Feb 28th Daily

How did Alexander create his own myth?

Alexander created his own myth by making himself seem as if he was eternal and godlike. His quotes that he was said to have spoken to his army made him seem as if he was a philosopher rather than a regular person. He built himself up by the myths and legends to be godlike, like he was better than everyone else and could be everyone and anyone he battles. Yes, he was a great leader and fighter for his empire, but he was not, by any means, godlike. I think that Alexander created his own myth by having his own personal note-keeper about everything that happened during his rule and when he attacked Persia. I think that he was able to make himself seem so extraordinary because this man was working for him, getting payed from him, so I think that if Alexander wanted to tweak some stuff up a little bit, he would do that for him. I am not saying that he changed everything and that this is all one big lie, but I feel like maybe this note-keeper could build Alexander up with his words if Alexander said so. I do believe, however, that Alexander was a great ruler. He could fight as well as all of his soldiers, he messed with the mind of many leaders, and he was very smart with how to beat an army like the Persians. The Persians greatly outnumbered the Macedonian army, but the Macedonians still ended with the victory. I believe that this is thanks to not only the soldiers, but Alexanders great thinking skills on how to beat such a colossal army and empire. This is how I think Alexander created his myth, being an amazing leader,  but maybe a little tweaks of the writing here and there to make him seem even better. He also had the confidence of a legendary man though, so maybe the way he told the note-taker to take notes is actually the way he truly and honestly thought of himself. 

Feb 24th Daily

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

Egypt and Persia were not on good relations before Alexander came and took over their empires. They were neighboring empires, they did not get a lot at all. They were always fighting, and never got along. Since Alexander came into the two empires with his army, they could chose to be defeated by them with no fighting, like what the Egyptian leaders did, or fight for a victory, and later end with defeat and a large amount of killing, like the Persian army. The Egyptian leaders were very smart and figured that they couldn't beat the Greek army under the rule of Alexander, so they decided to welcome Alexander into their empire taking him in as a king, as if he had already won over their empire. And since Egypt and Persia hated each other at the time, Egypt was able to give advice, weapons, and soldiers to their new emperor and army which lead the Greek empire under Alexander's rule to victory against the Persians, who continued to fight them. 

Feb 23rd Daily

Based on what you know about Aristotle, do you think Alexander had listened carefully to his tutor?

I  have been researching Aristotle and his teachings towards Alexander, and it seems as if Alexander listened to Aristotle very much. Alexander was a very well educated man and Aristotle was one of the smartest people of his generation. He had written about 150 philosophical treatises in many studies like philosophy, zoology, science, and even some meteorology. He has made many theories without error, and he was considered an icon of difficult philosophical thinking. Since Aristotle is considered to be an icon of thinking, I am sure that Alexander listened very carefully to his tutor. Aristotle knew a lot about how the mind works and how people think, so I am sure that Alexander listened to his tutor. Alexander turned out to be an extremely intelligent man who was an excellent leader and thinker about fighting and taking over empires, I am pretty positive that he got some of his thoughts about how to take over large empires and lead an extremely successful army to success from his tutor, Aristotle. Alexander knew exactly what to do under a lot of pressure, he knows exactly what was right from wrong in the war sense, and he was an unbelievable leader. I am sure that Aristotle not only educated him with math and science work, but also ideas in philosophy and how to deal with right from wrong, since he was forced to take power at such a young age. Aristotle must have had a great deal of advice and education that he gave to Alexander at a young age so he could be a good leader without knowing that with Aristotle's advice, Alexander would create the largest empire known at that time. 

Feb 22nd Daily

Do you think Alexander honestly felt like he was avenging Persian wrongs? Or was that just propaganda to mask his goal of conquest?

I honestly feel like Alexander meant to land himself into Troy when he began his conquest to take over the Persian Empire. I think that his mindset was to show the Persian leaders that he was here to fight just like the Greek empire did against them thousands of years before ending with a large victory on the Greek side and complete destruction of the city of Troy on the other side. I think that he was determined to claim back what land was rightfully theirs and also take some more land during his conquest. Since the Persian had defeated the Greek army in the Persian War years before this, I think that Alexander purposefully came into Persia into an area where Greek took over and destroyed to show that their attack is not a joke, and they are here to win back land and restore the honor, confidence, and land that was taken from them in the previous wars. I honestly think that Alexander was seeking avenge towards the Persian people for taking over their land before, but I also think that Alexander was trying to be a good leader and try to expand his empire, and Persia just so happened to be the empire right next to them. To answer this question before me, I think that he was thinking of both when he planned the attack. He had a mission to become the largest empire of that time and maybe even ever, and in order to reach that goal, he had to take over the Persian empire. These are the facts, but I am sure Alexander decided to take over them first to show them that they can come back from total loss and defeat and end up with total power and wealth. Revenge is sweet, and I am sure that Alexander felt the same way. 

Feb 21st Daily

What compels someone to lead others?

I personally think that there are a lot of characteristics similar to all leaders which compel them to lead others. You have to be confident in yourself in order to be confident as a leader and lead people into the right direction. If you are very self-conscious and care a lot about the opinions of others, you will not be a good leader. You also have to be very wise in order to be a good leader. You need to know what you are talking about, give good advice, and help out the people who follow and look up to you as much as possible. I think that being a leader on a sports team and being a leader like Alexander the Great are very similar jobs. No, sports teams don't have to go out and take over an empire, but they have to win games. Winning games requires focus, desire, strength, support, leadership, everything that taking over an empire. They are obviously different, but they are alike in the sense that they both have the same ambition, and that is to win. In order to win, you need leaders who help your team significantly through their actions, advice, positivity, desire, and so many more qualities. Alexander the Great had all of these qualities when he had the desire to create one of the largest empires known to date. He was compelled to lead his army and followers because he was focused and had a ambition to win. He help out his army so much by being such a good leader, just like a captain helps their team by being a good leader and leading by example. 

Weekly: Pelopponesian War Dialogue

Click Here to Read My Dialogue On the Peloponnesian War

Feb 17th Daily

 Explain how the origins of theatre in Athens are tied to both religion and politics.

The origins of theatre in Athens are tied to both religion and politics in many different ways. First of all, a lot of the plays reflected their themes back to religion and politics since that was their main focus at the time. The Athenian people had many gods that they worshiped, and they used the theatre to please their gods before them. The people who performed the plays and the people who watched both loved tragedy plays. Tragedies are dramatic plays that usually end in a sad or disastrous way. All of their plays had to be approved by the god Dionysus. Most of their plays reflected back on religion or politics. When the actors messed up plays, it was considered a huge sign of disrespect towards the gods. There are so many strict rules that  needed to be followed in order to perform a good play. Politics is involved with the theatre because the actors are payed by the government to perform in the plays. The government charged people with some admission fee, like todays theatre. 

Feb 16th Daily

Write the script for a skit exploring the Persian Wars from the Persian point-of-view.

Persian War:

Setting: Battle of Marathon

Characters:

                Persian:

·         Leader

·         Soldier 1

·         Soldier 2

Greek:

·         Leader

·         Soldier 1

·         Soldier 2

·         Towns people

Act 1:

Enter Persian Leader and Soldier 1

Persian Leader: My soldier, I am expecting greatness from you. We are outnumbering them 2-1. We should be able to easily make them surrender their city to us. 

Soldier 1: I feel the same way, sir. We have the largest empire at the time; there is no reason why we shouldn’t easily defeat them. They don’t even have an army. They will just have to force the townspeople into becoming ‘soldiers.’

Persian Leader: Yes, exactly. They have nothing on us. I have led this army to so many successes in my time; this will just be another one to add to my list. This little threat must be demolished before they become a much larger problem.

Soldier 1: Yes, sir. Let’s go get them.

Act 2:

Enter Persian Leader, Persian Soldiers, Greek Leader, and Greek Soldiers.

Persian Leader: (towards Greek Leader) We have come to defeat you and take over your empire.

Greek Leader: You have nothing on us, come soldiers.

(Greek and Persians Soldiers come and fighting begins)

Persian Soldier 1: This is so easy, we are just killing everyone; let’s just finish this one up.

Persian Soldier 2: Yes, let’s just get this done with and get them to surrender.

(All of a sudden, the Greek Leader and Soldiers and fighting much harder and killing many Persian soldiers)

Persian Leader: What is going on?

Persian Soldier 2: They are beating us. All of a sudden, they are fighting unlike any empire I have fought before. I think we might need to surrender and just go back to Persia. We can’t afford to lose anymore soldiers.

Persian Leader: We will give it one last shot, and if nothing works, we will surrender.

(Persian Soldiers give the battle one last, unsuccessful, shot)

Persian Soldier 1: Sir, we have given it our all, but it wasn’t good enough. Too many of our people are dying. We need to surrender.

Persian Leader: I agree, let’s go.

(Persians surrender, giving the Greek empire the victory. Persian Leader and Soldiers exit)

Feb 15th Daily

Was Athens really a 'democracy'?

Athens, in my opinion, was not what we consider a democracy today. In today's time, we consider democracy to be a government where the people decide everything, with the help of some government officials to represent them. It is true that the Athenian people made some of their own decisions, like who to exile from the country every year and they had some sort of authority on who could be their leader. Other than that, they had no control on their large empire at all. The leaders of the country had all of the control over the government, laws, and how people were to live in this empire. Also, unlike the democracies now a days, the rulers of the Athenian empire ruled until they die. The current democracy in the United States can only be president, not ruler, for two 4 year terms. There are a lot of things that are different from today's, but some things are similar. The Athenian empire was divided into large groups of land, like the states in the United States. They had a council of representatives like what we do today. I do believe that the ancient Athenian empire was a democracy, but they had different beliefs in democracy back then rather than what we do now. I think that the ancient people back then didn't like having a leader that made every decision for you regarding your personal life, but I think that in order to be a good empire, they felt as if they needed a government leader who would lead them in battles and wars. I think that they also felt as if they needed these people so if they did lose a war, much like the Peleponnesian War, to blame for the loss. Since they had such a leader to lead them in this, but they still had the power of home life and such in their own hands, they agreed to it. This is my personal opinion on the Athenian democracy. 

Feb 14th Daily

Do you think Socrates got what he deserved? Why didn't he accept exile?

I don' think that Socrates, by any means, got what he deserved by being exiled from Athens. Socrates was not the reason why the Athenian Empire fell apart, but the people of Athens couldn't accept the fact that the lost because Sparta had a stronger, better army than Athens did. Since they couldn't accept that fact, they had to blame it on someone. Since Socrates had a different way of thinking than most of the people in Athens, the Athenian people considered him different and blamed him for the reason of their defeat. Socrates was more interested in the mind, how people think and react to things, not war. The Athenian leaders before Socrates had a mindset of making Athens control the Mediterranean through war and fighting, unlike Socrates. Socrates cared about everyone he met on the streets. He would talk to anyone and everyone who wanted to talk to him. He loved the city life much more than he cared about war and fighting and making Athens 'be on top.' He was charged after their defeat by Sparta for corrupting the youth of the city and was trailed against the citizens of Athens. He had limited time to speak and defend himself, and due to that lack of time, he was exiled from Athens. I think that Socrates was a different man from the others and Athens, and he had a much different mindset, but there was no reason for him to be exiled. 

Weekly: Megalith Project at John Carroll

These pictures show the megaliths on the property of the John Carroll School. These megaliths are a variety of different megaliths found around the world. Why the diversity of these ancient stones? No one truly knows the meaning of these megaliths or why they are there, but many people have theories of what they were used for and who used them.

One of the first theories for these stones were that Archbishop John Carroll had the people of his church re-create these megaliths to show that the Catholic Church is open to all cultures, countries, and societies around the world. This theory is one of the most popular of the many theories, but there is no evidence that Archbishop John Carroll had these megaliths made for this reason, or made for a reason at all. But, this theory doesn’t quite make sense. If Archbishop John Carroll wanted to prove to the world that the Catholic Church accepts everyone, why would he use replicas of other megaliths that people believe were used for DIFFFERNT religions? This would go against Catholic teachings and belief, therefore, this theory doesn’t truly fit with the ancient stones.

Another theory of these megaliths is the Theory of the Ancient Greeks. This theory depicts that at the time the Greek Empire was a world power, they put megaliths to show that they owned that land. This theory would make sense, since different megaliths are found all over the world. But, something doesn’t quite fit with this theory either. If the Greek Empire ruled this part of the world at one time, why didn’t Greek people inhabit this country? Was there a plague or an enemy that killed them? No one knows the answer to this question either. But, we do know that if the Greek did, in fact, inhabit the land at one point in time, they would have most likely kept records of this and we would still know about them today.

As you can see, no one truly knows the story behind these random megaliths, nor do they know the truth of these theories. All we can do is try to dig deeper into history and try to find the real meanings of these ancient stones. But, whether or not we find out the truth, the theories are pretty fun to hear!

Feb 10th Daily

"War is a form of technology". Agree or Disagree.

I do not agree that war is a form of technology. Yes, you use modern technology during wars, but war itself is not a form of technology at all. Technology is something that everyday people use to research stuff to receive a better understanding on that concept or topic. War, in my opinion, is the exact opposite of this. You go into a war with full acknowledge of what you are getting yourself into as an army and country. Some people consider technology to be the usage and knowledge of tools, so, in that way war would be a form of technology. I don’t think of technology that way at all though. Technology and war have a few similarities, but, in my opinion, war is not by any means a form of technology. Wars can also be little battles and feuds between small groups of people through technology.  Also, technology is a worldwide phenomenon, much like World Wars that have occurred. Cyber wars between people are a form of technology though. The only reason that a cyber-war has to do with technology is because it is on the computer. If something like this happened in real life other than the internet, it would have absolutely nothing to do with technology. Technology and war are very different in some senses too. Technology has occurred to better the world and make it a better, more peaceful, enjoyable place to live. This is the exact opposite of wars. Wars lead to hate, fighting, death, the exact opposite of what we should be looking for.

Feb 9th Daily

Why do you think so many conspiracy theories surround the pyramids and the megaliths? Give examples of a few and explain where you think they come from.

There are many theories that come from the pyramids and megaliths throughout the years. A lot of people seem to think they are burial places for important people like kings, emperors, etc. Others think they were built to make sacrifices of animals and humans. There are so many different theories out there, but no one really knows why they were really built. I think there are so many different theories because of the ways that certain  megaliths were set up and built at the time they were created. For example, the Stonehenge. The Stonehenge looks a lot like a circle of rocks with rocks on top of rocks as if they were trying to make a rectangle with the ground. This could be used for many things like hanging people. The shape of the Stonehenge (circular) makes is seem as if it was a stage or an alter to sacrifice animals or humans. There are so many different theories on how and why megaliths like these came upon the world. There is also another megalith that really catches my eye with this topic of the theories-and that is the Rapa Nui megaliths on Easter Island, Chile. These statues are everywhere on the island. Some of the statues are in the shape of a human like object. This could lead to many theories like famous and important people from Easter Island were buried under all of these statues. There are so many different possibilities to these theories mainly because no one truly knows how these megaliths and pyramids came about and why the humans felt the need to create them. People are trying to figure this out, but they have no evidence; thus many theories come up. 

Feb 7 Daily

 What is the oldest human-created artifact that has mattered to you? Why/how does it matter? 

The oldest human-created artifact that has mattered to me is a house. There are houses in ancient times for shelter, so these are very important. Even though the houses back then were not as impressive as houses now, they are still houses, and they are still a form of shelter. Without shelter, people even back then would not be able to live. In the cold times, a house brought them warmth. When ancient people were hunting animals, they used their houses as a place to store their buffalo meat and skins. They also used their houses to sleep when their hunt was done. Houses matter for so many reasons. Without a home, you cannot live. A home is your shelter. Where you store your food, where you sleep, where you spend the time with your family. It is very important in order to live life. Houses have grown a bit since ancient times, but it is still a home. A home where you eat your meals, keep your clothes, sleep, spend time with family, and other stuff. A home keeps you alive. Without a home, you would have no money, food, shelter, nothing. You would be left alone on the streets, or back in ancient times, fields. This is why this is my personal old human-created artifact that truly matters a lot to me. 

Feb 8th Daily

Give several examples of monuments in Maryland / DC / PA that might be familiar to folks who live here but which would not be understood by outsiders without an explanation. Please include your own or public domain photos.

There are a lot of monuments, especially in Washington DC, that are familiar to people around here and across that country that understand the significance of some of these buildings. Buildings like the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, U.S. Holocaust Museum, Washington Monument, and so many others. As citizens of the United States, we are aware of all of these people and events that have occurred in the past every bit deserving of a memorial like the ones they received. People in other countries don't know that Martin Luther King Jr. created much needed peace between blacks and whites while dealing with major segregation issues in the late 1950s. People from other countries don't know about the past slavery issues here. They don't know about the past segregation problems. They don't know who found electricity. Most young citizens in the U.S., like me, don't even know about the Korean War.  Just like most citizens of the United States don't know much about the artifacts of a lot of other countries, they don't know much about ours. Citizens of Unites States so VERY well what these monuments are for, but people from other countries would not without an explanation. These are several examples of monuments in DC that we all know of and know their stories, but citizens from other countries don't with help. 

Week 2 Weekly: Essay on Change

Is 'Change' a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

Change can be many things, but it is not necessarily a good or bad thing. Both good and bad things can come out of change, but change is directly the good or bad thing.  In regards to many cases like the origins of art, agricultural revolution, urbanization, and many other areas, the change that happened created a positive impact on the world. There is always at least one good positive thing that comes from change. It might not be the most important thing that turned positive, but an event regarding change usually has a positive point to it. Change can be both a good and a bad thing, but with change, comes positive and negative events that you just have to live through.

There were many positive outcomes that came from changes like origins of art, urbanization, and architecture. These changes in the way the ancient people lived leads to the way we live and act today. Without the ancient architecture that we have found through years of searching and researching, today’s buildings, bridges, homes, anything would be nothing like they are today. Art is also a huge positive outcome that comes through change. Art is such a great culture that most people don’t understand, but it shows you who people truly were back in ancient times even until today. People like to express themselves through forms of art; whether it’s painting, ceramics, theater, literature, or even sketches, people like to tell you who they are through their art. The change and realization of what art truly is changed how we view art forever. Art would not be at its present ways if it wasn’t for changes that were created over time.

The way change becomes positive or negative is due to the progress that the change makes. The progresses of architecture lead it to becoming such a huge part of the world today. Progress leads to fulfillment in the change which sometimes leads to even more change in the long run. Progression from the ancient architecture to today’s buildings is because of the changes that have occurred over a long period of time, changing the ways of building these amazing architectural buildings that have to be created.  Progression leads to such a drastic change on people’s point of views on the topic and how it actually comes about. A great example of this is the progression of theater. Theater started as a few people creating a story and wanting to act it out instead of having to read it. Then, they made a stage and created backgrounds and props. Then, other people wanted to see them, so they started to perform for other people. Next, everyone wants to watch this play, so it goes on Broadway so they can travel all over to show their play. And sometimes, it becomes a movie so people can watch it whenever they want. This progression is so huge. This shows you that over time, so many changes happen to something. Sometimes it might look bad at first but there is always a positive side to a change.

Even though there is a lot of positive that comes from change, there is also some negative that can occur. With events like the agricultural revolution, many cultures and groups of people thought differently about it. Some groups loved the change, other not so much. This is one example of a negative impact that comes from a change. Everyone has their own personal opinion towards everything in life, so some changes can lead to fighting between two groups, or on a larger scale, countries. Fighting can lead to many things also including attacks, wars, and many other personal and national troubles. Everyone has the right to different views and opinions, and they all have the right to speak their mind about their views. These opinions can sometimes lead to much larger problems though. People just need to try to keep positive and believe that something good with come from this.

As you can tell, I personally feel as if change is change, but how you respond to the change and react to it can make it a good or a bad thing. People just need to keep looking on the bright side to see what is in store for them in the future even while going through a negative change. You can change yours and other peoples’ views on a situation based on how you think of it and how you try to react and even change it. It is all up to the people. 

Daily Feb 4th

Partner: Kelly McCloskey 


Dialogue (in English): 

Meredith: Hi Kelly!

Kelly: Hi!

Meredith: What is your favorite hobby?

Kelly: I like to horseback ride and dance!

Meredith: Oh, cool!

Kelly: Yes, what about you?

Meredith: I love to play lacrosse

Kelly: Oh fun!

Meredith: Yeah, gotta go! Bye!

Kelly: Cya!

Dialogue (in New Language): 

Meredith: Ooog!

Kelly: Ooog!

Meredith: Ahhh oye?

Kelly: neigh boom boom boom

Meredith: aye!

Kelly: uhe ahh oo?

Meredith: clunkclunk

Kelly: ahah

Meredith: uhe ooga

Kelly: ooga!

Feb 3rd Daily

Describe the importance of water in the ancient world.

Water, like today, is a necessity for for life. You cannot life live without water to drink, to feed plants, and for many other reasons. It was very important to life in the ancient world because it was the key component to trade and traveling. Living near water would allow you to have fresh water to drink everyday so you can live. Also, the water would allow you to travel through the water and go into areas with a lack of water to trade. If you lived near water, you can bathe regularly in the lake, ocean, river, etc..  In today's times, you can bathe by taking a shower or bath. You can cook things in boiling water boiled from a stove. Water is so important to life today, I can't even imagine how important water was in ancient times.  A huge part of what the ancient people needed water for was agriculture. Farming was very important to this times, like it is now. Farming lead to food and trade, which is how they maintained life back then. Without food and trade, they could not have lived in  ancient times. Especially with out water, everyone in ancient times would die. 

Feb 1st Daily

You accidentally discover an invention that can immediately help millions of people; but only if you act immediately. On the other hand, if you just wait three months, you can secure a patent and get rich. Which do you choose and why? 

If I accidentally discovered an invention that you can immediately help millions of people or if I waited three months so I could get rich, I would choose to help the millions of people. Even though it would be nice to be rich, helping people is much more important. Maybe if I was able to help millions of people with this invention that I discovered I would be considered a hero or something and receive a lot of money from government from the millions of people I was able to help. Then, I would be helping millions of people AND I would be rich. That would be an ideal situation, but even if I didn't get rich because of it, I would still  be helping millions of people in some large and fantastic way, and I would consider myself a hero even if others didn't consider me one! Helping people in a major way, on my opinion, is much more important than becoming rich. It is so selfish to have something that could save and help millions of people, but choose to have a self-gain and help yourself. I would feel so guilty knowing that I could have helped millions of people, but I decided to be selfish and get rich. I would have no respect for myself, and honestly I wouldn't be able to live with myself. Saving people is so much better than becoming rich. 

Feb 2nd Daily

Which do you think is a better roadmap of history artifacts of the humanities or political/military conflicts? Why?

I personally think that the better roadmap of history is artifacts of humanity like music, art, literature, architecture, and many others instead of political conflicts. Yes, politics does influence the government and laws from the past, but artifacts of the humanity is real life people and how they act, which is like 90% of the people. They are the people that do the actual living with culture. They are the ones who make the music, the art, the buildings, the dances, the theatre. They are the real people who live the real lives. The government is just the laws, rules, and a lot of the time, create the fights and wars. The humanity artifacts are the ones that are more important and better to study because those are the beginnings of culture for everyone even to present day. Artifacts on humanity are the things that lead to the finding out the way people acted thousands of years ago, which is much better than political and military conflicts because human behavior is much more important over who had a war when. We could be complete different people today if we didn't have the past cultures from family generation hundreds of years, maybe even thousands of years, ago. So, in my personal opinion, discovering artifacts on humanity is better and more important than political and military conflicts. Humanity today could be completely different if it wasn't for past cultures, music, art, dancing, literature, etc..