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.
Tiberius Sempronius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus were born into one of Rome’s most politically connected families of their generation. This in turn, benefitted both of their short controversial political careers. Tiberius Gracchus, the eldest of the two, was described by Florus as “a man who easily stood out from others in birth, appearance and eloquence...” (n.d., p. 221) and Velleius identified Tiberius as being the epitome of perfection (p. 55). These sources, created nearly 100 years after the death of Tiberius Gracchi, describe Tiberius to be the ‘perfect’ human-being which could demonstrate a bias accou...
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...
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. Sulla was an odd mixture of cynicism and superstition, public sobriety and private indulgence. His reforms achieved very little besides adding to the sum of human misery. He brought an unprecedented ruthlessness to Roman life; and, though it may be conceded that his political intentions were good, his contemptible methods , notably marching his own Roman army upon the capital, contributed more than those of any other man to the debasement of the Republican constitution, he avowedly restored.
Bravery, strength, and leadership are just a few of the characteristics possessed by Theseus of Greece and Romulus of Rome. Plutarch, a Greek historian, explains lives each of these men. These men were different from any of the other men during Ancient Greece and Rome; according to Plutarch, they were descendants of the divine, which ultimately destined them for greatness. Throughout their lives, they would achieve power through various events and establish the societies and politics of two the greatest cities in history. The paths that each took and the events that occurred in their lives molded them into the heroes while also contributing to the legacy they would leave behind.
In the light of Germanicus’ death, Caligula’s family had drifted out of the heart of Tiberius, who then saw the brothers, sisters, and mother of Caligula to be rivals. He accused all of such of treason. To which they all were either exiled, or imprisoned. Thus was the death of the family – all except “little boots”, himself.
Tiberius is remembered as a tightfisted and paranoid emperor. Tacitus goes against this view of Tiberius by giving examples of extreme generosity. However Tacitus doesn 't present Tiberius as a perfect emperor and his portrayal of Tiberius isn 't just propaganda. When it comes to military affairs Tacitus paints a very unflattering picture of Tiberius turning his back on the frontier while Romans are killed. Tacitus stated that his accounts on the Julio Claudian emperors was made without prejudice and the fact that he highlights both positive and negative aspects of Tiberius ' rule indicates that he was probably telling the truth.
Boatwright’s work, The Romans: From Village to Empire, Boatwright states that Claudius’ “own niece Agrippina the Younger then schemed successfully to marry him in 49. Within a year she had greater public visibility than any other woman, and received the honorific title Augusta. By 53, she had secured the succession of her own son, Nero, who married Claudius’ thirteen-year old daughter Octavia and superseded the slightly younger Britannicus.”[8] This passage shows that Agrippina was willing to sacrifice what she must and was so very devoted and dedicated to the cause while doing so. Agrippina made a plan and stuck to it, no matter what, and her ability to follow through with her plans ultimately enabled her son Nero to get that much closer to becoming Roman Emperor. After marrying Claudius, Agrippina made her move to remove Claudius from the position of Roman Emperor for good, leaving Nero to be crowned as Roman Emperor instead. Agrippina went to visit a woman who was widely known for her skills to disguise poison extremely well and effectively end the lives of whomever consumed her poisonous products. L. Cilliers and F. P. Retief’s work, Poisons, Poisoning and the Drug Trade in Ancient Rome, states that Agrippina went to Locusta “the most infamous of these poisoners . . . and (was) subsequently approached by Agrippina, second wife
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
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.
4)Rosenstein, Nathan Stewart., and Robert Morstein-Marx. A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. Print.
With the problems starting with the dissolution of the first triumvirate and the actions of Julius Caesar, it seemed almost inevitable that the Republic would become an Empire. With the death of the true republican, Cicero, and many not remembering what the republic was like, giving power to the capable and honorable man seemed as if the best answer. Furthermore, if the Rome continue to remain a Republic the Senate could not have maintained the success or power that the Empire held. The ambition of one man made it easy to continue the growth whereas, many of the policies and disputes the country faced had face might have taken to long or complicated had the republic
Octavian enabled the long, nonviolent time of the Pax Romana, (Latin for Roman peace) by changing Rome from a frail, collapsing republican government to a powerful empire. He is known as the first, and one of the greatest, Roman Emperors ever. Octavian was born on September 23, 63 BC, and died in 14 AD. Born with the name Gaius Octavius Thurinus, he was adopted posthumously by his great-uncle Gaius Julius Caesar via his will, and then was named Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. This happened in 44 BC when his great uncle, Julius Caesar, was assassinated by a group of conspirators. Additionally, he received the name “Augustus” a term meaning “the revered one” from the Roman Senate in 27 BC. Because of the various names he had, it is common to call him Octavius while referring to the events that between 63 and 44 BC, Octavian when referring to events between 44 and 27 BC, and Augustus when referring to events after 27 BC. Octavian is arguably the single most important figure in Roman history. Ever since he was a young boy, he was destined to become the next great leader. For example, Octavian along with his friend Marcus Agrippa went to visit the Sibyl of Cumae (oracle). When the Sibyl saw him, she bowed at his feet and said that he would be the next great leader. He did not believe her at the time, but just a few years later Julius Caesar would be dead and he would have power. Over the course of his long and spectacular career as “Principate,” he put an end to the collapse of the Republic, and established a system that would stand in the Roman government for three centuries.
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.
Shelton, J.A. (1998). As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History. (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
Heichelheim, Fritz, Cedric A. Yeo, and Allen M. Ward. A History Of The Roman People. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1984.