The article I chose is “The Magna Mater”. This article is set up into 2 small sections. The first section details how the people of Rome were in a bit of a turmoil over religion and omens and therfore consulted old sibylline books and other oracles to get an idea of what they should do about upcoming wars in the enemy. These books “announced that whenever a foreign foe should carry war into Italy he could be driven out and conquered if the Mater Magna were brought from Pessinos [in Phrygia] to Rome. “ - The discovery of this prediction had the Romans acting quickly to get the to transport the goddess to Rome.

I believe that before setting this into motion they waited for signs from the Gods to confirm this was the right move. During this time in which the people of Italy were planning on how to get the Goddess to Rome “In this state of excitement men’s minds were filled with superstition and the ready credence given to announcement of portents increased their number.” it is said that there were two suns, that during night time there were times in which the sun(daylight was seen); “a meteor was seen to shoot from east to west; a gate at Tarracina and at Anagnia a gate and several portions of the wall were struck by lightning; in the temple of Juno Sospita at Lanuvium a crash followed by a dreadful roar was heard.”

A lot of things were happening during this time of waiting. I say waiting because the arrival of the Goddess was supposed to bring them victory and a sense of certainty. Overall from my understanding the Goddess was to arrive but then there would be a ritual in which she would be sacrificed which to me was shocking. The second part of the article describes in very detailed detail the blood leaving the body of the priestess and how she became stiff as the beast tore her apart. The people chanted and thanked her for her sacrifice from far away. Honestly mind boggling.

For this week, I picked the reading Hannibal/ Cornelius Nepos. Hannibal 's crossing of the alps with the elephants jumped out at me as I read through it because it shows the courage and determination that Hannibal had. Nepos emphasized Hannibal's military skills and his strategic approach. He also explained Hannibal had command of the Carthaginian army, which ultimately showed the trust his people had on him. I feel like the author wanted to honor Hannibal's accomplishments in which he almost conquered Rome. He also highlighted his courage, and determination which comes from being a good example of a leader. Also Nepos, wanted to communicate Hannibal's sense of character that led him to his decisions overall.

I would like know what were Hannibal's motives in his conflict with Rome?

Were there any biases that might have influenced Nepos portrayal of Hannibal since he mostly highlighted his accomplishments?

The reading I chose to give my response was Hannibal by Cornelius Nepos. I chose this reading mainly because I always heard of the saying that Hannibal was known as the thorn in Rome's side, and I was interested to gain a better understanding of the general that nearly conquered and defeated Rome. The reading is essentially a biography about the life of Hannibal and focused on the most well known aspect of his life. His lifelong hatred for Rome. He was described as having made an oath as a little boy to his father that he would never be a friend, or deal kindly with Rome. An oath that he upheld his entire life. Yet Cornelius doesn't depict Hannibal in a bad light, even though he himself was a Roman, he describes Hannibal as clever, strategic, and unparalleled in talent even in comparison to the Romans. So how did a man who brought so much death and destruction to Rome, the man who slayed over 20% of Rome's men between 18 and 50 come to be described in such high regard? This is a testament to the Roman ideal and persona. The Romans were never ones to shy from adopting and adapting technology, and even mentalities from their fiercest opposition. They were excellent at observing and studying what made their opposition so great, but then also implementing those characteristics into their own identity and ultimately lead themselves to victory. Hannibal was no different. We see how in the end the Roman's were able to adapt to Hannibal and defeat him, of course taking advantage of the fact that he strayed away from his own nations ideals and made himself unpopular amongst his countrymen. Yet in the end only one came out victorious and it was the Romans. But Hannibal's legacy lived on in the Roman history books as even they had to give respect to possibly the greatest military general of that era.

For this week's reading, I chose Hannibal by Cornelius Nepos which focuses on the life of Hannibal a Carthaginian Military leader known for his superior military tactics. Hannibal was also considered impressive due to his many victories over Roman troops. There was one practical passage that interested me which described just one tactic method Hanninal did that shook up the Roman army. “For under cover of night the Carthaginian bound torches to the horns of cattle and set fire to them, then sent a great number of animals in that condition to wander about in all directions. The sudden appearance of such a sight caused so great a panic in the Roman army that no one ventured to go outside the entrenchments,” this passage demonstrated the military prowess Hannibal possessed that surpassed one of the most formidable armies at the time. I think that by the author illustrating Hannibal’s beginning as a soldier and his end, we get a sense of what type of person he was. Through this reading we also learn that Hannibal’s history with Rome greatly affected the way he fought, he refused to allow Carthage to fall to Rome and this is what drove him to establish himself as a powerful military leader. 

For this week I read Hannibal from Cornelius Nespos, I picked it as I wanted to learn more about how the Romans felt about Hannibal. The part that stuck out was "But Hannibal, although caught in a defile, extricated himself by night without the loss of any of his men, and thus tricked Fabius, that most skillful of generals. For under cover of night the Carthaginian bound torches to the horns of cattle and set fire to them, then sent a great number of animals in that condition to wander about in all directions. The sudden appearance of such a sight caused so great a panic in the Roman army that no one ventured to go outside the entrenchments". This long passage stuck out to be as it is clear praise of Hannibal in his efforts to combat and outsmart Rome. You would think that Romans would not want to praise the man who was the face of the enemy, it could be seen as a effort to try and claim him like how Rome claimed other people's gods. By framing Hannibal as a brilliant man held back by the side he fought for, I shows that Rome felt that Carthage were blessed to have Hannibal fight for Carthage felt a deep respect for the man. What I would like to know is would Rome come to have another enemy General or leader that they came to like, obviously excluding Cleopatra.

The reading I picked was ”The Magna Mater" which was a bit insightful but also had things I knew and still questioned. What stuck out to me in the reading is the sacrifices, specifically the one of the bull, which is said to be Gory. It made me wonder, is that truly what the gods wanted? The idea of sacrifice is something I can’t understand. Why sacrifice an animal? What will that signify besides killing it and offering it to the gods? They expect only good things, but what will the gods do with the dead corpse? I wonder about things like this. Maybe I’m thinking too deeply, but it’s a question I’ve had for a while now. The author is probably trying to signify humans are God’s relations on what humans do to be on the gods side to earn benefits and how humans stay devoted to the belief. In my opinion, the reading is probably telling us about a time where many things were happening randomly, maybe a meteor shower, a time where people were desperate as well. This reading does support a few of our articles in religion and how deeply important it is to gain support or fondness from the gods because if you don’t earn it, it will only lead to divine punishment.

For this week’s reading, I picked “The Magna Mater” as seen by the accounts of Livy, and Prudentius. This reading is captivating due to the way it highlights the connection between religion and politics in ancient Rome, demonstrating how citizens' beliefs influenced their actions and decisions during times of uncertainty. At the same time, it emphasizes detailed descriptions of rituals and ceremonies as traditions in ancient Roman society.

One detail that stood out for me while reading both accounts was Prudentius's portrayal of the “Taurobolion” ritual, which illustrates the lengths that individuals in ancient Rome would go to seek divine favor in the context of worship.

I believe the authors aimed to convey how “divine forces," such as omens, oracles, and rituals, played a crucial role in guiding the faith of Rome. Similarly, it illustrates religious events that unite the citizens of Rome for a common purpose, such as the arrival of “The Magna Mater.”

This document also gives us an idea of a time where spirituality was deeply embedded in the daily life of Roman society. It portrays the relevance of superstitions and interpretations of natural events as divine signs, indicating how the Romans saw them and how important these interpretations were part of their beliefs. For instance, showers of stones and celestial events, were interpreted by the citizens as “divine signs” urging them to take action.

Finally, it will be interesting to examine various rituals in detail, including their meanings, practices, and their impact on participants and observers.

I decided to write about the Battle of Cannae because there’s a part of it I want to look at in detail. To cut to the chase, Polybius describes how the Hannibal’s successful encirclement of the numerically superior Roman army was in large part due to his disciplined Libyan infantry outmaneuvering the Romans and hitting their center from both its right and left flanks simultaneously, causing the legions to become a disorderly mass as those soldiers near the flanks turned to face the impending threat. After routing and pursuing the Roman left-wing, Hasdrubal and the heavy Carthaginian cavalry returned to help the Carthaginian center after routing the Roman left-wing, they started launching devastating cavalry charges at Roman’s backs, effectively sealing the deal on the Roman’s catastrophic defeat. Something seems off to me about Polybius’s description of the Libyans coordinated attack, but that’s on a more technical level which is beyond the scope of this post. What we can say for sure is that the Libyans somehow outflanked the Romans on both sides and performed a pivotal role in the Hannibal’s victory. An orthodox interpretation of the battle also reveals a fundamental truth about ancient warfare, that lack of visibility was a persistent issue which influenced the course of battles and could be exploited to give one side an advantage in the right conditions. Something along these lines clearly happened with the Libyans, who Hannibal intentionally stationed further back in deep files for their truth to be obscured by the Roman’s lack of visibility of the backline, explaining its devastating impact of their attack on the center. My question is, did the Romans performed a ritual to propitiate the gods or did something specific in remembrance of the disaster at Cannae every year the anniversary came around, or was it treated as just another ‘unlucky’ date?

Reading " The Battle of Cannae " by Polybius gives an insight into how resourceful and strategically clever Hannibal was. Hannibal occupied the citadel of Cannae, which was of great importance and resources to the Romans to force a confrontation with them. Hannibal's decision caused internal turmoil within the Roman Republic regarding how to proceed between Paullus and Gaius Varro, who had contrasting ideologies on how to approach battle with the Carthaginians. Paullus was cautious about getting into direct battle with Hannibal and preferred to fight Hannibal on more favorable terms that would cause Hannibal to waste resources and manpower. In contrast to Paullus, Varro was eager and bloodthirsty for battle. The Roman Senate decided to deploy the army with the most significant force every eight legions: 80,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and allies. These contrasting ideologies seeped onto the battlefield for the Romans. Paullus wanted to avoid the open plains to avoid fighting Hannibal's superior cavalry and lure them to more favorable terrains for the Romans. However, it fell on Varro's deaf ears; Varro commanded the army to advance despite Paullus's warnings to proceed cautiously. Expecting a head-on approach from the Romans, Hannibal prepared accordingly. He set up his army for strategic success, positioning his superior cavalry on the wings and his weak infantry in the center. His plan was for his weak center to absorb the Romans' initial attack while his flanks came from behind to surround the Romans. The Romans fell into Hannibal's trap and got slaughtered. Over 70,000 Roman soldiers died, and amongst the dead slain in battle was Paullus, while the battle hunger Varro escaped. Hannibal's victory at The Battle of Cannae was a turning point in the war. Many Italian cities defected from Rome and viewed the Romans as weak. While panic set in but only motivated the Romans to continue fighting.

My only question is how Gaius Terentius Varro was viewed after the Battle of Cannae, especially after he was the reason for the Romans' defeat.