Weekly #5- Video

Required Daily #32

View Structures built by Augustus in a larger map

Daily #31

I think that Rome was better off as an empire than a republic for many different reasons. First of all, the Empire of Rome controlled a lot of land and they learned a lot about the other countries they were ruling. These other countries influenced Rome a lot because Rome learned about their cultures and they developed many beneficial ideas while being an Empire. The Empire was very secure and protective because of the border controls and even when the empire continued to grow, it also became safer. This made the people feel safe inside the borders of the Empire. The army of the Roman Empire was very strong and they made many achievements in military conflicts. The government was also very organized with a Roman emperor along with the Senate. This gave a lot of freedom to the plebeians, or lower-class citizens of Rome. The emperors of Rome after the Empire was established made good decisions for the Roman Empire and did things that would benefit all people of Rome, so they were not selfish. Architecture and the arts flourished under the Empire and many new ideas were introduced that benefitted society, including cement. There were many things wrong with the Roman Republic, especially how the government worked. The patricians made up almost the whole Senate and since they were so rich, they were allowed to have all these government positions. The plebeians did not have nearly as much power or freedom as they did as in the Empire and there were not many opportunities for them to prosper in society. The two groups often argued and got into fights because the plebeians were not treated fairly so there was a lot of chaos as a republic. The Roman Republic even went through civil wars when Caesar was dictator so many things went wrong. The Empire gave the people a lot more freedom and Rome prospered under an Empire for hundreds of years.

Daily #30

I honestly do not think in any way that Julius Caesar’s killers were justified in their actions. At the time of Caesar’s assassination, Caesar was becoming more of a dictator and the Senate even declared that he was the dictator of the Roman Republic. The Senate saw that Caesar was beginning to gain a lot of power and they did not like how he was stealing their power. This made the Senate angry and they were afraid he would overthrow the Senate with his power and possibly become a king. These were the main reasons why the Roman Senate decided that Julius Caesar needed to go. So a group of Roman Senators called the Liberatores devised a plan to kill Julius Caesar so they could regain power in the republic. On the day of March 15, or the Ides of March, 44 BC, Caesar went to the Theatre of Pompey to see a gladiator shoe. After it was over, Caesar’s loyal friend, Mark Antony, knew something was wrong and tried to alert Caesar, but he barely missed him. Caesar was led into a back room at the theatre and he was approached by about forty Roman Senators. Caesar knew something was wrong at this point, but he could not escape because he was surrounded on all sides, and he was stabbed about 23 times. Caesar was officially dead at the scene and the Roman Republic would fall a little bit because the government was in total chaos. I do not think killing Julius Caesar was an option that the Senate should have used and it was a terrible act that should have not been taken. There were other alternatives the Senate could have taken to get Caesar out of office. Killing a person can usually never be justified unless it is in self-defense and the assassination of Caesar was completely inappropriate. Caesar was an emperor that many Romans respected and his death would hurt Rome and its government.

Daily #29

There are many reasons why historians consider Hadrian the “best emperor”. First of all, Hadrian succeeded the former Roman emperor Trajan and he had good plans during his reign as Roman emperor. During his reign, he tried not to focus on military conflicts and wars but rather on peace, which the people of Rome really liked about Hadrian. He developed a peace policy where he negotiated peace with other countries and made sure his empire was secure as possible by building forts and strong structure along the empire’s borders. One of the most important structures Hadrian built was called Hadrian’s Wall, which was located on the northern border in Great Britain. Hadrian loved to learn about different cultures in his empire so he traveled a lot to other countries to understand their cultures. These countries developed strong relationships with Hadrian and the rest of Rome so many people came to like and enjoy Hadrian as emperor. Hadrian had a love for the arts and architecture so when he traveled to other countries, he liked to build artistic structures to commemorate his journey to these countries. For example, Hadrian loved the culture of the Greeks so he built many temples there, including the Temple of the Olympian Zeus. He even helped Rome in many ways, including rebuilding the once destroyed Pantheon, which was a very important accomplishment for Hadrian. Hadrian had knowledge of all the cultures in the Roman Empire and became familiar with all the countries he ruled. He was even named one of the Five Good Emperors. Many people of the Roman Empire gave respect to Hadrian for all of his accomplishments because he really understood them. This is why many historians agree that Hadrian might have been the “best emperor”.

Daily #28

Hannibal was born in 247 B.C.E in Carthage, which was suffering from the rule of the ancient Romans. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was the main leader of the Carthaginian army during the First Punic War. Living in such disagreement with Rome, he developed a deep hatred for Rome during his early years and wanted to get revenge on them somehow. Hannibal saw the terrible results of the first Punic War when Carthage lost badly and they were in a poor sate. After the death of his father and the death of his brother Hasdrubal, Hannibal finally became commander of the Carthaginian army in 221 BCE. His main goal was to somehow destroy Rome so his country could be powerful again. He started on his lifelong journey to Italy by first going through Spain and cutting through the Pyrenees Mountains in Northern Spain. He then got through the Alps and finally reached northern Italy. While in Italy, he destroyed and sacked many towns and cities and got into many significant battles that he managed to fight through. Hannibal led his troops to within 50 miles of Rome and the strongest Roman army ever assembled met them there. This would be the decisive battle called the Battle of Cannae and it favored Rome because they greatly outnumbered the Carthaginian army. Hannibal let the Romans break through his line of infantry and he knew that was what they would do. He hid his cavalry so the Romans could not see them and when the time was right, the cavalry invaded and trapped the Romans on three sides. The Romans were stuck and could not do anything, and they were absolutely crushed at that point. Carthage had defeated the strongest army that Rome ever had and Hannibal had finally gotten revenge on the one area he hated most. Due to the victory for the Carthaginians in the Battle of Cannae, I definitely think the Romans saw Hannibal as a monster for all he did to them because he single handedly reached Italy and defeated Rome when he was outnumbered. Even when Rome showed Carthage their greatest army, Carthage somehow came out with an important victory. The Romans became worried about one single guy because of all the terrible things he did to them and they saw him as a major obstacle.

Daily #27

There are many elements of the Roman Republic that appear present in our modern democracies. First of all, the Roman republic had a very strict constitution that they followed and any violation of it could result in a major punishment. Modern democracies, especially in the United States, have a very similar way of doing this. We have a constitution that we must follow and abide by and when people violate these laws or amendments, they could go to prison or even worse. The Senate in Rome is very similar to Congress in the United States because they enforced laws and managed them in the cities and towns. Checks and balances was also very important in Rome because each branch in the Roman Republic system could oversee each other branch and make sure that nothing bad was going to happen. They also had separation of powers where no branch in the republic could gain enough power over the others. This made the Roman Republic very organized and very efficient for many years. The United States and other countries have governments with the ideas of checks and balances and separation of powers and they probably adopted these ideas form the Roman Republic. Another major event that changed Roman politics forever was the Struggle of the Orders. This event finally gave power to the plebeians, or common people of Rome, and they elected one person to represent them, called the Tribune of the Plebs. This idea is similar in the United States because we the people have the power in society and everybody under law has rights. The Tribune of the Plebs is very similar to the President of the US because that person had the power to veto and could had the final say for the laws that passes through the Senate, just like our President. Rome had a system of capital punishment for people who violated the constitution wrongly and were condemned to die. Modern democracies have this system also and it is used in the United States, but not as much as it used to. In all of these ways, it is clear to see all of the similarities between the Roman Republic and modern democracies.

Daily 26

The Struggle of the Orders was very influential on the future of Roman politics. Before this occurred, the patricians, or higher class citizens of Rome, held almost all the government positions in the Senate and had the ability to enforce laws. The plebeians, which were most of the common people of society, virtually had no opinion in the government and were treated unfairly for many years. After many years of patrician rule and the oppression of the plebeians, the plebeians finally decided that the rule of patricians was over. This is when the Struggle of the Orders took place. The plebeians wanted to have power and freedom in society and wanted their opinions to be heard. The Struggle of the Orders lasted for a pretty long time and was not like the patricians and plebeians were fighting each other. Rather, the two sides tried to make an agreement for the plebeians and they argued about what should happen. The Struggle of the Orders finally ended when the two sides made a compromise that would change Roman government forever. The decision was for the plebeians as a group to decide and vote for one single person to represent them in the Senate. This person was known as the Tribune of the Plebs. This person represented all of the plebeians and had one major power: the power to veto. This meant that the patricians could make up any legislation they wanted but it all depended on what this one person thought. This idea helped the plebeians of society voice their opinion about laws in the government and could tell the Tribune of the Plebs if they thought the laws were appropriate and would benefit society. The plebeians slowly began to gain more rights as the years went on and the government was practically led by the people. This gave way to peace between the two sides and the Struggle of the Orders would help the Senate prosper for many years.

Daily 25

These are two columns located on my front porch. They were probably influenced by Roman columns, which were very popular in ancient Rome. Roman columns were very important in Roman architecture because they were used as support beans to help bolster heavy buildings. These columns are closely similar and are modeled after Roman columns.

Roman Map

View The Ancient Roman World in a larger map

Special Question

It is obvious that Alexander the Great’s journey is remarkable to us today. Back when Alexander lived, this was an extraordinary feat that had not been achieved ever before. He did many great things during his journey that made it very memorable. One huge thing that he did was he defeated the Persians twice and conquered the Persian Empire. This goal of conquest took most of his live so this journey is what Alexander the Great lived for and conquered more cities and towns than anyone could have imagined. He ultimately defeated Persia to help Greece finally get the revenge they needed on their main enemy Persia. He gained more and more power and became one of the greatest leaders in history during his lifetime journey. He also did some bad things during his journey. He killed thousands of innocent people because he became so obsessed with all the power he had. He thought he could do anything and forced his army into bad situations because of his selfishness. Most of his army died during his journey because of the terrible conditions he led it through. This was the dark side of Alexander. So the question that needs to be answered is was Alexander’s journey worth it? His journey was definitely worth it because he changed history for the better and nothing would be the same today if it was not for his journey.

            Alexander’s journey was very influential in Egypt. When he entered Egypt in 332 BC, the Egyptians treated him like a king and with honor. They thought he would be the leader to help them attack Persia because they hated each other for generations. During his six month stay in Egypt, he helped build a beautiful city and called it Alexandria. This city has flourished for years and it is even flourishing today, but if Alexander did not find this city, it would not be present today. He then went off to the temple on the oasis of Siwa. The priests there welcomed him, and even declared him the son of the god Amun-Re. “Afterwards, he was able to declare himself the son of the god Amun Re, in order to win the respect and veneration of the Egyptians” (http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.module&story_id=&language_id=1&module_id=330&text=text). This was a very high honor for Alexander during his stay in Egypt and this really motivated Alexander to continue his journey into Persia. Since his sojourn in Egypt was so influential on Alexander, people may wonder if Alexander would have had the confidence to continue his journey. Maybe if he was not able to go to Egypt, he would have not been prepared to fight Persia and his journey might have ended there.

            Alexander the Great’s journey now led him into Persia and had a crucial battle with the Persians This battle was known as the Battle of Gaugamela and the Macedonians earned a well-fought victory over the Persians. Darius, the leader of the Persian army, retreated so Alexander had started to conquer Persia. He then marched to Persepolis, but had to go through the Persian Gate in order to reach Persepolis. He stormed past this gate using the direct route to the city even though it was guarded and finally reached Persepolis in the year 330 BC. When he was there, Alexander told his army Persepolis was the worst enemy of all the cities in Asia. The army responded by rushing into the city and killing most of the people there and stealing a lot of loot in the city. “Here much silver was carried off and no little gold, and many expensive dresses, embroidered with purple or with gold, fell as prizes to the victors” (http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html)  Alexander took possession of all the treasures there and wanted somehow to destroy the once prosperous city. He did this by burning the royal palace of Xerxes and this closely resembled the Persians burning down the Acropolis of Athens. This part of his journey was worth it because Alexander’s main goal was to conquer Persia and he achieved that during his time in Persepolis.

            After conquering Persia, he then went to Afghanistan. Alexander found out that a man named Bessus was the person who killed Darius and went after him since he thought he could be the successor of Darius. His quest to kill Bessus took him all over Afghanistan and he even founded many new cities, including Alexandria in present-day Kandahar, Afghanistan. He was very close to Bessus when he reached the northern area of Bactria in Afghanistan and finally found him. Bessus was across the Oxus River, and Alexander led his army against him, and he was beaten and finally killed. Alexander could now consider himself the Persian leader since no one was left to challenge him and all the battles that were fought in Afghanistan were worth it. During his time there, he also met a woman named Roxanne and got married to her. They had a son that was going to be the heir of Alexander, but it sadly died. “After giving birth to the heir of Alexander’s kingdom, both Roxanne and Alexander IV are killed by insurgents” (http://www.afghanland.com/history/alexander.html).  If Alexander did not try to kill Bessus, he might have never been the official leader of Persia, so this is why this part of the journey was so important to Alexander.

            The last part of Alexander’s journey led him and his army into India. He fought in many battles, especially the battle against Porus and his Indian army at the Hydaspes River. This was a very hard fought battle from both sides, but the Macedonians eventually defeated the Indians in 326 BCE. Alexander then wanted to reach the Ganges River, but the army refused to go any farther east because they heard that many powerful Indian tribes lived along the Ganges River. The army went south down the Hydaspes River and attacked many villages on the way, which was not a smart thing to do. One village that Alexander stopped at was Malli, which had many warlike people in its village. Alexander was severely hurt during this attack, which affected his journey tremendously. “Alexander was wounded several times in this attack, most seriously when an arrow pierced his breastplate and his ribcage” (http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/india.htm). He escaped Malli and headed for Persia after his conquest of India, but he took the dangerous path home through the Gedrosian Desert. Much of his army died because of the harsh conditions of the desert and Alexander’s journey was finally over. This journey helped shaped history with all the countries Alexander passed through and this journey helped Alexander conquer the Persian Empire, so his journey was worth it.

Sources

Austin, M.M. (n.d.). Alexander sacks persepolis. Retrieved from http://www.livius.org/aj-            al/alexander/alexander_t12.html

eternalegypt.org, Initials. (n.d.). Alexander the great in egypt. Retrieved from             http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_            key=action.display.module&story_id=&language_id=1&module_id=330&text=text

Momand, W. (2000). Invasion of alexander. Retrieved from             http://www.afghanland.com/history/alexander.html

Untereker, J. (1996). Alexander in india. Retrieved from      http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/india.htm

Wikipedia, Initials. (2011, March 11). Alexander the great. Retrieved from             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

           

Weekly 4b

Power is very important and influential in today’s society. The same can also be said for the past as many leaders in the ancient world rose in society and gained power during their early years of rule. There were probably more “powerful” leaders in the ancient world than in the world today because laws back then allowed different leaders to rise up and gain power. Power also shifts a lot since new leaders gain power after old ones either die or eventually lose power. Most leaders know how to use their power efficiently so they do not go mad with power but once and a while, a leader will gain power but use it for the wrong reasons or use it for themselves. When this happens with a leader, they begin to corrupt their power and begin to become very selfish. They lose concern for their own people and lose the sense of what is the right thing to do. This can really affect and hurt the countries with corrupted leaders because the leader is putting their country into a bad situation but they do not care at all. Corrupted leaders also do things for personal gain and the actions taken usually go against the laws of the government. This is why power can definitely be corrupt with specific leaders.

Power can corrupt in a multitude of ways. One way is that leaders corrupt their power for a personal gain or an achievement they want to accomplish. For example, Alexander the Great put his army into dangerous situations and killed thousands of innocent people just so he could accomplish his goal of conquest. Corrupted leaders use their power for themselves instead of using it for the people and this is what makes them somewhat hated by the people around them. Another way that power corrupts is when a leader does something extraordinary and then thinks they can do anything they want. These leaders are on a “roll” and would do anything just to feel like they are on top of the world. Alexander the Great did this because when he won the Battle at Issus against the Persians, he thought he could do anything so he ended up getting many of the soldiers in his army killed just to feel better about himself. A final way that power corrupts is that leaders are sometimes forced into corruption. Leaders become desperate because they cannot provide for their people and they try to make risky moves that they think people will not notice. The actions end up hurting their country and they use their powers for the wrong reasons. These are just some of the reasons how power corrupts with leaders.

The reason why power corrupts completely depends on the leader. Every corrupt leader has a reason why he or she made their power corrupt. One of the main reasons why power is corrupt is that leaders want more and more power. Once a leader rises up and takes control of the government, they decide that they want power and want to take control of the people. Leaders also do great things and feel like they could do more, so they start to abuse their power. Alexander the Great was definitely corrupted in numerous ways. First of all, he lacked knowledge of the people and did not try to listen to the people since he wanted to do things his own way. At the beginning of his journey, he was not corrupt because he was doing the right things and was actually listening to his people since they wanted him to get revenge on Persia. After he defeated Persia in the Battle of Issus, he was considered a great leader and Macedonia was in great shape. They finally got revenge on Persia, so everyone thought Alexander would come back home. But he decided to keep on his journey, and that is when he started to become corrupt.

After Alexander defeated Persia, he should have gone back to Macedonia and rule from there. Instead, he marched down through present-day Syria and into Egypt. He got into conflicts on the way and many of the soldiers in his large army died because of his decision making. He was fighting for the wrong reasons and there was no point in fighting. He put his army into terrible situations and was starting to get too much power. By the time he entered the Persian Empire, he had a lot of power and he felt so strong that he wanted to attack Persia for the second time. This move was not necessary at all but because he had so much power, he thought he could do anything he wanted just to conquer the Persian Empire. He was becoming such a selfish leader who wanted personal gain and was starting not to care about his army that he had relied on for so long. Even though he defeated Persia again in the Battle of Gaugamela, many people started to develop a deep hatred of all the things he did. He was so concerned about his goal of conquest that he did not care about the people he once led in Macedonia. This is why Alexander corrupted all of his power just to conquer his goal of conquest.

Alexander the Great became more Persian because he had finally conquered the Persian Empire after so many years. He was actually honored by the people in Persia as their king and really started to take control of the Persian Empire. He started to understand the Persian elements and their own culture so he is now adapting to the life as a Persian king. But the Persian Empire quickly fell after the death of Darius so the Macedonian Empire was now the world’s largest empire at the time. Even though this happened, Alexander was still influenced by the Persians and even wore some elements of Persian dress. Persia also became more Greece because Persia was now part of the Macedonian Empire along with Greece and many of the Greek cultures were now adopted in Persia. Alexander brought many Greek customs with him to Persia so this is why Persia became more Greek. Alexander’s life shows that corrupting power can change major events in history, especially in Greece and the Persian Empire.

Sources- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Empire#Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Issus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela

           

Daily #24

I think both Alexander the Great and Pericles were good leaders, but Pericles was probably a better overall leader than Alexander. Alexander the Great was a lot more selfish than Pericles and he kind of forced his army into serious situations. Alexander got whatever he wanted by using force and did not communicate well with the people. Even though Alexander did not possess many of the typical qualities of a good leader, he did accomplish his ultimate goal of conquering the Persian Empire. Alexander was a great vocal leader and had good strategies to lead his army to victory against the Persians. This is why I would consider Alexander to be a good leader of Macedonia during his time of rule. In my opinion, Pericles is the most complete model of a great leader. Unlike Alexander, he enjoyed listening to what the people had to say and made decisions based on what the people said. This is why he helped develop the democracy of Athens that thrived during his rule and he was considered the greatest leader of Athens. I think Alexander was probably a better leader when it came to wars and conflicts because he had strategies that helped his army persevere though struggle and eventually come out on top. Pericles helped create the navy of Athens, so he knew what to do when it came to wars. Pericles was not really obsessed with power like Alexander was during his rule and he had a lot of knowledge about various topics, unlike Alexander. Alexander killed so many innocent people during his journey so that was one of the negative aspects about his life. Pericles always tried to do what was right for the people so that is why I personally think Pericles was a much better leader than Alexander.

Daily 23

There are many ways that Alexander created his own myth. One of the ways was that he hired a man named Arrian to record what happened during Alexander’s conquest of Persia and the rest of the world. This is why today how we understand all the events that occurred during Alexander’s goal of conquest. If Alexander did not hire Arrian to record his life, we definitely would not know all the things we know today. There are many theories why Alexander would hire someone to record his life, and one of them says that Alexander just wanted to be remembered for all the good things he did during his journey. This means that Arrian probably only recorded the good actions that Alexander performed so that people later would realize what a great leader Alexander was. Another thing that contributes to Alexander creating his own myth was the Gordian knot. There was an ox-cart located in northern Greece that contained a knot that no one could untie since its existence. Many people tried to untie the tight knot, and the townspeople loved to see these people make absolute fools of themselves. No one untied the knot and many people were made fools for even trying to attempt to untie it. But then Alexander walks in and approaches the knot. The people have no idea who it is and think that another fool is going to try to untie the knot. Alexander then took out his sword, and sliced through the knot until it came undone. The people could not believe what they saw, and there was a story that whoever untied the knot, they would become the king of Asia. These are just two of the ways Alexander created his own myth, and there are so many other ways he did it.

Daily 22

I think that you could make a solid argument for Alexander avenging Persian wrongs and using it as propaganda to mask his goal of conquest. There are many reasons why you could say that Alexander was avenging Persian wrongs. First of all, Persia had a history of hatred of Greece and constantly wanted to get revenge on Greece since they defeated them in the Persian War. Greece was always alert for Persia since they could attack at any time and Persia had the world’s greatest empire at the time when Alexander was growing up. When Alexander became leader of Macedonia, a region in northern Greece, there was a lot of pressure put upon him. The people finally found a leader who could step up and lead Greece and they needed Alexander to defeat Persia once and for all. The more power Alexander gained throughout his years of reign, the more hatred he developed for Persia and the more he learned that Greece had been a victim of Persia for many years. He knew Greece needed to prevail over Persia so they could become powerful again so he felt he needed to get revenge on the Persians. Alexander could have also used this as propaganda to mask his goal of conquest. Alexander developed a life-long goal that he set out for- to take control of the Persian Empire and the rest of the world. He could have got revenge on the Persians so the people would think he would be finally defeating Persia even though he wanted to conquer the world. Alexander’s army knew he ultimately wanted to attack Persia so they followed him but they did not know he wanted to take over the world after that event. This is why you could make an argument for both points of view.

Daily 21

It is important to understand the relationship between Egypt and Persia before Alexander the Great came on the scene. When Alexander began to gain power, these two areas would play major roles in Alexander’s quest to conquer.  First of all, Egypt had bitter relations for Persia and could not stand them at all. Persia felt the same way about Egypt and they hated Egypt, too. Persia was the largest empire at the time and they controlled a lot of territory.  Egypt, on the other hand, was relatively small at the time and they were not well protected due to the size of their country. Persia and Egypt had conflicts very often but most of them were very minor and did not mean as much. The main point is that Egypt and Persia absolutely hated each other and they both would do anything to get revenge on the other. One of the main reasons why Egypt disrespected and hated Persia is that the Persians disrespected their gods and these gods were very sacred to the Egyptians. This occurred frequently and this is why Egypt continually developed a long-lasting hatred for Persia. They soon became major enemies and then Alexander came on the scene. Alexander hated Persia and wanted to attack them, so Persia was now worried about Alexander and his army. Alexander went to Egypt during his quest and they greeted him as their “Savior” and wanted him to help them attack Persia and finish them off for good. Egypt now had a great opportunity to get revenge on Persia because they had a great leader on their side. This moment would definitely help Egypt with their army, but Persia was already preparing for the attack by Alexander and his army.