Week 5: Daily Blog Day 8 – Thursday, March 24, 2011 REQUIRED

Daily Blog Day 8 – Thursday, March 24, 2011

Question: Required Daily: Read Augustus' 'Res Gestae ' paragraphs 19 - 21 and scavenger hunt for as 

many pictures relating to the places mentioned as you can find and chart them on a Google Map.

Week 5: Daily Blog Day 7 – Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Daily Blog Day 7 – Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Question: Was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?

            Rome itself is a great and wondrous accomplishment. Starting as a republic, Rome flourished and as an empire Rome grew, but eventually fell. You can look at this situation two ways. The first is simply as a republic Rome was made great, so that today we learn about it in our history classes. Plus, in general, the republic had a good end result for Rome, and did not end the empire. On the other hand, as a republic Rome was lost as the republic brought a decline and then inevitable a fall. Consider for a moment, if Rome had stayed a republic, do you think it would have survived longer, possibly even to now, or would it also have ended like it did as an empire? Is there really any big of a difference if it ends this way or that? This brings me to my second way that we need to look at the Roman republic verses the Roman Empire. You can look at what each part brought to Roman and possibly all civilizations after that.  This includes the good and then the bad, or the pros and cons of each. As a republic, Rome was brought a balance, which probably became their greatest strength. At its best in 500 BC to 100 BC, the republic was based on the rule of law and a unwritten constitution. This unwritten constitution consisted of the three elements democracy, monarchy, and oligarchy. Also, as a republic Rome was not ruled by one man which does not necessarily go along with our idea of a republic. It had two annually elected Consuls. The Consuls were of the highest authority with complete veto power of the other; although, they could never rule for more than one year. This made nobody above the law. All of the roman citizens could vote too. On the other hand, we have the Roman Empire. This was based on one emperor with absolute power. This goes back to what we learned about Alexander the Great with power and how it corrupts, as well as, what I talked about in my last essay on the insane tyrants called the Julio-Claudians.  In the third century, there was a point of crisis in which the empire nearly collapsed, but it held together for another century and a half. You must remember all that it probably took to stay strong during that time. It must have helped having all of the strong willed, soldier emperors. In the end though, they did not reform the system so that new emperors would be better decided, so eventually weaker emperors gained power and Rome finally collapsed once and for all. Therefore, I believe that Rome was better off as a 

republic, but I feel like what happened had to happen for our world to be what we are today.

Sources:

http://www.historum.com/ancient-history/4266-roman-republic-vs-roman-empire.html

Week 5: Daily Blog Day 6 – Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Daily Blog Day 6 – Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Question: Were the Julio-Claudians really as bad as they seem?

            Julio-Claudians is the nickname that has been given to the first five Roman emperors. This includes Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. This nickname in part also relates to the families that these emperors came from. Most of these emperors had unique and scandalous story of their reign portrayed when you read the ancient Romans’ writings. They were said to have performed gruesome executions and were said to be full of hatred. In fact, some people even considered them to be mad or have at least gone crazy at some point during their reign. For the western civilization video project, I worked on the emperor Caligula. In doing so, I learned a lot about him and his ruthlessness. He was an ambitions military leader, and eventually he was assassinated for his believed insanity; although, attempts on his life were made many times. Some of the reasons this may have happened is due to the fact that Caligula executed many people during his reign and often for stupid reasons. Also, he had an affair with his one sister until she died. It seemed he was never the same again after that happened, and people said he was triggered into insanity. When I learned about all the things Caligula did in my project, I found that what the emperors of that time did could be truly horrible. After I stepped back and looked at this in a different perspective, I think they may not be as bad as we seem. Sure, they had their problems, and death, especially the kinds these emperors were giving, were not right by any means, you must remember what we learned earlier in the year. Power, quite simply, corrupts. Also, if you add in the fact that these men could and probably quite possibly had server mental disorders, you may not be able to hold them fully accountable for their actions. Often times, they may not have had much control over what they were doing. Sadly, though, we cannot know for sure if these emperors had what we would consider a true mental disorder in today’s day and age. Some people still may side that this is all one bug excuse. You, as well as them, are entitled to your opinion, but I believe that the Julio-Claudians did some pretty horrible and gruesome things, but if you look at more than just the act itself you may say that it’s not quite as bad as it seems, or that at least they are not quite as responsible.

Week 5: Daily Blog Day 5 – Monday, March 21, 2011

Daily Blog Day 5 – Monday, March 21, 2011

Question: Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?

            Julius Caesar was assassinated ending his life and his rule. In my mind, killing anyone is not okay. Personally, I feel like arguments and political disputes in like this in history could have been solved in other less violent ways; although, I do have to remember the time period this took place in. At that time, it may have been a reasonable thing to do if Caesar in fact was getting out of hand. We, now many centuries removed, may not make that distinction, but we can definitely try. People at that time may have felt that he was out of control and needed to be stopped. If this was so, as much as the act of killing is never justified, the reasons behind their actions may be. Therefore, if you look at it from the time period that this took place and imagine that killing is okay and not a sin, Julius Caesar’s killers can be justified if you can give enough evidence that Caesar was not capable or able to properly do his job without becoming a threat towards Rome and the citizens who lived there. Also, it is said that Caesar was warned more than once that he would be assassinated, and he ignored them. People also claim that he thought everybody loved him. This may have been part of why he might deserve to be killed. He was to vain and arrogant to realize that he might have enemies who could affect him. Being stabbed twenty four times though should have made that apparent to him shortly before he died.  This vanity though is not in my opinion enough to kill a man, but for this question it is not a clear or straight line. It is up to you to assess your virtues, character, and value in order to decide for yourself. Do not take my word for it.  Maybe he did deserve what he had coming to him, but to me it is simply wrong to kill in a situation that could have been handled differently. I was not there. I did not know Caesar, but that was not a just way for anything to be handled.

Week 5: Daily Blog Day 4 – Thursday, March 17, 2011

Daily Blog Day 4 – Thursday, March 17, 2011

Question: Please take a picture of something in your own neighborhood or town that appears to have been influenced by Ancient Rome.

Locks and Keys for Doors

Calendar and Days of the Week

Postal System

Roads(especially the more advanced networks)

Sheets of Glass (like for Windows)

Candles

Modern Literature and Theater

Street Lighting

Bikinis

Lipsticks, creams, and other cosmetics

Umbrellas

Shorthand Symbols(like &, etc., and others)

Sources:

http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_inventions.htm

Week 5: Daily Blog Day 3 – Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Daily Blog Day 3 – Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Question: How was the Struggle of the Orders influential on later Roman politics? 

Before you can determine how the Struggle of the Orders later influenced Roman politics, you must first understand what exactly this struggle and the orders are. The Struggle of the Orders was basically a political civil war within Rome beginning in 494 BC between two orders or groups based on your class. The more noble and aristocratic citizens in Rome were known as the partitions. The common people were then the other order or class known as the plebeians. The plebeians led a series of revelations and revolts against the partitions. This is because the partitions were the only people at this time allowed to run for a political position in an office. The plebeians then of course began to feel like it was unfair that they had no power over the rules and laws that affected them. Therefore, all of this led to the Struggle of the Orders and eventually the reform of the Roman government as the plebeians and the partitions compromised and ended the Struggle of the Orders. All of this greatly influenced later Roman politics in many ways as it was an important precedent in the Roman world. People were more willing to revolt against things they did not agree with and speak up for their rights. It most likely led to more civil wars and public revolts in the future. Also, the Struggle of the Orders may have also showed how political disagreements can end well with compromises and that in the future things could possibly be handled in this more civilized manner. I hope you better understand about the Struggle of the Orders and how it influenced later Roman politics.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_the_Orders  and also our class notes

Week 5: Daily Blog Day 2 – Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Daily Blog Day 2 – Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Question: What elements of the Roman Republican political and legal system appear present in the systems of modern democracies?

            The Roman government is very similar to most of the ways of the governments in today’s western world. The way the current United Stated government is set up is in many ways similar to the Roman republic. In fact, both our government in the United States and Rome’s are republics. Of course, the Roman’s republic government took place back in ancient times so their system may not be what we feel to be a traditional republic government as we see today. Today in England and the United States, the Roman common law is used in similar ways. In Rome, all laws are listed by crimes and are listed in books. The punishment then is based on rulings that past judges and juries have made. In modern United States, Latin influence can be found in the language of the courts. This is most basically described as how they speech and hold the court ceremonies. Also, the Roman government like the modern government was a balance of power between the Emperor and nobles, which is like our modern day President, and his officials, and the plebeians, the average peasant people like the average person today. A revolt in 450 BC by the plebs was lead as they believed that they should have the power to know and interpret the code of laws. This then led to the formation of the Twelve Tables. This was to be a “ten-man commission with extraordinary powers, decemviri legibus scibundis” that would “set forth the basis of law for all Roman citizens.” This would be known as a complete ius civile. Each table stood for an area of the law and its procedure that would be followed to make the law more open to all citizens; although the wealthy usually escaped punishment. These laws eventually faded in history but were never taken away. This is like today how some of the more ridiculous laws are not in effect today. These are only a very few similarities. Roman influence can be sen all around us in modern day 

governments.

Sources:

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/legallatin/legal01.htm

Week 5: Daily Blog Day 1 – Monday, March 14, 2011

Daily Blog Day 1 – Monday, March 14, 2011

Question: Please write a brief biography of Hannibal and explain whether or not you think his reputation (in Roman eyes) as a monster was deserved.

            Hannibal was a Carthaginian General in the Second Punic War. He was a feared war enemy and was known throughout Rome. The ancient days’ boogie monster was his role in the Roman households, but was this really deserved? Did Hannibal deserve this title of a monster or was he simply fighting for his country? As a child, Hannibal was raised to abhor Rome. His father began making him hate the Romans at birth. At one point it is believed that Hannibal’s father took him and made him swear a blood oath against Rome. This in itself definitely seems to be a start of a deep rivalry and hatred towards Rome. It may have been that his important role in history would not have even existed if his father had not hated Rome as much as he did to instill it in his son.  Most notably in his if though is a short moment in time during the Second Punic War. Hannibal traveled with his army which consisted not only of soldiers, but also war elephants beginning in Iberia to northern Italy. This is traveling over the Pyrenees and the Alps. This, itself, was a remarkable achievement. Making allies and conquering battles, Hannibal left an impressionable mark on history only in his first few years in Italy. Some of the more famous and dramatic battles were the victories Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae. Trough out his fifteen years in Italy, he managed to become extremely famous. A Roman counter-invasion of North Africa, although, had to return home to help fight against and ultimately defeat them in their attacks. Most famously was the battle of Cannae in which Hannibal’s army completely demolished the huge Roman army in a well-designed military approach. Hannibal’s military tactics during his time were extremely well thought out and placed him up there with the famous generals like Alexander the Great. In my opinion, he does not deserve the title of monster. I know if he were attacking my country I may come to think that, but then again he was a great leader and military man. He won some important and complex battles probably mostly due to his outside of the box tactics and great thinking. Hannibal should also be seen for this, not just a monster.

Special Question: Alexander the Great

Special Question: Please write a five paragraph essay on the question: Was Alexander's adventure really worth it? In your body paragraphs, you must cite specific examples to back up your thesis -- examples must include one from each of the following: Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, India. Due Friday.

            Alexander the Great was an honored king and a glorified conquer of the entire known world. Achieving this at such a young age, Alexander was feared and respected, looked up to and hated. People now call him everything from a visionary, a philosopher, a scientist, and a prophet to a hero, a quasi-holy man, and even a Christian saint (Cartledge, 2011). He set out in the beginning, it seemed, to avenge Persian wrong doings, but eventually ended up far surpassing his original intentions. Alexander and his army traveled from Macedonia to Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, and even to India conquering and winning battles. He was a truly great ruler but the question remains if all of his efforts were in vain. Alexander the Great affected the entire world and caused huge changes in civilizations and cultures of his time. In doing this, Alexander efforts helped shape the world people live in today making his adventure worth everything if it brings people to be who they are in present day times.

            In the spring of 331 BC, Alexander entered Egypt and was welcomed with open arms (Alexander The Great).  Upon arriving in Egypt, he even ordered a city to be built after him called Alexandria (Alexander The Great). This is one of the ways Alexander left his mark on civilization and how he influenced the way we are today. Alexandria even became a major cultural resource center for that time (Alexander The Great). The effects of this can still be seen today as Alexandria is still an active city or great importance in modern day society. While in Egypt, Alexander the Great also worked on creating his mythos taking a pilgrimage to the great temple and visiting the oracle of Amon-Ra (Alexander The Great). Later, he also famously visited the temple of Zeus Ammon on a dangerous trip (Alexander The Great). All of these trips and religious pilgrimages helped Alexander gain Egyptian favor on top of their already deep hatred for Persia. In the end, Alexander was voluntarily made Pharaoh by the Egyptians themselves (Alexander The Great). Finally, by the middle of 331BC, Alexander again set off on a path continuing his conquest against Persia (Alexander The Great).

            Eventually, Alexander met face to face with Darius, king of the Persians, in battle. Upon defeat, Darius fled and left Alexander the Great in control of Babylon, as well as, the imperial place of Susa, and Persepolis (Alexander The Great). It was here that great change also occurred. Alexander was eventually made king of Persia (Alexander The Great). This was the begging to many new things. One major event that effected history was when Alexander burned the royal place to the ground. This was only after four months of being in control (Alexander The Great). It is without a doubt important to history what went on during the burning of the palace. Soon thereafter this occurred, news of Darius being murdered reached the ears of Alexander who set off after his murder, Bessus. This took him in through Afghanistan and through many more great adventures. His experiences here changed the way people thought about limits and impossibilities. Alexander took crazy and sometimes seemingly impossible routes through this area. He may have even influenced other military leaders of his time and those of the future. Both of these escapades though lead Alexander to more victory, and made everything he was doing worth wild.

            After Alexander the Great defeated Persia, he still thirsted for more power and to conquer more land. This therefore ended up setting up Alexander on his way to India. Entering in the spring of 327 BC, Alexander set out marching into India and invading Punjab (Alexander The Great). After Punjab, the troops traveled as far as the river Hyphasis until they would not go any farther (Alexander The Great). Alexander’s adventure into India was actually in a way a great discovery mission. It probably was not a place where a lot of people traveled. Alexander probably enabled civilizations to expand and grow out farther. Also during this time Alexander’s horse, Bucephalus (Historic Figures: Alexander the Great (356 – 323 BC)), died and a city was named after him. Another great example of Alexander affecting the world (Alexander The Great). One great battle in India was the battle of Porus. In India, they traveled south attempting to reach the rivers Hydaspes and Indus (Alexander The Great). Here they planned to try to reach the ocean on the southern edge of the world (Alexander The Great). Throughout his journeys, Alexander’s legend grew. By July 325 BC, Alexander and his troops finally reached the mouth of the Indus, but ended up turning home (Alexander The Great).

            Alexander helped form the world people live in today. If he did not do what he did, people and society could be a very different place. Alexander once said, “Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathlessness renown beyond the grave. (Ancient History Sourcebook: Arrian: Speech of Alexander the Great, from The Campaigns of Alexander)” These words probably inspired the people who heard Alexander give this speech. One article on Alexander published in today’s time reads, “Alexander the Great, Single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in little more than a decade. (Historic Figures: Alexander the Great (356 – 323 BC))” If this is in fact true, Alexander also then affected our world today. Against the odds, Alexander defeated armies all throughout the world in the mighty Persian Empire (Historic Figures: Alexander the Great (356 – 323 BC)). He even ended up conquering over seventy cities, traveling with his army over eleven thousand miles, and covering about two million square miles (Historic Figures: Alexander the Great (356 – 323 BC)). Alexander, no doubt, effect his time period and in turn has affected us making everything he did worth it in the end.

            Bibliography

Alexander by Plutarch. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from The Internet Classics Archive: 441 Searchable Works of Classical Literature: http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html

Alexander The Great. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Macedonia FAQ: Alexander The Great: http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html

Ancient History Sourcebook: Arrian: Speech of Alexander the Great, from TheCampaigns of Alexander . (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2011, from FORDHAM.EDU.: http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/arrian-alexander1.htm

Ancient History Sourcebook: Plutarch: Selections from the Life of Alexander. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from FORDHAM.EDU.: http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/plutarch-alexander1.html

Cartledge, P. P. (2011, February 17). Ancient History in Depth: Alexander the Great: Hunting for a New Past. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/alexander_the_great_01.shtml

Historic Figures: Alexander the Great (356 - 323 BC). (n.d.). Retrieved March M10, 2011, from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/alexander_the_great.shtml

Weekly Question on Power and Corruption: Week 4b

Weekly Question: Question: Does Power Corrupt? How or How Not? Why or Why Not? Do you think Alexander was corrupted? And who influenced whom the most: Did Persia become more Greek or did Alexander becoming more Persian? 

            For anyone to be corrupt, they must first have power in which they can be corrupt in using. In fact, if no one had power, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to be corrupt. In 1887, Lord Acton said in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton that, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This explains how when someone has everything and no one to say no, the absolute power will overwhelm and corrupt them. Alexander was a great leader who had absolute power. If what Lord Acton said is true, then Alexander, great or not, should be corrupt. The truth is that power does corrupt, and not even Alexander the Great could be spared from that natural process of human nature.

            Power is having control over another person, thing, or situation. It is a person’s ability to change things based on their acts or decisions. Power in itself is dangerous if not used correctly. When the power somebody has is used incorrectly or goes against what society believes to be ethical, society describes this person as corrupt. In modern day times, friends will tease one another in some situations saying that power has gone to a friend’s head when they are put in charge of something of importance. Some times this happens when a coach makes a teammate the captain on a sports team or a teacher puts someone in charge of job or task no one else is. This is an example of a person receiving what seems only like a bit of power, but even in these situations of minimum power, as part of human nature, we can find ourselves getting carried away or wrapped up in the idea of being in control. Power corrupts every day in people’s natural lives. It is a part of human nature that simply cannot be done away with.

            Alexander the Great was a great ruler. He conquered the entire known world during his life at an extremely young age and was even considered a God. He created a myth about himself, and he left behind him a story of amazing accounts and breathtaking experiences.  This all though, comes at a price. Alexander set out to avenge Persian wrongs, but as he did so his power corrupted him. In history, Alexander changed, not in his greatness, but in his attitude. It is important to remember that not all corruption takes away from your greatness. In fact, very few, if any, great people have been completely free of corruption. People are human, and as humans we are vulnerable to corruption from power.

            Alexander the Great was corrupted as any great ruler was or is. As he began to become corrupted, people in his army said he began to turn Persian, but others say Alexander turned Persia more Greek. One possibility is that human nature took over again in this situation as well. As humans, people are curious, always exploring and looking for the new great thing. Alexander naturally probably tried what was new to him and experienced the Persian culture. On the other hand, Persia probably became more Greek as there ways entered into Persia. It is very possible they affected each other.

            Power corrupts everyone as part of human nature. The important part is if society lets that corruption define the person or if we take it with what you could call “a spoon full of sugar” and look at it as only part of the whole picture. Alexander the Great was corrupt, but he was the greatest ruler of that time. In the depth of his essence, he was good and he did good things. Not all corruption is good, but it can be. In the end, power corrupts, but what humanity lets that corruption do is most important. 

Week 4b: Daily Blog Day 8 – Thursday, March 3, 2011

Daily Blog Day 8 – Thursday, March 3, 2011

Question: Describe relations between Egypt and Persia before Alexander came on the scene.

            When Alexander the Great came into Egypt, he was not only greeted openly but as a king and a god. Egypt hated Persia so much that Alexander the Great was a savior, a warrior, a hero, a liberator, and a great avenger. In fact, people in Egypt called him at some point “master of the universe”. They looked up to him and loved that he had come to their city. They saw him as the person who was going to get back at Persia. Egypt had not gotten along with Persia for a very long time.  Quite frankly, Egypt despised Persia, if not completely hated or even abhorred them. In Greece, Persia burned their temples and the acropolis. Also, there was a constant problem with religion. Egypt and Persia did not agree on the Gods that each civilization worshiped. This created huge disputes between the two. It was quite natural that they would welcome and support Alexander the Great in his quest against Persia. Also, Persia conquered Egypt and had it under their control. Nobody likes to be controlled by somebody else. Therefore, it is natural that they would not enjoy someone limiting their rights and taking away their culture and religion. It would be like Canada taking over the White House and we would have to follow all their rules. Although, it would probably be even worse like if China or Mexico were to do the same. We would not like it one bit. Before Alexander, Persia and Egypt did not get along and were quite hostile towards each other.

Week 4b: Daily Blog Day 7 – Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Daily Blog Day 7 – Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Question: Was Alexander the Great a "good leader"? Compare/Contrast with Pericles.

            Alexander the Great in my mind was a good leader. In the end, he conquered the entire known world, and you must keep that into consideration, although, this alone is not enough. You must consider the like courage, integrity, bravery, confidence, honor, loyalty, and unselfishness. These few things I listed though do not even come close to all the things that a person needs to be what I would consider a good leader. Remember this all comes down to opinion. You could classify a good leader by how many wars and battles he won, which I am not saying military accomplishments are not part of making a good leader, but that is not the whole picture to me. In fact, if you would have asked different people during that time period they would have very different views on Alexander. Either way, I think Alexander the Great had many of these outstanding attributes and qualities I talked about above. Another way I can tell that Alexander the Great was a good and influential leader is by comparing him to other influential leaders in that period in history.  One of these people we could compare him to would be Pericles. Pericles was a prominent and influential statesman. He like Alexander turned a small country into a large empire when he changed the Delian League into the Athenian empire. Plus, also like Alexander he led his countrymen, although Pericles did so in the Peloponnesian War.  In all though, they had their differences in thinks like military strategy and reasoning for war. In the end, it comes down to opinion. I personally believe Alexander the Great was a good leader.

Week 4b: Daily Blog Day 6 – Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Daily Blog Day 6 – Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Question: What do you think should have been done after Alexander's death?

            Alexander the Great began to conquer the entire known world at a very young age and had accomplished his dream of this by the age of about thirty. Alexander although also died at a very young age too. When Alexander died, the great king and conquer of all surprisingly did not leave any plans behind about who would succeed him or anything like that. This is extremely surprising, because he was so detailed in planning other things like how he created his myth and conquered the entire known world. People must have been dumbfounded and unsure of what to so. They probably wondered what would come next. I think Alexander may have left no plans partially because no one expected he would die so soon. Also though, I think that the reason Alexander the Great did it was to complete his myth. He did not want anyone to come after him and rule his empire. He wanted to be known as the only king of the entire known world. When Alexander died his generals argued immensely and fought over the land. Eventually, they ended up all with their own section or part of Alexander the Great’s once amazing empire. As a result of this big change, of what you could call power, the Hellenistic period of history therefore began. Alexander the Great, therefore, also you can say caused a huge momentous change in the course of history. If he did not do what he did, the world we know would more than likely be very different. Personally, I do not think it should be any different. We are who we are today because of what had happened. Although I personal would leave plans for a successor, this is because I am very conscientious about organization and things of that nature.