jmason1998-blog

[jmason1998-blog]

Last Post!

In the chapter of housing and city life in As The Romans Did, a family’s housing depended very much on its financial situation, and is still true even today. In a large city such as Rome, the price of a house was beyond the means of most people, and houses were therefore owned by the wealthy. In smaller cities and towns, houses were undoubtedly cheaper than in Rome. All houses had in common certain rooms, such as the atrium, as every modern house has a living room, a kitchen, bedrooms, and so on. Larger houses provided living accommodations no only for the owners and their children, but also for other relatives and for the families slaves. Ownership of a large house did not mean that each resident had the luxury of a large amount of private space. In addition to houses, apartments were also common. Most people who lived in Rome could not afford to own a house and therefore lived in rooms or apartments that they might own or rent out. Apartments were located in a bulding or certain section of a private house. They were small and building residents often even shared cooking and bathrooms. Apartments life was much more open and communal that in today’s society in the United States. House prices and apartment rents were higher in Rome than in smaller towns or areas. Many people preferred to live in Rome, even in small dingy apartments because they enjoyed their life “in the big city”. This makes me think about today’s society and how many people pay outrageous amounts of money to live in small apartments in big cities like New York when they could live outside of the city comfortably with much more room. But I guess that is just the way people want to live their lives, if you want to be in the city then so be it, but I know I’d like to live outside of the big city and have more space to myself! One of my main questions is did people take out any sort of “loan” on the house from an outside source? How did they actually pay to live in these luxurious houses? Rank in office, military success, wealthy parents money?

[jmason1998-blog]

2/22 reading

The second triumvirate to me was the most interesting aspect of tonight’s reading. First, the second triumvirate was a political alliance between Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, Mark Antony and Aemilius Lepidus. It was formed on the 27 of November 43BC and was widely viewed as marking the end of the Roman Republic. It existed for two five year terms and unlike the first triumvirate the second was an official, legally established institution. The power in the Roman state was given full legal sanction. In addition, the leader outranked all other magistrates including the consuls. Mark Antony departed from Rome for Gaul in 44 BC. Why would the leader outrank everyone else? Why was this such an important aspect of the way people funsctioned back then? Is this one of the most important things that happened omg he governing of Rome? What was more of an important choice that they made?

[jmason1998-blog]

2/28 Readings

Within reading the chapter about the religion of the Roman Empire, a few things sparked my interest. Throughout the Roman Empire there were many different religions, but the citizens of Rome considered one religion, “ours”, “the faith of our fathers” (359). This is the religion not simply because most people accepted it throughout the empire, and had accepted it for hindered of years, but because it was the religion that had ensured and could continue to ensure the preservation and prosperity of the state of Rome. Since the very existance of the state, they depended on the conscientious performance of these rites. Priests were state officials, and temples were religious festivals that received state funding. With the military expansion and success becoming a very powerful aspect of the state, both religion and the military became interwoven together. The religion protected the state and the state protected the religion. My question for this reading is what would have happened if there were multiple religions and not just one religion that everyone followed? Would they make the people follow one religion that most of the state followed or kick them out for not believing in what the majority of the state did?

[jmason1998-blog]

2/20 readings

This is what I’ve been waiting for. The Roman army! I learned so much in reading the passage talking about the Roman army. The Roman army was occupied primarily with defending the borders and the empire at first. It was not a standing army, men were called into service only for a specific campaign. Most men were farm boys and left when the army needed them. Many men died while in service. Before Marius’s career, the army was composed of men with property who remained on the draft registration list for about twenty one years but were only called up only for specific campaigns. In 171 B.C. When the consuls were drafting men for a campaign in Macedonia, men who had earlier served as high-ranking centurions protested when their ranks were not renweed for Tim his campaign. In addition, Roman generals considered a triumph the dreamers honor their country could bestow on them for a military victory. Exporters could not afford rivals for power. In the imperial period, the honor of a triumph was reserved for the empire and his family.

I wish we could have more time to learn more about the Roman army, it’s one of my favorite topics that we read and talked about in class!!

[jmason1998-blog]

2/19 reading

Tonight’s readings in “As the Romans Did” was all about education. Roman education was very informal. Children learned in their own homes from their fathers, just enough reading, writing, and rithmetic to enable them to understand simple business transactions and to count, weigh, and measure. As the centuries passed, Rome grew to be a world power, and some parents preferred a more formal education for their children, one that went beyond the three R’s. They began to hire teachers to do this academic training. Teachers and tutors were severely underpaid, and in some cases didn’t even make enough money to afford a place to rent class space so they held class on the street. Teachers had very long and demanding days and received little simpathy from anyone. I believe that teachers have one of the most important jobs back then and even in today’s society because they are teaching the next generation, and without them how would society function? How would anyone learn the proper tools to work and function in society?

[jmason1998-blog]

2/26 readings

One very important that I read tonight about marriage was the duties of a wife and what a marriage is supposed to mean. Many times throughout the history of Rome most marriages were either for an alliance between families or to make children to continue the name of their family. Almost in every instance, women were much younger than that of their husbands. They did this as it was beloved the earlier that you got married, the more children you could have and the more likely it was for their wives to be fertile. As the men were in charge of the household and everyone followed their orders, wife beating was not a crime, nor was it limited to the early years of Roman history. In addition to beating wives, infidelity was also seen as okay if the man was having an affair with a women who was married. However, if she was not married than it was seen as prostitution, which was identified as cheating. One thing that I thought was interesting was the fact that people could get divorced back then. From learning in class I thought that it was just a social norm for women to devote their lives to one man and one man only, and that they loved them and only them. By the late republic and early imperial periods, divorce was common among the upper class. Why was it so common with the upper class? Why didn’t the lower class families get divorced more than that of the upper class?

[jmason1998-blog]

2/25 readings

While reading the excerpt from “As the Romans did” I throughly that there were a few importnant aspects of the government during the imperial period. For instance, within the first few pages, Shelton talks about the “prefect of the city”. She states that Augustus knew that his survival as an absolute ruler depended to a great extent on his ability to weaken the power of his opponents in the senate. One method he took to do this was to concentrate the powers of his magistrates in his own hands. He created new positions and filled them with men of his own choosing, basically abolishing magistrates. One of the most important appointments of the imperial office was that of the prefect. For this office Augustus and succeeding emperors chose men of senatorial rank and men loyal to them. Many of these duties seemed to duplicate those of the magistrates; in fact the “prefects powers often superseded those of the magistrates” (229). Other forms of office like the consulship and preatorship among others continued to exists but became positions with more prestige than real power.

Augustus also knew that he could not allow any ambitious man of the senantorial clas to become a rival power and knew he needed to create a stable civil service that would be free of political rivalries that had destroyed the republic and which would be accountable ultimately to him. He wanted to secure the assistance of loyal and talented men and therefore created positions in his administration. My question is how did he know the steps to take to have full control over the governement? Why was he so sucessful in doing this?

[jmason1998-blog]

2/14 reading

Within reading the passage in As The Romans Did, I get that how they defined slavery and slaves was interesting. For instance, how in war most people were taken as slaves and then either put to work or sold at an auction. One thing I thought was different was the fact that the owners gave their slaves certain jobs depending on their background, before they were property. Slaves could work in mills, on farms, and in households among other places. In addition, how slaves got their freedom was aslo interesting to me. How they could either be set free by their owners, pay their way by working endless hours, or by bullying them into a game to gain their freedom. One instance that I thought was interesting that we talked about in class was how some of the owners either ate the same meals as the slaves or even cooked better food for them, and in some instances it was just for a certain part in society or to look better than their neighbors. The facet that their was slave hunters that were basically bounty hunters is also a point that I thought was interesting. The fact that slaves were considered to be criminals is so weird, how would they even find them? Would they have different people going around different towns trying to find them?

[jmason1998-blog]

2/12 readings

Working reading “As the Romans did” there were a few key topics that stood out to me. The first thing that I found to be interesting was the major factors that contributed to the Roman class structure: wealth, freedom, and Roman citizenship. Social divisions were sustained by laws and one group might be dinked political and legal privileges allowed to another group. In addition to Rome’s class structure, the Patrician families formed Rome’s earliest aristocracy, and guarded their own power in the state by establishing rigid limitations on the social and political movements of the plebeians, who formed the majority. Another idea that stuck out to me was the fact that plebeians were not allowed to hold public office or become members of the senate, or to even serve as priests, or event he fact that they were not allowed to intermarry! All of these factors become very important parts of how Rome was the way it was and just how class structure used to be, one class towers over the other.

Another idea that I found to be interesting was how families worked. To begin, the average life expectancy was only 27 years of age so women began to get married and have children at the ages between 11-13. The fathers managed all the financial assets of the family. It amazes me that they had the legal right to expose of a newborn child. Fathers could also even force their chirldren to divorce spouses that they loved, and if it came to it he could disown, sell into slavery, or even kill a child whose behavior displeased him 😳 I would be fine with being grounded or having my phone taken away, but to the extent of a father killing his child because of the way he acted? Woah. That’s hard to process.

[jmason1998-blog]

2/13 readings

While reading texts from Livy and Joshel there were many similarities. Both talked about events that became important to the upbringing of Rome. One piece from Joshel that caught my eye was when she said, “ The connnection between the rape of an individual women and the overthrow of monarchy and decemvirate finds its model in the Greek stereotype of the tyrant whose part Tarquin and Appius Claudius play, they are violent and rape other men’s women” (123). I found this interesting because during class Tuesday we talked about Verginia and what her father believed was the best thing to do as it was the only way to uphold her freedom: to kill her. With all the being said I believe that there is a parallel between women and the government in Rome. Not that they can hold office or elect anyone, but that they are key roles in getting things done. Verginia played a key role in the overthrow and the re establishment of the Roman Republic.

Within the reading “As the Romans Did” there were a few things that I thought were interesting. For instance, that women generally remained close to home and that their primary goal was to bear children and manage the household. Men on the other hand in Roman Society had both a public and private identity. He was a baker or a banker as well as a husband and father. A women’s identity was dependent on her family, she was someone’s daughter, wife, or mother. They were only praised for their performance to have many children and be a good wife to their husbands. I find this interesting because in today’s society men and women both alike have identity’s where the both work and both are praised for being good parents. Why was it believed that women could not do anything but sit at home and rely on their husbands?