The Gracchi are praised as champions of the People, and yet they did literally nothing about slavery. 🤔

@@kevin6293 mald more

@@kevin6293 why would they have wanted to do anything about slavery? They were roman lol

@@elemperadordemexico bababooey

Arbens of Guatemala almost followed the Gracchi but he fled. He was enacting a similar law to the lex sempronia agraria, and the CIA couped him in '54.

It was the first genocide. Didn't they teach you that too?

Thank you for watching them!!!! :-)

My roommate and I find ourselves watching your videos every night after work. We really can't get enough of Roman politics, are you a history major by any chance?

@@nl6942 Techically no, I didn’t go to college. But I’ve been obsessed with history, and how everything fits together, for over 40 years :-). I’m glad you and your roommate are enjoying my series!! Thank you for watching it :-)

Seriously~,..Annoying and unprofessional~

He was also Tiberius' father-in-law! Mucius Scaevola was another supporter of Tiberius till the end!!

Thank you very much!! I’m still new, so it will take time :-)

It must have sucked being ruled by Rome after Pyrrhus and before the Social War. They controlled the entire peninsula and forced its "allies" to do all the shit work and then stole everything from them. Almost 200 years of being little more than an indentured servant who had zero political representation. Thats why I think Caesar was the ultimate karma. He just played their game better than the ruling elite and they were jealous that he ignored the red tape and dared to do openly what they'd discreetly been doing for decades. The Roman Senate deserved everything bad that happened to them. They only made changes after they couldnt squeeze more out of their subjects.

@@geordiejones5618 Only after said subjects threatened to squeeze it out of them.

So it looks like the Agrarian law was not a revolt of the slaves, but of the masters. I never saw it this way

What are they? Progressives?

@@corneliaaurelli1603 They were closer to Fascism than anything else

@@nunoalvarespereira87 How are they fascists?

@@corneliaaurelli1603 They were Roman Nationalists who cared for the Roman people. Their reforms were aimed SOLELY at Roman peasants, not even Italians. Plus they were racist (normal for the time) and militaristic. Best definition would probably be something like "Populist Nationalists".

@@nunoalvarespereira87 I'd say them caring more towards peasants makes them more like socialists. Didn't they also support Italians having Roman citizenship?

Duh!!! you new to earth

Or it shows us that people who try to discredit those who defeat them will call their enemies tactics and goals “evil”.This just shows that much of modern morality is often a tool to keep good law abiding NPCs in place. Keep watching this guys videos and you’ll hear about Sulla, Caesar, and Augustus. These men used so called evil tactics yet ultimately achieved many colossal things that positively effected their nation’s population immensely . 😁

@@sethgaston8347 Hello fascist. Fancy meeting you here.

They didn’t each found Socialism and Populism literally in their day, they are deemed the founders by history simply because they were the first, that we know of, who fought for the welfare of the people, but to also weaponized the people in a simultaneous consolidation of power for themselves.

@@SavingHistory ah that's fair though I did state the word if in there. otherwise I see no issue with your statement at all. though i suspect that they only did that once the senate succeeded in painting them in to a no win situation.

@@TheManofthecross I absolutely agree with you on that. Unfortunately, that’s how it always begins. Two sides fighting, and when one side can’t get what they want, they reinvent or bend the rules. Then the precedent is set, and everyone plays by the new bent rules, until, at a the next stalemate, someone else bends them further.

@@SavingHistory or breaks them out right. and has to resort to a massive cleaning of house and getting it back in order.

@@SavingHistory I'll never understand how the Senate failed to see that its gridlock was making its politics untenable. Were they so arrogant that they thought the Republic was just simply too strong to ever break? I imagine their propoganda was very strong and effective, but how is it that it took THREE military occupations of Rome to finally get the elite to say "okay maybe we have a problem..." And even after Caesar's death they acted as if that was it, there will never be any problems again.

I doubt that. The reforms gave Tiberius Gracchus and his fellow populares (through the clientele relationships) immeasurable power and some of their later laws were considered unlawful and were a direct cause of the fall of the republic. I do not understand how one can see modern concepts in those ancient times like liberalism. I think the author of this work has to read up on nobility and what modern historians consider to be the political goals of the optimates and populares. The Gracchii btw weren't the only populares but just the most famous ones. The political system was based on the consensus of the nobilitas and the Gracchii broke that consensus as well as the roman "constitution" of the time through their unlawful actions. I suggest reading up on Cicero for example to get a better gasp on the actual political situation. One must see him strictly in the camp of the optimates with a sympathy for the Gracchii though. I would tell everybody to rethink their modern perspectives on history and see the Gracchs as part of a powerstruggle inside the gentes of the nobilitas were hurt pride was a major and true factor in politics as well.

Nuh uh

....and thank you for the rant. I have not forgotten anything. There are 40+ videos so far in this series which deal with the mos Maiorum, the client/patron system, the Cursus honorum, those who went against the senate and paid with their lives, and the republic’s fear of kings. But hey, you got the whole thing figured out from the first video....good job!!!

this is not socialism as that would be state controlling means of production but then again this is not a time of free market either , this is simply about using state power to correct a over centralizing control of land ownership today that would be the same as anti monopoly laws to allow more active members in the market while keeping it as free as possible

The lands were being seized by a few rich landowners and doing it through fraud and deception. All of these jobs were being given to cheap labor (slaves) instead of free Romans. I would say that the Gracchi brothers were for the middle and working classes (small farmers and tradesmen). Tiberius Gracchus wanted the Romans to get those jobs. Socialism / Liberalism of today is not and never was for the people. Globalism is another term for Socialism where assets are in the hands of monopolistic elite. Today, our global elites want unfettered cheap labor from the illegal immigratio to seize and replace middle class jobs and dwindle people's wages. Analogous to what was happening to the lands in Italy back in 133 BC.

Sometimes it's better to me,.There's some badd narrators~

wtf🤨

They are literally considered the first socialist, In what possible way can the be considered the equivalents of trump. Ppl should look towards history to learn from the mistakes of others, instead ppl like you manipulate and pervert history to fit in your half baked ideologies

Did you watch the video?

While Trump may not have as many socialist policies, he's certainly a populist like they are.

@@zackosborn1731 lol trump wasn't the first populist. He wasn't even a particularly good one either. Big on rhetoric. Small on actual policy and change.