The early Roman Republic was established with the principle of liberty and rule of law. In the way it ran, there were many problems. One of the problems concerned land distribution. The tribune, Tiberius Gracchus, tried to fix this by introducing an agrarian law which brought much controversy in Roman government. Many historians perceived that Tiberius Gracchus contributed to the beginning of civil war in Rome. That was the reason why Appian and Plutarch were interested in him and his effects in Roman politic condition and policy. While both Appian and Plutarch explored the themes of the land reform program of Tiberius Gracchus and civil war in 133 BC, I will argue that Appian, as a historian, was more concerned with explaining the general…show more content… 28) argued that Appian’s and Plutarch’s main sources were based on different texts, though originally these texts came from the same author. This fact is justified by many different interpretations of Appian and Plutarch in the content of the accounts. For example, while Appian told that the rich gained the land without explaining the method (Appian, Civil Wars ex. 7), Plutarch found that the rich used fictional tenants’ name to gain the land (Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus ex. 8). There was also an essential point in the story that is covered diversely by the writers. In Appian’s account there were no details of Tiberius Gracchus' death. He described neither the method of killing nor the person who assassinated Tiberius Gracchus. Nevertheless, Plutarch can explain both points. He covered that Publius Satyreius executed Tiberius Gracchus by striking him on the leg of a bench (Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus ex. 19). Furthermore, Plutarch mentioned Tiberius Gracchus’ influences to give the foundation of his act (Katz 1970, p. 87) whereas Appian ignored it. Because of different sources and interpretations, Appian’s and Plutarch’s accounts, which had been discussed above, told the same general story with many considerably different
