Roman Civilization

CMS 206 /History 206

• Legio I Germanica
  1. The Legio, in discussing Roman slavery, compared Roman slavery to American slavery.

     The Emperor responds: The comparisons the Legio has made are interesting, but the topic deserves much more discussion (which we will take up after the February break). As we've already observed, Roman slavery was a complex institution with the experience of slavery in the mines and on the latifundia differed radically from that in urban centers. In the meantime, the Emperor recommends interested milites consider the work of Keith Bradley on the topic.

  2. The Legio, in a discussion of Roman trade asks, "Why in such a male dominated society did women have such powerful and important positions especially seen in the shipping of wines overseas?
     
     The Emperor responds: The Legio raises a number of interesting questions. First, what is your evidence for the role of women in the wine trade? Do a few inscriptions about women who managed wine trading businesses justify a generalization that women generally controlled the trade? Second, if the evidence you have seems to undermine your assumption about a "male-dominated society," do we have to rethink the assumption, or at least how the assumption worked? How do you explain the patriarchial ideology of the Romans with evidence of women holding positions of social and economic authority?
     
• Legio II Augusta
  1. The Emperor has nothing to add.
• Legio III Cyrenaica
  1. The Legio, in discussing the workings of senatorial patronage, refers to young politicians as "political desparados" and concludes that the system was "corrupt."

     The Emperor responds: The Legio, however, noted that by and large Romans approved of this system. Any political system (all of which involve the intersection of money, influence and office), arguably is subject to corruption. What positive reasons might the Romans have for approving of the patronage system?

  2. The Legio, in discussing Cicero, expresses a certain distaste for the man.

     The Emperor responds: The members of the Legio, are not at all alone in their assessment. The Emperor, an admitted fan of the man, would like to make several points on his behalf. First, we know more about Cicero than virtually any Roman because of the vast quantity of his writings (political/legal speeches; philosophical works; academic works on rhetoric; and about 900 letters to friends, family and colleagues) which survive. Because we know so much, we know his flaws as well as his strengths. Second, Cicero was trying to sustain the Republican order in Rome even as it was falling apart and unlike other politicians of the day, without an army. The Emperor finds something noble if futile in the effort. Third, because so much of Cicero survived, he profoundly influenced thinkers of the middle ages, renaissance and age of enlightment. As he consequence, he profoundly influences the way all of us think about politics whether we know it or not. The Emperor suggests we should read Cicero, if only to study our own assumptions and then determine if we want to continue holding them. Finally, Cicero wrote an incredible style of Latin prose, which you shmeggieheads could read if you took Latin (so take Latin).

• Legio IV Macedonica
  1. The Emperor has nothing to add.
     
• Legio V Alaudae
  1. The Legio, in discussing the friendship of Horace and Maecenas observed, "However, Maecenas was the one who had to initiate the friendship because he was of noble birth."

     The Emperor responds: First, you might want to think about what you mean by "noble birth". Horace praises Maecenas' Etruscan ancestry, but what did that mean for Romans? Had any of Maecenas' recent ancestors been consuls? What are the practical reasons that required Maecenas to be the one to initiate the friendship?

  2. The Legio, discussing senatorial responses to trade, opined "This led to the rise in the middle class that destroyed the aristocracy in Europe."

     The Emperor responds: Perhaps we are making too great a chronological leap for the analogy to be useful. Was there a "middle class" in Rome? How did the Roman economy differ from the emerging mercantile and capitalist economies of early modern Europe?