmost from his very first paragraph: From this
arose still greater bitterness, and the magistrates were arrayed in stronger animosity to each other
from this time on *the Senate and plebeians+ believing that it would prevail over the other by
augmenting the power of its own magistrates. Diodorus (35) also adds that Gracchus overthrow

2
p66 Lintott (1992)
Gayatri Gogoi
the aristocracy and establish a democratic government. Clearly, Gracchus was viewed by historians
as a revolutionary figure against the noble elites and government.
Moreover, if we accept Richardsons conclusion, that the beneficiaries of the legislation also
included poor Italian allies, who received land as well as citizenship we might view the agrarian
legislation as part of wider social citizenship reform, especially in light of Gracchus proposed
citizenship grants to Italian allies as part of his second tribuneship campaign.
3
Roman citizenship was
a contentious issue in this period, coming to a head a few decades later with the Lex Licinia Mucia
which removed Latin and Italian allies from the Roman citizenship records, and the subsequent
Social war of 91-88 which resulted in the enfranchisement of allies with the Lex Lex Plautia Papiria
and other such laws. Therefore troubles may have arisen from this citizenship reform as it
represented a quite radical change of the Roman state and its citizens on much greater scale. Not
only was Tiberius apparently a revolutionary upstart, fomenting ideas contrary to the senate, but he
must have seemed to some conservatives to be promoting to upheave the entire republic.
An event which may have led in part to the turmoil of 133 was the action Gracchus took against his
fellow-tribune Marcus Octavius by deposing him through the people in a legally ambiguous move so
that he would not while representing the interests of the rich landowners veto the agrarian bill.
Gracchus fault of action did not lie in the fact that he broke the law but that in breaking the law he
disrupted the existing status quo in Rome and undermined the authority of the senate. He not only
seemed to violate the sacrosanctity of the tribune by ordering his forcible removal from the rostra
but more significantly also gave himself greater power than which he necessarily may have legally
possessed, an action justified only by the backing of popular opinion, rather than law.
Furthermore, we must also recognise how republican politics was shaped in opposition to monarchy
and kingship, which was especially despised after the expulsion of the Tarquin kings. This event with
Octavius may feed into the idea that Tiberius was becoming too powerful and despotic, and he was
at several times associated negatively with kingship. This is especially evident after he diverted the
money bequeathed to Rome by Attalus III, king of Pergamum to fund his own agrarian commission,
after the refusal of the senate to do so. If this were not enough of a link with monarchy, Plutarch
tells us that Pompeius accused the Pergameme envoy of gifting Gracchus with a diadem and a
purple robe (14). Indeed, simply the immense personal power Gracchus enjoyed as a result of the
popularity he courted among the people was enough for some of his opponents to see a potential
tyrant and king. The motif of kingship and its relationship to land is highlighted in Ciceros speech
against the Rullan Land bill of 63BC, in which he emphasises the kingly power of the decemviri,
through which we can similarly see how Tiberius own three-man commission may have faced
opposition by appearing to wield monarchical power, compounded by the dynastical element, in
that the commission comprised of Tiberius himself, his brother Gaius and father-in-law Appius
Claudius. Diodorus tells us too that Gracchus was already starting to behave like a tyrant (28a). This
association with domineering kingship even resulted in Gracchus death, as Plutarch tells us in
chapter 19, that a gesture to signify that his life was in danger was misinterpreted to mean he was
asking for a crown, which when reported to the senate, enraged them to form a murderous mob. In
part therefore we can see how violence was brought about because of this link with tyrannical
monarchy.

3
p6 Richardson (1980)
Gayatri Gogoi
Indeed, Tiberius made use of tribunician power as a tool which had until that time been never used
in such a way. He exploited the right of veto to prevent any public business from happening and
barring the treasury, essentially holding the state to ransom in return for achieving his aims of
passing the land bill. Most importantly, as a charismatic and eloquent tribune as both Plutarch
(2)and Appian tell us (8), Gracchus was able to develop the important relationship Millar highlights
of the individual politician to the general crowd.
4
By representing the interests of the plebs, as is the
responsibility of the office of tribune, he allowed himself to develop a relationship with the people,
having 3000-4000 accompanying him to the forum according to historian Sempronius Asellio. In
being able to amass such popularity, he was also able to accumulate voting sway behind him in the
form of the Roman mob. Once again it is the political system which allowed young radical and
charismatic politicians like Tiberius Gracchus and later his brother Gaius to gain immense support,
which resulted in political clout which was parallel to that of the senate and indeed surpassed it. As
we have seen the power dynamic of the senate and people, or as we might say optimates and
populares politicians resulted in struggles and turmoils we see well into the time of Cicero.
It may be that the agrarian bill was the catalyst for the violence of 133BC, but that the real issue at
state was the power dynamics of the senate against the popular assemblies which was at the heart
of the turmoil. In fact, the triumviral commission set up by Gracchus decree overseeing the
redistribution of land still acted and performed its duties after the death of Tiberius. Although some
have suggested the continued existence of the agrarian commission was allowed by the senate in
order to pacify the general populace after the outrage which rose after Gracchus death, it may also
be the case that the senate acknowledged and wished to alleviate problems which as declining free
populations which had prompted Gracchus in the first place. Therefore, because of this, I believe
that the conditions which led to the creation of the agrarian legislation were different to those which
led to the ensuing turmoil, as motivated it by legitimate concerns about small landowners and
Rome's military force. On the other hand the conditions which led to turmoil were more the fact
that Gracchus was promoting widespread social reform and challenging the power of the senate and
the status quo, within a flawed political system which allowed competing authoritative powers,
rather than the personal opposition the senators may have had to the legislation. There was also the
fact that the turmoil was agitated in no small part by Gracchus own behaviour in exploiting his
popularity with the people and the power of the tribuneship to achieve his aims and his actions
which were interpreted as being linked with despotism and monarchy. Ultimately, the agrarian bill
was the utmost symbol of Tiberius Gracchus challenge to senatorial power in Rome.

Bibliography
Briscoe, J (1974), Supporter and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus JRS 64, 125-35.
Brunt, P.A. (1971), Italian Manpower 225 B.C. A.D. 14, 15-25.
Lintott, A (1992) Tiberius Gracchus, Cambridge Ancient History IX2 pp. 62-76.
Millar, F., 1986, Politics, persuasion, and the people before the Social War (150-90 BC), JRS, 76, 1-11.
Richardson, J.S. (1980) The Ownership of Roman Land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians JRS 70, 1-11.
Scullard, H.H. From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68, 1-32
Taylor, L.R. (1962) Forerunners of the Gracchi JRS 52, 19-27.
de Light, L (2006) The Economy: Agrarian Change during the Second Century, in A Companion to the Roman Republic,
edd. Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx, 590-605


4
P3 Millar