I think he wanted to protect the senate by making the plebs less radical, like when aristocrat Bismarck brought in welfare schemes to stop the German workers going red. My evidence is just how mild his reforms are and what I think they'd have done in practice, we obviously can't mindread him from so long ago. We can be pretty sure he did want to be the top man in the state despite that, since every aristocratic roman wanted that! But I don't think he wanted to be king anymore than any of the other aristocrats aiming for the top did.
Honest and revolutionary. Reformer or radical is an irrelevant division, although your video itself proves he was closer to former than latter. Heroes, both bros.
I think the fact that Tiberius Gracchus is seen as a radical trailblazer today tells us a lot more about how attached the senators of his time were to their excess wealth than what kind of man he was.
I read in a book that the land reform idea was started by Tiberius’ father in law Appius Cladius. Apparently he made Tiberius the face of the movement because he was scared of the pushback he’d receive from his fellow senators just like how Gaius Laelius Sapiens was threatened by his colleagues for bringing up land reform.
Actually a similar law had been proposed by G Laelius (the close friend of Scipio Aemilianus and probably with his approval) in ~140 BC, but they withdrew the proposal because of opposition in tge senate.
"Land reform is like collectivizing the stock market" does not seem correct, given how modest the land reform he proposed was + the history of land reform (if we trust Livy) He was mostly saying rich people should give back *a small part of* land they stole, in contravention of laws the plebs fought hard for to stop them stealing that land The modern analogy seems more like "cutting tax loopholes that rich people use (but only cutting them a bit so the rich could still skirt half the tax they owe)" Which only strengthens your "he was a reformer" case
I agree with your analogy; however, I do believe the wealthy would characterize such modest reforms as creeping socialism which would end in the collectivization of the stock market.
Was there a family tradition of caring about the lower classes? I know noble gens have that "family tradition" thing really strongly. The main Grachus in the punic wars led an army of freed slaves and seemed really tight with them - i know slaves aren't the same as plebs, anymore than urban and rural plebs are the same (tiberius grachus ranted about how much he disliked slaves in appian!) but it did make me think "siding with the lower classes seems a very Grachi thing to do" when i read about that guy.
I think it's also important to point out that the plebs and freedmen had a lot of overlapping interests. They were comprised of mainly poor people living in slums and often lived alongside each other in the same neighborhoods; they both had a mutual interest in the destruction of the aristocracy.
There certainly seem to have been family "tendencies", but I think a lot of this can be explained by the patronage system where new members of a well-connected family would inherit the loyalty of individuals, guilds, towns and even entire provincial communities. I don't know the degree to which ideology would have been passed from one generation to the next, but an aristocrat on climbing the cursus honorum would have known what his political constituency looked like and campaigned accordingly.
My wife and I really enjoyed this video as always. Also, we both thought that your oration in this video was the best it has been. You spoke very clearly and a bit more slowly which made it easier to follow. Great job as always 🙂
Actually, hard feelings and wounded pride were involved as well as vested interests. In 146BC Tiberius Gracchus was serving as quaestor in Spain, and his commander G Hostilius Mancinus got his Army surrounded by the Numantines. Relying on his father's reputation for honesty among the tribes, Tiberius negotiated a treaty with the Numantines and saved the army. When he returned to Rome. the Senate rejected the treaty and sent Mancinus back to the mercy of the Spaniards in chains. Scipio Aemiliamus, Tiberius'cousin and brother-in-law 😮prevented any punishment of Tiberius, but refused to support the treaty. Appius Claudius Pulcher cos 143 and princeps senatus, Tiberius' ally and father-in-law also had a grievance against the leading senators as tgey had denied him a triumphal his campaign against the Ligurians.
Actually, there is an interesting chain of links from Graccus onwards: Their brother-in-law, the younger Scipio was some kind of the military foster father of Gaius Marius, who actually came close to dictatorship. Where he failed, his nephew, Gaius Julius Caesar suceeded, but was killed, while the great-nephew and adopted son Augustus finally overcame optimate resistance and became Emperor.
I used to admire Tiberius a lot when i first read abt roman history, seeing him as someone brave to challlenge the existing norms and fight for a noble cause. But after studying history more critically, i still do look at him as a great maan of his time; but ultimately lets not forget he was the same as the aristocracy he was fighting against; willing to do wht was necessary to achieve his goals whether they be rlly for the plebs or for his own search for glory and achievement. He was only human in the end.
Everything I've learned about Roman culture (and especially the elements that managed to survive as a common thread through the centuries of change) tells me that a big motivator for so, so many influential senators was social prestige. That was the real currency of the ruling class in Rome. That prestige came through titles and offices, through military renown, and through the wealth-driven patronage system. Gracchus, I suspect, saw championing these populist politics as a means of achieving social prestige through a different avenue. Maybe he didn't set out to be the King of Rome, but through his advocacy and reform, he became in essence a king of the Roman people, in the same way that Alaric became king of the Visigoths generations before there was a Visigothic state. It's easier to see that sort of ambition-driven embrace of populism as a way to game power in Julius Caesar, who really mastered it, but that's the lens through which I view Gracchus, too. The virtue in both of them is less to do with the causes they championed, and more to do with how they sought to use the power they acquired for the genuine betterment of the state. In a world that has seen so many examples "revolutionaries" using populist movements and uprisings as a vehicle for power for the sole purpose of enriching themselves, it's worth celebrating figures who used those same tactics for self-empowerment because they wanted to use that power to leave a legacy of real achievement. I believe Tiberius Gracchus fits comfortably in that mold. For that, I salute him.
Ancient patricians seem to have thought anyone claiming to want to make things better for the plebs, was just using the plebs as a power base to try and get power himself and "try to be king" (E.G. Spurius Cassius Vecellinus, Spurius Melius). It seems clear that some demagogues (e.g. in greece) really did behave this way. So it's possible Gracchus was doing that! Though I highly doubt it, he seems to have just proposed very sensible reforms - the sort of "keynes saved capitalism" reforms that elites often propose to stave off revolution - but the senate's intransigence led to the issue being beyond reform. I was kinda surprised at how quasi ethno-nationalist he sounds in Appian, ranting about how these economic problems are bad because they lower native Italian birth rates and cause foreigners to flood Italy as slaves. I think he DID want to be the first man in the state and have a bigger authoritas than his ancestors, but that he wanted to do it in a way that helped the state, I am pretty certain he had no intention of putting a crown on his head.
I don’t think his appeal to blood and soil necessarily makes it more likely he wanted to be king. (If you were indeed implying such). I think the 20th century paints these ideas in an unnecessarily harsh light and imo especially in that age of antiquity- was a view natural, common, and held sincerely. I think class differences of course complicate this, but given the martial nature of the state- they can’t have totally snuffed out a racial pride in its people in the Republican age
Not sure how old the painting is but most of them don't strive for historical accuracy many show Romans in medieval armour and equipment so I wouldn't really worry about it
The Key to understand Roman politics: It wasnt divide by ideology but by family factions. But if a single man become to powerful/popular they ALL gang on him to destroy him. Yes, they opose Tiberius to mantain their privileges but also because if he suceed he will become to powerful as the patron of all the common people.
19:59 I think that statue on screen is the OTHER Tiberius (I've had that picture come up when I tried searching for an ancient statue of the grachi, since the one that is present for most of this video is a 19th century statue.... the only ancient statue of a tiberius i could find was the emperor sadly. i think this is a close up of that statue of tiberius sitting down with a sword on his lap and a scroll in his hand, i got a bunch of photos of that when google image searching for an old statue of T.grachus)
Super fuckin interesting. You guys are among the all-time best ancient history channels. On the off chance you guys see this: spinning off the topic of people incorrectly prescribing a "left-wing" radicalism to Tiberius Gracchus, do you think anyone actually existed who they *should* be looking at? Who from the historical record, if anyone, would be the best fit for that "early leftist" image? 10/10 video btw
Thank you! Unfortunately the dimensions of ancient political thought were so ill-developed that concepts which are integral to a leftist approach like class-consciousness, solidarity and a recognition of universal human value were almost entirely absent. We get inklings of some of these ideas but rarely can we see a consistent application. Because of how little we have to choose from, my ancient leftist hero will always be Spartacus - his war was unfortunately not one of universal abolition but merely for making the slaveholders quake he deserves our respect.
It does sometimes seem like the senate's primary function, over the long term, was to take actions to reduce the senate's authority and prestige. I wouldn't rule out the idea that the Gracchi were overstating the extent of the problem to increase their personal power, though. We can't take Cicero, Cato, or Caesar at face value, so we shouldn't necessarily take the Gracchi at face value either.
There wasn't that much of difference between the Republic and the Empire. The Empire still had all the Republic's offices fully functional. All the elections and democratic processes going on. The only difference was that the Princeps Senatus, the Pontifex Maximus and some other minor but still at the top offices was held by a single person and personified by the "Imperator" turned from an honorific title to an effective juridical, military, religious and economic office. Kinda the same like the President of the United States in the sense that the Roman emperors had similar if not the same exact roles. Plus of course the rank of "pope" (Pontifex Maximus) of the nation and national religion, and of course add to it also the role of the Vice President that can supervision and preside the Senate (but not the Lower House). And in the Congress, the Senate is the decisional house, in the sense it can decide if a law can be enforced or not. The Lower House, by being made by average citizens, have no mean or necessity to be overlooked. It just makes the laws, but can't say they are valid. Roman Senate had more power because it had both powers, so the Emperor had too power over it as "President of the Senate". The literal translation of "Princeps Senatus". But as per elections to make new senators, new tribunes populares, new aedilis, new praetors etc... They was all public. Even if some Emperor advised or supported ome of the candidates. But that's exactly what happens in America. You can vote the available candidates for whatever public office, but if there's one that is supported by the President, people would say: "oh! So he's a good guy right? Let's vote for him".
Virtue varied for the Republic. Roman politics was always cutthroat and competitive but during the middle and earlier parts of the Republic, it was stable. There was no political murder and violence. The Late Republic you saw all the ills arise. The Republic had grown substantially in terms of territory, power, and riches. It became filthy rich and political murder and violence began. Romans serve their time in the army and return home to find that their farms are gone and bought out. They roam the countryside with their wives and children, homeless. But hey, the wealthy elite reap the benefits of imperialism! It just requires some commoners in the army to die. Come back home alive? F you, too, you no longer mattered! You had a foreign king wage war against Rome but arrogantly proclaimed how much he was bribing Roman politicians to hurt Rome's efforts against him. Late Republic was where you saw blood flow under Sulla. Etc. The virtue of the Late Republic is a joke.
I find that radicalism is a relative term. For some is being a 'radical' not radical because for them, it should be the norm instead of the rapid change. For others, some can be called 'radical' because they themselves are 'radical' in the opposite spectrum or vice versa. So the radicalism you describe in the video is relative, but I still wonder when someone is radical in the Roman Republic or simply shifting what was normal. For example: The murder of the Gracchi brothers was political violence on a level not often seen in the republic (so I was told) but later Clodius and Milo were apparently killing each other in the streets of Rome with bodyguards and gangs and it seems to have been normal. Is it then the norm of violence, or does what was radical shift towards being normal? (perhaps a bit confusing) Anyway’s it seems you seem to believe Tiberius was acting not as a radical but as a moderate reformer I am inclined to believe it is a relative term, so when do you change from a moderate reformer to a radical populist? What are the boundaries according to research you did? You say that Tiberius formed something like that the tribunes served the people is a radical idea. Is it radical to implement what you call 'the necessity of reform'? When are you really a radical? I never quite understood that, even in current day politics. A question I had before but not really had answered (or at least for me) is, what were the powers of the senate or was it technically merely a symbolic advisory body? Since every legislation had to be passed by the assemblies to become law, but they could bypass the senate? It seems the senate could appoint dictators or give the consuls the power to do what was needed to protect the republic. I don't understand your point on Tiberius about innovating in the field of human rights. How could Tiberius embrace human rights, for example recognizing the popular sovereignty earlier and pushing that point or radicalizing (if you can even call it that?) even further (as you point out?) have aided him in his goals and saved his life? Question: Did Roman see slaves as beneath non-roman citizens, or were they merely a tool for the Romans to do their work for them? Was there inherit racism and discrimination in the Roman Empire? How far did it go?
The term "radical" is used traditionally to refer to someone who believes that a society is fundamentally flawed at an institutional level. As such, fixing said society's problems requires systemic changes in all of its organization. I believe that's sort of the issue with Tiberius. Agrarian reform is sort of synonymous with radicalism in rural oligarchycal societies, as its aim is to fundamentally change the economic model in rigor. But Tiberius clearly doesn't intend that, as his reform is actually quite limited, and he himself doesn't express this wish.
etymologically speaking the word radical comes from the latin word "root" historicaly speaking a radical movements are associated with those who wanted the tackled the systemic/roots of the problems of society, using violence is not a pre-requisite to that but was and is a political tactic used, especially because the established institutions will often go a long way to defend itself pre-emtply by the use of institutional violence (police, army, security aparatus, etc) and, diferently from what conspiracy theorists, and often antissemites will say, those who command and benefit from these institutions are not hidden, they are the landowners, industrialists, speculators who if not directly in the goverment, are directly or indirectly lobbyng it to keep in place.
Like today, it is no use to accommodate the greedy. In order to fight for justice for the common people one must be uncompromising and tough because the powerful leave us no other way.
This doesnt mean breaking laws, because IT IS never Just the one Side using These methods , in the Republic you use how Mob violence and rule breaking was used to the benefit of selfish people, the tribunes were more Tools than anything
You should probably just ask them, not trying to be rude but no RUclipsr is going to engage in vague questions. It's best to lay out what you're trying to say so that the RUclipsr can identify if it's something worthwhile to engage.
Sure - if you have discord you can ask away in the link I've shared there for members. If the questions are more Rome focused or about this video there's no need to ask permission just go ahead!
Archaeological evidence actually contradicts Tiberius' claim that small farms were disappearing during his time, which together with the moderation of his reforms kind of undercuts the necessity and sincerity of them, and suggests that, like other populares after him, he was an opportunist looking to create a new power base for himself outside the traditional avenues of the aristocracy. Nathan Rosenstein's "Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic" summarizes this evidence nicely.
Doesn’t change the state of the poor of Rome at the time. Saying the problem “wasn’t as bad as this one snobby rich kid claims it is” misses the point, like it does today with Trump. Maybe the swamp isn’t as bad as people say it is, it doesn’t change the fact that there is mass sentiment of a corrupt senate and the winds of revolution are beginning to blow.
Tell that to Gaius Marius and the reason why the Marian Reforms were pinned on him. The state, economy, society, and military are all intertwined in ways so strong that one screw up can affect all. Just by studying the military recruitment methods at the time of Scipio Africanus until Lucius Cornelius Sulla's last eastern campaign could tell you something about the Socio-economic situation of Rome.
@@truthhertz10 nobody said Clinton wanted to be a king or dictator. A bunch of people today are freaking out, saying Trump wants to be dictator, when a lot of his proposed policies are not radical in any way, shape, or form.
"his land reform law survived his death" .... that statement is slightly misleading given it only lasted about a year or two before the senate totally destroyed it and lived on as a 'ghost' for that period not really being enacted
I recall reading that though it was only active for several years, the land commission distributed a great deal of land in southern italy. IDK if work stopped because the task was mostly complete or if the optimate opposition managed to halt the work though.
While I agree partially, I would say it's still alright to do so. If anything, we should avoid trying to claim long dead men and women for one political party that won't be around forever.
@@TheManeymon there are universal standards of justice that you can and should judge historical figures by. Judging an ancient figure by his conformity with the values of liberal democracy and faulting him for not being an anti-imperialist or abolitionist is fruitless.
@@argenteus4745 - we should judge people based on what we think the universal standards are. However, I'd wager most people consider whatever their moral standards are to be "the universal standards." Presumably you mean "objective standard" when you say universal, because it's obvious that there is no standard that 90% of people today, let alone all humans, actually agree on universally.
@@WorthlessWinner universal in the sense that they transcend time and are not historically contingent. Most prominently the virtues outlined in works such as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.
It’s pointless to study history (or ancient figures for that matter) unless you apply some form of modern standard to the study. Antiquarianism is a form of conservative ancestor worship, for the mere decision about who merits study and who does not is a form of political judgement. In the case of antiquarian ancient history it’s usually associated with the adoption of a politics of oligarchy, hierarchical society, and aristocratic rule.
The Republic didnt had police or army inside the city, so he couldve use the masses to start a revolution and take power. But sadly good men often underestimated how far a elite will go to mantain power.
Just cause there’s no troops in the city of Rome to put down the revolt does not mean troops can’t be moved into the city. I don’t know how much you know about Ancient Rome. But this conflict continues and explodes into civil war between Marius and Sulla. Sulla wins moves troops into the city for a short period of time and then has the entire opposition killed. Basically ending the populist movement until Julius Caesar and we all know how that famously ends. Which then resulted in Octavian siezing power in the chaos after Julius Caesar’s death by making promises to everyone. Then once he had his army he betrayed everyone and did his own thing. He killed almost the entire patrician class siezed their wealth and put it in his own bank account. Took the name Augustus Caesar and then created the urban cohort a para military police force he used to dissamantle the political gangs this fundamentally ended the optimate as a functional faction. However said urban cohort was loyal to Augustus Caesar and existed to keep him in power and support the new Imperial order not to create a populari republic. Granted Augustus’s empire did a lot to help the poor including land reforms, creating welfare system to provide good and wine to the power, and vast infrastructure programs raised the over standard of living. However this was done because it secured Augustus hold on power and only made him more wealthy since people with an income who are well fed pay taxes. And not to mention after Augustus the Empire becomes increasingly more and more despotic till you get to the very end.
How long would that last though? Once the army and the other cities learn about this revolution, chances are they’d send armies to crush it and restore “order”.
@@theempiredidnothingwrong3227 Remember something important: Sulla moving troops into Rome was posible because the Marian reforms make the army more loyal to the general than to the state. (And even then all the oficials of his 6 legions refuse to march on Rome) So at this point if the Grachii take power the legions will likely do the same as they did when Optimates kill them: Nothing because at this point in roman history legions dont take part on politics.
@@avalle4493 You gotta keep up with scholarships changes, the Marian reforms weren’t actually the Marian reforms and were accredited to him by Sallust well cause Sallust was a Marian and wanted to make his patron look good. In truth all of his “reforms” were actually trends that started since the third Punic war. You had numerous legions who were basically full time because they were active in operation accross the Iberian peninsula, North Africa, and Greece. Most soldiers only joined for pay post Punic wars three and the loyalty to the general over the state actually goes back to the founding of the Roman military since Servius organized the first army. The real problem was it used to be they disbanded after a campaign and the immediate threat to the Roman state was destroyed. However after the third Punic war this started to change and Generals maintained their legions for occupation operations. Gracchi’s reforms were aimed to solve this problem by gauranteeing retirement for troops to get them to stop being active. That all said there were numerous active legions at the time of Grachii who trusted their direct General, Preator or Proconsul, then they did the senate or the assembly and the people of Rome and if ordered to march on Rome, they would with out hesistation if there pay is on the line. Increased militarism is what killed the Republic.
You lost me at comparing the redistribution of PUBLIC LAND by Tiberius with redistribution the PRIVATE stock exchange of New York. Tiberius only wanted to fairly share Roman public land acquired by Roman citizen legions to the very people who acquired them instead of the nobles who were shit and usually fled every battle as they fought as equities (shit horsemen)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you believe were Tiberius Gracchus' true intentions?
I think he wanted to protect the senate by making the plebs less radical, like when aristocrat Bismarck brought in welfare schemes to stop the German workers going red. My evidence is just how mild his reforms are and what I think they'd have done in practice, we obviously can't mindread him from so long ago.
We can be pretty sure he did want to be the top man in the state despite that, since every aristocratic roman wanted that! But I don't think he wanted to be king anymore than any of the other aristocrats aiming for the top did.
¯\_ (ツ) _/¯
Power to the plebians!
To an extent but He created a terrible Method that Led to the destruction of the Republic
Honest and revolutionary. Reformer or radical is an irrelevant division, although your video itself proves he was closer to former than latter. Heroes, both bros.
I think the fact that Tiberius Gracchus is seen as a radical trailblazer today tells us a lot more about how attached the senators of his time were to their excess wealth than what kind of man he was.
I think it also tells us about our own worldview, and the views of our own class society that he is still considered a radical.
Facts. The aristocrats were so full of wealth they deemed any change in their wealth as crazy
I read in a book that the land reform idea was started by Tiberius’ father in law Appius Cladius. Apparently he made Tiberius the face of the movement because he was scared of the pushback he’d receive from his fellow senators just like how Gaius Laelius Sapiens was threatened by his colleagues for bringing up land reform.
Livy? You can read all about this tragedy in his history of Rome.
@@stevo271it was a modern historian
@@al-muwaffaq341 Ah. I'm a primary source junkie.
Actually a similar law had been proposed by G Laelius (the close friend of Scipio Aemilianus and probably with his approval) in ~140 BC, but they withdrew the proposal because of opposition in tge senate.
"Land reform is like collectivizing the stock market" does not seem correct, given how modest the land reform he proposed was + the history of land reform (if we trust Livy)
He was mostly saying rich people should give back *a small part of* land they stole, in contravention of laws the plebs fought hard for to stop them stealing that land
The modern analogy seems more like "cutting tax loopholes that rich people use (but only cutting them a bit so the rich could still skirt half the tax they owe)"
Which only strengthens your "he was a reformer" case
I agree with your analogy; however, I do believe the wealthy would characterize such modest reforms as creeping socialism which would end in the collectivization of the stock market.
It's not like cutting tax loopholes, it's like enforcing the law that you can't overstate your business expenses by 100%, but 50% is ok.
Yes
Was there a family tradition of caring about the lower classes?
I know noble gens have that "family tradition" thing really strongly. The main Grachus in the punic wars led an army of freed slaves and seemed really tight with them - i know slaves aren't the same as plebs, anymore than urban and rural plebs are the same (tiberius grachus ranted about how much he disliked slaves in appian!) but it did make me think "siding with the lower classes seems a very Grachi thing to do" when i read about that guy.
I think it's also important to point out that the plebs and freedmen had a lot of overlapping interests. They were comprised of mainly poor people living in slums and often lived alongside each other in the same neighborhoods; they both had a mutual interest in the destruction of the aristocracy.
There certainly seem to have been family "tendencies", but I think a lot of this can be explained by the patronage system where new members of a well-connected family would inherit the loyalty of individuals, guilds, towns and even entire provincial communities. I don't know the degree to which ideology would have been passed from one generation to the next, but an aristocrat on climbing the cursus honorum would have known what his political constituency looked like and campaigned accordingly.
Check the Mos Maiorum.
My wife and I really enjoyed this video as always. Also, we both thought that your oration in this video was the best it has been. You spoke very clearly and a bit more slowly which made it easier to follow. Great job as always 🙂
Thanks! The audio is always the part I am most self-conscious about so I'm glad it checks out ok for viewers
I've been watching a lot of videos about Gracchus lately, coincidentally. Excited to hear your insights.
I found your channel i'd say yesterday/3 days ago and man, i can't stop watching these, great video and thank you for it
Really interesting look at a fascinating man - can't wait to see you do a deep dive on the Gracchi
Actually, hard feelings and wounded pride were involved as well as vested interests.
In 146BC Tiberius Gracchus was serving as quaestor in Spain, and his commander G Hostilius Mancinus got his Army surrounded by the Numantines. Relying on his father's reputation for honesty among the tribes, Tiberius negotiated a treaty with the Numantines and saved the army. When he returned to Rome. the Senate rejected the treaty and sent Mancinus back to the mercy of the Spaniards in chains. Scipio Aemiliamus, Tiberius'cousin and brother-in-law 😮prevented any punishment of Tiberius, but refused to support the treaty.
Appius Claudius Pulcher cos 143 and princeps senatus, Tiberius' ally and father-in-law also had a grievance against the leading senators as tgey had denied him a triumphal his campaign against the Ligurians.
Just commenting for support.
Thanks for this terrific video essay on the Gracchi. It’s an interesting piece on the civil wars and the various motivations at work.
Thanks - very glad you enjoyed it!
Very interesting and well made video, it’s a wonder this channel is so small!
Very well done again! And always with an intelligent slant towards contemporary issues and debates...
Another excellent video - love the application of political theory to the ancient past. Makes it really come alive
Great video. Wish you the best!
i love this channel so much
Actually, there is an interesting chain of links from Graccus onwards:
Their brother-in-law, the younger Scipio was some kind of the military foster father of Gaius Marius, who actually came close to dictatorship. Where he failed, his nephew, Gaius Julius Caesar suceeded, but was killed, while the great-nephew and adopted son Augustus finally overcame optimate resistance and became Emperor.
I'm on the last of Michael Hudson's books on antique finance. The Gracchi were but a footnote under the foundational conflict of "western culture".
Been waiting for this
one of the best channels on youtube, small or large, keep it up
Where are you getting the shots at 6:14 from?
That looks gorgeous. Is that some sort of a movie set?
It’s the Cinecittà film set in Rome.
I used to admire Tiberius a lot when i first read abt roman history, seeing him as someone brave to challlenge the existing norms and fight for a noble cause.
But after studying history more critically, i still do look at him as a great maan of his time; but ultimately lets not forget he was the same as the aristocracy he was fighting against; willing to do wht was necessary to achieve his goals whether they be rlly for the plebs or for his own search for glory and achievement. He was only human in the end.
Everything I've learned about Roman culture (and especially the elements that managed to survive as a common thread through the centuries of change) tells me that a big motivator for so, so many influential senators was social prestige. That was the real currency of the ruling class in Rome. That prestige came through titles and offices, through military renown, and through the wealth-driven patronage system.
Gracchus, I suspect, saw championing these populist politics as a means of achieving social prestige through a different avenue. Maybe he didn't set out to be the King of Rome, but through his advocacy and reform, he became in essence a king of the Roman people, in the same way that Alaric became king of the Visigoths generations before there was a Visigothic state.
It's easier to see that sort of ambition-driven embrace of populism as a way to game power in Julius Caesar, who really mastered it, but that's the lens through which I view Gracchus, too. The virtue in both of them is less to do with the causes they championed, and more to do with how they sought to use the power they acquired for the genuine betterment of the state. In a world that has seen so many examples "revolutionaries" using populist movements and uprisings as a vehicle for power for the sole purpose of enriching themselves, it's worth celebrating figures who used those same tactics for self-empowerment because they wanted to use that power to leave a legacy of real achievement.
I believe Tiberius Gracchus fits comfortably in that mold. For that, I salute him.
Ancient patricians seem to have thought anyone claiming to want to make things better for the plebs, was just using the plebs as a power base to try and get power himself and "try to be king" (E.G. Spurius Cassius Vecellinus, Spurius Melius). It seems clear that some demagogues (e.g. in greece) really did behave this way. So it's possible Gracchus was doing that!
Though I highly doubt it, he seems to have just proposed very sensible reforms - the sort of "keynes saved capitalism" reforms that elites often propose to stave off revolution - but the senate's intransigence led to the issue being beyond reform.
I was kinda surprised at how quasi ethno-nationalist he sounds in Appian, ranting about how these economic problems are bad because they lower native Italian birth rates and cause foreigners to flood Italy as slaves. I think he DID want to be the first man in the state and have a bigger authoritas than his ancestors, but that he wanted to do it in a way that helped the state, I am pretty certain he had no intention of putting a crown on his head.
They’re saying the same thing about Trump
@@JumpingSauce - hilariously I've seen left wingers call trump grachus, as if that's an insult xD
Keynrs didn't save capitalism he saved economic interventionism. His policies were enacted by rich snobs for rich snobs.
I don’t think his appeal to blood and soil necessarily makes it more likely he wanted to be king. (If you were indeed implying such). I think the 20th century paints these ideas in an unnecessarily harsh light and imo especially in that age of antiquity- was a view natural, common, and held sincerely.
I think class differences of course complicate this, but given the martial nature of the state- they can’t have totally snuffed out a racial pride in its people in the Republican age
@@WorthlessWinner literally no one said that bro
Underrated channel.
Really good content
A very interesting period of history!
Read the Storm Before the Storm. It breaks down everything
7:47 how are the oval, silver shields called which the soldiers carry?
scutum
Not sure how old the painting is but most of them don't strive for historical accuracy many show Romans in medieval armour and equipment so I wouldn't really worry about it
Hail to the Divine Gracchi!
The bust showin in 7:13 is that of Emperor Tiberius, not that of Tiberius Gracchus.
It's hard to see what form a "populist" Rome would have taken. In the words of Dr. Kenneth Harl "Democracy never had a chance in ancient Rome!"
Not hard to See Just Look at Caesar IT Led to tyranny
Just supporting by commenting. 😬
Could you make a video about clodius? How did he recover after such a scandal ?
Most recent episode features Clodius very prominently and discusses the scandal in greater detail:
ruclips.net/video/ecrFLYpy4xI/видео.html
well how fortunate then
@@tribunateSPQR this episode is also memorably depicted in the cicero series by robert harris. Have you read it ? What do you think ?
@@melissahalle8398 I haven’t, but it’s on the list! I have read Stephen Saylor’s historical fiction though and know I need to read more
The Key to understand Roman politics: It wasnt divide by ideology but by family factions.
But if a single man become to powerful/popular they ALL gang on him to destroy him.
Yes, they opose Tiberius to mantain their privileges but also because if he suceed he will become to powerful as the patron of all the common people.
People really need to breakdown the patronage system because arguably this was Always more important in rome than the Republic or Empire politics
19:59 I think that statue on screen is the OTHER Tiberius (I've had that picture come up when I tried searching for an ancient statue of the grachi, since the one that is present for most of this video is a 19th century statue.... the only ancient statue of a tiberius i could find was the emperor sadly. i think this is a close up of that statue of tiberius sitting down with a sword on his lap and a scroll in his hand, i got a bunch of photos of that when google image searching for an old statue of T.grachus)
do a video about his brother
That’s on the agenda- there will be a whole series on them eventually
The limitations and failures of a reformer like Gracchus is why one looking for change should be praising the methods of Spartacus instead.
I am slowly building towards a big series on Spartacus that will make pretty much this same point
@@tribunateSPQR yesssss
Paternalism, shear paternalism combined with a kind of nationalism that was his MO. Fairly standard among reformers.
Super fuckin interesting. You guys are among the all-time best ancient history channels.
On the off chance you guys see this: spinning off the topic of people incorrectly prescribing a "left-wing" radicalism to Tiberius Gracchus, do you think anyone actually existed who they *should* be looking at? Who from the historical record, if anyone, would be the best fit for that "early leftist" image?
10/10 video btw
Thank you!
Unfortunately the dimensions of ancient political thought were so ill-developed that concepts which are integral to a leftist approach like class-consciousness, solidarity and a recognition of universal human value were almost entirely absent. We get inklings of some of these ideas but rarely can we see a consistent application. Because of how little we have to choose from, my ancient leftist hero will always be Spartacus - his war was unfortunately not one of universal abolition but merely for making the slaveholders quake he deserves our respect.
@@tribunateSPQR I appreciate the response! That makes a lot of sense 👍
Have you read Machiavellian Democracy by McCormick?
It does sometimes seem like the senate's primary function, over the long term, was to take actions to reduce the senate's authority and prestige. I wouldn't rule out the idea that the Gracchi were overstating the extent of the problem to increase their personal power, though. We can't take Cicero, Cato, or Caesar at face value, so we shouldn't necessarily take the Gracchi at face value either.
16:40 Tiberius Gracchus, the OG "a state of the people, by the people and for the people" 2000 years before Lincoln, crazy
and it seems like he even meant it, unlike Lincoln who mainly wanted to expand Washington D.Cs power, hehe
Tiberius exemplifies the virtue of the republic vs what came later
There wasn't that much of difference between the Republic and the Empire.
The Empire still had all the Republic's offices fully functional.
All the elections and democratic processes going on.
The only difference was that the Princeps Senatus, the Pontifex Maximus and some other minor but still at the top offices was held by a single person and personified by the "Imperator" turned from an honorific title to an effective juridical, military, religious and economic office.
Kinda the same like the President of the United States in the sense that the Roman emperors had similar if not the same exact roles. Plus of course the rank of "pope" (Pontifex Maximus) of the nation and national religion, and of course add to it also the role of the Vice President that can supervision and preside the Senate (but not the Lower House). And in the Congress, the Senate is the decisional house, in the sense it can decide if a law can be enforced or not.
The Lower House, by being made by average citizens, have no mean or necessity to be overlooked.
It just makes the laws, but can't say they are valid.
Roman Senate had more power because it had both powers, so the Emperor had too power over it as "President of the Senate". The literal translation of "Princeps Senatus".
But as per elections to make new senators, new tribunes populares, new aedilis, new praetors etc... They was all public. Even if some Emperor advised or supported ome of the candidates. But that's exactly what happens in America.
You can vote the available candidates for whatever public office, but if there's one that is supported by the President, people would say: "oh! So he's a good guy right? Let's vote for him".
Virtue varied for the Republic. Roman politics was always cutthroat and competitive but during the middle and earlier parts of the Republic, it was stable. There was no political murder and violence.
The Late Republic you saw all the ills arise. The Republic had grown substantially in terms of territory, power, and riches. It became filthy rich and political murder and violence began. Romans serve their time in the army and return home to find that their farms are gone and bought out. They roam the countryside with their wives and children, homeless. But hey, the wealthy elite reap the benefits of imperialism! It just requires some commoners in the army to die. Come back home alive? F you, too, you no longer mattered!
You had a foreign king wage war against Rome but arrogantly proclaimed how much he was bribing Roman politicians to hurt Rome's efforts against him.
Late Republic was where you saw blood flow under Sulla.
Etc.
The virtue of the Late Republic is a joke.
The death of the gracchi started a chain reaction that ended the republic
I find that radicalism is a relative term. For some is being a 'radical' not radical because for them, it should be the norm instead of the rapid change. For others, some can be called 'radical' because they themselves are 'radical' in the opposite spectrum or vice versa. So the radicalism you describe in the video is relative, but I still wonder when someone is radical in the Roman Republic or simply shifting what was normal.
For example: The murder of the Gracchi brothers was political violence on a level not often seen in the republic (so I was told) but later Clodius and Milo were apparently killing each other in the streets of Rome with bodyguards and gangs and it seems to have been normal. Is it then the norm of violence, or does what was radical shift towards being normal?
(perhaps a bit confusing)
Anyway’s it seems you seem to believe Tiberius was acting not as a radical but as a moderate reformer I am inclined to believe it is a relative term, so when do you change from a moderate reformer to a radical populist? What are the boundaries according to research you did? You say that Tiberius formed something like that the tribunes served the people is a radical idea.
Is it radical to implement what you call 'the necessity of reform'? When are you really a radical? I never quite understood that, even in current day politics.
A question I had before but not really had answered (or at least for me) is, what were the powers of the senate or was it technically merely a symbolic advisory body? Since every legislation had to be passed by the assemblies to become law, but they could bypass the senate?
It seems the senate could appoint dictators or give the consuls the power to do what was needed to protect the republic.
I don't understand your point on Tiberius about innovating in the field of human rights. How could Tiberius embrace human rights, for example recognizing the popular sovereignty earlier and pushing that point or radicalizing (if you can even call it that?) even further (as you point out?) have aided him in his goals and saved his life?
Question: Did Roman see slaves as beneath non-roman citizens, or were they merely a tool for the Romans to do their work for them?
Was there inherit racism and discrimination in the Roman Empire? How far did it go?
The term "radical" is used traditionally to refer to someone who believes that a society is fundamentally flawed at an institutional level. As such, fixing said society's problems requires systemic changes in all of its organization.
I believe that's sort of the issue with Tiberius. Agrarian reform is sort of synonymous with radicalism in rural oligarchycal societies, as its aim is to fundamentally change the economic model in rigor. But Tiberius clearly doesn't intend that, as his reform is actually quite limited, and he himself doesn't express this wish.
etymologically speaking the word radical comes from the latin word "root" historicaly speaking a radical movements are associated with those who wanted the tackled the systemic/roots of the problems of society, using violence is not a pre-requisite to that but was and is a political tactic used, especially because the established institutions will often go a long way to defend itself pre-emtply by the use of institutional violence (police, army, security aparatus, etc) and, diferently from what conspiracy theorists, and often antissemites will say, those who command and benefit from these institutions are not hidden, they are the landowners, industrialists, speculators who if not directly in the goverment, are directly or indirectly lobbyng it to keep in place.
Can it be both? Realize ambition trough positive action
Like today, it is no use to accommodate the greedy. In order to fight for justice for the common people one must be uncompromising and tough because the powerful leave us no other way.
This doesnt mean breaking laws, because IT IS never Just the one Side using These methods , in the Republic you use how Mob violence and rule breaking was used to the benefit of selfish people, the tribunes were more Tools than anything
Algorithm, please!
crazy that the ancient romans heard of star trek... makes you wonder what else they were into... maybe the orville?
I have a couple of questions for you if that's ok?
You should probably just ask them, not trying to be rude but no RUclipsr is going to engage in vague questions. It's best to lay out what you're trying to say so that the RUclipsr can identify if it's something worthwhile to engage.
Sure - if you have discord you can ask away in the link I've shared there for members. If the questions are more Rome focused or about this video there's no need to ask permission just go ahead!
Archaeological evidence actually contradicts Tiberius' claim that small farms were disappearing during his time, which together with the moderation of his reforms kind of undercuts the necessity and sincerity of them, and suggests that, like other populares after him, he was an opportunist looking to create a new power base for himself outside the traditional avenues of the aristocracy. Nathan Rosenstein's "Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic" summarizes this evidence nicely.
Doesn’t change the state of the poor of Rome at the time. Saying the problem “wasn’t as bad as this one snobby rich kid claims it is” misses the point, like it does today with Trump. Maybe the swamp isn’t as bad as people say it is, it doesn’t change the fact that there is mass sentiment of a corrupt senate and the winds of revolution are beginning to blow.
Tell that to Gaius Marius and the reason why the Marian Reforms were pinned on him.
The state, economy, society, and military are all intertwined in ways so strong that one screw up can affect all. Just by studying the military recruitment methods at the time of Scipio Africanus until Lucius Cornelius Sulla's last eastern campaign could tell you something about the Socio-economic situation of Rome.
Tiberius Gracchus sounds like Trump. I'm not the first to see the similarity, though, but this video puts him in a new light...
No one in ancient Rome sounds like Kamala,.
That's impossible~
@@matthewmatt5285 Indeed. Kamala Harris' career of failing her way upwards is only possible in the post-M*dern era.
I'm more of a Gaius Gracchus guy but to each their own
Graccus is one of those people that are difficult to parse because every historian and all his literate contemporaries hated him
You should have compared them to Kennedys, THAT is spooky 👻
So, he was an American Liberal?
It’s not a 1:1 comparison, nor will it ever be
He was literally Clinton 😂
@@truthhertz10 nobody said Clinton wanted to be a king or dictator. A bunch of people today are freaking out, saying Trump wants to be dictator, when a lot of his proposed policies are not radical in any way, shape, or form.
@@JumpingSauceYou not heard of Waco and the Oklahoma city bombing?
Also trump literally tried to stop a democratic election... 🤦♂️
No, he was a mild Roman populist; trying to make a parallel across millennia to a vague modern political ideology is foolish.
fundamentally reformist and radical arent coexclusive? You can be a reformist that calls for radical change.
"his land reform law survived his death" .... that statement is slightly misleading given it only lasted about a year or two before the senate totally destroyed it and lived on as a 'ghost' for that period not really being enacted
I recall reading that though it was only active for several years, the land commission distributed a great deal of land in southern italy. IDK if work stopped because the task was mostly complete or if the optimate opposition managed to halt the work though.
If the census statistics in Livy can be believed. there was some success as the number of assidui increased.
Why did the people elect pro-elite tribunes like Octavian to begin with?
”Republican norms” ”he was the first to realise the positions power”, Well thats opposite norm, guess you can say he was radical then.
You used the wrong Tiberius in the thumbnail.
So basically, he was cleverest of the Daleks, but still a Dalek?
The bust in the thumbnail is Emperor Tiberius…not Tiberius Gracchus
Sounds like the guy who does Tasting History 😂
This sounds like tasting history but slower. This some ai bull shit?
proto-communism?
reforming is the same action as radicalizing
It is unhelpful to critique ancient figures on the basis of modern moral standards.
While I agree partially, I would say it's still alright to do so. If anything, we should avoid trying to claim long dead men and women for one political party that won't be around forever.
@@TheManeymon there are universal standards of justice that you can and should judge historical figures by. Judging an ancient figure by his conformity with the values of liberal democracy and faulting him for not being an anti-imperialist or abolitionist is fruitless.
@@argenteus4745 - we should judge people based on what we think the universal standards are. However, I'd wager most people consider whatever their moral standards are to be "the universal standards." Presumably you mean "objective standard" when you say universal, because it's obvious that there is no standard that 90% of people today, let alone all humans, actually agree on universally.
@@WorthlessWinner universal in the sense that they transcend time and are not historically contingent. Most prominently the virtues outlined in works such as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.
It’s pointless to study history (or ancient figures for that matter) unless you apply some form of modern standard to the study. Antiquarianism is a form of conservative ancestor worship, for the mere decision about who merits study and who does not is a form of political judgement. In the case of antiquarian ancient history it’s usually associated with the adoption of a politics of oligarchy, hierarchical society, and aristocratic rule.
The Republic didnt had police or army inside the city, so he couldve use the masses to start a revolution and take power.
But sadly good men often underestimated how far a elite will go to mantain power.
Just cause there’s no troops in the city of Rome to put down the revolt does not mean troops can’t be moved into the city. I don’t know how much you know about Ancient Rome. But this conflict continues and explodes into civil war between Marius and Sulla. Sulla wins moves troops into the city for a short period of time and then has the entire opposition killed. Basically ending the populist movement until Julius Caesar and we all know how that famously ends. Which then resulted in Octavian siezing power in the chaos after Julius Caesar’s death by making promises to everyone. Then once he had his army he betrayed everyone and did his own thing. He killed almost the entire patrician class siezed their wealth and put it in his own bank account. Took the name Augustus Caesar and then created the urban cohort a para military police force he used to dissamantle the political gangs this fundamentally ended the optimate as a functional faction. However said urban cohort was loyal to Augustus Caesar and existed to keep him in power and support the new Imperial order not to create a populari republic. Granted Augustus’s empire did a lot to help the poor including land reforms, creating welfare system to provide good and wine to the power, and vast infrastructure programs raised the over standard of living. However this was done because it secured Augustus hold on power and only made him more wealthy since people with an income who are well fed pay taxes. And not to mention after Augustus the Empire becomes increasingly more and more despotic till you get to the very end.
How long would that last though? Once the army and the other cities learn about this revolution, chances are they’d send armies to crush it and restore “order”.
@@theempiredidnothingwrong3227 Remember something important: Sulla moving troops into Rome was posible because the Marian reforms make the army more loyal to the general than to the state. (And even then all the oficials of his 6 legions refuse to march on Rome)
So at this point if the Grachii take power the legions will likely do the same as they did when Optimates kill them: Nothing because at this point in roman history legions dont take part on politics.
@@avalle4493 You gotta keep up with scholarships changes, the Marian reforms weren’t actually the Marian reforms and were accredited to him by Sallust well cause Sallust was a Marian and wanted to make his patron look good. In truth all of his “reforms” were actually trends that started since the third Punic war. You had numerous legions who were basically full time because they were active in operation accross the Iberian peninsula, North Africa, and Greece. Most soldiers only joined for pay post Punic wars three and the loyalty to the general over the state actually goes back to the founding of the Roman military since Servius organized the first army. The real problem was it used to be they disbanded after a campaign and the immediate threat to the Roman state was destroyed. However after the third Punic war this started to change and Generals maintained their legions for occupation operations. Gracchi’s reforms were aimed to solve this problem by gauranteeing retirement for troops to get them to stop being active. That all said there were numerous active legions at the time of Grachii who trusted their direct General, Preator or Proconsul, then they did the senate or the assembly and the people of Rome and if ordered to march on Rome, they would with out hesistation if there pay is on the line. Increased militarism is what killed the Republic.
Gracchus mom: why can’t you be like your other influential family members?
Gracchus: okay *dies*
Gracchus the younger: okay *dies*
Nixon just visited Beijing. He didn't sell out Taiwan. It was Jimmy Carter who withdrew US recognition from Taiwan in 1979.
Trump is the new Tiberius...make the middle. Class geat again! 🎉
Trump
You lost me at comparing the redistribution of PUBLIC LAND by Tiberius with redistribution the PRIVATE stock exchange of New York.
Tiberius only wanted to fairly share Roman public land acquired by Roman citizen legions to the very people who acquired them instead of the nobles who were shit and usually fled every battle as they fought as equities (shit horsemen)
I'm certain that was a metaphor used to liken the two in degree of extremity rather than a direct comparison.
”Republican norms” ”he was the first to realise the positions power”, Well thats opposite norm, guess you can say he was radical then.
That's not sufficient to be deemed radical