Politicians in Ancient Rome History Essay Example

From the 130s – 90s B.C., Rome went through a dramatic period of economic and social change that many historians today consider to be the downfall of the Roman Republic. From my own point of view, I believe that this change largely stemmed from the power-struggle culture of Rome, and the weakening of the senates and populusque governmental relationship.  To further analyze this, I’ve chosen to look at the true motivations behind some of the figureheads of this time, namely the Gracchi brothers, Gaius Marius, and Livius Druscus. Diving deep into what I consider to be their true motivations, will no doubt help to explain why personal motivation for power, or another desired objective, drove them to do what transpired. In the end, whether they were successful or not can be gauged by the benefit it had on the people, the populusque in this case, they were hoping to support, and the legacy their ideas left. 

It is important to first set the foundation of the issues that were plaguing Rome at this time. As recorded by Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, during his expedition through the colonies, was surprised to see “the country almost depopulated and its husbandmen and shepherds imported barbarian slaves” (L&R 251). Roman farmers who were veterans of war were no longer able to support their own land and lived in poverty upon their triumphant return. Now I do not doubt that Tiberius found this to be a major safety issue, after all it is not a nice feeling to know that parts of Roman-owned territory was now largely populated by enemies they had defeated. But I think Gracchus, being the power-driven politician he was, found a potential opportunity to rally supporters, an idea that both ancient sources, and Boatwright, author of The Romans: From Village to Empire, would agree upon. 

Even from a young age, Gracchus’ mother began “instilling in her son’s great ambition and a love of fame…traits that were widely admired among Rome’s elite” (Boatwright 156). It would come as shock to nobody that he would turn his attention to politics in order to achieve some form of notability. From my point of view, there’s no better way to do become elected then side with the general public of voters and address the suppressed issues that they have. I can back this theory up by bringing in Appian’s image of Tiberius as a “illustrious man, eager for glory” (L&R 252). His campaign was on the promise of solely working with these poor farmers to better their lives. This would be great if it was true, however as Boatwright points out “other accounts, less friendly to the reformer, insist that he was motivated by a desire for fame and by rivalry with some of his contemporaries” (Boatwright 157). Regardless of the fact, Tiberius Gracchus did set the foundation of serious land reform, and the beginning of the eventual Social War. However, in the back of our minds, we should keep in mind that to some people, like Appian, Tiberius’ reasoning behind “proposing the measure was not wealth of money, but wealth of men” (L&R 253). As a success measure, I would say Tiberius was somewhat of successful, in that he sent in motion the agrarian law, however, he failed in successfully mediating between the Senate and his role as speaker of the population, leading to his eventual murder.

From then, we saw Gaius Gracchus, Tiberius’ younger brother come into the picture. He, like his brother, I believe was driven to be involved in politics from the aforementioned source as Tiberius, their mother. However, I believe that what really lit a fire under him was the untimely death of Tiberius at the hands of fellow politicians. I think you can argue that he too might have cared about the land problems that Tiberius had worked to solve, however I think it was more so done to spite the Senate, and honor Tiberius’ legacy. For one, Boatwright notes that Gaius left right off from where Tiberius did. While Tiberius started small “Gaius introduced a large number of laws, covering a wide range of matters, which suggests that he had a clear legislative agenda” (Boatwright 161). To support this, I’ve pulled a quote straight from Plutarch, who goes on to note that despite already being a great speaker “his affliction gave him greater boldness in speaking as he lamented his brother’s death” (L&R 256). With the extra motivation of not only wanting to have political power, but also avenge the death of someone so close to you, it’s no surprise that I consider Gaius to be the more successful figurehead out of the two brothers. I think at the end of the day, Gaius main objective was not only continuing Tiberius’s plan, but to effectively end the tyrannical rule of the Senate. This idea is shared with Boatwright who suggests that one of his personal plans, the tax collection being done by proletarri, could be a “sign that Gaius wished to mobilize the publicani against the senate” (Boatwright 162). As I mentioned before, if Gaius’ plan was to mitigate the Senate’s power, he must have been doing something right, because they were beginning to get scared. They needed a quick way to combat Gaius’ influential power, by bringing in Livius Druscus. As a reformer, Livius’ sole goal, as detailed by Plutarch, was to “outdo Gaius in pleasing and cajoling the populace” (L&R 258). Even he though was only acting to please the Senate and did not mean the words he said. But even then, every idea that would hurt the Senate’s power would be supported by the public, namely one where Italian half-citizens would become full citizens. The Senate acted fast and nipped this in the bud by killing Druscus off, however this was essentially the straw that broke the Roman people’s back, because what lead next was an intense civil war between Roman elites and Italians. Based off this fact, I would say Livius failed his mission, because the revolt that the elites were trying to avoid, ended up happening.

On that same note, Marius, a fellow politician who worked to better the Roman army who were hurt by the same problems that the Gracchi brothers worked for. While in charge, it is suggested that the “main focus was to restore the Army’s strength with recruitment, training and new equipment” (Boatwright). Again, while it looks good to help the poor succeed, there was always a potential to gain based solely on the culture of Roman politics. Based off this off-hand information, a strong army was what was needed at the time, and if that meant changing the regulations and legislations, he would pull out all of the stops to achieve that vision.