Talk:Tiberius Gracchus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Gracchus was not necessarily a reformer

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)

In general, I feel that I (twelve years late at least) did justice to both views in terms of the treatment of his political ambitions as well as the relative genuineness in his reforms which the ancient sources also agree with. There is, generally, a pro-Gracchan bias in the narrative sources (Appian and Plutarch); it is worthwhile to include the not-altogether-positive views of Cicero et al as well. Ifly6 (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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. (81.110.187.217 (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I would concur and in portions I've seen, have done so. We should further soften use of the word 'populist' as well. While the proposals themselves were popular and supported by the people, it's unclear whether Ti Gracchus was himself a populist or merely using populist language for this phase of his career. See generally MA Robb, Beyond populares and optimates (2010). Ifly6 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Full rewrite possibly needed

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)

I agree in general and have done the rewrite. Maybe 11 years after requested, but regardless would like comments or otherwise clean-up done. (As is normal, it is difficult for a writer to see his own errors.) Ifly6 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)