March 23th Daily

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

I personally think that the killers of Julius Caesar deserved such a harsh punishment of death because they assassinated Caesar. The sixty people that were involved with the murder of Caesar were part of the Senate. They didn't like Caesar because they went to the poor people for his votes instead of saying "vote for me because I am rich and friends with this senate member and this celebrity and they are rich too!" Caesar actually or at least seemed to really care that it was truly the common people's choice to vote for him, and he educated them on what he was running for.  A lot of the people from the Senate didn't like him because he went against what they thought was the right thing to do, and he went to the poor and common people of Rome. They felt as if the power only came from the high class people, but in reality it was the poor people who had the higher population which led to more votes by them. Caesar was smart to go to the common people before the high class people because he was able to get more votes because of the larger common people population. Much of the senators resented him for it though. They hated the fact that he was a great leader. They hated the fact that he actually cared about the common people and that he treated them fairly. They hated the fact that he was able to conquer so many places and places that they personally sent him in hopes that he would fail. Caesar was on of the best people that came from Rome and helped change Rome. The fact that they killed him because of their resentment towards him was awful and stupid. How could someone hate a  man who did so much good for an empire? But those sixty senators did hate him; and even though they killed him, they deserved to die because they purposefully killed one of the greatest Roman leaders to this day. 


Works Cited: 
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t09.html
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/caesar2.htm

March 22nd Daily

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

The Julio-Claudian's were the first five emperors of Rome: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. This line of emperors ruled the Roman Empire until 68 AD, when Nero committed suicide. Most of them were said to be just absolutely horrible and insane rulers of Rome.  They were truly as bad as they seemed to be hearing about them. There was of course the occasional good that they did, but for the most part they were crazy. The only 'normal' ruler from the Julio-Claudians was Augustus. He was the only one that did general good for the Roman Empire. Under Augustus's rule, Rome expanded and had control over modern day Spain,  France, most of Turkey, and much of central Europe. He was a great fighter and ruler and was not insane like the rest of the Julio-Claudian rulers. Under the rule of the Julio-Claudian emperors after Augustus, Rome was falling apart. Tiberius pushed people that he didn't like off of cliffs just for fun. Caligula was ruler after Tiberius and he wanted to appoint his horse as part of the Senate. Caligula was also one of the men to suffocate Tiberius to death, so he was obviously not the brightest out of the bunch. Claudius came into heir at a very young age and beg and pleaded to not become the emperor. From what you can even read hear, among all of the bad things that they did for the Roman empire, you can assume that yes, they were pretty bad. Some of them did do some good with expansion regards to the empire, but they were mostly insane.   

Works Cited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio-Claudian_dynasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula

March 21th Daily

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

In my personal opinion, Rome was much better off as a republic rather than an empire. When they were a republic and not trying to take over other empire's land, they were much more successful on a political standpoint. Everyone was happy with that ways that they government was leading and no one was fighting. The plebeians were ecstatic that they actually had a massive say in what is going on with the rules and ways of living in Rome, since the Tribune of the Plebs came into effect. Since the plebeians were much of the population rather than the patricians, who before had all the control over the Senate, it only made sense that they had some say in what happens in the Senate. The Tribune of the Plebs shows that they were able to have a lot of control being common people and still lead a great republic. When Rome started to take over land from the Carthage empire, they began to consider themselves more and more of an 'empire' and then they somewhat fell apart politically. As Rome was gaining land and power, it was mostly the patricians who were gaining from it. The patrician, first class, people were the only ones who were gaining land and money from all of the land taken over by Rome. The plebeian people were not happy at all with that. Two brothers name the Gracchi brothers tried to bring fairness and equality  back into Rome; they were assassinated. This shows a lot of people that when Rome as well as many other city or areas of land begin to form an empire and invade on other peoples land focusing on the military rather than the government, the government and political part of the empire begins to fall apart. People lose focus in what is really important in the empire- which is the people, not the amount of land that you have. 

March 17th Daily

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 the Carthaginian general during the Second Punic War, a war between the Rome and Carthage. Hannibal, like most Carthage citizens, were born and raised to hate the Roman people and government, and they were taught at a young age how to battle against them. As the general of Carthage, he sneaked around the Roman area and was able to sneak up on them and attack them from behind in their worst moments. He was able to sneak his army from where modern day Spain is over the Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy, 50 miles away from Rome without even be spotted. He was considered the "boogie man" towards the Romans, such a scary person who sneaks up on you and your army when you least expect it. One of the most major battles of the Punic Wars was the Battle of Cannae. Carthage absolutely destroyed  the Roman army in this battle, even though they had much less people. In this battle, Hannibal used his great thinking skills and psychology to make the Romans believe that they were winning the battle by letting them split through the middle of his cavalry, them smashing them and blocking them in all aspects by his infantry and some more cavalry tribes who closed in on the Romans. Hannibal used his problem solving skills and great thinking to literally block the Roman army in between his army. In the Roman eyes, I would consider him a monster. He was a great fighter, thinker, and leader. Hannibal won some battles and lost some battles against Rome, but he still had an excellent army under his power as a general. If I was not looking at Hannibal in the eyes of a Roman, I would not say he was a monster. To any one else not fighting him, he was a great thinker and problem solver. I think that the Romans were truly afraid of him and how smart he was and that is why they considered him a monster. 

March 16th Daily

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

The Struggle of the Orders was very influential for most of the Roman republic and the laws, but the plebeian people still didn't have the same equality that the patrician people had. The Struggle of the Orders was when the plebeian, lower class, people of the Roman Republic began to feel as if they had no say in the government and laws of the republic, and that the patrician, higher class, people created laws reflecting against personal gain which only helped their class. This began to make the plebeian people very angry. In order to keep the plebeian people from rebelling against the Roman Republic and the patricians, the Senate made of patricians decided to come to an agreement with the plebeian people, making everyone happy. The agreement was that there would be one plebeian person in the Senate named the Tribune of the Plebs, elected by the plebeian people who would have a very important power over the rest of the Senate. This power was that this person could veto any of the laws that the Senate tries to make if they seem unfair. This lead for the Senate to make better laws and everyone in the republic was happy. In a political standpoint, this was very good. Everyone was happy with this agreement and it led to a happy, more united republic with no rebellion. The Struggle of the Orders made everything much more peaceful and fair for everyone who lived in Rome for a long time, so it happened to be very influential. 

Ancient Rome Map

View The Ancient Roman World in a larger map

March 15th Daily

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

Pillars on Political Buildings in modern time 

Pillars on ancient buildings 

Pillars of Homes in modern time

March 14th Daily

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

Some element that are still used today from the Roman Republic political and legal systems are the Senate and also in a way a Tribune of the Plebs. Their Senate in the ancient times of the Roman Republic were made up of the patricians, the wealthy and high class people of the area, who were from different tribes and were representatives of important families and dynasties of Rome. The problem with the patricians being the only part of the large Senate was that they created laws that reflected back to their personal needs and wishes as wealthy people of the time. They could make any law that they wanted to, and if they wanted to make a law that made the lower class people pay more money, they could. They could do anything that they wanted in a political sense. The lower class, plebeian people, did not agree with this and how the patricians could have and do whatever they wanted, and the plebeian people couldn't do anything to defend themselves. In order to keep from Civil War, the patricians added one more person into the Senate which was a plebeian and had the biggest power over all of them, he could veto any law that he thought was not right. This man was called the Tribune of the Plebs who had this power. This made the Senate think more carefully about their laws, and Rome was more peaceful. This is many ways is very similar to the modern democracy especially in the United States. Think of the Tribune of the Plebs to be like the President of the United States in a way. He is still the only person that can veto the laws that the Senate makes up. That is why that United States democracy is very similar to the Roman Republic legal system. 

Special Question Week 4

Was Alexander's adventure really worth it? 

I think that Alexander’s adventure to conquer the entire world at that time and see they great wonders of the world was defiantly worth it. Alexander was an inspirational leader in his ways of fighting and taking over empires. He wanted to have total control, take over the known world of that time. He had a mission within himself and the desire to do it. In that sense, I feel like Alexander’s adventure was worth it, in order to find the peace he wanted within himself, but it was not really worth is it in a governmental stance. Alexander the Great was a great Macedonian leader who led his army and empire to conquer so much land and take over whatever they wanted, but a lot of people were killed and tormented under his rule. In this sense, I don’t think that Alexander’s adventure was really worth it.

There are many fights going around from philosophers and historians that make people think differently of Alexander’s adventure. Alexander’s goal of this conquest was to “right Persian wrongs” from thousands of years ago. He came into Persia for the first time and the first battle in the city of Troy, which was very famous for the Greeks. This is where thousands of years before, they burnt the city down and left it in ruins. My personal opinion is that Alexander had a different mindset than to “right Persian wrongs” when he came into the city of Troy. He wouldn’t just so happen land right there. This, in my opinion, was an indirect way of saying that Alexander and the Macedonians were there and ready to take over. Alexander was a very smart person; he had to have known that by stepping into Persia by Troy, there was going to be war. And whenever there is war in ancient times, it usually led to the attempt of conquering more than they thought they were going to go after in the first place. He knew that this adventure was going to happen one way or another. Maybe he didn’t think it would be as immense at it ended up being, but he knew something was happening, especially when he got Egypt involved also.

When Alexander invaded Persia with the help of Egypt and they defeated Persia, Alexander began to take over many other empires. As he was defeating empire after empire, I personally think that it may have gotten into his head a little bit. This is when the real adventure began. He began to think that he was inapproachable, and anyone who tried to beat him failed; therefore he began this nearly impossible journey and adventure that led to total power. He was attempting to have control over the entire ancient world back then, and that is where I thought that his adventure got a little too out of hand. I understand having a dream of someday having control over this super empire, but that seems a little far-fetched to actually become a reality. This idea of taking over the whole world back then is not very worth it.

It doesn’t seem very necessary to have total control over the ancient world back then because we learned that Alexander would take over an empire but let them live the way that they were already living. This means that it didn’t really even matter whether or not Alexander and the Macedonian army took over their land because they were still allowed to live their normal lives. Alexander himself was the one who changed from all of this. Before taking over, he was very smart and not very violent, and he was strictly all Macedonian and anything against his ways were wrong; he even came to Persia to “right the wrongs” of the Persians which the Macedonians considered wrong. After and during this “adventure,” he became very violent and malicious towards people, but he also became fond of the Persians ways and in the end, he wanted to be considered a Persian god rather than a Greek god. It changed Alexander and his army more in a negative way than a positive, which is another reason why I don’t think that it was really worth the adventure. If Alexander and his army would have stayed in Greece minding their own business rather than bringing up something that happened thousands of years before them in Persia, they wouldn’t have turned out to be mean and violent people.

Many people have different ways of thinking about Alexander and his great adventure to take over the entire ancient world. Some people seem to think that it was worth it, and that he was an inspiring emperor. If you think that he is so “inspiring” try being part of the thousands and thousands of people him and his army killed in battle and just because they wanted to in order to have control over an empire who ended up keeping the same rights and rules that they had before he came along. It was like he was just killing people for the sake of it, and then letting the living ones live their normal lives. Yes, Alexander was a very powerful leader of an army, but he failed at creating law and ways of living for the people of his growing empire. If he was able to create reasonable rules of living that everyone in his empire lived by, then I would have a different way of looking at him and his adventure. But in the end, Alexander was just an army general who tried to take control over all of this land for the title of being “Alexander the Great,” even though he was not a completely great man to his empire and people, in my opinion of course. 

Weekly 4:

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?

Power can definitely corrupt, in my opinion. Some leaders gain so much power at such a young age, or they gain so much more power and wealth that they had ever imagined that they get “wrapped up” in all of their power, and they lose touch of what if really important in life. Sometimes, if a leader has too much power and are getting a little too cocky and conceded, all of their power will just blow up in his face. People will rebel, people will try to kill him, people will hate him because he has become too into having total power. One day, a leader thinks that he has total power and control over a huge land, and the next day, his own people are trying to kill him. In this sense, power definitely does corrupt. A lot of people have seen something like this in Alexander the Great.

Power corrupts because of many reasons. Power can degrade when rulers become vicious and start creating bad rules that their followers do not agree with. When their followers do not agree with what the leader is saying or enforcing, they can easily speak about how they are feeling and make other people feel the same way. They could create a large “gang” to riot against their leader and try to even kill the leader sometimes. Some leaders are better than others. Some can make sure that their followers won’t revolt by being a good leader in both wars and around the empire, making everyone happy, being friendly, and making good laws that mostly everyone agrees with. When followers agree with laws and like the leader as a person, they would be much less likely to be attacked. Having the love, respect, and help of your followers can lead to a much more successful army and empire. Having a better and happier empire, which most of the time leads to the leader having the power without it ever corrupting. In order to not have power corrupt, you have to be a good leader, fighter, and friend to all of the people in his empire.

Alexander the Great was titled to be one of the best leaders of all time. He conquered all of Asia, and had control over what was known in the ancient times as the whole entire world. Even though Alexander killed thousands of people during his conquest, he still managed to be a great leader in leading the Macedonian Empire to total power over the world back then. His empire stretched from the Ionian Sea, west of Greece, to the Himalaya Mountains bordering India and China. When Alexander’s father died, he inherited his father’s very powerful and experienced army and empire. After Alexander took control over the world back then, he became very cocky and hostile. If one person said something to or about Alexander that he did not agree with, he would have very severe consequences against them. Alexander was a very violent person, who led to a lot of his own followers to turn against him and hate him. Some people planned to kill Alexander, but they were burned at the stake before they were ever even close to killing Alexander. A lot of his followers and citizens of his empire respected him because he took over their empire and properties. But once they conquered them, they moved on to conquer the next empire or property; the people were still free to live their lives before Alexander even came. Alexander even learned a little bit about their own cultures and changed who he was a somewhat. I feel like Alexander’s power was never corrupted. Some people hated him, and wanted him dead, but he was able to conquer over all of the “haters” of his empire. He was a great fighter and leader in war, who was never able to be corrupted from his power. He had total control over his people in a violent sense. If anyone from his empire even thought about hurting or killing, Alexander’s body guards will find out about it and kill you. This is why I feel like his power was never corrupted. To the day that he dies, he had full power over his whole entire empire.

In a way, Persia became more Greek; but also, Alexander became more into the Persian ways and cultures. Persia obviously had to change a little bit because when Alexander took over Persia, the Greek empire’s government officials came into the empire and made sure that Greek laws were being enforced to most of the areas. They stuck with most of the laws, but they let the new citizens stick with their old cultures and ways of life. Persia had to agree to follow the rules of the Greek empire, but they still had the freedom to live, for the most part, the way that they lived before they had been conquered by Alexander and the Macedonian empire. Therefore, they are ways that Persia was changed and became more Greek, but the lifestyle of the people stayed about the same. I think the Persian ways changed Alexander much more than how Alexander changed Persia. Alexander began to learn about the Persian cultures and gods, and he really liked it. He even decided that once he died, he wanted to be considered a Persian god rather than a Greek god. He changed some of his wardrobe to what the Persian people wore during battles, including different animal skin and colors. Alexander became much more of a dictator kind of leader after he took control over Persia. He was up for much more opinions and different ways of battle before he conquered Persia; but after he took control, he was very selfish and took control over everything. No one could have their own opinion on anything, and if they did voice out and Alexander didn’t like what they said, he would execute them.

In many ways, power can corrupt. Leaders can be forced out of their own empire by the decisions and rebelling of their people. In order to be a good successful leader, like Alexander for the most part, you have to have good fighting and have good rules that aren’t so absurd that the leader’s followers would rebel and plan to kill their leader. A leader must always be thinking ahead and helping out his empire in both expansion and civilization. If you are a smart leader, expand your empire by conquering land, and you have good rules that the people agree with and follow, your power as a leader will never corrupt. 

March 3rd Daily

Using Google Maps, create an illustration of Alexander's whole journey.

This is the path that Alexander the Great took when he took over the Persian Empire and then all of Asia. 

March 2nd Daily

Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?

I personally don't think that a force like Alexander the Great could exist and manage to take over so much land in so little time like what Alexander the Great did. Alexander was such a young guy, taking control over so much land, including Asia and other parts of the world known back then. I think that it was much easier to take over land and start a large battle in which empires, countries now a days, are taken over back then because of their lack of technology. There was really no real way how any empire could know that someone was going to attack them until they were on their way and almost to the empire. With technology today, countries all over the world are able to spy on other countries, so if they are planning on attacking, the other country could be prepared and stop the attack before they are able to take over. Even though there aren't empires and countries as massive as the empires back then, there are dictators of large countries that possibly could take over more land if they wanted to, but there are so many allies and peace treaties in today's times that keep countries from attacking certain countries for control over it. I think that it would be very hard for any dictator to be such an impact to the world much like Alexander was in the sense that was like able to take over most of the known world back then. There is too much technology, media, and allies that could keep from something that big from happening. I think that it is a good thing though, because if someone could easily take over most of the world like Alexander did, life would  be very different and not very good depending on who would take over all of these countries. 

March 1st Daily

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

I think that both Alexander the Great and Pericles were "good leaders." They both had the same mindset in the sense that they wanted total control over the Mediterranean area, Alexander just spread his mindset even further into all of Asia also. In the end, I think that Alexander the Great was a better leader when it came to fighting and having total power. Unfortunately for Pericles, this conquest led to defeat and a nasty plague over Athens which lead to the death of 1/3 of their population. Pericles was a much better person than Alexander in my opinion, but Alexander was the stronger fighter which can lead to more power. I think at an intellectual and cultural stand point, Pericles was the better leader from what I know of about both of their expeditions. Under Pericles rule, Athens and its empire became the intellectual center of the known world. They created amazing structures and buildings, especially the temple for Athena, which took 15 years to build with precise detail. Also, theatre became a huge part of their culture. In my perspective, I think that both of these leaders were "good leaders," but they were good for different reasons. They were both good fighters; but Alexander, in the end, was the better fighter, and he made the Macedonian Empire more successful in a fighting and taking over land standpoint. They were both intellectual; but Pericles, in the end, was more intellectual and made the empire at the time more successful in a cultural standpoint. I think that if Pericles had some of Alexander's fighting qualities, he would have been much more successful in growing his empire. If Alexander had some of Pericles cultural and intellectual qualities, he could have been even more successful, also. There is always room for improvement in everyone, even some of the greatest ancient leaders.