Talk:Gaius Gracchus

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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. 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.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

"noble descent"

Saying that the Gracchi "were of noble descent" is somewhat misleading. While Tiberius the elder married into the Scipii, the Gracchi were plebians. What do y'all think -- change it or not? Ejectgoose 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Noble" in the Roman Republic means that an ancestor was consul. It is not synonymous with being "Patrician." Neither is wealth synonymous with Patrician status. A family cannot become Patrician, but it can become noble and wealthy.

I think a families were elevated to patrician status during the reign of Augustus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.166.216 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'of noble descent' is actually quite a good description of them; they were related to the Cornelii, and Tiberius and Gaius both married into influential families, plus their father had been consul twice and censor. Ashavah 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'noble descent' is misleading. Just either use the term Nobiles and then define it, that is what the Sempronii Gracchi were. This would clear up any confusion as to whether they were patrician (which of course they weren't). 3 March 2008 Imperator101

Obviously really late response, given that it has been 14 years. But the definition of nobilies is given pretty clearly in PA Brunt, 'Nobilitas and novitas' (1982) 72 J Roman Studies 1, 1 (available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/299112). Edit. I've incorporated a pointer to this article into the article when discussing nobility. Ifly6 (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstitutional (?) Second Elected Term as Tribune of the Plebs

Under the section titled "Second tribunate and death" is: "In 122 BC, Gaius ran, unconstitutionally for another term as tribune of the plebs..." However Garett G. Fagan states in his Teaching Company (audio) course "The History of Ancient Rome" (Lesson 20, 'the Gracchi Brothers), "(Gaius) became Tribune of the people in 123 B.C. and again in 122; it must be stated that in the interim a law had been passed allowing people to stand for successive tribunates within reason. It's not that they could keep doing it for a decade or more but they could hold it for two or three if they wished." If this was indeed the case then Gaius' second election to the post would in fact be "constitutional."122.26.131.153 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the constitution was not well defined. Often, the senators justified their rampant tyranny, oligarchy, and murder of political opponents by appealing to vague traditions. Little of it had actually been coded down.71.12.226.62 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, it would be best (14 years late at least) to include a source documenting this law. The Roman constitution is a set of norms. While statutes would more solidify those norms, the forms and validity of those norms are themselves topics of fierce political debate. Ifly6 (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious (Feb 2020)

The following is marked dubious. I did not raise it. The bill was rejected because the Roman elite had no wish to share the benefits of citizenship, including subsidised grain and public works. The rejection of this measure led, in part, to the disastrous Social War of 91-87 BC. The reason given is I doubt this statement was in the source cited. The grain dole and public works were obviously not for the elite, but for the plebs. The elite opposed these reforms because they would have removed their influence on rural areas. The source should be checked. Dated Feb 2020.

In general, I concur. First, subsidised grain literally just started. Public works are also non-excludable, unless you are to do the Roman thing of saying 'all Italians must leave the city' while also having almost no meaningful enforcement mechanism. Opposition, however, was importantly not confined to the elite; the plebs urbana opposed extension of citizenship in similar political terms. Part of the elite's opposition to extensions of Italian citizenship was also the fact that anyone who achieved it would suddenly vault to the summit of Roman politics as well on the backs of the Italians. E Gabba, 'Rome and Italy: the Social War' in Crook et al (eds) 9 Cambridge Ancient History (1994) 113. Ifly6 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself, in more recent edits, I included the quote from Fannius about being swamped with immigrants which was brought up in multiple sources (Lintott in Cantab Anc Hist along with Flower 2010), which I feel is sufficient – at least classicists feel it is important enough to bring up – to clarify as to what exactly the public thought they would be sharing. Ifly6 (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Story of Gaius' head

Why has the story of Septimuleius and Gaius’s head been removed from this article? It is consistently part of historical accounts of his death. Amplifysound (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The specific portion of the story, to some degree, appears in Plutarch, Appian, Val Max, and Pliny, yes. However, there is a "persuasive" argument that the narrative in general surrounding C Gracchus' death emerges not from actual historical events, but from meme (in the original Dawkinsonian sense) of a tragic drama literally performed in plays, which is then transmitted to us via secondary sources centuries later (eg Plutarch).^[1] Insofar as we are unclear as to the veracity of these dramatic details, my view is that they should not be repeated uncritically. Cf Cornell (1995)'s argument about how one can read Livy on the early republic only for general facts rather than specifics. See also generally how classicists today generally go over the primary sources at a very broad level without repeating claims like "Xius betrayed Yius at the foot of the statue of Zius after seven, nay, eight bad omens!".

I omitted the Septimuleius-filled-his-head-with-lead! story due to three reasons: (1) we do not know if this detail is actually true, (2) it adds nothing to the historical story beyond heightened drama,^[2] and (3) the primary sources disagree as to whether Septimuleius was the one who handed the head in or one Lucius Vitellius. Ifly6 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eg Beness, J. Lea; Hillard, T. W. (2001). "The Theatricality of the Deaths of C. Gracchus and Friends". The Classical Quarterly. 51 (1): 135–140. doi:10.1093/cq/51.1.135. ISSN 0009-8388.
^ Nb if one were to say something akin to "here is this story; it indicates XYZ about how the people loved him etc", I would think that would be a good addition to a section about his legacy, if reliable sources so support. Otherwise, nothing more is needed than an overview describing that he was killed, who killed him in general, and why. If the story were to be used as evidence to support that Opimius' actions were full of malice, what I think is the responsible thing to do is to find a source saying that Opimius' actions were full of malice and then simply say that Opimius' actions were full of malice. This avoids both WP:ORIG and WP:PRIMARY while not repeating these stories uncritically. We need not build up Gaius Gracchus as a tragic hero, per Plutarch, in a Wikipedia article.

[1] Eg Beness, J. Lea; Hillard, T. W. (2001). "The Theatricality of the Deaths of C. Gracchus and Friends". The Classical Quarterly. 51 (1): 135–140. doi:10.1093/cq/51.1.135. ISSN 0009-8388.

[2] Nb if one were to say something akin to "here is this story; it indicates XYZ about how the people loved him etc", I would think that would be a good addition to a section about his legacy, if reliable sources so support. Otherwise, nothing more is needed than an overview describing that he was killed, who killed him in general, and why. If the story were to be used as evidence to support that Opimius' actions were full of malice, what I think is the responsible thing to do is to find a source saying that Opimius' actions were full of malice and then simply say that Opimius' actions were full of malice. This avoids both WP:ORIG and WP:PRIMARY while not repeating these stories uncritically. We need not build up Gaius Gracchus as a tragic hero, per Plutarch, in a Wikipedia article.

[1]

[2]