Tiberius Gracchus faced serious problems which can be summed up in the two Roman institutions of the Latifundium (policies concerning the Ager Publica) and the evolving power of the people (Plebians) vs the system-authorities (Patricians). The Latifundia were large plantations (often leased land from the Ager Publica), held by rich Patricians or Equestrians, and worked by slaves who grew cash crops. This enabled the Patricians to live and politic in Rome (i.e., bribe their way into more land or better contracts for what the latifundia produced) with the cash.  Plutarch outlined the situation, and some of the related social, economic and political problems on pp. 160-1.

     T. Gracchus’ solutions have a story of their own, which shows how this problem, multiplied with other subtle problems in Rome (e.g., poor citizens from freedmen families fighting for a place at the table, the continuing Struggle of the Orders) created a Revolution. First, Gracchus destroyed the “lobbyists,” e.g., fellow-Tribune Octavius. Then he used the Tribal Assembly to legislate sweeping reforms. As it turned out, his plans and lack of time were fatal to him: What was the root cause(s) of the Senate’s objections and violence?

     Did Tiberius overstep his bounds – legally, morally, politically? Did an inherent extremism (Drive for Power? Control? Fame? Megalomania?) in either him or the Senate appear such that his death was predictable, even warranted? Were the long-range implications of his “candy” policies inimical to Roman ways, to the values of the Yeomen upon whom Rome’s existence and success depended?  Were Tiberius’ ideas good for Rome in the long run?  How would Cato have responded to the problems before Tiberius? Apart from these considerations, was he the First Liberal? And, what is it to be ‘liberal’?