Gracchi as demogogues or revolutionaries?

[Jauchart]

I've seen the Gracchi brothers described variously as true revolutionaries and also as demogogues just trying to salvage the interests of the slaveholding elite through minor, necessary reforms. Can anyone suggest a solid study of two that looks at this question?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Chapters two and three of The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla by A.H. Beesley would be a good place to start. It looks at both of the brothers individually and attempts to analyze their careers and their attempted reforms.

[Maty]

My book of choice for the topic is 'Daggers in the forum' by Kieth Richardson. It's getting a bit long in the tooth (1980, I think), but it's academically sound and easy to read.

[Ingsoc]

Check "The Gracchi" by David Stockton.

[Jauchart]

Thanks all!

[Virgil61]

Chapters two and three of The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla by A.H. Beesley would be a good place to start. It looks at both of the brothers individually and attempts to analyze their careers and their attempted reforms.

 

A quick google shows it's available free online at Gutenberg. Cool.

 

The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla

[sylla]

I've seen the Gracchi brothers described variously as true revolutionaries and also as demogogues just trying to salvage the interests of the slaveholding elite through minor, necessary reforms. Can anyone suggest a solid study of two that looks at this question?

Why not both? Virtually all social revolutionaries can be described as demagogues (admittedly, the converse statement is not always true) depending mostly on your side of the debate.

 

From the Gracchi brothers, it seems Caius was seen more as a demagogue than Tiberius, probably due to the legendary rhetoric skills of the former.

 

In general terms, Latin historians considered the Gracchi in a more negative way and the Greek more positively; as Plutarch and Appian are our main sources, modern analysis tend to favor them.

 

In any case, Plutarch's comparison of the Gracchi with Agis & Cleomenes seems to me to have been a fairly balanced assessment.

[cornelius_sulla]

H.H Scullards "From the Gracchi to Nero" is a good read. Demagogues? That all depends on who you read and what kind of mood they were in at the time of writing!

[sullafelix]

Just a pointer for any undergraduate looking at the Gracchi. They almost always provide the starting point for a course entitled something along the lines of The Last Century of the Republic or The Fall of The Republic etc etc. This is actually quite misleading. The Gracchi were the heirs of over 150 years of tribunician tradition. Land reform was well within the traditional sphere of influence of the Tribune. They were not even the first tribunes to be involved in violence as a means to acheiving their ends. Sometimes the best perspective from whic to view the Gracchi is one that takes in a brief history of the Tribunate from either the lex Licinia of 367 or land issues from the settlements of Flaminius.

 

SF

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I've seen the Gracchi brothers described variously as true revolutionaries and also as demogogues just trying to salvage the interests of the slaveholding elite through minor, necessary reforms. Can anyone suggest a solid study of two that looks at this question?

 

It may not be a solid study but "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti has an excellent chapter called "Demagogues and death squads" which covers the whole question of demagoguery, in particular the rise of the Gracchi, Catiline, Caesar and the leading men of the Republic who fell into the category of Populares.

[sylla]

Just a pointer for any undergraduate looking at the Gracchi. They almost always provide the starting point for a course entitled something along the lines of The Last Century of the Republic or The Fall of The Republic etc etc. This is actually quite misleading. The Gracchi were the heirs of over 150 years of tribunician tradition. Land reform was well within the traditional sphere of influence of the Tribune. They were not even the first tribunes to be involved in violence as a means to acheiving their ends. Sometimes the best perspective from whic to view the Gracchi is one that takes in a brief history of the Tribunate from either the lex Licinia of 367 or land issues from the settlements of Flaminius.

Offending post deleted

[consulscipio236]

In the ancient world, and in many respects up until recently, there has been great concern over the manipulation of the masses by demogagues. Polybius stated that classical constitutions were their strongest when they gave more power to the aristocracy (as did the Roman constitution during Polybius' life) and were in decline when they gave more power to the common people (as did the Carthagenian constitution shortly before Polybius wrote). Since there was a massive distrust of the common people, those texts skew against the Gracchi. Modern views tend to be much more pro-democracy, and so the Gracchi are more often viewed possitively. I don't think there is a single way to look at them. Some of the things they did were noble, but used tactics that went too far. Some of what they did did cause actual damage. One example would be Gaius Gracchus turning the knights against the senators, or setting the stage for the Social War. No other republican figures can be better changed to fit different views than the Gracchi.

[sylla]

In the ancient world, and in many respects up until recently, there has been great concern over the manipulation of the masses by demogagues. Polybius stated that classical constitutions were their strongest when they gave more power to the aristocracy (as did the Roman constitution during Polybius' life) and were in decline when they gave more power to the common people (as did the Carthagenian constitution shortly before Polybius wrote).

Offending post deleted

[Ingsoc]

Just a pointer for any undergraduate looking at the Gracchi. They almost always provide the starting point for a course entitled something along the lines of The Last Century of the Republic or The Fall of The Republic etc etc. This is actually quite misleading. The Gracchi were the heirs of over 150 years of tribunician tradition. Land reform was well within the traditional sphere of influence of the Tribune. They were not even the first tribunes to be involved in violence as a means to acheiving their ends. Sometimes the best perspective from whic to view the Gracchi is one that takes in a brief history of the Tribunate from either the lex Licinia of 367 or land issues from the settlements of Flaminius.

 

Most of the "trouble making" Tribunes operated in the early Republic, since the Plebs achieved equall rights and the formation of the Patrician-Plebic Nobilitas almost all Tribunes didn't steer the public opinion.

 

I think the Gracchi were conservative in their aims, after all their goal was to increase the Roman rural population so the tradition military system could be maintain however their methods, like ignoring the Senate opinion or run to election to two terms in row at the same office, were clearly out of the norm in the politics of their days.

[consulscipio236]

Most of the "trouble making" Tribunes operated in the early Republic, since the Plebs achieved equall rights and the formation of the Patrician-Plebic Nobilitas almost all Tribunes didn't steer the public opinion.

 

It depends on your definition of "trouble making". The earlier tribunes were radical in their ends, not their means. Take Licinius and his land law (the 'radical' Gracchi are most known for their attempts at passing a weakend version of this law) or the tribunes behind the overturning of the patrician/plebeian intermarriage bans. Even Hortinsius, most known for what he did as dictator, was (I believe) a plebeian tribune earlier in his career. The later tribunes were radical in their means, as opposed to their ends. The Gracchi are clearly the most obvious examples, but other examples include Clodius or even Mark Antony. It is not implausible that, had he been a plebeian, Julius Caesar would have run for the office, as it so naturaly fit his rabble rousing ideology. The point here is that the office was meant to be radical, and so the earlier tribunes operated within the spirit of the office. The later tribunes, if we are to be generous, were confronted with a political system too corrupt and insular to take up even mild reforms through the normal (non-violent) process.