Could the Gracchus brothers land reforms saved the Republic?

Really. No response?

>>1474553

They who have something to defend are more inclined to defend it, even if it's just an idea of the motherland.

If you're a dirt farmer whose family have been dispossessed by rich assholes and reduced to little more than a serf, and you have no real concept of "Romania", you're probably not going to be in the queue to join a citizen militia in the latest round of civil wars or skirmishes against broke-ass celts, illyrians and Germans.

>>1474553
No, the real problem is rome was a city governing an empire. Its government organs could not handle the strain.

The provinces were ruthlessly exploited by a corrupt bureaucracy, while politics at home were a cutthroat affair. Thousands of nominal citizens had no stake in the republican government because they lived far from Rome.

The empire offered a reformed army and governor system,

>>1475099

In the per-marian reform days, you actually had to have a certain amount of money to be allowed to join the military. Imagine if the US military had a 'no poor people' policy of recruitment? But in those days the average person was a small land owner, like in the early United States.

Pre-marian armies, you had the upper class Romans as the cavalry, the equites. (Patricians and rich plebeians).

Then you had the infantry, divided into 3 classes based on experience.

And at the bottom you had the velites/levies, who were wealthy enough to serve but not heavy infantry level.

After the Marian reforms, the proletarius could now join the army, with the poorest of them having to join the navy instead. Armed at the expense of the state rather than having to pay for their own shit. Because now there were no longer enough small land owners AND a large number of Romans either living off of the dole in cities and/or being wage earners in cities. (wage slaves, as some Romans liked to call them).

>>1475080
/his/ doesn't respond to thread unless it is bait/aethiesim-religion garbage/power rankings.

>>1474553
>>1475099
>>1475107

I'd wager it's a combination of these.
As Rome extended itself politically over a larger area, eventually outside of Italy, military campaigns grew longer. The previous "citizen militias" now found themselves in foreign lands for as long as months, sometimes years at time. This meant the owner of some small farm is not there to properly govern his property and til his crops. Wealthier citizens, who often found themselves bound to Italy to govern their more extensive estates offered to rent, and sometimes flat-out buy the fields as to not let arable land go to waste. An entire business grew to accommodate the phenomenon of poorer, absentee landlords.
And in that way, the Rome-bound wealthy patricians found themselves owning so much more land,depriving what we may consider middle class plebeians of a strong source of their income.