Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Roman Demagogues 200BC-133BC

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 17th November 2006

  Hi all,
  
  Does anyone know of any Romans accused of being demagogues from the start of the second century BC to the time of Tiberius Gracchus' tribunate in 133BC? Livy's great for this stuff but I only have his books up to the end of the Hannibalic War (Book XXX) - would any of his later extant books be any help? Any pointer towards any other helpful texts would be very appreciated.
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF

  Link to this forum: Roman Demagogues 200BC-133BC

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 20th November 2006

  The tribunes did not start to act in an overtly populist manner until the mid second century, although the tribune of 232BC, Gauis Flaminius, di pass an agrarian law redistributing land around the Adriatic in the face of Senatorial opposition and was also known to sponsor great works of civil engineering as a means of providing employment. Polibius saw Flaminius' land law as a precursor to the legislation of the likes towrds the end of the second century BC that he felt degraded the Roman people However when they began to use their veto to protect against abuses of the military conscription. For example in 151, 149 and 138BC tribunes attempted to restrict the recruitment of soldiers for the armies. The ofice of tribune also introduced secret ballots for magisterial elections in 139BC after attempts to strengthen anti bribery measures had failed to have any effect on the levcel of corruption in political life during the second century BC.
  
  Polibius friend Scipio Aemilianus backed the populist motion extending secrecy to voting in trials in 137BC. Before this he had also been appointed to the consulship and command over the third Carthaginian War after the proposal was put forward by a tribune and passed by the people without recourse to the senate in spite of the fact that he was not legally qualified to hold the office. As Polibius wanted to hold him up as model of Roman benevolence and respect for the laws there wasn't much chance of him being labelled a demagogue even with his flouting of constitutional rules for holding the Consulship again when the same ploy was used to get him the command of the Numantian campaign in 135. One of Scipio's friends, Laelius, even attempted to pass an agrarian law himself although it was witdrawn in the face of senatorial opposition.
  
  If you are interested PA Brunt's Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic is both a nice primer as well as being mercifully short. It also has a useful further reading section.

  Link to this forum: Roman Demagogues 200BC-133BC

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 21st November 2006

  Thanks Lol,
  
  Great stuff as usual and much appreciated!
  
  I managed to pick up P.A. Brunt "Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic" over the weekend from the library. I haven't worked through it all yet but am really impressed with it so far. I really like this quote of his:
  
  "There was an inherent contradiction in the Gracchan objective of increasing the number of Rome's peasant soldiers, when it was soldiering that did much to destroy the peasantry."
  
  
  The agrarian law of Laelius is a real mystery, I might be wrong, but isn't it only mentioned in Plutarch? I'd love to more of what it proposed as its treatment seems to be a likely driving force for Tiberius Gracchuis bypassing the senate. Unfortunately without more knowledge and information all I can do is guess and make ungrounded assumptions.
  
  The period between the end of the 2nd Punic War and the end of the Social Wars is rapidly becoming my favourite era of Rome's history. It's not all war, war, war (as you get with the end of the Republic) or scandal, scandal, scandal(as you get with the Julio-Claudians), but is so much more intriguing and subtle. There may not be much source material for the period but what there is makes you realise how fragile and interrelated everything was. For example, you mention the tribunes of 138BC restricting the recruitment of the armies. If I remember rightly, they arrested the consuls - one of whom was Nasica. Knowing the pride and dignity expected of Romans, could this slight against him have caused a simmering hatred of the tribunate which boiled over when Tiberius decided to bypass the senate in 133BC?
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF

  Link to this forum: Roman Demagogues 200BC-133BC

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by adwCymru (U6568136) on Tuesday, 21st November 2006

  This is indeed a fascinating period. As Polybius said: who could be so apathetic as to not wish to know how the Romans conquered the world! If you think about it, the defetat of Carthage left Rome as one of those vigourous powers in ascendancy. It ends the war with battle hardened legions and powerful fleets. The next decades sees Flamininus defeat the Macedonians at Cynoscephalae in 197, Lucius Scipio defeat Antiochus III the Great of the Seleucids at Magnesia in 190, then the Macedonians once more at Pydna in 168 under Paulus, and of course culminating in two brutal destructions at Corinth (by Mummius) and Carthage (Scipio Aemilianus)in 146. All the while fighting(although not always successful of popular) raged in Spain.
  
  Interspersed with the conquest is the whole matter of increasing Greek cultural influence and the response of conservative and hellenisig parties. As a continual thread there is the matter of military service and the apparent decline in the necessery peasantry (apparently)because of it. [For this I would recommend Nathan Rosenstein's book: Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic].
  
  I could go on and on.
  
  Has anybody read De Ste. Croix's Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World? Its a clearly marxist interpretation but interesting nonetheless. Brunt's Social Conflict is indeed veyr useful. Michael Crawford's The Roman Republic is also quite good: perhaps a little idionsyncratic, but of quite some interest.

  Link to this forum: Roman Demagogues 200BC-133BC

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 23rd November 2006

  lol,
  
  I hope RF and Cymru are not offended that I break in in the thread...
  Read as always your interesting replies with great appreciation.
  
  So happy to see you back, my esteemed friend from the first hours. The recent turmoil was certainly in my humble opinion not British or English...
  
  Hope that, but only if you are interested, you would have an eye on my "human voice" thread on the History Hub. I just bumped it to the first page again. I would very much appreciate your comments.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Roman Demagogues 200BC-133BC

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 1st December 2006

  Hi adwCymru,
  
  I'll have a look for the "Rome at War" book you mentioned.
  
  In exchange for the recommendation, here's an extract from one of Gaius Gracchus' speeches. I think it shows without a doubt why he surely must have been one of the best orators of his generation - his candour in the first few lines is refeshing in the wake of our modern politicians!
  
  "If, men of Rome, you are prepared to use your intelligence and common-sense, you will realise that there is not one of us politicians who comes here without having his price. All of us who address you are looking for something, no one comes before you on any matter except to take something away with him. As for myself, who advocate that you should increase your revenues in order that you may the more easily meet your own needs and those of our country, I am not here for nothing. But what I seek from you is not money but your good esteem, and honour. Those who come here to persuade you to reject this bill are not after honour from you, but money from Nicomedes. And those who seek to persuade you to accept this bill are not after your good esteem, but a rich reward from Mithridates to put in their pockets. As for those from our same place and our same order who hold their peace, they are the most cunning of all: they take their price from everyone, and cheat everyone. You suppose that they are far above such things, you give them your confidence as being high-minded men. But the agents of King Nicomedes and King Mithridates think that it is in their rulers' interests that they maintain silence, and so they shower them with gifts and money. There is a story that once upon a time in Greece a dramatist was preening himself on being paid a whole talent for one play he had written; but Demades, the finest public speaker in the land, replied: 'So you think it is wonderful that your words have earned you a talent? Let me tell you that I have been paid ten talents by a king just to keep my mouth shut.' It is just the same now: these gentlemen are being very highly paid for their silence."
  
  SOURCE : The Gracchi (D Stockton 1979)
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF
  
  p.s. Sorry for the lack of paragraphs in the speech but I copied it as it appeared in the book.

  Link to this forum: Roman Demagogues 200BC-133BC

  Report message6

Back to top