Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was the son of a Roman aristocrat whose family had regularly held the highest offices of state for the past century. Tiberius achieved much in his life and was a man of high distinction in political circles. He was a man with a prominent background- coming from very powerful families. It seemed also, that many had high expectations of him, and his potential was not seen to its full extent. To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion. Today I will be critically analysing and assessing the significance of three key areas which have been the crux of historical debate for centuries. Today I will be touching on Tiberius' family background, education, and early career to 134BC, the aims and significance of Gracchus lex agraria and Gracchus' political reforms and methods.
Let me tell you about Gracchus' background. Plutarch tells us a lot about his Father, also named Tiberius Gracchus, who was a very powerful figure in Rome. He was censor in 169 and was not only consul once, but twice, in the years 177 and 163. Becoming consul was the pinnacle of any roman politician's career, and to become consul twice was an amazing feat. He also received two triumphs for his excellent military service. Plutarch also states that Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus Senior, married Cornelia, the second daughter of Scipio Africanus Major- who was seen as a hero for defeating Hannibal in the Second Punic War. If that does not convince you that she was seen as a very prominent figure in Rome, let me tell you about another incident mentioned in Plutarch. Some time after her husband's death, King Ptolemy VIII of Egypt asked for her hand in marriage, yet she declined, and remained a widow.
Tiberius' ...
... middle of paper ...
...his troubles by dubious initiatives that were bound to offend the bulk of senatorial opinion.'' Badian maintains Tiberius had gone to far and henceforth could no longer be acting within the constitution. Foreign affairs as well as finance had always been left to the Senate to deal with: that (and particular finance) was recognised by Polybius, i.e by his Roman friends. The affair of Attalus' will is the turning-point. It shows Tiberius' in-ability to cope with the situation into which he had drifted and his unfitness to live up to his ambitions.
In conclusion, with reference to Source A, a review of the portrayal of Tiberius Gracchus in the ancient and modern evidence, I have endeavoured through historical analysis of the key issues to bring about some clarification of these issues among my peers and to reconstruct the past in a useful and reliable manner.
... His reforms, as far-reaching as they initially were, were short lived, and were annulled soon after his retirement. He thought that the People, meeting in the Concilium Plebis, were an unrepresentative and irresponsible body unworthy to govern, but he largely failed to infuse a new sense of responsibility to the Senate (Appian in Williams, p.149). Above all, arrangements to control the advancement of men through the Cursus Honorum –the threat from which his own career had so nakedly demonstrated – were clearly inadequate against men of determined ambition (Massie, p. 176). In final analysis, Sulla’s actions as a politician and a military leader, while occasionally bringing him prestige - dignatas, were major factors leading to the subsequent weakening of the Republic.
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
Bibliography:.. Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic: Six lives by Plutarch, Translated by Rex Warner (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1972).
During the last century of the Roman republic, the system of government was drastically changed and eventually fell apart, not only because of Marius and his military reforms, but also because of the dictatorship and proscriptions of Sulla, seven consulships of Marius, political alliances of the first and second triumvirates and the growing corruption and ineptitude of the senate.
Philosopher A: In the Republic, the Senate was the primary branch of the Roman government and held the majority of the political power. It controlled funds, administration and foreign policy, and had significant influence of the everyday life of the Roman people. When Augustus came to power, he kept the Senate and they retained their legal position. The Emperor’s rule was legitimized by the senate as he needed the senators experience to serve as administrators, diplomats and generals. Although technically the most authoritative individual in Rome, Augustus strived to embody Republican values. He wanted to relate and connect to all parts of society including Plebeians. Through generosity and less extravagance, Augustus achieved a connection with the common people.
...ion this all showed that style of governing and ruling an empire started a century long pattern of events that eventually lead to the fall and destruction of the old oligarchy led by the Senate. The combination of desire for personal gain and glory of a politician or general was what weakened the Roman customs and the Senate. This was a cycle among the Senate, to find themselves stuck in a problem and to find others to fix with of course military means but in turn make everything more corrupt with their disruptive practices such as Pompey and Julius Caesar. But they were not the only ones there were others who were to blame for causing such decay and corruption such as Marius, Sulla, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus. They were the ones who kept this corruption cycle going and it was Augustus Caesar who finally broke the cycle and brought stability and order back to Rome.
"When Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus sought to establish the liberty of the common people and expose the crimes of the oligarchs, the guilty nobles took fright and opposed their proceedings by every means at their disposal" - Cicero. The Gracchi brothers were clearly well intentioned men who had the interests of Rome at heart, instead of their own, which was a common attitude amongst the other senators. The reforms of the Gracchi were long over-due and their programs were genuine attempts to deal with Rome's problems. During the Gracchi's existence, Rome was facing a number of social, political and economic problems. They were frustrated with the conservatism and selfishness of the oligarchy and so adopted methods which threatened the balance between the senate, the magistrates and the people which had existed for a very long time - in this way they can be regarded as revolutionary. It is likely that they interpreted the problems far too simply, and they failed to see that Roman society had changed. The Senate also failed to see these changes and reacted to the Gracchi's actions in the only way they could - violence. The senate felt threatened by the Gracchi's methods, and as a result violence was used for the first time in Roman politics.
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
1. In my nineteenth year, on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army with which I set free the state, which was oppressed by the domination of a faction. For that reason, the senate enrolled me in its order by laudatory resolutions, when Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius were consuls (43 B.C.E.), assigning me the place of a consul in the giving of opinions, and gave me the imperium. With me as propraetor, it ordered me, together with the consuls, to take care lest any detriment befall the state. But the people made me consul in the same year, when the consuls each perished in battle, and they made me a triumvir for the settling of the state.
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
There is no doubt that Lucretia, the wife of Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus who was the son of Arruns Tarquinius, was a virtuous woman. This is evident through Cicero who describes her as a 'noble and chaste woman' (Cicero 100), Dionysius who describes her as a woman who 'excelled all the women in beauty as well as in virtue' (Dionysius, Book IV 64) and finally through Livy who explains how she 'won the contest of womanly virtue' (Livy, Book 1, 100). It was this contest that 'kindled in Sextus Tarquinius the flame of lust' (Livy 101) and it was started by Lucretias own husband, Collatinus, during a drunken dinner party in the quarters of Sextus. The contest was between all of the men present at the party and its purpose was to discover who had the most virtuous wife out of all of them. Collatinus, who was very drunk and therefore overly confident, declared that none of the other men's wives could beat the 'incomparable superiority of my Lucretia' (Livy 100). The men decided to participate in Collatinus' contest and so all of them went back to Ro...
Upon expansion of the Roman Empire, lie trials and tribulations for the government to rule the foreign lands and keep the population in check. The Gracchi brothers grew up during a time when the Roman Empire was still under civil unrest. The Roman people were divided, lands were unevenly distributed, the government was disorderly, patriotism ceased to exist, and slave labor made it harder for citizens to uproot themselves from poverty. Tiberius, the elder brother, was the first to bring up the agrarian laws, and was followed after his death by his younger brother, Gaius Gracchus. The brothers knew of the significance of winning the side of the commoners to assert their power over the empire. By ways of the agrarian laws, and other reforms, the two brothers were able to win control of the masses, leaving the senate to fear what could happen if these two rise in power. According to Gaius Gracchus, “in a certain pamphlet, has written that as Tiberius was passing through Tuscany on his way to Numantia, and observed the dearth of inhabitants in the country, and that those who tilled its soil or tended its flocks there were imported barbarian slaves, he then first conceived the public policy which was the cause of countless ills to the two brothers.” (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 8.7)
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
Heichelheim, Fritz, Cedric A. Yeo, and Allen M. Ward. A History Of The Roman People. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1984.