bigoleburrito-blog

[bigoleburrito-blog]

Post 9

I really enjoyed reading the Aeneid this week. We have read a lot of democratic speeches and historical recounting, so reading a bit of roman mythology was a pleasant change of pace. Also, the Aeneid is the only piece from the ancient set that includes Homer’s Iliad and Oddyssey that I had not read to date. I found the chart we examined that compared sections of Homer’s works to the Aeneid to be really interesting. It makes sense that the books would line up a bit, but the similarities, research, and correlation between the two series shows how much Virgil was inspired by greek mythology. Analysis aside, the Aeneid was also the most enjoyable read I’ve had in this class outside of the chronicles of Caesar and Hannibal’s respective strategies. The allusions contained to a few greek myths, the originality of other myths, and Virgil’s dedication to painting Roman’s past in a proud and bold origin was entertaining. Also the fact that Virgil wasn’t creating an origin story for Rome, but rather an origin of the origin, was a little comical. There’s this myth of Romulus and Remus dating back way before Virgil’s piece that establishes Rome’s roots, but Virgil decided that he wanted to make this epic piece describing how the people generations before those two came to be in the region. 

[bigoleburrito-blog]

Post 8

I found Lucretius’s “On the Nature of the Universe” to be fascinating in regards to early epicureanism. Firstly, the call to Venus in the beginning strikes me as odd. In a relatively new branch of philosophy, and one that goes against calling on gods for intervention, Lucretius is calling on Venus to help remedy civil unrest in Rome and such. Wouldn’t he rather assert that calling to Venus would be pointless instead of calling for her support? Secondly, I think the fact that ancient roman philosophers would be supporting a nihilistic mindset of “come from nothing, return to nothing” appalling. In a society that has built massive magnificent monuments to their gods, this sect of philosophy must have been bold and detested. These philosophers also believed in atoms, something that we've only gained knowledge of relatively recently to this time period, and detested love as a delusion, one of the oldest inspirations for art and creativity. They seemed to be brazen and were undoubtedly controversial. The focus on everything being mortal and death to not be feared seems so profound for philosophers of Ancient Rome.

[bigoleburrito-blog]

Post 7

I found Julius Caesar’s expeditions in Gaul from this week very interesting. Not only was his wartime strategy impeccable, but his ingenuity was as well. When Caesar decided to build a bridge to cross the Rhine into Gaul, he used his intellect instead of his superior forces. Caesar knew that by building a bridge in such a short amount of time on such a perilous river, he could inspire the Ubii and intimidate the other Gallic forces, not to mention that he invented an entirely knew way of building such a bridge. Caesar showed a prominent strategic mindset when defending trade ships in this theater; he used his catapults and superior maneuvarability to outflank Gallic ships and route them. Caesar also utilized his surroundings frequently, such as when raiding Gallic villages. Instead of occupying territory to have an encampment, he would go to these villages (which were usually empty) and take their food, then raise the buildings and farms so that Gallic soldiers would be forced to live in the woods. Caesar showed in the Gallic arena that he was capable of outthinking his opposition at most turns in ways that were completely new to roman strategists.

[bigoleburrito-blog]

Post 6

I found Shaw’s piece on Roman slavery from this week very interesting. The first section that caught my eye was the beginning, wherein he speaks about how he would approach his slaves. Instead of the brutish and cruel slavery seen in the “Spartacus” film, he describes how he would talk, jest, and consult his slaves on their work in order to make them ore admirable to their tasks. However, the section immediately following this takes a much more hostile view to slaves. This section describes them more as cattle in a herd; some slaves make better laborers, some better house servants, and others are useless. This contradiction between a humanitarian approach towards slaves and a complete detachment from their human nature shows a more complex side to roman slave owners than I had previously thought. Shaws piece devolves after this however, taking a more cruel approach to slaves as he delves into the nature of gladiators, remarking on the carelessness their owners approach gladiator’s lives, deaths, rebellions, and even suicides. As Shaw delves into the law surrounding slavery, runaway saves, and slave rebellions, the harsh nature of slavery in Rome takes form. The cruelty shown by Roman slaveowners and lawmakers was absurd and rife with pride. But I did think it was interesting that some slaveowners recognized their slaves as intelligent human beings and treated them with more admirable care than their peers.

[bigoleburrito-blog]

Post 5

Cato the Elder was an amazing character to learn about. I found a kinship in his story of building himself up from nothing. he worked since he was a plebeian child and rose through military ranks to become a respected military commander. I, too, have worked since I was able to hold a job legally to pay for things like my college, rent, car, etc. His story of becoming a homo novus, both inside the political arena and just becoming a legendary man from the lowest class really resonated with me. The thing that I didn't understand was his adherence to mos maorium. In the selection we read on his consulship that dealt with the lex oppima, he defended completely the old way of life as well as keeping wealth out of the public. While this makes sense in the political atmosphere that Rome existed in, I don't understand it in terms of the man that he is. He was disenfranchised from a young age and struggled much to build himself into the man he had become. Because of this, his peers in the political arena looked down on him as an outsider. so wouldn't it make sense to overturn older laws meant to make obtaining wealth more difficult? wouldn't he want to help the people in Rome like the plebs who were born without access to large amounts of wealth? I mean I see his reasons for this, it just doesn't make much sense to me. 

[bigoleburrito-blog]

Post 4

I really enjoyed learning about Hannibals tactics in the second punic wars. First, I thought it was interesting how he was portrayed in the Roman texts we read from. The writers from this period seemed to liken him to sister traits, like being barbaric and bloodthirsty. In many historical sources, he is viewed as a brilliant tactician and young prodigy, but rarely are these characteristics afforded to him in roman literature. I think this is because of the inherent bias that these authors had to him. It’s not outside of possibilities that these authors sought to liken him to an evil character due to the crushing blows he dealt the Roman Republic like at the battle of lake trasimene. Furthermore, I thought his tale was kind of legendary. A kid who had been brought up in vengeance with a single purpose: to topple the roman army who had defeated his father years before. The lengths and strategies that Hannibal used were spectacular. He utilized the environment frequently, like in crushing his enemy n that early battle wherein he forced them to ford a river before he attacked. He used roman vices and audacity to weaken them at every turn and forged one of the greatest conquests against Rome that we have read to date. I mean he even ditched up his armor to keep the enemy from identifying him in battle! I know this class is supposed to be about roman history but it struck me how ingenious their enemies became to try to combat roman tactics.

[bigoleburrito-blog]

The story of  Lucretia this week, specifically her suicide, seemed really intriguing to me. In our culture, when a woman is raped she is often supported and an attempt to rehabilitate her is made by those close to her and in her family. We focus more on the individual health of the victim in these cases. However, in this selection, Lucretia calls for vengeance from her family and seals it by killing herself. Firstly, it makes me think that having a rape victim in a Roman family was seen as a spurn on her family name. She seemed so distressed about those in her family being seen in a negative light in their culture. Instead of seeking support from her brother and father, she appeared to be more focused on keeping her family’s name intact, and I think the call for vengeance was an extension of that concern. However, her family reacted in the same way that I expect many families today would react: outrage and heartbreak. It seems counterintuitive to the culture supported by earlier readings. I got the notion that if a king’s son would have acted like that in earlier stories, it would have been swept aside by the state, like with the rape of the Sabine women. Also, I am not sure that the overthrow of the government would have happened if not for her suicide. The action in itself made her call to action a sort of “wish with a dying breath”, making her family go to action with the overthrow of the monarchy. The spectacle made of her funeral in the forum seems like an emphasis on this ideal, being that they made the actions of the king’s son public knowledge and Brutus called all of the roman citizens to support him. However, this may have been because she was a Roman noble instead of just another plebeian or woman from another city. If that’s the case, then Lucretia’s story shows a definite “line in the sand” for the roman notion of giving yourself to the betterment of the state.

[bigoleburrito-blog]

The aspect of the Horatii in this weeks reading really interested me. As a twin, the concept of being selected for a competition is not really news to me. However, being singled out to represent the nation of Rome due to their triplet-hood seems bizarre to me. Also, the familial reaction of the surviving brother intrigued me. He was more concerned with the victory of his nation than the loss of his two brothers. I think if I was in that position I would have been caught up in the death of my family, not celebratory and lively like he was. The entire concept that he could go from that kind of loss right into killing his sister confused me as well. I understand that the romans had a concept of “living for the state” that we do not, but it still amazes me that he could eliminate all of his siblings in what I am assuming was an incredibly short time frame. I thought that the father was the most relatable character in the story; his grief and reasoning seemed a lot more realistic than anyone else’s actions throughout the tale. His passion at the loss of his children seemed less glorified and more realistic compared to my present reasoning. I did not realize how far the concept of the roman state extended into the people’s lives before reading that. dedicating one’s life to the state is one thing, but actively involving the state in the development of your family and the relationships within it just seems incredibly radical to me. I thought it was an interesting look into the society and culture that surrounded romans on a day to day basis.

[bigoleburrito-blog]

One of the topics we discussed this week that interested me was the nature of Roman government during the Republic period. I was under the impression that the Republic style government that the Romans employed was similar to ours, if we had two presidents. The Res Publica and Libertas virtues that Roman government was founded on greatly resembles our own, but the Roman government contradicted it greatly in some regards. Though the Res Publica mindset was the foundation of Rome, Roman history saw massive excess and corruption in the government. Furthermore, a spirit of total devotion to the state was pervasive throughout the entire society, shifting focus from the public mattering to the state itself. Libertas was similarly abused during the Republics massive military and economic expansion. As Rome spread, they attacked many smaller states, disregarding their own freedoms. With their swift border expansion, their economy expanded as well. This prompted their chief economic tool of slavery to boom. As a Republic founded on the idea of helping and liberating their citizens grew, so did their greed and hypocrisy. They became one of the most extravagant and controlling empire’s, contradicting their own code.