Opposition To Tiberius Gracchus
Tiberius was essentially opposed by three men: Marcus Octavius, Scipio Nasica and Scipio Aemilianus. Octavius opposed Tiberius because Tiberius would not let him veto the Lex Sempronia Agraria. This offended Octavius, who then entered into a conspiracy with Scipio Nasica and Scipio Aemilianus to assassinate Tiberius. Nasica would benefit from this because Tiberius had bought some land from a place that Nasica wanted. Because of this, Nasica lost out on 500 sesterces. Nasica would often bring this up in the senate to mock Tiberius. Aemilianus opposed Tiberius Gracchus because he saw the greatness of Rome in conquest rather than Tiberius's view of honor and honesty.
According to the historian Plutarch (in his Livesof the Gracchi), only Scipio Nasica was directly involved in leading the senators to kill Tiberius. Furthermore, the death of Tiberius Gracchus was an open attack, much closer to a riot, and may not necessarily amount to an assassination in the modern sense.
If Octavius were to benefit, the most direct benefit would come from the lands he himself owned in excess of 500 iugera. Furthermore, Tiberius (again according to the history of Plutarch) reputedly offered to pay Octavius for his own lost lands personally, and that the two were friends until the weight of the wealthy/Senate brought him as the opposition to Tiberius' law. Appian's Civil Wars however does not confirm this.
There is too great a conflict between the contemporary sources to confirm the actual nature of Tiberius' death and the personal conflicts that lead up to it, but it is highly likely that Scipio Nasica was the man who led the senators to attack Tiberius, that Octavius did oppose his law and last that Scipio Aemilianus did not agree with Tiberius' actions, even if it was not to the point that he wished Tiberius dead.
Read more about this topic: Tiberius Gracchus
Famous quotes containing the words opposition to and/or opposition:
“The ancient bitter opposition to improved methods [of production] on the ancient theory that it more than temporarily deprives men of employment ... has no place in the gospel of American progress.”
—Herbert Hoover (18741964)
“A man with your experience in affairs must have seen cause to appreciate the futility of opposition to the moral sentiment. However feeble the sufferer and however great the oppressor, it is in the nature of things that the blow should recoil upon the aggressor. For God is in the sentiment, and it cannot be withstood.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (18031882)