Hey folks! This week we’re looking at the turbulence and reinvention of the early Republic. What is the Republic to the Romans, and how does that come through in the reading you chose?

Try to interpret as well as describe your reactions. Add a new idea to the discussion, or a new angle on what’s being talked about. The readings exist to tell us what’s important to the people of Rome, and it’s up to us to unpack their imagery and intent.

I chose "The defeat of the Latins". After learning in class that they were first allies I was interesting in learning how this war/battle would go down. They had trained together, fought together. The Romans and Latins have knowledge of each other's fighting tactics so wouldn't that pose a conflict? According to the reading when the Latins retreated and regrouped they were aware of the situation and the facts that followed. They assembled in Vescia i think or Vescita and agreed that both parties had lost many people and shared so much bloodshed and I thought ok thats the end of it but the Latins decided to gather more troops and try to ambush the Romans which didn;t go as planned as the Romans ended up with Latins land and did what they willed. The Romans wasted to time in setting new laws, giving land away. "The rest of the Latin cities were deprived of the rights of intermarriage, free trade, and common councils with each other. Capua, as a reward for the refusal of its aristocracy to join the Latins, were allowed to enjoy the private rights of Roman citizens, as were also Fundi and Formiae, because they had always allowed a free passage through their territory." - I would love to know if the Romans would have accepted the Latins waving a white flag or simply refusing to fight. Was that a thing? Were colonies/ communities/tribes able to say "no I dont want to fight?". 

The reading I picked is The Twelve Tables. The author is communicating the foundation of Roman Law. The Twelve Tables were the laws written on twelve stone or bronze tablets (Schultz, pg.40). In the textbook, Schultz states that “the importance of the Twelve Tables was that they publicly established in principle the equality of all free citizens before the law” (pg.88). This document tells us about how Romans carried out justice, punishment, and equality among the citizens. A passage that stood out to me is from Table IV “A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed”. This is actually something I want to find out more about. If the Romans were all about family, why did they kill deformed children?

The reading of “The Defeat Of The Latins/Livy” was very interesting and attests to how truly smart Rome was and how they were ahead of their time. The war against the Latins was a very gruesome one, leading to both parties losing a large amount of soldiers. Ultimately the winner of this war was Rome. What transpired after the war was Latin building their army back. The only reason why they were able to regain some power was because two countries were helping the Latins out, those two being Lanuviem and Capua. This greatly helped the Latins, but that’s not all that was used. The Latins also created false rumors, which helped them gain morale. The author in a way tried showing Rome's tactical smartness with their army and their continuous expansion. Through the readings, I think this particular reading did relate to the past readings on how Romans tactically beat them and how strong their forces were. What I would like to know is the cause of the other countries helping the Latins out did they want to defeat Rome? Did they fear their strength? Those are the things I question. 

This week I chose The Roman Way of Declaring War. After exploring some aspects of Roman spirituality in the class reading,

I wanted to look deeper into their rituals. Romans were one superstitious group and that was extended even to the way they faced

war and how they saw themselves in the mists of conflict. One passage that stood out to me was " Give us ear! I call you to witness that this nation _____ is unjust and has acted contrary to right. And as for us, we will consult thereon with our elders in our homeland, as to how we may obtain our rights". The Romans reflect a sense of superiority and self-righteousness. In their rituals they place themselves as the ones doing right.

I chose the reading The Roman Way of Declaring War/ Livy Dionysius, I chose this reading because I was intrigued by the way Romans declared war upon their enemies and if there were any specific measures the Roman people would take, or also the way in which they protected their own people. An interesting part that stood out to me in the reading was when they explained the fetials who were responsible for declaring war carried around a “javelin pointed with steel, or burnt at the end and dipped in blood”. This stood out to me because it shows vividly the steps the Roman people took to declare war. I think the author was trying to communicate their form of fearless tactics taken upon their enemies. Romans believed in all these rituals that were performed by priests who were responsible for declaring war in other countries. I feel like the author was telling us during this time, Romans were still religious people who used rituals which eventually evolved over time. I would love to find out more about if there were any forms of negotiations after the Romans declared war on their enemies.

I chose for this week's reading “The Defeat of the Latins” by Livy. The name itself is very appealing and somehow implies another victory by the Roman Empire. One detail that stood out for me was how (Capua, as a reward for the refusal of its aristocracy to join the Latins, was allowed to enjoy the private rights of Roman citizens.) Considering that it focuses on the significance of loyalty and how in Roman society such loyalty was rewarded.

Capua’s refusal to join the Latin’s suggests that Rome valued allegiance and that loyalty could lead to tangible benefits, such as citizenship rights, which was portrayed as a standard of belonging to the Roman World.

I strongly believe that the author was trying to emphasize the moral superiority of the Romans and their commitment to the state as well as the idea that power must be maintained through strength and strategic alliances.

This narrative illustrates the struggle for dominance in the region and the establishment of Roman cultural and political superiority. Similarly, the defeat of the Latins showcases the effectiveness of Roman military tactics, discipline, and organization, which were foundational to Rome’s later dominance in the Mediterranean world.

The Twelve Tables were a set of Roman laws that provided a legal framework for Roman citizens to follow. It was the first time that laws had been codified in Rome. These laws addressed issues such as crime and punishment, civil issues, family law, religious law, and even spoke to issues regarding how trials should be administered and how witnesses ought to be treated. They set the standard for law and order. It gave the Roman people a rubric as to what was expected of them as citizens of Rome and established a level of security as well. According to Allen M. Ward, et al., in A History of the Roman People, “...the basic importance of the Twelve Tables was that they publicly established in principle the equality of all free citizens before the law,” (Ward, et al., 66).

Written by the Decimviral Commission, some of these laws may seem strange to us. They were written at a time when Rome was moving away from the monarchy and into a Republic. In the absence of one man’s absolute rule, a set of laws needed to be written in order to establish order. I believe it also served as a prevention of any abuse of power in order that no one man could consolidate power again, as was the case under the monarchy. Some of the most obscure laws included a law which stated that a thief could not be killed during the day if caught in the act, unless he used a weapon to attack the owner of the property. I also noticed that the number three was prevalent in the Twelve Tables. For example, if a witness failed to appear in court, the person who was procuring him was allowed to go to the witness’ house every third day and call out loudly for the witness to come out. If a father sold his son three times, that son would be set free from his father’s hold. And yet, in one of the most heinous sounding laws, if a man owed a debt that he could not pay back, the creditors or the people that the debt was owed to had the right to cut up the person’s body into pieces and divide it according to how much each person was owed. This, however, could only be done on the third market day. This led me to question whether these laws were fraught with superstition as well as practical application. 

For this week I read Early Rules for Clients and Patrons from Dionysius, I chose it do it being the foundation of dynamic between the Plebs and the Patricians. The passage that stood out to me was "It was not only in the city itself that the plebeians were under the protection of the patricians, but every colony of Rome and every city that had joined in alliance and friendship with her and also every city conquered in war had such protectors and patrons among the Romans as they wished. And the senate has often referred the controversies of these cities and nations to their Roman patrons and regarded their decisions binding". I feel that with this passage Dionysius is conveying that even in the colonies of Rome the system of patronage was still the norm, a pleb could not escape the system by going to a colony, that the patricians held power even outside of Rome. This information is given with a sense of pride so it comes from a place of happiness with the system, so Dionysius wants to share his pride in the system and record it. What I would like to learn more about is how well did the patronage system hold up in the territories in England or Egypt when Rome stretched that far, how well did that system hold up when there were plebs in the furthest point of the Roman lands away from Rome itself.

The topic of "The Roman Way of Declaring War" fascinated me because of the Romans' approach. In earlier history courses, we've discussed the Roman Empire, but we never got into the intricacies of how the Romans approached declaring war. I always thought of the Roman army as these big juggernauts in red pushing forward to wherever they wanted, coming, seeing, and conquering, but it's the furthest from the truth.

The Roman's superstitious and religious approach to declaring war was unique and surprising. Reading from Livy's account that the Romans would send a messenger demanding restitution to the frontier and in the public of their adversaries wearing woolen fillets and making the demands in appeasement of the Gods was interesting from a religious and tactical standpoint. Tactically, this process eliminated the element of surprise. They would say, "Hear, O Jupiter, and hear ye lands _____ [i.e., of such and such a nation], let Justice hear! I am a public messenger of the Roman people. Justly and religiously, I come and let my words bear credit! Then, he demands and follows with a solemn appeal to Jupiter. If I demand unjustly and impiously that these men and goods [in question] be given to me, the herald of the Roman people, then suffer me never to enjoy again my native country!" This act would put to rest in Roman's minds that they brought this dilemma to the ears of their Gods and the enemy, and if they did not comply with Rome's demands, the act of war was necessary. But it could have been used as a scare tactic to bring fear to the enemy to comply or face the wrath of the Gods.

The thirty-day period before the voting process to go to war also surprised me because they gave their enemy so much time to decide or even surprise attack the Romans. But I understand this also gave the Romans time to confer with their Gods and find signs they felt showed them the Gods favored them. The last step of tossing the blood-soaked spear into enemy territory is a sign of what's to come for the people against the succession of the Republic of Rome. The Roman's ability to secure alliances and an abundance of resources after battles reiterate the Roman principles of ensuring continuous success for the Roman Republic and their values of service.

In this passage we see the struggles that the Romans faced against whom they considered kin and the subsequent results of such a struggle. These people were the Latins and they waged war on Rome for the final time in 341 B.C. While this was of course a struggle for the Romans as they would have to risk thousands of lives to suppress the Latins, the problems ran much deeper than just that. The Romans were Latins and shared their language, their culture, and even their military strategies with their now enemies. But even beyond that, they at some point were considered close allies and had a military alliance that spanned over a hundred years prior to the Latin War. To fight a people in which you identify so much of yourself with must've felt equivalent to Rome's version of the American civil war. Father against son, brother against brother. Although the Romans did share a lot of similarities with the Latins, they were distinct and had greatly surpassed the Latins in their military advancements and subsequently the Latin league became another part of the Roman expansion. The defeat of the Latins saw their cities and territories being split up amongst the Romans with some noticeable changes such as the cities of Privernium, and Falernian being distributed amongst the Roman plebs. As well Roman colonists began filling in the populations in the newly conquered territory. In the end, the Romans were a part of the Latin family, but they surpassed their former brothers and ultimately conquered them with their own culture and traditions becoming the centerpiece in all of Latium.