Hi folks! The readings for this week offer a number of different perspectives on how those living in later centuries saw the men and women of the early Republic. What passages stand out to you, and what do you want to know more about?

I honestly had to read the article a few times to understand what was happening. Once I understood (at least I hope I did) that the people were upset due to the injustice of not getting what they promised some of the actions taken made sense. The consul wanted to rally up those of age to fight in order to make up for the troops lost in the battle against Antiates but the lower class (poor) refused to comply due to broken promises. The consul refused to comply with these demands but "named C. Maenius, declared that he would not betray the plebeians or permit the consuls to levy an army unless they should first appoint commissioners for fixing the boundaries of the public land, draw up the decree of the senate for its allotment, and lay it before the people. When the consuls opposed this and made the war they had on their hands an excuse he says not granting anything he desired, the tribune replied that he would pay no heed to them, but would hinder the levy with all his power.". However while this brave man spoke his truth he had no power to force the consuls to ablige to the demands of the people. I don't see any of the events that took place in this article as manipulation which is a bit confusing but times were different I guess. The consul took everything from those who opposed the decree of joking the troops-- " the consuls, going outside the city, ordered their generals’ chairs to be placed in the nearby field;  and there they not only enrolled the troops, but also fined those who refused obedience to the laws, since it was not in their power to seize their persons. If the disobedient owned estates, they laid them waste and demolished their country-houses; and if they were farmers who tilled fields belonging to others, they stripped them of the yokes of oxen, the cattle, and the beasts of burden that were on hand for the work, and all kinds of implements with which the land is tilled and the crops gathered." There was nothing the tribune can do in retaliation because they possessed no authority. However in a turn of events the following year when new consuls were being chosen to come into office - the senators demanding that both men promoted to that magistracy should be of the aristocratic party and the populace demanding that they be chosen from among such as were agreeable to them, after an obstinate struggle they finally convinced each other that a consul should be chosen from each party. In conclusion -- I need help understanding these articles.. I tried reading 4 of them and I can't seem to understand exactly what is happening or not even understand but I cant explain it in my own words. -- HELP :(

In the Constitution of the Roman Republic, Polybius describes the shared powers of the Roman government post autocratic monarchical rule. The constitution, as Polybius explains, was separated into three equal branches of government consisting of the Consuls, the Senate, and the People. All three divisions served different purposes but were all interdependent. These branches also integrated monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements in the way they were administered. The consuls were tasked with running the military and all public affairs. They had the power to use the military as they saw fit. The consuls represented the monarchical component of the shared powers. The Senate, made of elite landowners, composed the aristocratic element of government. They were in charge of foreign affairs and balancing the Roman budget. The People were charged with law and order duties among other responsibilities. The checks and balances that each branch yielded protected the republic from any one branch gaining absolute control. 

After centuries of oppressive rule under the monarchy, the Roman people saw this as a good compromise. Although the constitution was not necessarily representative of all of the people, it did give a broader section of the Roman people a voice and the ability to participate in the everyday administration of government, making it more stable and resistant to tyranny. 

I chose Polybius’s Roman Maniple vs. the Macedonian Phalanx since I’m interested in ancient warfare and wanted to understand the strengths and shortcomings of the Roman maniple compared to the Macedonian phalanx. As a side note, it is interesting that Polybius describes the standard Macedonian phalanx as 16 ranks deep since during the Philip II and Alexander’s day it was generally 8 ranks deep. This combined with Philip II’s genius military reforms that reorganized structure of units and regiments of hoplites that comprised Macedonian phalanx into one which surpassed all its Greek counterparts in discipline and flexibility. While I don’t know when this change occurred, the end result of this change was that it increased the lethality of its charge at the cost of decreasing its flexibility on the field, as well as exacerbating its unwieldiness on rough terrain.

At any rate, one passage that stood out to me is when Polybius says in praise of the Roman maniple that “The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself”. In other words, in comparison to the Macedonian phalanx, the Roman maniple had the tactical advantage of operating more or less effectively on difficult terrain, as illustrated at the decisive Battle of Pydna (168 BCE), Macedon’s last stand against the Romans. In addition, unlike the Macedonian phalanx, the strength of the manipular legion came from its tactical flexibility. As mentioned above, Polybius’s critique can also be seen as a reaction to the Roman’s victory at Pydna and subsequent annexing of Macedon. I’d like to learn more about Polybius since he seems to offer valuable insight about the Roman army during the Republic.

This week i chose The Tribunes and their Manipulation .I chose this because I found it interesting how their could be manipulation which id view as selfish interest in a high power such as the tribunes when the romans are constantly being attested to being people interest in the good of Rome. Following this thought i felt it conveyed a contradictory view of how the Romans valued their people and makes me wonder how valued was the greater good for Rome compared to the indivivual or clans. I found it interesting that they purposely made the generals be placed within the consuls jurisdiction and destroyed the estates and took their goods of the deserters when these are the people they most need at the moment to restock their armies. I feel that the author uses this to provide context of the issues of the era as well as give an idea of how they resolved problems .They had an issue with their jurisdiction they handled it by having generals enlist more men and those who refused were punished.

For this week’s reading, I chose “The Tribunes and Their Manipulation” by Dionysius. I was fascinated to understand how the author emphasizes the political influence of leaders in ancient Rome, such as tribunes who were elected officials representing the plebeians, and manipulated the public point of view, and power structures to achieve their goals.

A passage that stood out for me was when it was stated “For the consuls, going outside the city, ordered their generals’ chairs to be placed in the nearby field; and there they not only enrolled the troops but also fined those who refused obedience to the laws, since it was not in their power to seize their persons. I believe the author was trying to highlight the authority and strategies employed by the consuls, particularly in managing military affairs and enforcing obedience among citizens. On the other hand, it is important to note that in “The Tribunes and Their Manipulation” Dionysius seeks to communicate key political ideas about ancient Rome such as manipulation, control, and even consequences for disobeying.

Ultimately, Dionysius points out the political view of Rome during a time of social and political change. Also, a time where it highlights the challenges faced by political leaders in balancing authority and demands from a frustrated population.

I would like to find out more about the long-term impact of the tribunes on Roman political structures and their influence over time.

The reading The Tribunes and their Manipulation by Dionysius explains the devious methods the Roman Senate and the consuls took to maintain control over the tribunes. An illustration of this is, C. Maenius choosing to advocate for Plebiean interests by opposing the levy. He wanted the Plebians to be given what they were promised. The Consuls essentially forced him to concede by meeting outside of the country and fining him for his disobedience. The consuls used this legal loophole to secure their desired result. The Roman senate also silenced another tribune member, S. Iciulius by turning those in power against him. This reading shows the lack of consideration the consuls had for the Plebians this could be because they saw them as inferior and therefore felt they were not owed what they promised. This reading was interesting to me because we can compare it to modern times. Those in power still underhanded tactics to keep the class they deem inferior from progressing. 

For this week, I chose the reading The Tribunes and their Manipulation/ Dionysius. The detail that stuck out to me when reading this was when the author went into detail about what was done to those tribunes who disobeyed the law. For example, the author explains that if they owned any estates, they were demolished as well as stripped down from any cattle or crops that they had gathered over time. I think the author was trying to focus on the struggles that tribunes went through with Roman officials like consuls. Consuls which held executive power caused conflicts among the tribunes. I feel like it was almost a way to keep them in control as well. I also feel the author wanted to communicate the superiority of Roman political system as well as an insight on their religious beliefs. The author connected two ancient cultures which were the Greeks and Romans to show how Romans adapted to their customs. I would like to learn more about the key political institutions of Ancient Rome.

The reading "The Samnites''Linen Legion' Remains Undaunted" caught my interest due to it being centered and focused on a military force that was not Roman. So far I've heard about Rome's famous centuries, so learning about a different distinct culture's military style especially one that would come to conflict with Rome caught my attention. The part of the reading that mentions the ceremony and more specifically the oaths that the priest would make the soldiers undertake to be enrolled into this elite warrior group, yet the soldiers who refused would be massacred and thrown into a pile so as to sway any other soldiers mind from refusing the oath. Livy was in my opinion trying to communicate the extremism that the Samnites went to in order to create and maintain this elite warrior group, as well to show the strong connection their religion, culture, and values had especially in the military. This document is telling about the 'no nonsense' attitude that the Samnite elites had and how they strictly only wanted, and needed the very best of the military and expected nothing less than such. This document relates some of the previous readings in that the Roman religion was one that was shared or at least had very close similarities with the religions of the neighboring peoples as the Samnites would consult Jupiter one of the same gods in Roman religion, as well the amount of importance that ancient peoples gave to religion as they would be met with death in disobeying an oath to their gods. I do wonder however were most of these surrounding tribes and peoples influenced by the Romans, or were the Romans influencing them and that's why from a modern perspective we can observe such similarities between them.

For this week I read The Mythology of the Farmer General from Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, both of these authors wanted to give their own spin on the life of Quinctius Cincinnatus, the revered Dictator who loved farming so much, a interesting figure that I wanted to hear about. The passage that stuck to was in the last part of the section from Dionysius " For it will be seen that the Romans of to?day do not bear the least resemblance to them, but follow the very opposite practices in everything—with the exception of a very few by whom the dignity of the commonwealth is still maintained and a resemblance to those men preserved". This stuck out to me as it put Dionysius' purpose for writing front and center, he feels Roman have failed to live up to the standards of those who made Rome the power it became. A opposite feeling is shown in Cicero's own writings, he is talking up farming an in general the life that Cincinnatus led, he wants Rome to live up to it but isn't as heavy handed in dismissing the Romans of his time. These documents both show that Romans held a lot of respect for the heroes of its past and some wished to return to such ethics feeling that Roman standards have fallen short of the standard that was set. What I would be interested in learning more about is was there any rituals done in remembrance of these figures, was it just statues or were there like holidays that celebrated figures like Cincinnatus.

For this week I read The Mythology of the Farmer General from Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, both of these authors wanted to give their own spin on the life of Quinctius Cincinnatus, the revered Dictator who loved farming so much, a interesting figure that I wanted to hear about. The passage that stuck to was in the last part of the section from Dionysius " For it will be seen that the Romans of to?day do not bear the least resemblance to them, but follow the very opposite practices in everything—with the exception of a very few by whom the dignity of the commonwealth is still maintained and a resemblance to those men preserved". This stuck out to me as it put Dionysius' purpose for writing front and center, he feels Roman have failed to live up to the standards of those who made Rome the power it became. A opposite feeling is shown in Cicero's own writings, he is talking up farming an in general the life that Cincinnatus led, he wants Rome to live up to it but isn't as heavy handed in dismissing the Romans of his time. These documents both show that Romans held a lot of respect for the heroes of its past and some wished to return to such ethics feeling that Roman standards have fallen short of the standard that was set. What I would be interested in learning more about is was there any rituals done in remembrance of these figures, was it just statues or were there like holidays that celebrated figures like Cincinnatus.

For this week I read The Mythology of the Farmer General from Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, both of these authors wanted to give their own spin on the life of Quinctius Cincinnatus, the revered Dictator who loved farming so much, a interesting figure that I wanted to hear about. The passage that stuck to was in the last part of the section from Dionysius " For it will be seen that the Romans of to?day do not bear the least resemblance to them, but follow the very opposite practices in everything—with the exception of a very few by whom the dignity of the commonwealth is still maintained and a resemblance to those men preserved". This stuck out to me as it put Dionysius' purpose for writing front and center, he feels Roman have failed to live up to the standards of those who made Rome the power it became. A opposite feeling is shown in Cicero's own writings, he is talking up farming an in general the life that Cincinnatus led, he wants Rome to live up to it but isn't as heavy handed in dismissing the Romans of his time. These documents both show that Romans held a lot of respect for the heroes of its past and some wished to return to such ethics feeling that Roman standards have fallen short of the standard that was set. What I would be interested in learning more about is was there any rituals done in remembrance of these figures, was it just statues or were there like holidays that celebrated figures like Cincinnatus.

The primary source I chose this week is "The Samnites’ ‘Linen Legion’ Remains Undaunted". This document stood out to me because it showed a different side of the militaristic way of life. "As each was admitted he was led up to the altar, more like a victim than like one who was taking part in the service, and he was bound on oath not to divulge what he saw and heard in that place." This really interested because it showcases how secretive the linen legion was. The soldiers should be honored to provide their service. But the text described them as victims. Prior to this quote it mentioned that even nobility and experienced soldiers were a part of this ritual. I believe the author was trying to display how serious the Samnites took their warfare. This document tells us that war was prevalent during the time this was written.  

When reading Polybius's "The Constitution of the Roman Republic," I was amazed at how balanced the Roman Republic was. Its government system was even more difficult for the Romans to categorize. Each branch had distinct powers and checked the others, not giving any other group more power than the other. The Roman Republic had the Senate, Consuls, and People, all shades of different types of governments. The People had shades of democracy; The Senate had shades of an aristocratic government, and The Consul had shades of a Monarchy. The role of the Consul was to oversee all public affairs, introduce ambassadors to the Senate, bring urgent matters to the Senate, and implement their decrees. When it came to the military, the Consul had control over war preparation and military operations, raising funds needed for military affairs and appointing a quaestor. And the power to punish anyone under their command during a military campaign. The Senate had complete control over the treasury except for Consular funds. They also handle foreign affairs like truces, alliances, and diplomacy while handling legal disputes and requests for aid. Overall, the Senate kept the peace both in and out of Rome. The People had the job of keeping society together. They ratified laws and could reward and punish, allowing them to pass judgment on significant financial and capital cases. The People could also elect officials and ratify laws. And made decisions on War and Peace. They had authority over truces, treaties, and Alliances. All these Roman systems ensured that order was kept in Rome and

no one party had complete control. The Romans were also open to dictatorship as long as absolute power was returned when the dictatorship of the crisis was resolved.

My question is, what will the Roman government be like near the fall of the Empire?