Essay: The Gracchan reforms

The Roman Empire was a powerful republic that arose sometime during 800-700 B.C. Its power spread across a lot of the Eastern Continent and enjoyed prosperity and growth for some time. However, in the year 476, the empire fully collapsed under its own weight, and disappeared. Machiavelli, in “Discourses on Livy”, argues that Gracchan agrarian reforms were a key cause to the decline in the Roman Empire. In the case of the end of the Roman Empire, I agree that the Gracchan agrarian reforms had played a part in the disintegration of the nation, however it wasn’t the only incident that caused controversy within the republic, and didn’t play as big a role as, say, the constant wars and power struggles within the empire. The Gracchan reforms were linked to the Roman Empire’s collapse, but it merely contributed in an overall series of events.
The Gracchan reforms were proposed by Tiberius Gracchus (168-133 BC), who took the law to court and was badly received by the nobles and higher-ups. The law, in Machiavelli’s words, states “[…] that no person could possess more than so many iugera of land, in the other that fields taken from enemies should be divided among the Roman people.” This would obviously cause a ton of controversy among the higher-ups, as Tiberius was in a position that more so favored the less fortunate. Those with more than the limit would have their land confiscated and distributed, and the land taken as spoils of battles would also be distributed. This seemingly unjustifiable crime against the rich caused Tiberius to be hated and despised, and it eventually led to his brutal death in office. His younger brother, Gaius Gracchus (154-121 BC) was like his brother, however, had a more “clear agenda” and was known for being a more competent politician than his brother. However, in the end, was overthrown by the government in a supreme decision, and committed suicide before he was killed by a mob.
The Gracchi brothers were supportive of land reforms, and the dissension caused by it led to a disruption in the economy and system standings that were in place at the time- the nobles were deprived of riches and the poor were given the riches, which wouldn’t have allowed anyone to have much more wealth than others. However, the agrarian reforms were just an example of the already disseminating chaos from the frequently changing leaders, to the change in faith, and even changing from a monarchy (Original Rome) to a republic for the people.  For example, one problem was the constant assassinations of the Roman Emperor. If there were constant changes of leaders and political plans, this would lead to an unstable chain of command and leaves the political powers in shambles. The article, “8 Reasons Why Rome Fell,” explains how, “The Praetorian Guard-the emperor’s personal bodyguards-assassinated and installed new sovereigns at will, and once even auctioned the spot off to the higher bidder.” A crumbling political power and a rotten inner circle within the Roman Empire, and they failed to stop it. “As the situation worsened, civic pride waned and many Roman citizens lost trust in their leadership.” These incidents worsened through things such as the Gracchan Reforms, which fanned flames.
After constant disagreement within the nation, and the implementation of two leaders, Rome split into two, Eastern and Western Rome, by command of the Emperor, Diocletian (284 AD). As the Roman Empire was still extremely successful in growth, it had become unreasonable to continue governing it at its massive size. Yet, there had been a problem in communication between the split republic, and this led to the Western side’s sudden failure in holding off enemies. Even after a period under reunification by the Emperor Constantine, the nations divided once more. The article, “Ancient Rome” states, “Despite its continuing battle against Persian forces, the eastern Roman Empire-later known as the Byzantine Empire-would remain largely intact for centuries to come. A completely different story played out in the west, where the empire was wracked by internal conflict as well as threats from abroad […] and was steadily losing money due to constant warfare.” The western empire of Rome fell and plummeted due to war and poverty. In a sense, it spread its forces too far and was far too wide to be kept under control securely. Several battles were enough to topple the Roman Empire from its standings, and completely end the Roman Empire.
Another problem fanned by dissension in the nation would be the its army force and faith in religion. The changes in both were very controversial at the time and caused more confusion. The Roman Empire, and one of its many leaders, Constantine, began to employ Christianity as the main religion (313 AD). Since it replaced the previous Roman religion of viewing the Emperor as a deity, it shifted the populace’s focus from the emperor to God. It also led to a rise in power for the priests and church leaders, which wasn’t helpful at all to the already rotten political power scramble. Rome even made the decision to hire barbarians (mercenaries) to be most of the fighting force. However, barbarians are still barbarians, and were so disloyal to the client that after their terms had finished, most of them fought against Rome. The article, “8 Reasons Why Rome Fell”, states, “Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies. […] While these Germanic soldiers of fortune proved to be fierce warriors, they also had little or no loyalty to the empire, and their power-hungry officers often turned against their Roman employers. In fact, many of the barbarians who sacked Rome and brought down the Western Empire had earned their military stripes while serving in the Roman legions.”
All in all, the once proud and glorious empire had met its inevitable fate both from internal and external forces. Machiavelli’s argument on the Gracchan agrarian reforms, while it had some truth to it, did not have much to back up its real effect on the Roman Empire’s decline, as say the rotting internal political plan, or the barbarians who brought down the Western Empire. I believe it would be more accurate to say that rather than it be a key point to the decline, it would be more so just a small amount of oil to the already growing flame that is the descent of the republic. It would be possible to link it as an inciting incident to the start of the decline, but that would be very stretched. The Roman Empire (800 BC – 476 AD) was not taken down by just external struggles, but also by its inability to correctly rebound from its power drought and inner rot.