since Microsoft Word's being a douchebag tonight...
I have this LJ as a last resort to save info for my crummy history class!! this might sound rubbish,so ignore.
a) Compare and contrast the issues surrounding murder within Ancient Greek vs. Roman societies. Which fact from the article did you find to be most surprising and why? Compare some of the examples from the article to equivalent examples within modern society.
(Garland, pg.9)"The Law of the Twelve Tables(c.450 bc), the earliest surviving Roman law code, ordered parents 'to kill quickly a deformed infant'. The paterfamilias or head of the family had the right, in theory at least, to execute summarily any member, including in primis his slaves."
I found this suprising. it appeared that the Romans had no regard to letting an infant survive, if they came to this world with any hint of physical distortion. I find this to be ignorant, for the fact that one must wonder why they only determined a person by their outer physical condition to be "healthy", when there must've been people born with mental illness as well. you wouldn't be able to tell until they've gotten a little older, but i suppose the law of the twelve tables would still apply, even to a person that went under that category of illness.
(Garland, pg. 10)"Athenian law permitted the killing of an assailant who struck first; of a burgular who broke into one's home at night.."
In comparison to modern society, if an individual were to be convicted of a crime such as this,could possibly contest, and say that they had acted in "self-defense" against the assailant, if fallen of the two senarios.
(Garland, pg. 9) "The Roman world is mainly limited to a handful of high-profile murders of politically prominent individuals."
"If a slave murdered his master the entire household was executed. On one occasion in the first centruy AD, no fewer than 400 slaves suffered this fate."
(Garland, pg. 10)"..and of an adulterer found in flagrante delicto. An interesting instance involves a certain Euphiletus, who killed his wife's lover after discovering the pair in bed together. Instead of killing him instantly, however, he first rounded up his neighbors as witnesses and then slew him - we are not old how - in their presence."
I think Euphiletus' crime was an act of passion, a case that is still not foreign now, in modern society. however, the way the latter part of the murder(neighbors being summoned to witness the killing), is living up to the greek style of dramaticism that couldn't have worked in current times,because of it's unethical and inhumane demonstrations.
In my opinion, I think that Ancient Greek society in comparison to Roman society concerning murder and punishment, they used different psychological methods when dealing with the murder issue. the Greeks focused more on how an act of murder would effect the community,and the Gods, while the Romans concentrated...however, when determining whether the killing was justifiable or unjustifiable.
a) Compare and contrast the issues surrounding murder within Ancient Greek vs. Roman societies. Which fact from the article did you find to be most surprising and why? Compare some of the examples from the article to equivalent examples within modern society.
(Garland, pg.9)"The Law of the Twelve Tables(c.450 bc), the earliest surviving Roman law code, ordered parents 'to kill quickly a deformed infant'. The paterfamilias or head of the family had the right, in theory at least, to execute summarily any member, including in primis his slaves."
I found this suprising. it appeared that the Romans had no regard to letting an infant survive, if they came to this world with any hint of physical distortion. I find this to be ignorant, for the fact that one must wonder why they only determined a person by their outer physical condition to be "healthy", when there must've been people born with mental illness as well. you wouldn't be able to tell until they've gotten a little older, but i suppose the law of the twelve tables would still apply, even to a person that went under that category of illness.
(Garland, pg. 10)"Athenian law permitted the killing of an assailant who struck first; of a burgular who broke into one's home at night.."
In comparison to modern society, if an individual were to be convicted of a crime such as this,could possibly contest, and say that they had acted in "self-defense" against the assailant, if fallen of the two senarios.
(Garland, pg. 9) "The Roman world is mainly limited to a handful of high-profile murders of politically prominent individuals."
"If a slave murdered his master the entire household was executed. On one occasion in the first centruy AD, no fewer than 400 slaves suffered this fate."
(Garland, pg. 10)"..and of an adulterer found in flagrante delicto. An interesting instance involves a certain Euphiletus, who killed his wife's lover after discovering the pair in bed together. Instead of killing him instantly, however, he first rounded up his neighbors as witnesses and then slew him - we are not old how - in their presence."
I think Euphiletus' crime was an act of passion, a case that is still not foreign now, in modern society. however, the way the latter part of the murder(neighbors being summoned to witness the killing), is living up to the greek style of dramaticism that couldn't have worked in current times,because of it's unethical and inhumane demonstrations.
In my opinion, I think that Ancient Greek society in comparison to Roman society concerning murder and punishment, they used different psychological methods when dealing with the murder issue. the Greeks focused more on how an act of murder would effect the community,and the Gods, while the Romans concentrated...however, when determining whether the killing was justifiable or unjustifiable.