Test #2 Flashcards Preview

Roman History > Test #2 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Test #2 Deck (85):

What was the tangible notion that the word “imperium” stood for? What did it have to do with the ability to consult the gods?

Imperium was the ability to give orders and expect them to be followed; it was the power to get things done. Magistrates who held imperium also held auspicium, the power to consults the gods (i.e. request omens from the gods, particularly for signs of divine approval of their own imperium), because their power ultimately came from the gods.


What did a triumphing general look like and where did he go? What 2 things does the concept of the triumph reveal about the Roman idea of imperium?

The general had a purple face and rode on a 4-horse chariot wearing Jupiter’s clothes and a laurel wreath; he rode up to the Temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest on the Capitoline Hill. This practice reveals that a commander’s imperium was understood to originate with the god Jupiter, and the triumph was really a religious ceremony glorifying the god and the utilizer of the god’s imperium.


When and why did Augustus vow to build the Temple of Mars the Avenger? Where was it, and what went on there?

He vowed it after Caesar was assassinated as he was trying to defeat Brutus and Cassius at Philippi. It was in the Forum of Augustus, and it housed all triumphal tokens and featured statues of triumphal commanders and was the starting point for generals as they left the city on campaign.


Who attended the activities of the consuls, and what changed (and why) about these attendants when the consuls were outside the city?

Lictors (a sort of bodyguard) carrying the fasces; they added an axe to the fasces when the consul was outside the city on campaign, because in a military context the consul was authorized to execute Roman citizens.


What was the original purpose of the position of praetor? What did it later get used for, and why?

The praetor originally just heard legal cases; after Rome took over Sicily and Sardinia as a result of the First Punic War, praetors were assigned to serve as overseas generals and governors of provinces.


In what two situations were dictators used? What was their term limit? What was their sidekick called?

Dictators were used in emergency situations (chiefly military) when the efficiency of one man deciding everything was considered necessary; they were also used when a consul was needed to do something (like run elections) but both were unavailable. Dictators could serve for 6 months or until their situation was completed. Their sidekick was the magister equitum (“master of the cavalry”).


Who did the quaestors assist? What was their primary function?

The quaestors were essentially assistants, but primarily accountants in charge of financial affairs. They were subordinates of anyone holding imperium, which typically meant generals in provinces.


What was special about the bodies of the plebeian tribunes? What were their duties?

Their bodies were sacrosanct, and anyone who violated that by force was liable to be murdered without a trial. Their duties were to run plebeian assemblies, present bills at them, veto the senatorial votes or magistrates’ actions that the plebeians didn’t like, and protect plebeians from exploitation by patricians (e.g., if a plebeian was seized by a magistrate).


What were the two kinds of aediles, and how were they visually distinguished? What were they in charge of? Why was this office a crucial one for advancing one’s political career?

There were the plebeian aediles, who didn’t get to wear the purple edged toga and sit on the curule chair, and the curule aediles who did; they were in charge of maintaining the streets, the water supply, public spaces of all kinds, the control of prices, the adjudication of matters related to all this, and most of all tge civic festivals and entertainments; Romans seeking to advance their political careers would use their time as aedile to stage elaborate, exorbitant festivals at their own expense to curry favor with the public.


What was the primary duty of the censors, and what social activity did this require of them? From what group were nearly all censors chosen? How long was their term of office?

Censors were mainly in charge of running the census of Roman citizens, but this meant that they controlled the roster of the senate and all other classes of Romans. They were usually ex-consuls. Their term of office was technically 5 years, but it really only lasted as long as it took them to do their jobs, so eventually it was restricted to 18 months.


Who were the publicani and what sorts of things were they in charge of?

They were the syndicates of private businesses who bid on government contracts for road-building, infrastructure construction, supplying the army, and collecting provincial taxes.


What was the difference between a nobilis and a novus homo?

A nobilis was a person who had had someone in his family serve as consul, while a novus homo was a person who was the first in his family to serve as consul.


How did Sulla’s political reforms serve to help the interests of the old aristocratic families at the expense of new, populist upstarts?

He expanded the number of lower magistracies while keeping the number of consuls fixed at two, and he regularized the cursus honorum—this meant that the consulship (and, really, all magistracies) was harder for anyone to win and thus more likely to be won by well-established wealthy noble familes.


What were the two ways a novus homo could build up his name and fame early in his career, before winning his first election on the cursus honorum?

You could develop a reputation as an excellent orator by giving speeches in the forum or defense/prosecution speeches in the courtroom, or you could become a distinguished military man.


What was a pro-magistracy and what were they used for?

Pro-magistracies were non-elected positions granted by the senate which still possessed imperium. They were granted to allow commanders more than just a year’s time to complete some military campaign. Alternatively, pro-magistrates were sent to govern foreign provinces outside of the terms of their offices as consuls and praetors.


What changed about pro-magistracies during the 1st century BCE (especially with Pompey)? What were the two major consequences of this?

Pro-magistracies were no longer assigned by the Senate but were primarily voted by the plebeian assemblies (through bills sponsored by tribunes). Now the major military commands were not controlled by the Senate but by the plebeian assembly, and the right to command an army was functionally separated from holding an office.


What social change does our textbook claim emerged from these changes in pro-magistracies?

A small group of crooked patricians, nobles but not big time aristocrats, suddenly had access to a new and extremely powerful set of extraordinary pro-magistracies that no one else really did. Cicero called them the principes, the “first citizens,” and although their armies were voted to them by the assemblies (instead of by the Senate like would traditionally happen), nonetheless those soldiers were more loyal to their employers than to the state.


Why did Augustus quit serving as consul? What did he do instead?

Being consul every year looked suspiciously like Caesar’s lifetime dictatorship, and not serving as consul meant that there were 2 slots that other Roman elites could compete for every year to acquire honor/status. Instead, he acquired imperium pro consule, giving him all the powers and privileges of consuls (and thus MORE than what pro-consuls had) but without holding the magistracy itself.


What transition did Augustus create that allowed the position of emperor to exist?

He separated the powers of magistrates (particularly consular imperium) from the magistracies themselves, and concentrated them all in the hands of one man.


What were the three parts of the Roman “constitution” as perceived by Polybius?

The “oligarchy” of the Senate, the “democracy” of the people’s assemblies, and the “monarchy” of the magistracies.


What got voted on by the comitia centuriata? What aspect of the voting process in the comitia centuriata was unfairly biased in favor of the wealthiest Romans?

They voted on the elections for imperium-holding magistrates (i.e., consuls and praetors) and on declarations of war and peace. The voting units (“centuries”) for the comitia centuriata were based on wealth, and the citizens were organized unequally into these centuries, so that there were far more people in each “poor citizen” century than in the “rich citizen” centuries.


What was the voting process for the comitia tributa and concilium plebis? What was the difference between these two voting bodies?

The voting units were “tribes,” of which there were 35, and they were not broken up by wealth. The comitia tributa elected the curule aediles and quaestors (and anything else that the entire citizenry needed to vote on), while the concilium plebis voted on the plebeian aediles and the tribunes (and all plebiscites).


What power did the presiding magistrate have over any election?

The presiding magistrate could, theoretically (and often in practice), decide everything that the people voted on, decide whether or not to allow any nominee to run for office, and even nullify the election of some candidate.


Who made up the roster of the Senate? What did senatorial debate and voting actually produce?

After Sulla, the Senate was made up of anyone who had ever won a magistracy; before him, the Senate roster was essentially composed of anyone who had ever won a curule magistracy or was someone well-liked and respected (or at least rich). The Senate would produce a “senatus consultum,” which had no real force but publicized the recommendation of the Senate on any given topic for the magistrates and the people to consider.


What was the connection between enrollment in the army and personal wealth?

The army drafts were based on citizenship status based on wealth, because you were in charge of buying your own equipment to serve in the army, so the poorest citizens never got drafted, and the official pay of the soldiers was very low.


What proportion of the Roman army during the Republic was not actually Roman? What was the effect on the Roman army when the Latins and Italians received citizenship after the Social War (91-88 BCE)?

The Latin/Italian auxiliary force of the Roman army was greater than the number of actual Romans, possibly 2:1. When the Latins and Italians were given Roman citizenship, they served throughout the Roman army (not just in auxiliary units) and probably had less loyalty to Rome than to their commanders.


What were the results of Marius’s reform of the recruitment of soldiers into the Roman army? What did the soldiers do other than fight battles?

Allowing the poorest citizens to serve in the army reduced urban unemployment and increased the dwindling numbers of qualified citizen-soldiers, and thus began the trend of the professional army. Marius’s soldiers would also build infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, aqueducts) and TRAIN.


What, as Polybius describes it, was decimation?

When a large group of soldiers disgraced themselves through subordination or cowardice, commanders would choose one-tenth of them by lot to be bludgeoned to death as punishment, while the other 90% were given lousy rations and forced to sleep outside the regular camp.


What happened to soldiers who received gifts for acts of valor?

They held distinguished positions in religious processions back home and displayed their spoils conspicuously in their homes.


What did the public slave do who stood behind the general during a triumph

He reminded the general that he was a mortal and not to get too arrogant


What equipment does Josephus list as being carried by Roman soldiers?

breastplate; helmet; two swords; spear/javelin; shield; saw; basket; shovel; ax; leather strap; scythe; chain; three day’s food rations


What do selections 303 and 304 reveal about how people advanced in their military careers?

It helped to receive recommendation letters from wealthy connected individuals; it also helped to bribe your way up the ladder.


In the speech of Percennius in Tacitus’s Annals, what are the complaints of the common soldiers?

They endure a large number of campaigns, but then upon retirement are forced to live near military camps as reserves; their land rewards are in poor areas in far-flung provinces; the pay is low; the personal expenses are high; bribes are required for avoiding punishments or onerous duties; retirement bonuses were often not paid in cash or were delayed.


What did civilians in the towns near Roman military encampments often worry about?

Soldiers could make requisitions of private property if the army had a need for it, but this was often abused. Civilian charges against Roman soldiers were adjudicated in military courts with Roman military commanders in charge, so the deck was stacked against them.


How were the governor of a province and the commander of an army IN a province treated the same way?

They had the same basic staff (an elected quaestor and an appointed legatus or two as subordinates; the primary responsibility of the governor was to ensure military security of his province


How was the governor of a province treated differently from the commander of an army IN a province?

A governor was allocated every year but a commander stopped being designated as soon as the war was over; governors also had to perform non-military tasks such as conducting court cases involving Romans as well as non-Romans; governors were responsible for collecting fixed taxes (the stipendium).


How might non-Romans within a Roman province know whether the Roman governor would adjudicate their court cases?

Some communities had treaty relationships with Rome that excluded judicial interference; some governors published edicts explaining exactly what cases they would and wouldn’t hear.


Why didn’t the Roman governors need a large number of subordinates to help him manage their provinces?

They weren’t actually in charge of much—local communities were in charge of day-to-day operations like upkeep, courts for ordinary local cases, and local (non-Roman) taxes


What was the only check against corrupt governors? Why was it unlikely to achieve justice this way? Why didn’t the Romans just create safeguards to prevent corrupt in the first place?

Trials for extortion charges (quaestio de repetundis). Membership of the juries in such cases were partially, or solely, other senators; convicted senators could just go into exile and keep their ill-gotten gains; governors were treated like military commanders with imperium, and you couldn’t tell someone with imperium what he could or couldn’t do while he was in his province.


What was mos maiorum, and how did senators invoke it to do things?

Mos maiorum was “the way the elders behaved,” i.e. the custom of ancestors. Senators could make major changes to the way the Roman government was run as long as they could claim that it followed the mos maiorum, and they could attack their opponents by claiming that their opponents’ policy suggestions or activities violated the mos maiorum.


What constitutional legislation had Sulla passed?

He clarified what plebeian tribunes could/could not do, what magistrates were allowed to do, what the rules for the cursus honorum were.


Who were prefects and procurators, and what did they do?

Prefects were equestrians who were appointed to run specific tasks, such as overseeing the corn supply or the fire brigade, or who ran specific important little territories for a while (such as Egypt or other provinces). Procurators were equestrians or freedmen appointed by the emperor to act as agents of the emperor himself, whether managing properties acquired by the emperor through inheritance or confiscation, or whether managing the finances of the emperor’s provinces.


What were the social purposes of ludi? When did ludi become more important for the civic participation of the commoners, and why?

They were communal events that gave citizens temporary pleasure and respite from their toils, inspiring a sense of civic unity (though they were a site for public approval or disapproval of the government). Once the election of magistrates had been taken from the people and given to the senate, the popular behavior at ludi became a major way for the people to express their political opinions to their leaders, and tolerance of controlled dissent became an aspect of many ludi.


What magistrates were in charge of them? What incentive did they have to put on great ludi?

Aediles ran them, and ambitious politicians wanted to put on successful ludi to boost their campaigns for praetorships by currying favor with the masses


What was different, socially, about Greek athletics vs Roman athletics?

For the Greeks, athletic excellence was considered a noble pursuit in and of itself. For the Romans, athletic skill was only valuable in a military setting (i.e. as part of martial prowess) and thus the Romans thought athletic performances and exercise were frivolous.


What explanations are given for why it took so long for Romans to build permanent structures for the performance of spectacles?

One is that tolerance of idle leisures like spectacles would lead to civic sloth, so only temporary theaters were permitted and they were quickly dismantled after the ludi. The other theory (which I think is more substantive) is that the elites feared that if the common folk would assemble in large numbers in one area (such as at a permanent theater), it would lead to civil disturbances and possibly populist insurrections.


How were major festivals connected to the yearly pattern of war?

The feriae Latinae were in April, when the fighting season started, and the ludi Romani were held at the end of summer once regular warfare ended. Military expeditions against neighbors relied on the agricultural workforce being unoccupied (yet also assembled), so the festivals were the transition moment from field work to army service.


What were the two main sociopolitical effects of the major Roman festivals?

a) the festivals were opportunities for Rome to show off their power and wealth to an Italian, and even Mediterranean, audience; b) the festivals allowed Romans to mix with local Latins and Italians and develop a sense of unity with them (especially given the commemorative nature of the festivals highlighting the shared history between Romans and their neighbors)


How were public rituals celebrated at Rome? What did the regular citizens do?

State priests performed precise rites and spoke precise prayers outside the temple of the target deity (or on an altar constructed in some appropriate place). Regular citizens did not participate in any way, but merely looked on in silence.


What was the Ambarvalia, and what was it for? The Robigalia? The Lupercalia? The Saturnalia?

he Ambarvalia was a spring purification ceremony that involved a procession walking along the perimeter of one’s property lines or the boundary of a town/city. The Robigalia was celebrated outside the city and was meant to encourage mildew (grain “rust”) not to touch the crops that year. The Lupercalia was mainly a fertility rite involving half-naked young men running around the city. The Saturnalia was a winter festival of peace and generosity marked especially by the flipping of normal social status (slaves had a day off, low status people could thumb their noses at elites).


Who were affected by the regular travel movements of the wealthy elites, and how? How did seasonal labor affect travel patterns in the city of Rome?

he wealthy’s touring season affected their slaves (because they were forced to travel with them), clients (because they no longer had to say hello every morning but also lost contact with their benefactor/defender), and retailers (who made money by supplying them). Seasonal laborers poured into Rome to handle the cargoes of foods at the beginning and end of summer, and they poured out of Rome into the countryside to work the fields during harvest time in late summer.


What are the conclusions drawn by our textbook from the Clodius/Milo story about the nature of the Roman suburbs?

The wealthy were always ready to travel out of the city, even though it meant bringing their entire household with them; city lifestyles and country lifestyles were distinct, even in terms of clothing; the cultural leisure-activities of the city also went on in the private homes of the elites in the country


What do the excerpts in the Shelton reading suggest to you about the features/quality of ancient hotels?

They were very small, typically poor in quality, frequently a site of ripoffs by dishonest owners, and often sold prostitutes in addition to food and supplies.


What were the two purposes of the grain dole at Rome, according to our textbook, and what was unexpected about its quality?

The dole both kept many citizens from starving and also reaffirmed the hierarchy of citizenship within the larger Roman Empire (with people in the city of Rome at the top of the food chain). The quality of the grain dole was unexpectedly high; citizens received good grain from Egypt and Africa and not lousy local grain.


On a day to day basis, what activity were clients expected to do for their patron, and what activity were patrons expected to do for their clients?

Clients were expected to provide a morning salute (salutatio) to pay their respects, and patrons were expected to invite their clients to dinner occasionally


How had the patron/client relationship changed in the imperial period, as far as dining was concerned?

Many clients were not poor citizens seeking protection but were former slaves of the patron, and expected dinner invitations and hospitality from their former masters; clients had the reputation (probably related to their status as former slaves) of stealing food and tableware.


For poor Romans (i.e. most Romans), what was the staple of one’s diet? In what forms did it come?

Poor Romans mainly ate wheat, either boiled with water to make a grits-like porridge or baked in an oven to make bread.


What was a sumptuary law, and how did they relate to food during the Republic? What were the problems Balsdon notes with these laws?

Sumptuary laws regulated and restricted the amount of money people could spend on luxury items or how much they could be flaunted publicly. Balsdon lists a variety of laws passed over the years that specifically dealt with regulations for food and dining. As he points out, these laws would have been difficult to enforce and wouldn’t have made much economic sense.


How were Romans seated at a dinner party? How did social hierarchies emerge at these parties?

There would be three couches around the table, with usually 3 spots per couch; guests would recline on the couches and there were elaborate rankings for each guest to determine their spot; often people seated at the second and third couches ate worse quality food and drink than the top guests.


What does the Pliny the Elder reading reveal about other alcoholic beverages in the ancient Mediterranean?

He seems to be indicating that in Gaul, Spain, and Egypt, they had developed a rudimentary form of beer or corn moonshine in addition to wine.


He seems to be indicating that in Gaul, Spain, and Egypt, they had developed a rudimentary form of beer or corn moonshine in addition to wine.

The Roman moralist believed that the invention of sailing brought about war and corruption and greed as different peoples interacted with one another. The Romans liked to think that they had not had any experience with sailing until the First Punic War, at which point they quickly mastered it and defeated the world’s greatest navy.


According to our textbook, what are the ways that the ancient perception of ethnic identity differs from our modern understanding?

here was no sense of the idea of the “nation-state” (which is a later, Enlightenment concept); descriptive terms for social groups were less exclusive in antiquity; the relationship between ethnic identity and political power was more complicated in antiquity; the idea of “Romanness,” in particular, was open to a wide variety of peoples within the Roman Empire.


What was the Roman attitude toward its western provinces (and the peoples therein)?

The Romans justified their imperialist takeover of the West by claiming that they brought humane values to ‘barbarian’ groups, who were superstitious and shifty.


What was the Roman attitude toward Jews and Christians, and what was the logic behind their persecutions?

The Roman attitude toward Christians was largely one of hostility; this is mostly true toward Jews, although sometimes deference was made to the antiquity of the Jewish people. The root of the logic behind the persecutions was that since Jews and Christians insisted on a monotheistic god, they had to also deny the Roman pantheon as well as the divine status of the emperor—thus, from a political standpoint they were treasonous to the Romans, for whom their religion vouchsafed their political power and imperium.


What was the Roman ambivalence about Greece in terms of inferiority and superiority, and how was this related to fears about Roman decline?

Rome admitted that Greece achieved culture and refinement before they themselves had, and the Greek contributions to intellectualism were always honored, but they also accused the Greeks of softness and effeminacy. The Romans also feared that someday the Greeks (or other Eastern powers) would rise again and Rome would fall (possibly because of Rome’s own exposure to Greek effeminacy through imperialist conquest).


Why was the Roman Empire inherently in moral danger, and what role did the army play?

Rome was able to conquer the peoples of the East because they had moral superiority over them (which gave them the advantage in war), but by absorbing those lands as Roman provinces, the conquered territories undermined Roman strength. The army was always the first to be exposed to the moral vices of these people and thus would bring such softness and immorality back to Rome on their return.


What seems to be the root of Juvenal’s resentment of the Greeks? What social chameleonism of the Greeks does he attack the most?

He is bitter that Greeks are becoming wealthier, more powerful, and accruing more social status than he himself is. He says that Greeks are all actors and claim to have knowledge of whatever technical skill you want to buy (“teacher, rhetorician, geometer, painter…”) or whatever you want to hear (“…able to assume a mask, a personality, which matches another’s expression”).


How did most slaves come to Rome during the imperial period? How did most slaves come to Rome during the Republic? From where did most slaves come during the early Republic?

Slaves came mainly from trade/birth during the Empire and from POWs of captured cities during the Republic; slaves were mostly Italian during the early Republic but came from foreign provinces during the middle and late Republic.


What is the “social death” of enslaved peoples, as explained by Hunt (from Patterson)

Since in antiquity one’s rights came directly from your participation in a family or clan, and slaves were denied any claims to have a link with families, ancestors, or clans, they were prohibited from claiming any rights and thus were socially dead (and could be considered possessions, not people).


What general comparison does Hunt make between ancient Roman ex-slaves and ex-slaves in the U.S. South?

Although Roman attitudes towards freedmen were often hostile and often prejudiced based on ethnic identity, there was less systematic prejudice against ex-slaves (particularly in terms of race/skin color) and thus it was easier for former slaves to re-integrate themselves into normal Roman society.


What happened when slaves gave testimony in court, and why? What did Roman law traditionally demand when a slave was suspected of killing the master?

A slave had to be tortured before giving evidence in a court case, to ensure(?!) that the slave would tell the truth. All of the slaves of the household, not just the suspected killer, would be brutally executed in public.


A slave had to be tortured before giving evidence in a court case, to ensure(?!) that the slave would tell the truth. All of the slaves of the household, not just the suspected killer, would be brutally executed in public.

A slave would be freed either in a public manumission ceremony (in front of a magistrate with imperium) or via stipulation in a will. Slaves were freed to make the master look generous to the public; to travel without restriction through the city using one’s technical skills and making connections for the patron; to vote for the patron; as a form of conspicuous consumption; through purchasing freedom with one’s own money (such as the peculium); to prevent the slaves from being tortured into supplying incriminating evidence against the patron in a court case; and to be adopted by the patron or to marry the patron.


What scared the Romans about the cult of Cybele/Magna Mater, after they had brought it to Rome? How did they deal with it?

Initiates behaved in a state of frenzy and made cacophonous music; its priests were self-castrated; the Romans closely supervised the cult actions and refused to let Romans become its priests.


How did Pliny the Younger and Trajan deal with the issue of practicing Christians in Pliny’s Roman province?

The Roman attitude toward Christians was largely one of hostility; since Christians insisted on a monotheistic god, they had to also deny the Roman pantheon as well as the divine status of the emperor. Furthermore, they had begun to set up their own parallel state with hierarchies and community and secret meetings. Thus, from a political standpoint they were treasonous to the Romans, for whom their state religion vouchsafed their political power and imperium. Trajan’s reply to Pliny implies that merely being a Christian is punishable, regardless of what other activities that entails, but that Pliny shouldn’t be actively seeking out Christians who aren’t committing other crimes.


How did the legal status of slaves contribute to their sexual exploitation?

Since slaves were the property of their owners, they could be coerced (with threats or actual violence) into sexual submission; female slaves also could be forced into prostitution or could be forced to “marry” other male slaves in a sort of ersatz marriage situation, where they might endure further sexual exploitation from their new “husband.”


What was true about the family ties among Roman slaves, and how did this lead to further exploitation?

Slaves, legally, could not have actual family ties (and customarily would typically only have a connection between mother and child, for a limited time), which meant that families were commonly broken up and sold off in different directions—slaveowners prioritized convenience and profit when selling their slaves.


How did the practice of religion in Roman culture come to include so many different forms of worship and so many divinities?

One reason was because Rome was such an important international city that it was inevitable that it would attract a variety of religious observances; also, the Romans typically asked their subjects to worship the Roman gods IN ADDITION TO, not INSTEAD OF, the local gods already worshiped; there was also the practice of inviting the patron divinities of conquered peoples into the Roman city.


One reason was because Rome was such an important international city that it was inevitable that it would attract a variety of religious observances; also, the Romans typically asked their subjects to worship the Roman gods IN ADDITION TO, not INSTEAD OF, the local gods already worshiped; there was also the practice of inviting the patron divinities of conquered peoples into the Roman city.

Each neighborhood had its own shrine with its own particular deities to worship, which would emerge semi-spontaneously in response to wider civic affairs.


Each neighborhood had its own shrine with its own particular deities to worship, which would emerge semi-spontaneously in response to wider civic affairs.

Romans tried to introduce some stability into their daily lives by integrating their home/work location into their relationship with the gods; Romans could self-define a place of “belonging” (household, neighborhood, etc.) through religious practice; Romans also were drawn to include their masters in power (be it slaveowner, patron, or emperor) into their daily religious practice.


How was religion integrated into the very nature of Roman politics?

The Romans believed that their observance of its rituals and worship of its gods was the reason they had become such a powerful, successful civilization; priests were elected magistrates, and elected magistrates performed religious rituals, and the same people served both positions


What is the different between anthropomorphism and animism, and how are the two related to early Roman religion?

The Greeks gave their gods a human appearance and attributes (anthropomorphism), while the early Romans attributed divine spirits to each inanimate object or natural phenomenon they worshiped (animism).


What were the two steps of the Greek influence on Roman religion as a result of Roman contact with the Greek world (both its religion and its literature)?

What were the two steps of the Greek influence on Roman religion as a result of Roman contact with the Greek world (both its religion and its literature)?


What were the two reasons why the Romans during the Republic would import new gods from foreign lands?

Sometimes they would do this during a civic crisis as a public response to some serious situation (like a plague or a war that wasn’t going well); sometimes they would invite the protective gods of their enemies to depart from that place and go to Rome instead before sacking an enemy city.


Why was there such a legalistic, ultra-formal language to Roman ritual?

Because the ‘mos maiorum’ had always worked in the past, no deviation from precedent was permitted, and thus the same procedures were repeated and the same words spoken; moreover, Romans treated vows and prayers like verbal contracts


What was augury and what was extispicy?

Augury was the consultation of the flight patterns or eating habits of birds as signs of divine approval or disapproval; extispicy was the consultation of entrails found in sacrificed animals as signs of divine approval or disapproval.