Women Demonstrate against the Oppian Law, Augustus, and the Germanic-Roman Interaction - Essay Example

?Western Civilization: Women Demonstrate against the Oppian Law, Augustus, and the Germanic-Roman interaction The reading on the of the Oppian Law (Livy, pp. 128-133) reveals an interesting spectrum of opinion on the role of women in Roman society in the period around 195 B.C.E. The historian Livy presents both sides of the debate on an issue that caused considerable consternation in the city of Rome. On the one hand there is the conservative Cato, who argues against the reform of a harsh law that prevents women from wearing fine clothes, traveling in carriages within towns and cities, and possessing more than a certain amount of gold. On the other hand there is Valerius who appeals to the long and glorious history of Roman womanhood, arguing that they have always stepped in to the breach to defend Rome, and that they deserve to share in its wealth just as men do, now that times are better again. This extract shows that women in Rome were treated well so long as they remained within the legal constraints decided by men, and when they displayed sacrificial behavior, but that some powerful forces saw them as a threat when they dared to speak up to defend themselves against injustice. It is clear that Roman women, especially in the upper classes, enjoyed many privileges while times were good. Cato speaks fondly of the ancestors who “did not want women to conduct any- not even private- business without a guardian” (Livy, p. 30), which implies that in the time of the debate women were very much active in such domains. In fact their appearance on the streets and their expectation of a fair hearing shows that they were very capable of understanding and using the conventions of legal, political and commercial life. They also inherited wealth from their husbands and other relatives who died on the battlefield, which means that there had been times in history when they were free to own property and decide on its use. The evidence of this speech shows that many women did have quite a good life, even though, as Valerius points out “they cannot partake of magistracies, priesthoods, triumphs, badges of office, gifts or spoils of war” (Livy, p. 32). I would not have enjoyed being a woman in a society that forbids participation in these key democratic rights. When one considers, however, the inequality that women still face today in gaining access to the top boardrooms, the highest offices of the land, including President of the United States, and priesthood in a great many religions of the modern world, it is clear that things have improved a little since Roman times. Many but many of the same restrictions on women still apply either by rule of law, as in religions, or by patriarchal prejudice. In conclusion, therefore, it seems that the position of women in ancient Rome was, as it is now, rather mixed. Valerius is correct when he tells the decision makers, who are all men: “the more power you possess, all the more moderately should you exercise your authority” (Livy, p. 33). The women, with some help from Valerius won the argument in the end, and the emergency curtailment of their freedoms was repealed and this shows that they had some power to be reckoned with, despite the obstacles that some men placed in their path. On the whole, however, my own opinion is that I think women were not treated fairly in the Roman Republic. They had very few guaranteed rights, and were in a considerably worse position than men were in. The problems of the state, such as requiring more money to pay for troops, were created by men, and they resulted in the Oppian Law which was specifically directed against women, directing them to hand over their own family goods to the state (Livy, p.128). This was patently unfair. The power of men to control women is something that I would not willingly accept and so I would not like to have been a woman in the Roman Republic. 2. When Octavian adopted the name Augustus, meaning “Revered One” he embarked on a period of radical reform with the full backing of the people of Rome. They were tired of wrangling politicians and a Republic that was quite obviously beginning to crumble. The new ruler of Rome had many titles, including consul, censor, supreme potiff, imperator and princeps, (Lewis, 2012, p. 1040 and he studiously avoided any pretensions to dictator ship. The consolidation of different sources of power is the secret behind this new ruler’s success, and he achieved this using a step-by-step strategy of careful annexation. With the skill of a general planning a campaign, he mapped out how to turn a failing Republic into a functioning monarchy, and in so doing he created a prosperous, stable, and largely peaceful regime that lasted for some two hundred years. The first thing that Augustus tackled was the corruption that was endemic in Roman high society. Nepotism and connections were the way to social success in the Roman world at that time, and Augustus tempered this with a ruler’s eye for the damage that poor performance could do for the standing of the Senate. Bright and ambitious young men still climbed the social ladder through their family and military networks but, in the words of Lewis: “none of them got far unless he performed competently, honestly and loyally to the satisfaction of the princeps” (Lewis, 2012, p. 105). A new upright, moral tone prevailed, and this brought a breath of fresh air into the Roman political scene. The second part of the new ruler’s plan was to delegate as much responsibility as possible to regional rules, thus allowing him to concentrate on matters of importance to the Roman territories as a whole. Alongside this managerial approach there was a decision to professionalize the military, thus saving considerable sums of money and at the same time creating a much more loyal and efficient support for his own regime. For the people within the Roman empire this represented a clear improvement, because infrastructure projects could now be prioritized, such as roads and defence works, and there was no longer enforced conscription. Soldiers could be hired, in return for a generous financial retirement package, or in the case of non-Romans, the promise of Roman citizenship on retirement (Lewis, 2012, p. 105). One of his major accomplishments was to shift the Roman civilization from a mode of expansion, to one of consolidation, making it possible once again to truly rule the territories that were nominally Roman. The single greatest benefit that Augustus brought about was peace. Skirmishes along the borders, and in areas of new conquest still occurred, but the single strong ruler, backed by loyal military support and a hand-picked Senate guaranteed a stability that proved lasting and fostered a re-awakening of the arts and literature, and much structural renovation of the towns and cities. It is easy to see why ordinary people hailed him as a Divine being when he died, and named the month of August after him (Lewis, 2012, p. 104). Modern onlookers might quibble that he abused political processes to establish a monarchical rule, but for many he will be remembered as one of the best examples there has ever been of this kind of ruler. 3. The Romans thought of all the peoples who lived along the edges of the Roman Empire and beyond as “barbarians.” This rather negative view persisted well into the sixth century, even though some of these tribes and nations had adopted Roman traditions, the Christian religion and even used Latin for their official language. North of the Empire a whole new civilization was quietly emerging, in the territory known as Germania (Lewis, 2012, p. 135). The single biggest mistake that the rulers of Rome made in their relations with these peoples in general, and with the Germanic tribes in particular, was to underestimate their capability. The Romans really should have known better, because there had been several significant altercations with these Germanic barbarians in the past, and on more than one occasion the Romans had found themselves outnumbered and outsmarted by their fierce but unruly warriors. The great advantage of the Germanic tribes was that they had a loose and flexible structure, unlike the Romans with their monolithic Empire. Chieftains could assemble enemies quickly, using alliances, and disband them equally easily, making them very hard to pin down in a traditional pitched battle. Warrirs were supremely loyal to their lords, even to the point of death, and some of them learned new technologies and war tactics in periods of service as auxiliaries with the Roman legions: “Ironically the more the Germanic barbarians came under Roman influence, the more dangerous they were to the empire” (Lewis, 2012, p. 135). Trade with the Romans brought them superior quality goods, and the close proximity of Roman and Germanic populations meant that the barbarians learned the ways of the Romans and acquired new skills. Both of these new trends that were to prove useful when the Germanic tribes finally had their fill of paying tribute and took it upon themselves to challenge the supremacy of Rome. The rise of the Germanic warrior armies in the second century A.D. had the effect of mirroring Roman structures, and spreading the luxuries, including fine clothes, weapons and the funds to raise armies widely across the Germanic territories. Lewis notes that key individuals began to form “an elite that stood apart from the average Germanic warrior tribesmen” (Lewis, 2012, p. 136). This very elite is the source of a growing threat to the empire, because it had the vision, and the knowledge to plan large scale military attacks on key targets , even to the point of ransacking Rome itself. References Lewis, Gavin. WCIV. Boston: Cengage, 2012. Livy. Set Reading, pp. 128-133. Read More