Roman writers use exempla (the plural of exemplum) to make particular points about morality. Exempla show up particularly in cases of rhetoric, as exempla are a vivid way to make a point about the way people (though usually men) ought to behave. In other words, exempla were a particularly moral way that Romans had of reading certain parts of their past. They would manipulate stories about famous men in order to make both implicit and explicit comments on why and how they achieved such virtuous deeds.
Livy himself not only presents Tiberius Gracchus as an exemplum, but the historian also has other characters describe him as an exemplum.
For example, Livy reports that in 211 BCE, the Senate was debating on what to do with the commander Gnaeus Fulvius, who had lost a particularly disastrous battle against the Carthaginians in Spain. This defeat had lead to the death of a particularly beloved leader, Gnaeus Scipio (25.36). In 211, Fulvius is back in Rome and the Roman debated what kind of punishment they should inflict on him.
A certain Blaesus apparently made it a priority to attack Fulvius, and doing contrasts his generalship with the generalship of Tiberius Gracchus:
“Tiberius Gracchus was given an army of slaves, but he soon ensured, by his discipline and authority, that none of those slaves gave any thought to lineage and bloodline when in battle, and that they served to defend their allies, and strike terror into their enemies. Cumae, Beneventum, and other cities – these men had virtually snatched them from Hannibal’s jaws and restored the to the people of Rome. Now Ganeus Fuvlius, he would say, had an army of made up of Roman citizens, men from good families who had been brought up as free men, and in these had instilled the vices of slaves.” (Livy 26.2, trans. Yardley).
According to Livy, Blaesus turns both Gracchus and Fulvius into moral exempla: Gracchus becomes the leader who can manipulate and train his troops for good effect, while Fulvius can only degrade those underneath him by exposing them to his corrupting influence. Furthermore, none of the credit of the volones’ success belongs to them: according to Blaesus, it was all Gracchus’ doing.
How much does Blaesus’ account agree with Livy’s own description of the battles of Cumae and Beneventum? At the battle of Beneventum, Livy does put a great deal of emphasis on Gracchus’ command of the slaves, as they initially take his orders too literally and therefore hinder their ability to fight. However, in this way Livy’s account does differs from Blaesus’: Blaesus describes the volones as the ultimate fighting force, the mere sight of which would drive terror into the enemy, without Gracchus goading them with the promise of manumission. Blaesus’ account is simplfied in order to better make the comparison of the effect a good leader has on his troops versus the effects of a bad leader.
Livy himself not only presents Tiberius Gracchus as an exemplum, but the historian also has other characters describe him as an exemplum.
For example, Livy reports that in 211 BCE, the Senate was debating on what to do with the commander Gnaeus Fulvius, who had lost a particularly disastrous battle against the Carthaginians in Spain. This defeat had lead to the death of a particularly beloved leader, Gnaeus Scipio (25.36). In 211, Fulvius is back in Rome and the Roman debated what kind of punishment they should inflict on him.
A certain Blaesus apparently made it a priority to attack Fulvius, and doing contrasts his generalship with the generalship of Tiberius Gracchus:
“Tiberius Gracchus was given an army of slaves, but he soon ensured, by his discipline and authority, that none of those slaves gave any thought to lineage and bloodline when in battle, and that they served to defend their allies, and strike terror into their enemies. Cumae, Beneventum, and other cities – these men had virtually snatched them from Hannibal’s jaws and restored the to the people of Rome. Now Ganeus Fuvlius, he would say, had an army of made up of Roman citizens, men from good families who had been brought up as free men, and in these had instilled the vices of slaves.” (Livy 26.2, trans. Yardley).
According to Livy, Blaesus turns both Gracchus and Fulvius into moral exempla: Gracchus becomes the leader who can manipulate and train his troops for good effect, while Fulvius can only degrade those underneath him by exposing them to his corrupting influence. Furthermore, none of the credit of the volones’ success belongs to them: according to Blaesus, it was all Gracchus’ doing.
How much does Blaesus’ account agree with Livy’s own description of the battles of Cumae and Beneventum? At the battle of Beneventum, Livy does put a great deal of emphasis on Gracchus’ command of the slaves, as they initially take his orders too literally and therefore hinder their ability to fight. However, in this way Livy’s account does differs from Blaesus’: Blaesus describes the volones as the ultimate fighting force, the mere sight of which would drive terror into the enemy, without Gracchus goading them with the promise of manumission. Blaesus’ account is simplfied in order to better make the comparison of the effect a good leader has on his troops versus the effects of a bad leader.