Talk:Appius

The Claudii against the plebs

The statement "The Claudian gens was also one of the proudest and most conservative families at Rome, nearly always siding with the aristocratic party against the plebs and the more reform-minded amongst the patricians" should be nuanced a bit, because two of the most famous social reformers of the Republic were from the Claudii: Appius Caecus and Clodius Pulcher.T8612 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that really mitigates much. Caecus could be pretty high-handed; if memory serves he flouted laws and traditions that might have limited his power, expelled political opponents from the Senate, and was blamed for the destruction of the Potitii because he convinced them to entrust the sacred rites of Hercules, formerly performed by their gens, to the public slaves (could this have been perceived as a power grab, or something that could enrich the state?). But even if you view Caecus as generally noble-minded, Pulcher was anything but! By all accounts he was one of the most debauched and violent men at the close of the Republic, a true aristocratic Claudius even though he obtained the tribunician power (through an illegal adoption by a plebeian, which he arranged specifically for the purpose). The reputation of the patrician Claudii was well deserved, even if there were rare exceptions; and the association of this praenomen with that family probably influenced its use by others. P Aculeius (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I read an interesting thesis on Appius Caecus by Michel Humm (sadly in French only). He says that there is a "black legend" of the Claudii because Roman history was written by their enemies: Fabius Pictor on Appius Caecus (Pictor used familial traditions from Fabius Rullianus Maximus, the enemy of Caecus), Cicero on Claudius Pulcher, Tacitus on Tiberius, etc. TP Wiseman also wrote on this subject in Clio’s cosmetics. The Fabii and Valerii enjoy a better treatment in history because of Fabius Pictor and Valerius Antias, who wrote histories embellishing the role of their family (it was also the case of Licinius Macer); since Roman annalists all copied the previous ones, the "good stories" were repeated. If I have time I will improve the article on Caecus.T8612 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just bear in mind, that's only one interpretation, and it's hard to maintain when the evidence is so overwhelming. The Claudii were always a powerful family, so they should have had lots of allies to extol their virtues; certainly they repeatedly won high office. But what they did with it consistently differed from the record of most of the other important gentes. A lot of families had mixed records; the early Fabii were highly aristocratic as well, and so were some of the Valerii throughout Roman history, but there were also many of both who sided against the aristocracy during social unrest, or whose actions in times of war don't have the look of acting entirely from selfish motives.

Just for examples: the first of the Claudii at Rome might be said to have precipitated the first secession, and opposed all attempts at reconciling the Senate and the people, particularly including the establishment of the plebeian tribunes. His elder son ordered the arrest of a tribune of the plebs, had his own troops revolt against him, and then punished them with decimation; the younger son opposed the creation of new tribunes, grants of land to the plebeians, defended his nephew, the notorious decemvir, and later blocked the election of plebeian consuls. The grandson, the decemvir, alone continued in office for a second term, convinced his colleagues in that term to dispense with elections and remain in office indefinitely, and it was his conduct more than any of the others' that brought about the downfall of the decemvirate. The decemvir's elder son is said to have opposed the plebeians strongly; his son proposed allowing one of the tribunes of the plebs to block the actions of the rest; his nephew was the aristocratic party's leader in opposing the Licinian Rogations. There's not much about the character of many of the succeeding Claudii, but the first of the Pulchri became infamous for his treatment of the omens, losing the battle of Drepana through his own incompetence, and then nominating a freedman as dictator in order to show his contempt for the Senate. The conduct of his infamous descendant, Clodius, is known from many sources other than Cicero. I'm sure there were kind and generous patrician Claudii, but they hardly left their mark on Roman history. P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)