Talk:Gaius Gracchus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "noble descent" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: The following is marked dubious. I did not raise it.  The reason given is  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious (Feb 2020)