Tiberius Gracchus According to Plutarch,

Tiberius Gracchus According to Plutarch, And Biography

All the significant historical stories endure not only because of their historical relevance, but also due to the memorable accounts conveyed by various authors who refer to them. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus's existence echo throughout history as a result of their exponential efforts directed at reforming the foundations of contemporary Rome's unequal social structure, which crushed the rights of the poor and favored the wealthy.

The most interesting, and also the most frustrating aspect of reading about past historical figures - especially those belonging to distant ancient periods - is the imminent risk of being deluded into adopting a certain perspective on the course of events, which may be induced by the authors' bias. Among the ancient sources that focus on the life and reforms of Tiberius Gracchus, Plutarch's Lives stands out because it provides a story of particular insight, objectivity and thoroughness, that is it not only credible, but downright memorable.

Plutarch begins his biographical account with a descriptive analysis of Tiberius Gracchus's background and character. In this sense, the author first offers important information regarding the man's lineage and family composition. Thus, the reader learns that he was born as one of twelve children in a noble family -- out of which three ultimately survived -- that Cornelia, his mother, brought them up by herself because her husband died so she could live, and that his brother Gaius was 9 years younger than him (Plutarch 145-147).

Apart from that, Plutarch shares some interesting insight into Tiberius' character. He writes about details such as his expressions and mannerisms, to his personality traits and lifestyle, which are portrayed for the most part in comparison and contrast with those of his brother. For instance, the reader learns that, even though the two brothers converged in "bravery and self-command, as well as in liberality, eloquence and magnanimity" (Plutarch 147), their personalities were very different. Specifically, the older brother was "gentle and sedate" (Plutarch 147), reasonable, composed and simple. These specifications are meaningful because Plutarch is introducing many aspects of Tiberius' character, which help give a better understanding of who he was as a person, his moral foundation and what may have induced him to take up the role of a tribune and a radical political reformer.

Furthermore, it is the episode comprising Tiberius' service during the war in Numantia that holds a significant relevance to later events, and Plutarch includes this information because it is important in understanding what Tiberius had experienced during military service and how this potentially shaped the decisions that he made, and some Romans' future reaction to his propositions. Serving under the command of Scipio in Africa helped Tiberius appropriate the values of respect, discipline, honor and leadership, which placed him in the great esteem of his fellow soldiers. And these values became evident later in the Numantia campaign, as Tiberius not once denounced or held the appointed general's incompetence against him, but continued to show him reverential respect even as the situation was rapidly deteriorating for the Roman troops (Plutarch 153).

Tiberius' reputation preceded him in the eyes of Rome's enemies, as well. Hence, the Numantines expressly asked that they treat with him in order to establish terms of peace, which can also be justified by the fact that they had previously been acquainted with his father in a similar setting. Tiberius negotiated the peace terms, and in doing so, allegedly saved the lives of "twenty thousand Roman citizens" (Plutarch 155). However, Tiberius was blamed for this defeat and became somewhat unpopular in Rome afterwards, because of the embarrassment that the whole operation brought on the Roman military institution. Yet relatives of the spared soldiers "showed their good will and affection" (Plutarch 159), and thus extricated him immediately by overwhelming force of vox populi. This was the beginning of a gradually increasing support that humble-born Roman citizens started to shower Tiberius Gracchus with.

Rome's economical context paved the way for Tiberius and his liberal reform. At that time, the Roman Empire's corruption and blatant inequity between the aristocrats' rights and the oppressed living conditions of the majority translated itself in a military crisis. In order to wage war and win, one must have a sufficient number of soldiers. And because a large force was required to represent Rome's interests in foreign territories, the drafting of men was common practice. Considering that the reward for military service involved the state's granting citizens plots of land, the question arose that, when the men left to fight, who would watch over their land and run their farms? It so happened that while they were away, some of the Roman nobility started acquiring the land of the soldiers enlisted in the armies of Rome. Thus, when the soldiers returned from abroad, they discovered that they were left with nothing. Therefore, the poor "no longer showed themselves eager for military service" (Plutarch 161).

Another direct result of this crisis was that many of them became homeless, and a plethora of free men and foreign slaves could be seen working the lands of Rome for the new wealthy owners, so the whole state of affairs had a great impact on the Roman economy. There was a blatant discrepancy between the upper and lower classes, and the power rested solely in the hands of the nobles. Seeing as the social and economic crisis continued to escalate, "thoughtful Romans began to realize the need to attempt some alleviation of the economic situation" (Richardson 18).

In order to effect change, a high-born and fitting authoritative figure had to lead the reformation of a corrupt and unbalanced Roman climate. However, the Romans despised the notion of kingship and anything remotely allusive of it, so any vociferous, liberal and publicly acclaimed persons who had the people's support needed to be wary and not give off the impression that they want a crown. To illustrate this extreme aversion, Tiberius Gracchus' death is most illustrative of how his opponents chose to interpret the gesture of his putting his hand to his head, even though Tiberius was simply "making this visible sign that his life was in danger" (Plutarch 189).

Tiberius Gracchus made his mark on history through his fine attunement to the people's needs and their fierce defense by means of initiating agrarian reforms that were designed to create better living conditions for the vast majority of Roman citizens. The first bill proposed by Tiberius encountered serious obstacles translated in the form of another tribune's opposition, yet when it was finally approved, it became the first step towards reformation. The law is known as the Lex Sempronia Agraria, and its purpose was to forbid "the holding of one person of more than 500 acres of land" (Plutarch 161), a measure which helped the soldiers and other citizens take their land back. It can be asserted that, had this law been disregarded, the Roman Empire would have been subject to a rapid downfall, "if only because it affected Rome's Military strength" (Richardson 32).

The obstacles that Tiberius Gracchus had to face originated entirely from the greed and fear of the wealthy sector of population, whose financial privileges were on the brink of being significantly damaged. In this sense, they coerced Tiberius' fellow tribune Marcus Octavius to cast a veto on his bill and thus make sure that the law was not passed. However, Tiberius Gracchus, in his outrage at being opposed in what he deemed to be a vital legislative abrogation, first issued a second and harsher bill which was again denied, and secondly tried to bribe Octavius by proposing that he ransom his lands if he remits his opposition. Neither of these attempts was successful, and so Tiberius saw himself forced to an "illegal and unseemly" (Plutarch 171) measure, namely to get a tribune removed from his position by the people, and he succeeded. Afterwards, the senate was sidestepped by popular vote and the reform was passed, and then carried out, to the benefit of the masses.

Notwithstanding Tiberius' constant striving on the part of the poor, this impeaching action against another tribune would be negatively received by most of the Roman population, who generally held tribunate in high regard and perceived the tribune's ejection as an insult. The tribune was aware that he had fallen in the eyes of pubic opinion, but he justified his actions by decrying the inviolability of a tribune who refused to serve his people (Plutarch 183).

Nevertheless, it was not this downgrade in popularity that led to Tiberius Gracchus' violent death. According to Plutarch, a series of bad omens foreshadowed the violent turn of events from the day when Tiberius was to be elected tribune anew, and when the group of senators and their attendants seized the opportunity to eliminate him, it only meant that the rich had found a good pretext to be rid of the tribune and take back their privileges. Even so, the bloody episode marked "the first sedition at Rome since the abolition of royal power, to end in bloodshed and the death of citizens" (Plutarch 191).