tylersimms2

[tylersimms2]

Post #4

Post #4

The readings on the life of Cato exemplify how one can go too far in their rejection of all that is deemed excessive. Typically, neglecting luxuries for the sake of remaining down-to-earth is seen as noble. However, when one becomes obsessed with avoiding all that is extravagant and wasteful, there are risks involved. An individual following this path has the potential of losing their humanity and the understanding of what others need in order to be happy. One can grow to be callous and out of touch. If taken to great lengths, the pursuit of ultimate efficiency transforms one into a machine that lacks any emotional intelligence. Marcus Cato distanced himself from material displays of wealth and welcomed labor. His actions and decisions had to be economical, with regards to both his time and property. He devoted his hours to working alongside his slaves around the land on his estate. He would even dine with his slaves in the evenings; Cato always ate exactly the same meals as his servants. When his slaves became older and unable to still accomplish what was required of them, Cato would subsequently sell these individuals. If one could no longer perform their duties, they were merely a financial burden that must be unloaded. This is where Cato crosses the line from frugal and cost-effective to heartless. His compassion was eliminated. The high principle that Cato believed governed his behavior prevented him from acting in a humane fashion. Many owners of animals that serve a utilitarian purpose respect the service of these creatures. Marcus Cato had been known to be cruel with his treatment of animals, but he also did not have the capacity to demonstrate loyalty to his longest tenured workers. Any attempt to increase the standard of living for one who has traversed a life of slavery was forgone in the name of eradicating all unnecessary expenditures. These slaves were mercilessly sent to a foreign place where they would be no more capable of labor than Cato’s estate. This is entirely unethical. Later, when Cato is serving as consul, another flaw in his character and philosophy arises. When two tribunes’ idea of annulling the Oppian law was brought forth, Cato was strongly against it. This law, passed in a time of war and crisis, forbade women to possess more than a half-ounce of gold, dress in multi-shaded clothing, and ride in a horse-drawn carriage in any town. Women’s frustration surrounding their lack of ability to indulge themselves boiled over and masses formed in the streets in support of the tribunes’ proposal. Cato gave a long speech regarding the weakness of women and their need to flaunt. After another speech from Cato’s friend Lucius Valerius effectively argued against the law, it was finally repealed. Cato’s stubbornness on this issue is a clear example of why his goal of efficiency can too heavily combat human nature. Sometimes, people need to indulge for their mental health. Discipline is not possible at all times. Although Cato tried his best to be perfect, this goal of perfection acted as torture to the women of Rome. His wisdom blinded him from seeing what was best for others. Cato tried to be as virtuous as possible. Unfortunately, honorable intentions are liable to have shortcomings.

[tylersimms2]

Post#3

Post #3

The difference in writing styles between Livy and Polybius is seen clearly in both accounts of the battle of Lake Trasimene. Each man also makes it clear just how majestic this particular battle was. Compared to other historians we have seen, Livy’s words are sometimes more direct and contain less dramatization. However, next to Polybius, Livy is actually the one prone to embellish details. Livy includes several ominous prodigies and sightings that are clearly impossible. These are to illustrate the gravity of the situation for the Romans. To clear the city of this dread, sacrifices and religious ceremonies were conducted to appease the gods. Polybius does not give mention to any of this. Overall, Polybius is much less concerned with the influence of the gods than Livy. This is seen in their critique of consul Gaius Flaminius. Livy claims his failures were primarily due to his lack of attention to rituals and religious matters, while Polybius solely blames the leader’s subpar judgment. After a dictator is established in Rome to handle the crisis at hand, the dictator issues orders to complete more religious rituals and ceremonies in order to undo the bad fortune brought by Flaminius. Livy elaborates on these proceedings while Polybius simply acknowledges they took place. Aside from matters pertaining to the gods, Livy exaggerates elsewhere. When explaining Flaminius’ distaste for being told to be cautious when planning his next move against Hannibal, Livy gives a quote from the consul that comprises a paragraph. Polybius only states Flaminius’ preferred course of action and that it differed from that of his advisors. When it comes to the actual battle, both versions are mostly similar. The fog is present in each, as is the inclusion of the six thousand Romans viewing the aftermath from above. These points serve to highlight just how cinematic this conflict was in nature. Even so, one notable difference is the lead up to Flaminius’ death. Livy tells quite theatrically how an Insurbian member of Hannibal’s calvary, named Ducarius, spotted Flaminius individually and charged at him from across the battlefield. The consul’s death is stated in an unremarkable fashion along with the other casualties in the account of Polybius. A possible reason for the contrast between the writing of the historians is their nationality. Livy was Roman and Polybius was Greek. This may explain the greater objectivity of Polybius, as the events were less personal to him. What is always consistent between the two men is the fact that the battle of Lake Trasimene was a thrilling clash.

[tylersimms2]

Post #2

Post #2

Brutus appeared to me as a nuanced man during the beginning of freedom in Rome. Brutus’ involvement in the decision to annually elect consuls reminds me of the American founding fathers. They were committed to liberating the United States from the monarchy of Britain. Brutus does the same in his efforts to shape the identity of the newly liberated city of Rome. Later, after his wife and two sons were convicted of attempting to help reinstate the royal Tarquin family, his children were sentenced to death. Due to his position as consul, Brutus had to carry out the executions. The pain Brutus expressed was noted by observers. The timing of his family’s betrayal could have not been worse. The irony in this situation is tragic. The same developments that gave Brutus and Rome some of their greatest triumphs also required him to have a hand in one of his greatest personal losses. Following the failure of the plot to reinstall the king, war was the next option explored. Tarquin subsequently recruited the Veientes and Tarquinii people against the loyal Brutus. As the enemy forces invaded and the Romans were forced to battle, Brutus’ character prevailed once more and he did not shy away from his obligations. Leaders of that time were expected to engage in combat; he did so valiantly. Arruns Tarquinius, son of the king, spotted him and the two charged at each other on horseback. Both men mortally wounded the other and Brutus died a hero in the eyes of the Roman people. He was entirely dedicated to the state and ensuring the survival of its people’s freedom. Brutus possessed the will to persevere and keep the common good as his priority even when his personal wellness was compromised. These qualities are often seen in individuals that our society idolizes and teaches our youth to emulate.

[tylersimms2]

Post #1

Post #1

Two details that really stood out to me after reading both accounts of the story of the Horatii and Curiatii were the treatment of Horatius’ sister and the attitude of Horatius’ father. The treatment of Horatius’ sister illustrates how archaic the gender roles were at the time and the utter lack of gender equality. When the last remaining Horatii brother returned back to Rome, he was greeted by the sight of his weeping sister. She had been engaged to one of the slain Curiatii. He subsequently murdered her after this display. Horatius cited his reasons for his actions. He was motivated not only by her grief for the enemy but was also upset that she deserted her natural place in the home. According to him, it was his sister’s duty to perform her role in the household and not indulge in any impulses that would prevent her from accomplishing this task. In the world as it is today, any sensible individual would agree that this mindset is ridiculous and has no place in society. For a civilization that believes in its own greatness, its concept of what is socially acceptable leaves a lot to be desired. In the past century, great strides have been made in attaining gender equality and changing traditional gender roles. Horatius’ father’s attitude also grabbed my attention. It makes apparent the extreme feelings of nationalism that citizens of Rome felt. Despite the death of his children, he is far from being mournful. Instead, he acts in a celebratory manner. In his eyes, the honor and glory brought to his family outweighs the loss of offspring, often said to be the worst pain that a parent can experience. The prestige is so great that it also justifies the stabbing of his daughter by Horatius. He claims that his son acted within reason in spite of his ludicrous motives. Before this story, I was not aware of the sheer infatuation with bringing success to the city of Rome. Romans truly put their state above all else.