Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus | The Gracchi brothers explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were two brothers who changed the course of Roman history in the space of just ten years. While both of their lives were cut short by violence, their legacy had a profound impact on late Roman republican politics.
In this video, we will meet these two remarkable figures, examine the dramatic events of their lives, and see how they changed Rome forever.
To learn more: www.historyski...
Follow History Skills:
History Skills Website: www.historyski...
Facebook: / historyskills
Twitter: / historyskills
Instagram: / historyskills
TH-cam: / historyskills
Gaius Gracchus fled the Aventine Hill, crossed the Tiber River and committed suicide in a sacred grove. That grove is now the Villa Sciara, a public park. I suspect that few people enjoying that park realize it is the location of death of Gaius Gracchus.
From the title pic, their high cheekbones alone would have been enough to destroy Rome...
Great work. Concise and clear.
Glad it was helpful!
When history content focuses on Caesar it often gives the impression that Caesar always wanted to be Emperor, and even if they explain his direct motivations he often comes off as someone with good intentions going about things the wrong way. However, if you dial the history back 70 years you start to see where he’s coming from: everyone trying to reform the Senate had ended up dead. They would never give up their power, and in Caesar’s day they clearly manipulated all the rules of law to keep the people who were potential reformers well away from political power. Caesar just wanted to run for election and his entire hostile takeover was a result of the establishment pulling every dirty trick to keep him out.
Trump is America's Caesar
@@agayactornamedmichaeldougl6289Trump seems more of a Tiberius
Thus far anyway
Whoa, what about Julies Caesar walking around town in royal purple robes?
He had just minted coins with his image on them, something the old kings would do but never the Republic while the leader was still alive!
First among equals isn't very equal after all. I really like that dynamic of realizing that before the Great Man or before that Great War, the ground work was shifting and nothing happens in a vacuum. Though I am politically biased, every so often the non partisan fascination frees me from agenda to see it differently. I also like to flip the Bad Guy Good Guy roles and blend.
Then "facts" pop out and pair up in a different order highlighting a new pattern that may hop centuries; illuminating new connections. My recent favorite is that the same pattern that led to the American colonies breaking away also led to the American Civil War. The South became the colony of the North.
My friend said that "the Poor should eat the Rich" and I was horrified. Does that mean I would have leaned with the Optimates? Sometimes I suspect that the poor are easily manipulated and don't know what's in their best interest. Those who labor to dismantle the upper management should be careful of undermining our very foundation- whatever that means!
The fate of both brothers shows that a wealthy class will never give up his priviliges and never will share, unless it is threatened by brutal force. Laws and democratic procedures work only to a certain extent. Caesar did not repeat their mistake and openly relied on the army
The worlds 1st " bleeding heart libersls". Then, as now, a politician thT attempts to be fair with the little people are akways ostrasized and taken down by the power n money hungry few.
But the brothers were wealthy, influential and privileged as well. They wanted to fix things for the people and create change regardless.
@@beryllewis2180Hmm, I wonder if this could apply to a rich influential individual from today’s world, who was originally loved by everyone until he went against the mainstream, who got attacked relentlessly for policies that benefited the people, and who was proven right as time went on, and all the issues he brought up came to be true.
I really hope that’s where the similarities end.
@@alexman378 They were. But they were brutally killed by the aristocrats, who did not take into the account that brothers were wealthy and privileged. It is not an uncommon thing that rich and wealthy cast in their lot with popular cause - Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, Ernesto Che Gevara
I see.. It explains the limited resistance the first dictators like Sulla and Caesar received. The whole never another king fell away pretty easily
The Republic was formed in 509BC. The rise of dictators Marius,Sulla and Caesar didn't come along till four centuries later.
My point being,the Republic had served Rome well,but by the first century BC,Rome was too large to be ruled just by a senate.It needed a figurehead,and that's where it was heading.
The senate was made up of the aristocracy,and they simply didn't want to relinquish power.The reality is Rome needed to move to an imperial system i.e an oligarchy.Which it eventually did under the first emperor Augustus in 27BC.
@@richardscanlan3419 “…[B]y the first century BC,Rome was too large to be ruled just by a senate. It needed a figurehead….” I would say “Executive,” rather than “Figurehead.” Rome at this time had a legislative body (the Senate), and a rather weak judicial body (the magistrates, elected by the people), but lacked a Chief Executive, an entity powerful enough to resolve or suppress competition among the various Senate factions, and to enforce Roman rule across its budding Empire. Julius Caesar saw this vacancy and intended to fill it, trying to dodge the historical fear and hatred of a “king” or “tyrant” as long as he could. That fear and hatred eventually brought him down, but Octavian seated himself on the vacant throne and convinced the Romans to let him stay there-despite a number of assassination attempts during the almost eight decades of his rule as Augustus Caesar. As you have observed, an Empire requires an Emperor.
@@Carneades2012 you explained it so much more succinctly than me.
Great post.
@@Carneades2012 I would say Rome was doomed the moment they turned into an empire. There were only a handful of emperors who were up to the task and even worse there was no set way to determine succession. The third century crisis was a conga line of emperors being murdered by their guards. This meant civil war was quite common and killed off a lot of Roman citizens. An emperor's success was also defined by military conquest. Their expansionism meant that they needed ever larger armies to garrison newly conquered land. And they turned to mercenaries who were maltreated by the Romans and not integrated well enough.
I think changing to an empire bought Rome time but created a bunch of new problems that an empire was not ready to face, even with Diocletian at the empire's helm who was quite decent. If you suddenly swapped the empire and republic in the third century, the Republic was going to fare much better. It had a set way to swap executives, meaning many fewer civil wars were going to happen, hence many fewer Romans who identified with the empire were alive, hence conquered areas would be easier to garrison, tax and assimilate.
To truly save Rome in the long run, the Republic had to reform itself into a much more advanced form of government than either the empire or republic. By the time of Ceaser, the republic had degraded too much of its democracy and social fabric to be able to make any adaptations and the Gracchi brothers were a big part of its degradation.
The Roman Kennedys..
Rome Trump more likely
Kennedys? No. Way too soon to tell.
Good show
Glad you enjoyed it
mr herring hows it goin
Ahhh the good ole days when they beat you to death in the Senate when you crossed the powers that be. Great history lesson for the upcoming days of Caesar! 👍
8:35 Destiny streamer moment
I think they wanted to strengthen the Roman Republic by trying to improve it.
Same fate for Caesar for similar ideas
what the sigma
Mongol Tiberius
Musk and Bezos are optimates. The working class are populares.
Yeah No.
"And the Superficial Analysis Award goes to .. ."
Nothing superficial about this analysis. It's pretty clear cut.
Musk and bezos are elites.
Academics, journalists, think tanks, etc are optimates
Optimates > Populares
Right wing Left Wing. Still happening
greed>anger today - it is easier and cheaper to bring in foreigners - immigrants (slaves at that time) than to support the own population, which is getting poor and angry.
Violence is politics, just by other means. Imagine thinking you understand history not knowing this truth.
Violence is politics that have gone out of control and/or that can be solved through no other means. That is why it is condemned.
@@cherrycoyote55 Wrong politics implies violence or how else would edicts be enforced? Read Carl von Clausewitz and Starship Troopers. Violence is the ultimate authority through which all other authority is derived.