Talk:Tiberius Gracchus

Gracchan cippi
Are you aware of any images on Wikimedia Commons depicting the Gracchan cippi? I took a look for myself but couldn't find anything. Maybe I'm putting in the wrong search keywords? Ifly6 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There aren't any, for sure Avilich (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any picture. T8612  (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit changes
I just wanted to tell you that I changed instances of iugera into jugera. The meaning of the letter is clear; it is more didactic and clear to have it in an unambiguous orthography unless a specific countervailing need arises. Ifly6 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; my rationale was that the j is a post-classical spelling (Classical Latin doesn't have a letter j), and so is anachronistic for the period we're talking about both in spelling and pronunciation. Looking at Google Ngrams, iugerum seems to have been the most common spelling since about the Second World War. I'd argue that both are unambiguous and that there is a specific rationale for iugerum - but I appreciate that this is somewhat a case of WP:WHENINROME. As you say, it's fully understandable to a reader, and (for some reason...) Latin orthography isn't one of the GA criteria. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

3,000 sq kilometers? or 30,000 sq kilometers?
There is a pretty major discrepancy in the article, in the top section it is claimed that the land commission "distributed over 30,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) of land over the next few years". Later in the article it is stated that "they distributed some 1.3 million jugera (or 3,268 square kilometres)" DlronW (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Confirmed from Roselaar 2010 that 3,268 square kilometers was reported and edited 30,000 to 3,000 to correspond. Ifly6 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

TG, CG, Plut, and opportunism
¶ Hi. I saw your addition of a citation to, although I do not have that specific Loeb on hand what can only be, Plut Ti Gracch 8.7, and converted it to standard citation format. I do have a question for you (and others) though. ¶ If we include this portion, I feel it worthwhile to include a discussion on whether TG's motives in bringing the lex agraria were opportunistic as alleged by many sources. Plut TG 8.7 has been read in terms of CG attempting to refute the notion, by means of timing, that TG wanted only to advance his own career (Gell NA 11.10 seemingly notwithstanding) developing a plan for the lex agraria only after the Numantine affair. Ifly6 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)