Why Scipio the Younger was accused of wishing to abolish Tiberius Gracchus laws?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












In the Wikipedia page of Gaius Gracchus you can find this paragraph, which I find particularly confusing:



When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.



If Tiberius fought for the citizenship of Italian allies, why would the people be mad at him for standing with such allies. Even if the Roman citizens didn't want the citizenship to be extended to the allies, to accuse Scipio of trying to abolish such laws is not coherent.



Thank you very much.






roman-republic







share|improve this question









New contributor




NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    In the Wikipedia page of Gaius Gracchus you can find this paragraph, which I find particularly confusing:



    When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.



    If Tiberius fought for the citizenship of Italian allies, why would the people be mad at him for standing with such allies. Even if the Roman citizens didn't want the citizenship to be extended to the allies, to accuse Scipio of trying to abolish such laws is not coherent.



    Thank you very much.






    roman-republic







    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      In the Wikipedia page of Gaius Gracchus you can find this paragraph, which I find particularly confusing:



      When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.



      If Tiberius fought for the citizenship of Italian allies, why would the people be mad at him for standing with such allies. Even if the Roman citizens didn't want the citizenship to be extended to the allies, to accuse Scipio of trying to abolish such laws is not coherent.



      Thank you very much.






      roman-republic







      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      In the Wikipedia page of Gaius Gracchus you can find this paragraph, which I find particularly confusing:



      When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.



      If Tiberius fought for the citizenship of Italian allies, why would the people be mad at him for standing with such allies. Even if the Roman citizens didn't want the citizenship to be extended to the allies, to accuse Scipio of trying to abolish such laws is not coherent.



      Thank you very much.






      roman-republic




      roman-republic






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago









      Mark C. Wallace♦

      22.5k869107




      22.5k869107






      New contributor




      NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 7 hours ago









      NeonGabu

      61




      61




      New contributor




      NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      NeonGabu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          I think that the sentence is simply too complex and contains too many clauses.




          When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies,




          (who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, )




          he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.




          A clearer way to say it might have been, "When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, he won the hostility of the people, who accused Scipio of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed. The Italian allies were protesting the injustices done to them which Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy."



          If we look at the source, (Appian 1.19), we find




          From this cause hatred and indignation arose among the people against Scipio because they saw a man, in whose favour they had often opposed the aristocracy and incurred their enmity, electing him consul twice contrary to law, now taking the side of the Italian allies against themselves. When Scipio's enemies observed this, they cried out that he was determined to abolish the law of Gracchus utterly and for that end was about to inaugurate armed strife and bloodshed. Appian




          The way I read this is that



          1. An injustice had been done to the allies

          2. Gracchus' land reforms should have redressed the injustice

          3. Gracchus' land reforms were ineffective

          4. The Italian allies wanted redress for injustice

          5. The people wanted to follow the law.

          6. Scipio's attempt to reform the land reform (and redress the injustice) was perceived as opposing the law.

          I'm not an expert in this era, so I welcome corrections from those who are more learned.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 2




            As an English teacher, I just want to scream when I see passages like this. I think you've nailed it (more or less), only I would add that Scipio apparently had serious reservations about Tiberius Gracchus' law so maybe he was dragging his feet a little.
            – Lars Bosteen
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            You are correct - there is more to the story. But I hope that untangling that sentence will remove the obstacle to identifying and understanding the other issues.
            – Mark C. Wallace♦
            3 hours ago










          Your Answer







          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "324"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          NeonGabu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48697%2fwhy-scipio-the-younger-was-accused-of-wishing-to-abolish-tiberius-gracchus-laws%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest

















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          3
          down vote













          I think that the sentence is simply too complex and contains too many clauses.




          When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies,




          (who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, )




          he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.




          A clearer way to say it might have been, "When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, he won the hostility of the people, who accused Scipio of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed. The Italian allies were protesting the injustices done to them which Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy."



          If we look at the source, (Appian 1.19), we find




          From this cause hatred and indignation arose among the people against Scipio because they saw a man, in whose favour they had often opposed the aristocracy and incurred their enmity, electing him consul twice contrary to law, now taking the side of the Italian allies against themselves. When Scipio's enemies observed this, they cried out that he was determined to abolish the law of Gracchus utterly and for that end was about to inaugurate armed strife and bloodshed. Appian




          The way I read this is that



          1. An injustice had been done to the allies

          2. Gracchus' land reforms should have redressed the injustice

          3. Gracchus' land reforms were ineffective

          4. The Italian allies wanted redress for injustice

          5. The people wanted to follow the law.

          6. Scipio's attempt to reform the land reform (and redress the injustice) was perceived as opposing the law.

          I'm not an expert in this era, so I welcome corrections from those who are more learned.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 2




            As an English teacher, I just want to scream when I see passages like this. I think you've nailed it (more or less), only I would add that Scipio apparently had serious reservations about Tiberius Gracchus' law so maybe he was dragging his feet a little.
            – Lars Bosteen
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            You are correct - there is more to the story. But I hope that untangling that sentence will remove the obstacle to identifying and understanding the other issues.
            – Mark C. Wallace♦
            3 hours ago














          up vote
          3
          down vote













          I think that the sentence is simply too complex and contains too many clauses.




          When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies,




          (who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, )




          he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.




          A clearer way to say it might have been, "When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, he won the hostility of the people, who accused Scipio of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed. The Italian allies were protesting the injustices done to them which Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy."



          If we look at the source, (Appian 1.19), we find




          From this cause hatred and indignation arose among the people against Scipio because they saw a man, in whose favour they had often opposed the aristocracy and incurred their enmity, electing him consul twice contrary to law, now taking the side of the Italian allies against themselves. When Scipio's enemies observed this, they cried out that he was determined to abolish the law of Gracchus utterly and for that end was about to inaugurate armed strife and bloodshed. Appian




          The way I read this is that



          1. An injustice had been done to the allies

          2. Gracchus' land reforms should have redressed the injustice

          3. Gracchus' land reforms were ineffective

          4. The Italian allies wanted redress for injustice

          5. The people wanted to follow the law.

          6. Scipio's attempt to reform the land reform (and redress the injustice) was perceived as opposing the law.

          I'm not an expert in this era, so I welcome corrections from those who are more learned.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 2




            As an English teacher, I just want to scream when I see passages like this. I think you've nailed it (more or less), only I would add that Scipio apparently had serious reservations about Tiberius Gracchus' law so maybe he was dragging his feet a little.
            – Lars Bosteen
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            You are correct - there is more to the story. But I hope that untangling that sentence will remove the obstacle to identifying and understanding the other issues.
            – Mark C. Wallace♦
            3 hours ago












          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          I think that the sentence is simply too complex and contains too many clauses.




          When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies,




          (who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, )




          he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.




          A clearer way to say it might have been, "When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, he won the hostility of the people, who accused Scipio of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed. The Italian allies were protesting the injustices done to them which Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy."



          If we look at the source, (Appian 1.19), we find




          From this cause hatred and indignation arose among the people against Scipio because they saw a man, in whose favour they had often opposed the aristocracy and incurred their enmity, electing him consul twice contrary to law, now taking the side of the Italian allies against themselves. When Scipio's enemies observed this, they cried out that he was determined to abolish the law of Gracchus utterly and for that end was about to inaugurate armed strife and bloodshed. Appian




          The way I read this is that



          1. An injustice had been done to the allies

          2. Gracchus' land reforms should have redressed the injustice

          3. Gracchus' land reforms were ineffective

          4. The Italian allies wanted redress for injustice

          5. The people wanted to follow the law.

          6. Scipio's attempt to reform the land reform (and redress the injustice) was perceived as opposing the law.

          I'm not an expert in this era, so I welcome corrections from those who are more learned.






          share|improve this answer












          I think that the sentence is simply too complex and contains too many clauses.




          When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies,




          (who were protesting the injustices done to them which Tiberius Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy, )




          he won the hostility of the people, who accused him of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed.




          A clearer way to say it might have been, "When Scipio the Younger agreed to represent the Italian allies, he won the hostility of the people, who accused Scipio of standing against Tiberius Gracchus and wishing to abolish the law and incite bloodshed. The Italian allies were protesting the injustices done to them which Gracchus' land reform was supposed to remedy."



          If we look at the source, (Appian 1.19), we find




          From this cause hatred and indignation arose among the people against Scipio because they saw a man, in whose favour they had often opposed the aristocracy and incurred their enmity, electing him consul twice contrary to law, now taking the side of the Italian allies against themselves. When Scipio's enemies observed this, they cried out that he was determined to abolish the law of Gracchus utterly and for that end was about to inaugurate armed strife and bloodshed. Appian




          The way I read this is that



          1. An injustice had been done to the allies

          2. Gracchus' land reforms should have redressed the injustice

          3. Gracchus' land reforms were ineffective

          4. The Italian allies wanted redress for injustice

          5. The people wanted to follow the law.

          6. Scipio's attempt to reform the land reform (and redress the injustice) was perceived as opposing the law.

          I'm not an expert in this era, so I welcome corrections from those who are more learned.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          Mark C. Wallace♦

          22.5k869107




          22.5k869107







          • 2




            As an English teacher, I just want to scream when I see passages like this. I think you've nailed it (more or less), only I would add that Scipio apparently had serious reservations about Tiberius Gracchus' law so maybe he was dragging his feet a little.
            – Lars Bosteen
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            You are correct - there is more to the story. But I hope that untangling that sentence will remove the obstacle to identifying and understanding the other issues.
            – Mark C. Wallace♦
            3 hours ago












          • 2




            As an English teacher, I just want to scream when I see passages like this. I think you've nailed it (more or less), only I would add that Scipio apparently had serious reservations about Tiberius Gracchus' law so maybe he was dragging his feet a little.
            – Lars Bosteen
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            You are correct - there is more to the story. But I hope that untangling that sentence will remove the obstacle to identifying and understanding the other issues.
            – Mark C. Wallace♦
            3 hours ago







          2




          2




          As an English teacher, I just want to scream when I see passages like this. I think you've nailed it (more or less), only I would add that Scipio apparently had serious reservations about Tiberius Gracchus' law so maybe he was dragging his feet a little.
          – Lars Bosteen
          3 hours ago




          As an English teacher, I just want to scream when I see passages like this. I think you've nailed it (more or less), only I would add that Scipio apparently had serious reservations about Tiberius Gracchus' law so maybe he was dragging his feet a little.
          – Lars Bosteen
          3 hours ago




          1




          1




          You are correct - there is more to the story. But I hope that untangling that sentence will remove the obstacle to identifying and understanding the other issues.
          – Mark C. Wallace♦
          3 hours ago




          You are correct - there is more to the story. But I hope that untangling that sentence will remove the obstacle to identifying and understanding the other issues.
          – Mark C. Wallace♦
          3 hours ago










          NeonGabu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          NeonGabu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          NeonGabu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











          NeonGabu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48697%2fwhy-scipio-the-younger-was-accused-of-wishing-to-abolish-tiberius-gracchus-laws%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest
































































          Comments

          Post a Comment

          Popular posts from this blog

          What does second last employer means? [closed]

          Image
          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
          Read more

          List of Gilmore Girls characters

          Image
          The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
          Read more

          Confectionery

          Image
          Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of ...
          Read more