Review: why was there such opposition to the Gracchi and their proposals?

• All agreed that reform was needed; once the laws were passed they generally remained on the books and were even expanded. Conclusion??
• The opposition was then not motivated by the solutions proposed by the Gracchi, but rather by their semi-constitutional behavior and fear (real or imagined) that they intended to establish tyranny (regnum); that the clientele of the Gracchi would undermine the constitution and the "egalitarian working principle of the oligarchy"
• That the solutions were generally accepted came about by allowing many different polititicians to gain credit (and clientele) for the reforms, thereby confirming the "egalitarian working principle"
• More generally on the consequences from the Roman perspective: RC p. 250.

The Governance of Provinces

1. Introduction: By the middle of the 2nd Cent., virtually every state in the Mediterranean was attached to Rome by some sort of political tie. The nature of these ties varied, depending on the manner in which each had become a Roman dependency and, moreover, the Romans had no ready-made plan (note the unpremeditated character of their conquest) for defining the relationships. Rules evolved through trial and error.
2. Dependent kings and cities
1. In Italy, the Romans had employed the devises of annexation and alliance, the latter of which was employed most commonly during this period. De facto local autonomy.
1. Punitive treaties
2. 'Equal' alliances
2. The usual form of treaty made the state a socius (=ally) and amicus (friend) of the Roman people. They were little more than 'gentlemen's agreements' or non-binding mutual aid pacts. In practice, Rome drew increasingly on the aide of these allies for her own interests, but habitually avoided acting on behalf of the ally. Remember: no sense of equality at Rome.
3. The status of provincial communities
1. The socius et amicus system was, with the exception of Macedonia, employed primarily in the east; in the west, incorporation or annexation was more common: provinces. Down through 146, the primary consideration was the maintenance of military security; after 133, it was the revenue of the area that became an important factor.
2. The lex de provincia (published by the governor) defined the rights and duties of the provincial communities and explained the principles by which the province would be governed. Over the years, this 'charter' becomes standardized.
3. As incorporation /annexation generally followed conquest,
1. all states and individuals were in the legal status called dediticii (=capitulants),.
2. Some states retained their treaty rights with Rome and neither paid tribute nor were under the jurisdiction of Roman courts (civitates foederatae = federated states).
3. Some states received the guarantee of self-government and were exempted from taxation and military occupation.
4. Most however paid taxes and obeyed the commands of the Roman administration
4. The provincial governors
1. For the first four provinces, the Romans created four new praetorships in order to provide for annual governorships. But the nobility was reluctant to dilute further those offices that conferred nobility. Hence, after 146, pro-rogation was introduced: elected magistrates remained in Rome for the annual term of office, but were then sent out to govern provinces (this violated the constitution as neither annuality or collegiality could be respected).
2. The duties of the governor were military, administrative and judicial.
5. Conscription and Taxation
1. The fundamental difference between Italians and provincials was that the latter were not liable to the same degree of taxation.
2. All states that were not expressly so exempted, did pay taxes as a form of compensation for the maintenance of order.
3. Tax farming
4. There is little evidence of any commercial exploitation, or for actions to benefit Roman commercial interests in the period before 120.
6. Defects of Roman Rule
1. Provincials gradually came to be viewed as a source of profit for Roman magistrates and for the Roman people.==> ranged from gifts to outright extortion.
2. As with many semi-closed oligarchies, the Roman one found it difficulty to punish errant members of its own class. There were two reason for this reluctance:
1. Ex-governors returned to Rome with significant financial resources and powerful provincial clienteles. They could buy their acquital.
2. The judicial process was frequently used as a means in the factional struggles at Rome.
7. Efforts at Reform and Protection of the Provincials
1. The quaestio (or: investigative grand jury). This court has existed for many years on an ad hoc basis (i.e., one was formed to deal with charges against a particular individual). RC §100; 140 on the Roman theory. §143-4 on Verres.
2. More effective in the protection of provincials were the institutions of patronage and hospitium (guest-friendship concluded between members of the Roman and the provincial and/or allied elite). The acknowledged guest friend or client of a powerful Roman, like Scipio or Cato, was not likely to suffer the extortionate actions of provincial governors (note that the guest-friend or client could be either a community or an individual.
3. These institutions were clearly of mutual benefit. For the Roman noble, clients and guest friends
1. assisted and advised in governing; were sources of information on the province and its problems,
2. provided for the physical comforts of the governor and his staff,
3. provided protection in the form of testimonials should the governor be indicted by political enemies at Rome,
4. formed the basis of his reputation and were a measure of his perceived power.
4. For the provincials, the Roman patron or guest friend
1. served as an intermediary between communities and the central government,
2. protected them from the criminal and/or arbitrary actions of governors
5. On the whole, this system worked well in civilized areas where reputations could be made and less well in the more primitive parts of the western empire.