How Far Did Tiberius Gracachus Influence The Government

Tiberius Gracchus was a tribune who lived in Rome in the early-mid 1st century BC. Frank Herbert, an American author commented that “The stakes in conflict do not change. Battle determines who will control the wealth or its equivalent”. The actions of Tiberius Gracchus do support the statement by Herbert as the direct challenge to the authority of the Senate he made provoked the Senate to act in an extreme way to maintain power. Tiberius Gracchus was motivated by the people and his position to introduce the reforms and by doing this he threatens the peace in the Roman society.

Rome in the early-mid 1st century BC was expanding and overtaking Spain and its land. After the expansion, the plebeians wanted more land but the senate did nothing

He wanted revenge for is brother after he was illegally murdered. Bradley states that “…according to the aims [Gaius] wished to achieve (to avenge Tiberius’ death, to alleviate unemployment and to weaken the senate)” (1990). Undoubtedly, he wished to undermine the senate after what they did because the should have been persecuted, but were not. Furthermore, Bradley suggests that Gaius’ motives for his reforms were to relive the suffering of the urban unemployed and poor people, as well as to further the agriculture law that Tiberius re-enacted (1990, p.251-255). By doing this, he is helping the plebeians by letting them have more opportunities, but especially to make Rome fairer. This corroborates with Williams when he comments that “On [Gaius’] return to Rome, he campaigned for the tribuneship and emerged in 123BC as tribune to take on Tiberius’ mantle” (1996). Hence, he wished to continue his brother’s reforms to help the lower classes, like his brother did. After the death of Tiberius, the senate resorted to unethical ways to keep their position and

Sallust, a highly regarded Roman historian, commented that “…fear of its enemies preserved the food morals of the state, but when the people were relived of this fear, the favourite vices of prosperity-licence and pride-appeared as a natural consequence”. This is corroborated by Florus, a criticized Roman historian and poet “The next hundred years were unhappy and deplorable because of internal calamities. The resources and wealth gained in our conquests spoiled the morals of the age and ruined the state, which was engulfed in its own vices as in a common sewer”. Both Sallust and Florus explain how Tiberius’ death caused the senate to resort to violence in order to keep their power. Consequently, the peace in Rome was disturbed and eventually led to the fall of Rome. Violence was particularly common with political opponents and this is evident with Caesar and Pompey. Caesar and Pompey were army generals who ended up as political enemies who wanted to become more powerful than the other, and to prove this they fought in a battle that is known as the Battle of Pharsalus. “[Caesar] attacked Pompey's left flank and, rejoined by their cavalry, were able to get behind and attack Pompey's army from the rear…Caesar had won his greatest victory, having lost only about 200 soldiers and 30 centurion.” Thus, violence became a normal aspect of Roman life. This is similar in the case of P. Clodius