The article I chose is “Slavery in the Roman Republic. This article gives a few perspective on how slaves were treated before the Romans accumulated some wealth as well how slaves should behave. In the first excerpt we read about a slave owner that is talking down to his slaves; calling them lazy, neglectful, stubborn while also parading a whip. - One of the slaves complains about a dull axe edge and the slave owner could care less; “Well; be it so! And so are you blunted with stripes, but is that any reason why you shouldn’t work for me? I order that you clean up the house.” is his response to the slave and then he continues giving orders about the house being clean for a party he is having. As we read along we find a different slave owner named Cato the elder who treats his slaves totally differently than the first slave owner (Ballio). It is written that the slaves in this farm get a decent amount of food and water - this excerpt shares with its readers that when it is colder the slaves receive a bigger portion of food than when the weather is warm. We also read about the slaves getting new shoes after two years as well as clothes and lots of wine. It sounds to me like they get so much wine – and then the description says that it's like part vinegar and it does not sound like it tastes good at all. Lastly scene 4 tells how “faithful” slaves should act– Overall it is said that slaves should work hard for their masters and never complain, never give reason to be whipped or punished. When an owner is away we should work as if he was still here or even harder than if he was, loyalty is not our gratitude but in the hopes of getting decent food, not getting whipped and maybe possibly being set free. The last section draws attention to gladiator/ slave Spartacus and the slave revolt in Italy. “ One Lentulus Batiates trained up a great many gladiators in Capua, most of them Gauls and Thracians, who, not for any fault by them committed, but simply through the cruelty of their master, were kept in confinement for the object of fighting one with another. Two hundred of these formed a plan to escape, but their plot being discovered, those of them who became aware of it in time to anticipate their master, being seventy-eight, got out of a cook’s shop chopping knives and spits, and made their way through the city, and lighting by the way on several wagons that were carrying gladiators’ arms to another city, they seized upon them and armed themselves. And seizing upon a defensible place, they chose three captains, of whom Spartacus was chief, a Thracian of one of the nomad tribes, and a man not only of high spirit and valiant, but in understanding, also, and in gentleness, superior to his condition, and more of a Grecian than the people of his country usually are.” – These gladiators/slaves were successful in winning many battles and even though they lost many men they were also successful in winning against Germans and many others, but when Spartacus was double crossed by pirates in “But Spartacus retreated through Lucania toward the sea, and in the straits, meeting with some Cilician pirate ships, he had thoughts of attempting Sicily, where, by landing two thousand men, he hoped to kindle anew the war of the slaves, which was but lately extinguished, and seemed to need but a little fuel to set it burning again. But after the pirates had struck a bargain with him, and received his earnest, they deceived him and sailed away. He thereupon retired again from the sea, and established his army in the peninsula of Rhegium.…” In the end Spartacus was abandoned by those who once fought by his side and, “At last, being deserted by those that were about him, he himself stood his ground, and, surrounded by the enemy, bravely defending himself, was cut to pieces.”

I chose this particular article due to what i felt like was a significant moment in the changes happening in Rome, representing a turn in the tides from Rome being a respectable and honorable society which didn't covet luxuries of excess and managed itself with the idea of what's best for Rome over the individual to the anthesis becoming a society which became corrupt and materialistic. What most popped out to me was the previously stated greed within the society as my thoughts of the Rome was for the betterment of the empire as a whole rather than the individual and to kind of see it be put upside its head is quite insane and i feel the author was trying to present just that, just how crazy it was especially as it records the author himself having to ask the men to not sell all the goods of the citizens especially those who left families behind which is supported by the line " Some of these friends did not take his advice; but those who did follow it earned a most excellent reputation among their fellow-citizens.". This document supports the readings, as corruption had been on the rise as the empire's borders had expanded far away from the eyes of the Roman capital as well as supporting the values of the roman people, this being seen as the men cared not for the paintings but the citizens did detest the self centered acts of those who sold didn't take heed from Polybius. One question i do have however is how did the average citizen react to all this corruption, were there smaller riots within these "colonies" as corruption skyrocketed and what happened to the commissioners and those who worked with them?

The reading Cato Opposes Extravagance by Livy discusses how Roman women protested against the Oppian Law. The Oppian law restricted women from displaying their wealth and luxury was frowned upon. This primary source highlights the evolving roles of women in Roman society. Cato makes his stance on the matter very clear, he believes that the law should be passed, and this act of defiance by Roman women should be criticized. Cato expresses his concerns on the matter, stating that by repealing this law, the men are essentially handing the power over to the women. A quote that supports this is, “If, then, you suffer them to throw these off one by one, to tear them all asunder, and, at last, to be set on an equal footing with yourselves, can you imagine that they will be any longer tolerable by you? The moment they have arrived at an equality with you, they will have become your superiors,” this quote emphasizes Cato’s thoughts on women, he constantly belittles them throughout the reading and urges other men to not grant them this freedom because they will then rise above them and demand more. This reading reflects the fears many Roman men might’ve felt at the time about the changing gender roles in Rome. As Rome developed into an empire, Roman values also changed. 

For this week I read The Destruction of Corinth from Polybius, since I was interested in hearing more about a crucial step in Rome becoming a empire. The passage that stuck out to was the mention of the Proconsul, "he deserved honor both public and private, for he conducted himself with self-restraint and disinterestedness, and administered his office with mildness, although he had great opportunities of enriching himself, and immense authority in Greece". This is a highlight of how despite the shift in Rome slowly becoming an Empire, the dispassion of a Proconsul in their efforts of running their new territory to not overreach and abuse their power they wield is highlighting that some Romans are becoming aware of the capacity for abuse of the position. While the text as a whole is trying to show the contrast in how Carthage and Greece faired under Rome's assault but the detail of Romans being aware of a problem that the proconsuls could be is kind of important. I guess what I would like to learn more about is if Romans recorded their thoughts on the destruction/conquering of a new region, feels like a good way to reflect on their growing empire.

The reading I decided to read was “Slavery in the Roman Republic / Various.” The reason I decided to read it was to understand the relationship between slave and master. In the beginning of the reading, I was shocked at how they were treated. They were physically abused by a whip and were verbally berated, calling them useless and good for nothing because they owned them; they had the right to do what they wanted. The author is trying to communicate the treatment and the horrible day-to-day lives slaves lived, as well as the abuse of power of these owners. They benefit from slaves, but yet they treat them much worse than what they do for the owners. In my opinion, this document is probably talking about a time when slaves were greatly used and explaining the mistreatment of many of them. I feel the documents somewhat contradict some of the articles we’ve read; from my memory, I remember the slaves being treated much better as humans with normal relationships with their masters. My question is, has a master ever killed a slave, and did that ever lead to any consequences between him and the authority? 

For this week, I chose the reading The Destruction of Corinth/ Polybius. I chose this reading because it stuck out to me, I wanted to learn more about the actions Roman authority took and the consequences it led to. The key points that jumped out during this reading was that after the victory, the Romans killed all men and had enslaved the women and children, Roman authority also seized any artwork and destroyed it or used it as objects of entertainment. I found this interesting because it shows the severity and extent Roman soldiers were willing to go to in order to have dominance and power. I think the author was trying to communicate the consequences of resisting Roman authority and portray a clear message for others who tried to rebel. It shows the harsh actions that the Romans took in order to have dominance over Greece. The destruction of Corinth ultimately came from the Achaean League, which Corinth was leader in that decided to rebel against Roman authority. In my opinion I feel like this document is telling us the power of Roman soldiers and how they were able to have dominance over Greece, it provides insight into power structures in Rome.

I would like to know more about what were the motives the Roman had for taking this harsh action after their interactions with Greece?

Also what were the long term consequences of the destruction of Corinth on Greece?

The reading I picked for this week was “The Destruction of Corinth.” While reading this excerpt, I found it particularly interesting because it highlights the deep impact of cultural loss during moments of historical turmoil. The vivid description of the destruction of Corinth, especially the soldiers' disregard for its art and heritage, illustrates how easily history can erase significant cultural achievements. Similarly, one particular detail that jumped out to me is the description of the soldiers playing dice on the ground where beautiful paintings were thrown aside, including a notable piece of Dionysus. This moment emphasizes the tragedy of how easily significant cultural symbols can be disregarded in the face of war and conquest.

I believe what the author was trying to communicate was the contrast of fates between Greece and Carthage to illustrate the different types of suffering experienced by conquered people. While Carthage faced immediate annihilation, the Greeks had to live with the ongoing pain of their losses for generations. Also, the representation of Polybius as a figure of morals and reason. His defense of Philopoemen, despite the feeling to erase the memory of those who opposed Rome, reflects a strong sense of morality.

In my opinion, this document comes from a time where the emphasis on cultural heritage, such as the art and statues in Corinth, illustrates the value placed on culture and identity in ancient societies. Finally, I would like to find out more the specific cultural contributions of Corinth before its destruction.

I chose this document because it was the most entertaining to read for me. This text is act 4 of "The Menaechmi" it's a play about 2 twins who got separated during childhood. The boys were named Menaechmus and Sosicles. When they turned 7 their father brought Menaechmus on a business trip to Tarentum. Menaechmus gets lost in the crowd and gets separated from his father. He gets found by a wealthy merchant by the name of Epidamnus. Who he stays with until he became a man and got married. After the loss of Menaechmus his parents are deep in grief and give his name to sosicles. Eventually Sosicles now named Menaechmus goes in search for his lost brother. He ends up in a unique situation with his brothers wife and adoptive father without knowing their connection. Prior to these events Menaechmus the first had stolen a golden bracelet and cloak for a mistress. That same mistress charges sosicles to repair the items and he gets caught with them by Menaechmus's wife. Ending up in Sosicles having to deal with the fallout of the situation and being clueless of the accusations against him. In order to get out of the situation he plays at being mad and kind of threatens his way out.

In this text we see the author Livy describe an influential writer in ancient Rome, Clato, sharing his perspective on a recently imposed law during the second punic war in which women would have to refrain from elegant dressing yet this law would be retracted after the end of the second punic war. Clato was in agreeance with the law and was disappointed in seeing it be retracted as he believed that it was a step toward the right direction of upholding Roman ideals, specifically Roman virtue. He is described as being very conservative and being dedicated to these Roman values. I felt interested in this reading due to the topic being around a transition in ancient Rome, a political shift as during this time we see the first steps toward the Roman Empire, but a shift culturally. as well as during this time Rome's values started shifting from embracing their values of discipline, and simplicity to beginning to seek after wealth and extravagance. Clato believed that by growing the desire for extravagance in Roman society, especially in food, clothing, and household items this would lead to the deterioration of Roman virtue and would then threaten the stability of the Roman Republic. This text is telling us about the instability present in the time and of the uncertainty of Rome's future as they were entering a new era. The text describes the worry and fear of certain experienced individuals such as Clato. Yet the detail that stood out to me was of the text. saying, " Our ancestors thought it not proper that women should perform any, even private business, without a director; but that they should be ever under the control of parents, brothers, or husbands". This stood out because from a modern perspective this sounds incredibly uncivilized that women ere expected to depend fully on a male figure in their lives, yet in these times this nation who labeled themselves as being the "peak" of civilization would feel offended by women simply having basic freedom. This reading shows the contradiction of Rome's newly found mentality to it's old one, the transition from humility to extravagance and the plating of the seeds of an Empire. My question is, knowing that after this point Rome would steadily decline, would it be in fact due to their abandonment of Roman virtue, or due to certain members constantly trying to cling onto a mere ideal that would no longer best represent a vast and growing Empire?

Polybius's account of the destruction of Corinth reveals Greece's misfortune. Polybius goes into further detail by comparing this defeat to one of Carthage's. He states, “But the Greeks, with their misfortunes ever before their eyes, handed down to their children’s children the loss of all that once was theirs. And in proportion as we regard those who live in pain as more pitiable than those who lose their lives at the moment of their misfortunes”. Polybius argues that this fate is worse because it is a form of losing one’s honor, leaving lasting effects on generations in the future. Polybius also speaks about Philopoemen, who was a Greek general and politician who had statues all over the city; some Romans wished to destroy them, but Polybius argued Philopoemens loyalty towards Romans during the wars with Phillip, and Antiochus should be respected, so the statues remained up. It also showed that Polybius played a massive part in the Romanization of Greece by ensuring Roman laws were properly adopted and urging friends to avoid coveting the spoils of war, which gave him a reputation for being fair. In conclusion, the destruction of Corinth is the beginning of Rome‘s rise to power in the Mediterranean. 

My only question is, did the Romans have Greek culture, or were they consumed by it themselves?