Weekend Reading: Harry Brighouse: Teaching a 10 Year-Old to Read

Jameson Minto: Achaea and Rome: 192 B.C.–146 B.C https://musingsofclio.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/achaea-and-rome-192-b-c-146-b-c/: 'Achaea hadn’t really changed: divided into two factions, vying for more autonomy and seeing itself as able to compete with the larger states due to the strength of the collective identity of its people. Rome had changed and changed into a state that didn’t allow any deviation from what it wanted.... The relationship between it and its allies was now one of patron and client.... Achaea’s actions went against this.... Roman dignatas would not stand for that.... Rome... issue[d] an ultimatum: break up the League or war. The strength of Achaean Identity meant that war was the only option, since it became a war against the Achaean people and everything that it had built up to become it.... Survival, one of the key pillars of the Achaean identity had lost all meaning, since the proposed destruction of the League would render it all for nothing. Which was why the divisive assembly unanimously voted for war, even though it meant the destruction of the League.... The Achaean collective identity fostered a sense of unity between the various poleis of the Peloponnese... helped in dealing with other states.... Achaean identity was originally established as a way for a people, an ethnos, to survive and thrive in a world that was fast becoming dominating by poleis. It served a similar purpose in this period, creating a unified people to create a greater bargaining power against the larger states, it simply underestimated the power of Rome until it was too late...

#noted #2020-01-05