Talk:Tiberius Gracchus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.



Opposition to Tiberius Gracchus[edit]

Similarly, this section is not based on legitimate historical fact, and sentences like "Aemilianus was humiliated by the better public speaking of Tiberius" are rumour at best, impossible to verify by scholarly work. "This offended Octavius, who then entered into a conspiracy with Scipio Nasica and Scipio Aemilianus to assassinate Tiberius." Appears to me to be entirely made up, and an extremely over-simplified version of events. The fact that this section cites no evidence is presumably because there is none for such a nebulous paragraph? If there must be a section about Opposition to Tiberius, it should contain at most names, and unless treated extremely carefully no attempt to suggest motivations- certainly none as tenuous as these! Kate Cook (81.110.187.217 (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Just wanted to point out that these lines: "The Senate and its conservative elements were strongly against the Sempronian agrarian reforms, with most of their hostility due to Tiberius’ highly unorthodox method of passing the reforms. Because Tiberius clearly knew the Senate wouldn’t approve his reforms, he sidestepped the Senate altogether by going straight to the Concilium Plebis (the Popular Assembly) who supported his measures. This was neither against the law or even against tradition (Mos Maiorum), but it was certainly insulting to the Senate and it alienated Senators who otherwise might have shown support." don't make any sense whatsoever. It basically states The Senate was hostile towards the agrarian reforms because Gracchus circumvented the Senate because it was hostile to the proposed reforms. It's an infinity loop. Michael Parenti argues that the Senate was ooposed from the beginning because it was dominated by aristocrats and equites who were land owners and they actually stood to lose something from the passing of the law. (see: The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome)

"by members of the Roman Senate and supporters of the conservative Optimate faction".[edit]

This is extremely sketchy. At that point the Roman senate was not nearly as divided into factions which can be named optimates and populares, and most scholars now use extreme caution in ever using those terms. Still, their use here is anachronistic and I think should be taken out. Kate Cook (81.110.187.217 (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Gaius Gracchus is brother of Tiberius[edit]

This article gives Gaius Gracchus as both Tiberius's brother and also his son. I'm not editing, because I don't know the truth of it. Anyone? 202.162.74.142 (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see where the article gives Gaius Gracchus as his brother, which is correct. Howerer, where does it say Gaius Gracchus is Tiberius's son? I'll then correct that as Gaius Gracchus is not Tiberius' son.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiberius Gracchus was cool!

this article needs to be cleaned up. What's the code for that?

It's {{cleanupdate}} but it doesn't look like it needs that much cleanup to me. Also Tiberius Gracchus is totally awesome. Ashibaka tock 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Octavius = Augustus?[edit]

Is the Octavius mentioned in the article the same as Octavian, the future Caesar Augustus? If so, that should definitely be mentioned.C.M.24.21.139.41 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


->> No, it was a different Octavius, whose main claim to fame was this incident. 59.154.24.147 15:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Ashavah

->>>> Octavius is a family/clan name.

->>> king is the wrong word to use, wouldnt they of used "dictator" or something? King isnt a title romans use. i noticed you referenced that from Ancient rise & fall of rome which isnt 100% historicaly accurate., Marku.

Dictatorship was a legal office in the Roman government, that didn't imply for the Romans all the negative connotations it has today, while monarchy carried many of those sentiments. The Republic replaced the Roman monarchy, and in light of that, accusing opponents of attempting to be "king" was used as a political invective. The Jackal God 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it was for precisely this reason that the word 'king' (in Latin, 'rex') was used of Tiberius Gracchus; it was a highly politically loaded term, and the accusation that he wished to be king was used to defend those who killed him. The Romans feared kingship, while for them at this time a dictator was somebody given special office to protect the state in times of national emergency. Ashavah 14:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was quite usual for members of the Senate to accuse those who threatened their authority and were overly ambitious of attempting to become a monarch ('rex') because of the negative connotations it posses. Also the term Dictator should not be used as it was a defined constitutional position during the Roman Republic. A better term that is more often used is trying to obtain 'Dominatio.' 3 March 2008 Imperator101

Gracchus was not necessarily a reformer[edit]

There are strong arguments that Gracchus was simply attempting to enhance his power and that of the Claudii, rather than a genuine reformer. This should be discussed somewhere in the article. It should also be noted that reelection as a tribune was not against the letter of the law, as opposed to reelection in other offices.

si gracchus ay isang pleabean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.93.113 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but all arguments that "simply" anything in this period tend to come to grief. I think the article strikes a reasonable balance. The development of his thinking from 137 (when the Numantia incident must have come out of the blue as a shattering humiliation) to 133 is just unknowable, and there wouldn't be space in an article like this to look at the arguments in detail. But it might be fair to define "popular" agitation at Rome somewhere, pointing out that it was a process whereby leading aristocrats sought the direct support of the people in their intra-aristocratic competition. Otherwise people tend to think of the "popular" politicians as democratic reformers in the modern sense, which they certainly were not. 85.179.9.164 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this point made time and again regarding the use of popularist legislation as "simply" (that word again) gaining advantage in an intra-aristocratic competition. I'm somewhat confused by these consistent assertions (such as "which they certainly were not") especially when the reforms being legislated appear to be pretty well thought out responses to serious underlying issues - issues that might, unchecked, undermine the stability of the Republic. I also wonder whether this is a (for want of a better term)reductive view of history, whereby any actions are attributed "simply" to self-promotion.--86.135.153.71 (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposition section[edit]

Would it be possible to have some references to support the remarks about the reasons behind the opposition of Nasica and Aemilianus? I'm interested to read about the dispute over a piece of land with Nasica, and I haven't read of it before. Wonder where the reference is from. Also, in the case of Aemilianus, I'm aware that the marriage with Sempronia was said not to be "happy" (in particular, according to later historians, Sempronia was not what they defined as a "good wife" because she did not provide Aemilianus with children), but I'm not aware of their having divorced. Indeed, Sempronia was still living with Aemilianus when the latter died in 129 BC, prompting some fleeting suspicion that she might have assassinated him, though there seem to be no grounds for believing this to be more than salacious gossip. 85.179.9.164 (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


I also dislike the phrase "Tiberius convinced [Aemilianus] to marry... Sempronia". The marriage was a perfectly straightforward deal; the Cornelii Scipiones and Sempronii Gracchi were very prominent families (or branches of one family), and the marriage renewed (or attempted and failed to renew) an accord between them that had begun in the previous generation with the marriage of Tiberius senior to Cornelia Major. The word "convinced" makes it sound as though Tiberius put one over on Aemilianus. Tiberius was NOT an unknown "upstart". He was a descendant of TWO extremely ancient and noble families. I'm uneasy about this whole point. It sounds like lazy, tabloid history to me. So I'd at least like to see some references to back it up. 85.179.9.164 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC

Birth Date[edit]

I'm reading "From the Gracchi to Nero" by H.H. Scullard, which lists Tiberius' birth date (on page 24 of the fifth edition paperback) as "born circa 163," not the listed 168. Scullard also states on the same page that Tiberius' younger brother Gaius was "some 10 years younger." "Circa 163" minus "about 10 years" would be a better match for the listed birth date for Gaius on his page (154) than the current listed 15 years. Anyone? 118.7.178.130 (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, at the top of this article, does it say that he lived from 2009-present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.84.84 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

section Tiberius' death[edit]

In the version of Plutarch's Lives I have it says, Tiberius tried to save himself by flight. As he was running, he was stopped by one who caught hold of him by the gown; but he threw it off, and fled in his under-garment only. I assume the "gown' he is referring to is a toga and the under-garment is the tunic. Was the toga he was wearing a toga praetexta, an ordinary white toga with a broad purple stripe on its border? Can not find anywhere where Plutarch says that Tiberius Gracchus appeared in the Roman senate with armed guards and in a mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his prosecution and death.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed: On election day, Tiberius Gracchus appeared in the Roman senate with armed guards and in a mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his prosecution and death. - as it is not in Plutarch's Lives. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Move of article[edit]

This article appears to have been moved without discussion, which is not good practice with relatively stable articles. I'm not disputing there is the need to disambiguate him from Tiberius Gracchus the Elder, but was this the best way of doing it? PatGallacher (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Full rewrite possibly needed[edit]

I would advocate this page needs a full rewrite as the author has based the page largely on Plutarch's writing on Tiberius Gracchus only from the citations and it could be much more fully fleshed, considering the level of academic writing on Tiberius Gracchus by H.S. Scullard and Phillip Brunt as well as the classical writings by Appian and Sallust at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.230.35 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree - especially as I am extremely suspicious of some sections of this page. As mentioned above, the 'Opposition to' section is nebulous at best. The comment in the 'Land crisis' section that land was 'given' to anyone is incorrect - it became ager publicus and was rented out by the state to various nobiles, and a great deal of this page seems to rely wholly on Plutarch's rather distanced description of events, and doesn't take into account extremely influential scholarly discussions on issues such as the Land problem, the manpower problem (e.g. Brunt), and Gracchus himself. The whole of the Land Crisis section really needs reworking with some figures etc., and the rest of the page including political aspects could use a lot of tightening up. Probably the best way to do this is a complete rewrite. KC 109.202.238.148 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Biographical box: "Reign"[edit]

Only kings or princes can be said to "reign" and as an elected tribune, Tiberius cannot be said to be either. Thus the word is inappropriate in his case. He held office. DeAragon 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talkcontribs)