Rome: From City-State to Empire

The evolution and expansion of the Rome empire was an interesting section to read in Chapter 3. Rome began as a very small poor city-state during the eighth century B.C.E. They were so weak and small that supposedly, "Romans were reduced to kidnaping neighboring women to maintain their city's population" (130). It would have to take a really smart and powerful leader to transform this struggling city into a thriving empire. Though Rome was originally ruled by a King, a republic known as patricians took control. However conflicts arose between the wealthy class and the poorer classes (plebeians). The first change to settle these disputes was a written code of law that gave protection to the lower classes. "The values of the republic- rule of law, the rights of citizens, the absence of pretension, upright moral behavior, keeping one's word-were later idealized as "the way of the ancestors" (130). Their political system is what really advanced the city of Rome. This took more then 500 years, but over time the Roman Empire branched out to be a commanding and successful, enterprise. 

The Law Code of Hammurabi

• How would you define the principles of justice that underlay Hammurabi's code? In what different ways might twenty-first century observers and those living at the time of Hammurabi asses that system of justice?

The famous saying, "An eye for an eye" is most commonly used when it comes to means of revenge, but not many people know that the origins of this saying came directly from the Law Code of Hammurabi. Law 196 states, "If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out" (96). To my surprise, the law codes are actually reasonable. Before I read through the law codes, I expected that the laws for women and people of color to be extremely different from that of the ones of the white male. Not all of the laws are perfect, but most of them do give due justice to the party that was wronged. The purpose of the laws, in Hammurabi's own words were, "to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evildoers; so that the strong should not harm the weak…, to further the well-being of mankind" (95). There is not a lot written about the ruler Hammurabi in the documentary section, but his beliefs on how to run a empire are wise ones. As a young woman living in the 21st century, two laws under the Men and Women category stuck out to me. The first one was law 137, stating, "If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and propriety, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children…she may then marry the man of her heart" (97). While I do not believe that the woman should have to wait to raise her children to finally find love, the act of the man giving her a part of his possessions, is essentially the beginnings of child support. Though people today find it hard to get their exes to pay child support, the point of it is still great. Another law that I really liked, but found surprising is law 148. "If a man take a wife and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to take a second wife, he shall not put away his wife who has been attacked by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives" (97). I was surprised by this rule, because there is no rule in this century that is equivalent to it. This rule really looks out for the woman. I wish we had more rules that took care of women today. Besides the laws about the slaves and some about drowning yourself when cheating, these laws are not much different from the ones we have today. Sometimes I do believe in the "eye for an eye" tactic. To me some crimes just do not fit the punishment.  I respect Hammurabi and his decisions to give justice that was fair and equal for almost every member in his society. 

First Civilizations: Gender Roles

In my previous blogs, I have discussed inequality of the sexes and my confusion on when the separation actually began. When reading about the first civilizations these questions were answered. Though the rise of agriculture was seen as a godsend to many people of the time, the practice of it did create divisions between men and women. Particularly, the use of "animal-drawn plows and the keeping and milking of large herds of animals" (73).  This new form of agriculture became much harder and heavier for women to carry out. Which meant they were left at home, while men would tend to this work. This was just the start of the divide. Also due to agriculture, the population was growing faster then ever. Which resulted in women staying home and caring for their children, instead of getting a job. These examples did create a gap between the sexes, but rules and regulations enforced by society were the real culprits. In Mesopotamia, "various written laws codified and sought to enforce a patriarchal family life that offered women a measure of paternalistic protection while insisting on their submission to the unquestioned authority of men" (74). These laws gave the upper hand to men. A husband could have sexual relations with his servants, but the wife's punishment for cheating would be death. A woman who was sexually assaulted by her husband, could also have sever consequences for his crime. Wealthier women could own businesses, but it was all under the watchful eyes of their husbands. Patriarchy was at its finest and I feel that this was the beginning of the problems women have to deal with everyday. Looking back on the small tribes and bands, their lifestyle was egalitarian. Men and women were created equal and they led easy lives. Unfortunately, with new promises for a better future, came unequal playing ground for many women.

Nisa's Story

While reading about Nisa's story in the document section, I was struck at the similarities between her lifestyle and the lifestyles of many women today. Before reading her story, I assumed Nisa's opinions and personality would be very different from mine and other women living in the 21st century. I came to find though, that as a growing woman, Nisa experiences with love and lost are extremely relatable. On account of living in a small community or living her "life in the bush",  Nisa's family taught her the importance of giving all that she could to anyone who needed it. She was happiest when she received food and unhappy when people were stingy. Nisa's hate for stinginess especially came to light with her numerous lovers. As Nisa states, "One man can give you very little. One man only gives you one kind of food to eat. But when you have lovers, one brings you something and another brings you something else" (49). I found this very interesting. When a girl is not happy with a man, they leave them and move on. However, I always felt that this this type of feminist outlook developed during more modern times. I assumed because she did live in a secluded environment, that wives would stay with husbands no matter what they did. I highly respect her decision because it was one that benefited her and not done for the pleasure of her husbands. Her first marriage to her husband Tashay was an arranged marriage, but it was not one that was filled with strife. The marriage was full of love and respect for the other. When she lost her husband, her view on losing the people she loves is full of raw emotion. She states, "The death of your parents, husband, or children-they are equal in the amount of pain you feel when you lose them. But when they all die, you really feel the pain. There is no one to take care of you; you are completely alone" (49). Overall, Nisa's views on life are very modern, considering that she lived in a quiet atmosphere with not many people.  She is a independent thinker and a strong woman whose experiences with the San People should be admired.