Were they dysgenic libtard spiteful mutants?

>>17889223 (OP)
No, they were true Romans calling out decadence and bearing witness through their deaths to what was to come.

>>17889223 (OP)
Why should native Italians have their jobs and homes taken away because the greedy elite wanted to import countless oriental slaves to cultivate olive groves and vineyards?

They just wanted to place a limit on land holdings. I don't see anything wrong with that

A good read is Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline by Montesquieu, which touches upon the subject of the Gracchi

>>17889223 (OP)
Lol. They wanted the rich slave owners to move out of public land they squatted on and give it to increasingly poorer lower/middle class. Tiberius was quite a gentleman too.

>>17889223 (OP)
No. They understood that the heart of The Republic was the family owned farm, and the self employed tradesman in The City. They understood that the monied men were crushing the life out of the Roman people and system just to increase quarterly profits. Gracchus the Elder spoke out against this with charm, eloquence, and wit that are still legendary today. Gracchus the Younger spoke out against it with force, rage, and drive that modern politicians can't even imagine.

Both men earned the ultimate honour and gave their lives for their principles.
>tl;dr - Optimes = globohomo, Brothers Gracchi = based AF.

>>17889234
Poltards are so fucking pathetic projecting their modern politics on ancient history

>>17889455
Modern politics is a rerun of ancient politics except with electricity and planes, trains, and automobiles.

>>17889223 (OP)
THEY FOUGHT FOR THE PEOPLE, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. IN THIS HOUSEHOLD, THE GRACCHI BROTHERS ARE HEROES

>>17889234
>*lasts a thousand years*
Based. Kill all wignats right now to ensure prosperity.

>>17889307
Montesquieu? bleeh...vomit

>>17889234
This has literally nothing to do with what the Gracchi wanted to legislate against.
>>17889307
>They just wanted to place a limit on land holdings
They wanted to crack down on illegal landholdings by Roman allies of public land. If you were a Roman this wasn't really a problem because the land would be granted to them instead of a public lease like with allies. Which is why it wasn't opposed to a massive degree by Roman voters. What was opposed was their attitudes and the fact they broke political taboo's.

>>17889455
>pathetic projecting their modern politics on ancient history
I came here to say this
Modern political observers have no concept of how different politics was done in the Empire/Republic
There were no political parties
Policy positions were discarded based upon loose coalitions formed around individuals
Success in politics/warfare/business was done for the glory of the individual/family first and everything else was secondary
This post checks all of the misunderstanding boxes
>>17889431
>They understood that the heart of The Republic was the family owned farm
All Roman politicians said this
>and the self employed tradesman in The City
All Roman politicians said this
>They understood that the monied men were crushing the life out of the Roman people
Oh cool antisemitism, also all Roman politicians of that era were concerned with the masses of urban poor flooding into Rome from the countryside

>>17890986
What were they doing with all that land?

>>17890986
>If you were a Roman this wasn't really a problem because the land would be granted to them instead of a public lease like with allies.
It was because huge parts of those lands were latifudiums already cultivated by rich Romans. They would obviously lose at least some of it.
>What was opposed was their attitudes and the fact they broke political taboo's.
Both this and land redistribution undermines authority and power of the richest.

>>17891087
Mostly holding tenants on public land. It was a way of tax evasion, as the tenant didn't have to pay taxes on owning land and the landlord didn't have to pay taxes on slaves.
>>17891239
>It was because huge parts of those lands were latifudiums already cultivated by rich Romans
Which had absolutely nothing to do with their reforms. Their problem was with the allies using huge amounts of public land illegally. These did not affect Romans, and they could not affect Romans because Romans did not lease public land. Even in their speeches they make it clear that it is about the well-being of Roman allies that they are concerned about.
>They would obviously lose at least some of it.
They would have lost nothing because they owned the land. The reforms only targeted public land.
>Both this and land redistribution undermines authority and power of the richest.
Breaking political taboo's didn't undermine their authority or power, it undermined political stability and the ability for officials to do their work. The only people participating in Roman politics were the rich and powerful, because they were the only people who could participate in Roman politics.

>>17889223 (OP)
We don't know enough about Roman economic history to know whether or not they were saliently addressing a crisis or if it was just populist shenanigans to grab some more power for themselves. Some recent archaeological evidence has shown that land distribution may not have been an issue and that much of the points argued by the Gracchi were either misguided or outright lies. There really is only so much archaeology and written accounts can tell us though, there are plenty of lurking variables in this equation.

>>17889223 (OP)
they were literal grandchildren of Scipio africanus and even their paternal line had been consular since the third century BC.

>>17892542
>or if it was just populist shenanigans to grab some more power for themselves.
As far as I can tell from my readings a lot of arguments around it is about winning fame and glory when winning it militarily was drying up so the Gracchi set out to win it in a civil capacity
>Some recent archaeological evidence has shown that land distribution may not have been an issue and that much of the points argued by the Gracchi were either misguided or outright lies
Even textually there is an issue in that they only actually ever visited Etruria and there isn't any evidence in writing that these kind of illegal estates existed outside of the region.

>>17892348
>They would have lost nothing because they owned the land. The reforms only targeted public land.
Do you suggest there weren't situation when senators owning a land in Italy would cultivate unused public land adjacent to their properties? Especially when there was an influx of cheap slaves you didn't have any more work for on your own.

>>17891003
>Wealthy Romans buy slaves and use their forced labour to drive prices of agricultural products well below the point where the family owned farm can compete, leading to large numbers of Roman famers going bankrupt, and having to sell their farms to the slave owning wealthy Romans in order to relocate to the City in hope of finding some kind of work
>This creates an accelerating and self-reinforcing cycle of poverty, bankruptcy, wealth consolidation, political radicalism/violence, a hopeless and starving underclass in Rome, all leading social collapse
>Two Roman politicians, brothers, try to fight this system because they can see the damage it is doing to their society - which gets them both assassinated
>This is what ultimately the process that killed the Republic
>And that's a bad thing
>"WhY dO yOu HaTe JeEeEeWs!!!?!?!?!!" t. you
Who the fuck was talking about Jews? Who hurt you?

>>17892635
Who are you quoting?

>>17892609
>Do you suggest there weren't situation when senators owning a land in Italy would cultivate unused public land adjacent to their properties?
It could be, but it clearly wasn't considered an issue or really even seen as a contentious issue by the Roman elite considering opposition to the Gracchi was based off of their political actions and not actually their policy so it couldn't have been all that of a big deal to them. Not to mention this is basically impossible to prove and just supposes they did so without any evidence they did.
>Especially when there was an influx of cheap slaves
This is probably the one period of the Roman Republic where an influx of slaves was at its lowest considering the only major wars were in Iberia which were notoriously hard fought.

>>17892639
>GrEeNtExT iS fOr QuOtEs
When will summer end?

>>17892726
When you stop replying to ragebait.

>>17892591
Land redistribution and the cause of late republican Populares sounded perfect when I first heard it at a younger age. The longer you spend on the topic though it really does start to become a just-so story that feels tacked on to other political impulses.

>>17889223 (OP)
They were proven right in the long run>>17889233

>>17889455
>>17891003
Romans were humans just like us and subject to the same emotions, social relationships and thoughts on them. We see a similar trend to today, of people abandoning their old communities as they become wealthier and becoming more open to other groups. This in fact happened in ancient Rome.

>>17892646
>This is probably the one period of the Roman Republic where an influx of slaves was at its lowest considering the only major wars were in Iberia which were notoriously hard fought.
What I had in mind is that they would start cultivating it with the slave influx on the turn of the III and II century and by the time of the Gracchi there would be entire infrastructures built on top of the land.
My original point was that the senators would lose their land so I surrender. Yeah, it's a speculation but I think it's plausible and at the very least there was some monetary loss for them if the law passed, given the senatorial tendencies to bribes and corruption. Also note that Tiberius was politically savvy so he might not have mention the issue directly on purpose.
>>17892542
>>17892591
There were other rebellious tribunes after the Gracchi, which suggests there was an unsolved social problem, starting around late II century

>>17889234
2pbp

>>17889233
>>17889223 (OP)
>>17889307
>>17889420
>>17889431

Crush socialism, both ancient and modern.
You shall not redistribute wealth. Stealing is evil and the theft of property by the state shall be frustrated with brutal force.

>>17893957
>You vill kiss ze boot and be grateful for it!
You're the only Commie ITT.

>>17894097
Hierarchy is natural. There are winners and there are losers. The rich getting richer is eugenic, they are born to be leaders and job creators while the poors are lesser beings born to be servants. The inversion of this has lead to destructive socialism and communism and liberal that has killed millions and degenerated society. Your elites are the closest things to gods protecting you from the uncaring mob. You should worship the ground they walk on.