I find it interesting that the reading makes the wife of Ischomachus sound like a perfectly reasonable woman, and yet when I read the first footnote she sounded like a manipulative pain in the neck. In a lot of the things I’ve read, the women do things like have sex with and/or bear children for family members or random (powerful) strangers they just met. Was this normal behavior for the time or is it just that the women who act out get all the attention?
Driving out her daughter and having a son with her son-in-law are not the kind of actions I would imagine coming from the girl I had in my head. Ischomachus painted a picture of a caring, intelligent, and efficient woman.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Week 4 - Punic Wars
To me, it seems like the First of the Punic wars was nothing more than, for lack of a better term, a cock fight. The Carthaginians went in so the Romans had to go in. The Romans won because they had a bigger fleet, so the Carthaginians had to send in a larger fleet. Which caused the Romans to send in more, causing the Carthaginians to send in more. And so on, and so forth. To say that niether side knew how to withdraw just proves that this fight was purely for their ego. I found the outcome of the first war strange. The Romans had no “direct interests” in Sicily, but in the end of the war, they got it.
The second war was purely revenge. You would have thought the Romans would have learned that going to war with Hannibal was a bad idea, even if they did win in the end of the second war too. I don’t really understand how he won the Battle of Cannae… If he was almost surrounded, how was his army suddenly surrounding the Romans?
The second war was purely revenge. You would have thought the Romans would have learned that going to war with Hannibal was a bad idea, even if they did win in the end of the second war too. I don’t really understand how he won the Battle of Cannae… If he was almost surrounded, how was his army suddenly surrounding the Romans?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Week 3 - Greek Slavery
I find it rather interesting how the treatment of slaves in early Rome develops and changes. I think that in some ways, it kind of relates to the work force today. Not in the sense that workers now are slaves, but that workers for large employers face a much less personal job.
In a large company, you get x number of vacation hours, x number of sick hours, etc. In a small company, its more like you just make sure you call ahead and get someone to replace you. In comparison, on a large estate, you get this much grain in the winter, clothes every two years, and so on. On a small estate, if your clothes were worn out, you got new ones. (I’m assuming this is what it was like, the reading just said they were treated better and more personally…)
In a large company, you get x number of vacation hours, x number of sick hours, etc. In a small company, its more like you just make sure you call ahead and get someone to replace you. In comparison, on a large estate, you get this much grain in the winter, clothes every two years, and so on. On a small estate, if your clothes were worn out, you got new ones. (I’m assuming this is what it was like, the reading just said they were treated better and more personally…)
Wikipedia Assignment
Women in Ancient Rome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Ancient_Rome
It seemed to me like Women in Ancient Rome missed some very important points and, after reading the discussion, I realized others had come to this conclusion as well. One of the links given was an article on female naming conventions in ancient Rome, this is something that I think should have been included in the article.
1. How long is the article? (cut and paste text into word processor and do a word count)
The article is approximately 1,390 words long.
2. What was the search term you used and what is the exact article title?
I searched for “ancient women”, the article's actual title is “Women in Ancient Rome”.
3. Look at the Disambiguation link and say what you find there.
There wasn't a disambiguation link.
4. Look at the page Discussion and say briefly what you find there.
This article didn't have alot of discussion, but most people seemed to agree that the article missed some important topics, was inaccurate or "overstated", and lacked sources.
5. Look at the History of the page. How many changes have there been? When was the date of the first change? Last change?
There have been 268 edits since the article was first written. The first edit was September 1st, 2003. The most recent edit was August 12th, 2008.
6. How many external links are provided?
There were four external links, although only three of them were technically links, the fourth was a reference to an article in a magazine.
7. How many references?
There were three references.
8. How many entries under Further Reading?
There isn’t a further reading section, but there is a “See Also” section. There are three “See Also” links.
I would not recommend Women in Ancient Rome. While it has some links to some interesting information, the article itself lacks substance. When I was reading it, it felt like the author was a high school student who skimmed a history book or spark notes then wrote paper for their class.
It seemed to me like Women in Ancient Rome missed some very important points and, after reading the discussion, I realized others had come to this conclusion as well. One of the links given was an article on female naming conventions in ancient Rome, this is something that I think should have been included in the article.
1. How long is the article? (cut and paste text into word processor and do a word count)
The article is approximately 1,390 words long.
2. What was the search term you used and what is the exact article title?
I searched for “ancient women”, the article's actual title is “Women in Ancient Rome”.
3. Look at the Disambiguation link and say what you find there.
There wasn't a disambiguation link.
4. Look at the page Discussion and say briefly what you find there.
This article didn't have alot of discussion, but most people seemed to agree that the article missed some important topics, was inaccurate or "overstated", and lacked sources.
5. Look at the History of the page. How many changes have there been? When was the date of the first change? Last change?
There have been 268 edits since the article was first written. The first edit was September 1st, 2003. The most recent edit was August 12th, 2008.
6. How many external links are provided?
There were four external links, although only three of them were technically links, the fourth was a reference to an article in a magazine.
7. How many references?
There were three references.
8. How many entries under Further Reading?
There isn’t a further reading section, but there is a “See Also” section. There are three “See Also” links.
I would not recommend Women in Ancient Rome. While it has some links to some interesting information, the article itself lacks substance. When I was reading it, it felt like the author was a high school student who skimmed a history book or spark notes then wrote paper for their class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)