Learning about the Roman military’s triumphs and conquests has been awesome. It is so cool to see the path the Romans took and how they pieced together their empire. One thing that I enjoy learning about Roman culture, is how they treated and honored their military leaders. They would lead a Roman army to some foreign land, kill, steal, and take prisoners, and when they got home there would be a decadent celebration waiting for them. Nowadays, almost all of these actions would be ridiculed by the public and the media, and considered crimes. However, in the time of the Romans, this was just seen as heroic military service, and a way to start a political career. In Vernets’ The Triumph of Aemilius Paulus you can see how important these parades were to the Roman people and culture. 

One interesting thing from this week was Livy’s outlook on the Cult of Bacchus. Bacchus is the Greek God of wine, Dionysus, and the cult of Bacchus worship him, They would have gatherings where they would have big feasts, drink a lot, and have sex. Livy also says that they poison and murder people as well, and cover up these crimes. Livy also makes it a point to mention that the movement came from Etruria, just North of Rome. The way Livy talks about the Etrurians, it can be inferred that he does not hold them in high regard. Perhaps a lot of Livy’s feelings about the Cult of Bacchus come from his feelings about Etruria. Even though Livy disapproves of the Festival of Bacchus it is always fun to learn about, and gives you insight to the Roman culture.

One thing about ancient Rome that amazes me, and I think a lot of other people as well, is it’s politics, and the influence that the Romans still have in today’s political world, especially in democracies. Early American politicians respected and admired the Roman Republic. This means that some of the practices that we have in current day American politics, could have been influenced by the Romans. Similar to the cultural influence that Rome had on America, ancient Greece was a major influence for the Roman Empire. Exactly like the Americans, the Romans hated kings, and monarchies, and preferred decisions to be made by the majority. The citizens of ancient Rome thought of monarchy as tyranny. Since the Americans were under the rule of the British monarchy, they were able to identify with the Romans in that aspect. Another unique feature of Roman politics that I find interesting, is that it was required for every Roman senator to have experience on the battlefield before they can have an important political role. The senators and even leaders as important as Caesar were all expected to be at the battle commanding their soldiers. That fact really makes you think about how much the world has changed since the time of Ancient Rome. The only time you would see a politician in a warzone nowadays is in a cartoon. The culture of the Roman army was very disciplined, and full of rituals and symbolism. Roman troops are divided by age groups, and the different age groups are given different roles, and equipment. The discipline of Roman troops. is something that many armies, and organizations throughout the world look up too.

Studying Rome and its adversaries has given me a more positive perspective on the political struggles in today’s world. I have read about the Carthaginians before, but have not learned about them in detail up until learning about them and the Punic Wars. Carthage’s trade empire was very impressive as it encompassed the whole mediterranean, and even more. The moment of the Punic Wars that I found most vivid was when the Romans beheaded Hasdrubal, and sent his head to Hannibal’s camp. This is a trademark of Rome’s efforts to intimidate the enemy and showcase power, as well as the flashiness and showmanship of the Roman empire. After the Romans took Sicily, Scipio was put in command. From Sicily, the Romans charged on to North Africa where they defeated Hannibal and the Carthaginians. The Punic Wars resulted in Rome controlling lots of the Meditteranean, North Africa, Spain, and some of Gaul. This expansion in the Empire would be the foundation of their ultimate growth. One thing that I was interested in was that Scipio was granted the name Africanus after his military success in Africa. When certain Romans would achieve an important accomplishment they would get another name added on to their previous one, called an agnomen. Two of the most renowned accounts of the Punic Wars are written by Livy and Polybius. Although both are telling the same story, they use very different language. Polybius recounts the battles in a way to give the reader a sense of what the armies were doing tactically and how the battle played out. LIvy uses striking imagery that may not necessarily have occurred during the Punic Wars. Livy places a lot of importance on Roman religion. Regardless of which historian you choose to go by, the Punic Wars were most definitely one of the most important moments for early Rome.

Continuing to learn about the history of Rome through the eyes of Livy has been very interesting. One thing that stood out to me from Livy’s first book was the description of Tarquin and his rule, specifically the amount of violence. I found that the terminology Livy utilizes when talking about Tarquin, paints him as a dark and cruel leader. Perhaps Livy does this to smite Rome’s era of kings, in favor of the republic and Roman democracy. To emphasize this change even more: Livy starts his second book by declaring that from the point on, he will be focusing on the history of a free nation in peace and war. Livy also claims that because Tarquin was such an arrogant and selfish ruler, that the Romans will be much more keen on electing magistrates, and obeying the law, rather than a leader, or an army. Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ writing style is a little harder to follow than Livy’s, but I appreciate some of the features of his writing. Dionysius’ dialogues are very vivid and dramatic, and help conjure an image of what was going on. His writing style seems like he enjoys telling epics with legendary heroes. Livy’s style, on the other hand, seems to be a little more scientific, more functional with less frills. One similarity the two historians share is that they do not shy away from writing about violence. I have always found it interesting how Rome is revered as the model of democracy, especially for American democracy, but always seemed to have a monarch type figure, so it is great to learn about that transition away from the kings.