Weekly 5

Caligula Video: Emma Wall, Sophie Centi, Lindsay Kraus

Required Daily 32

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=207819926040162733728.00049f188c29ef8b45916&t=h&z=8


View Scavenger Hunt in a larger map




Picture:

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMap%20of%20imperial%20forums.jpg?uselang=en

Theater of Marcellus 

http://www.paulmadison.com/italy/index.html

Temple of Apollo

http://freephotooftheday.com/2009/07/05/temple-of-apollo-pompeii-italy/

Temple of Mars Ultor

http://www.colorado.edu/classics/clas4091/Text/REHO6.htm

Temple of Minerva 

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Esquilino_-_tempio_di_Minerva_medica_-_Horti_liciniani_2059.JPG

Daily 31

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

There are many factors to be considered when describing the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic lasted for 482 years. In the beginning the republic had problems with the patricians and the plebeians, but it was eventually solved because the plebeians were allowed a Tribune of Plebes. The republic started to expand, gaining territory in parts of North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, southern France, and Greece. The Roman Republic was ruled by the Senate in Rome. The biggest problem the Roman Republic faced was the Struggle of Orders with the patricians and the plebeians. The Roman Empire started in 27 BCE with the murder of Julius Caesar and the beginning of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The rulers in this era were crazy and insane. Some did expand the empire, but many caused trouble. There were also many civil wars during this time. The Roman Empire did expand to become one of the largest empires ever. The Roman Empire lasted much longer than the Roman Republic, but the empire went through a very rough time, which started in 235 CE. There was a horrible plague, military crisis, and economic crisis.  Diocletian split the empire into a tetrarchy, which seemed to solve some problems. Then Constantine came to power and he solved most of the Roman Empire’s problems. He also moved the capital to Constantinople from Rome. There were some rulers after him, and then the Western Roman Empire fell. Later the Eastern Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire, which fell in 1453. Rome was much better off as the republic because it stayed the capital of the empire, it was powerful, and in control. It did last for a shorter amount of time, but it seemed more accomplished with less problems. 

Daily 30

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

The Julio-Claudians were as bad as they seemed. The Julio-Claudians consisted of the first five Roman Emperors. They were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. They each did something important for their empire, but then again, some of them were medically insane. They each may have done something important, but they did more negative acts than positive ones. Augustus had many relationship problems, but he is considered the first emperor. He ruled by himself from 27 BCE to 14 CE. Tiberius was one of Rome’s greatest generals. He conquered land in Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and Germania. He was the best emperor out of the five. This would lay down the foundation of the northern frontier. Caligula was the best during his first two years of ruling because after that he became insane after an illness. Before that though, he built major aqueducts, helped people who were being harmed by taxes, and put on gladiator battles. He tried to appoint his horse to the senate and even made it a citizen of Rome. Claudius was limp with slight deafness, but he expanded the empire like Augustus. He gained the area of Thrace, Noricum, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Judea.  Nero was the last of the emperors of the Julio-Claudians. He was crazy too. He executed many people, including his own mother. He is known for playing the fiddle while the city of Rome burned to the ground. All of these five emperors may have done something great here and there, but in the end they ran they Romans into the ground. 

Daily 29

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

I think that Caesar’s killers were not justified in their actions, because killing is never the right thing to do. The patricians or the people in the Roman Senate were definitely fearful of Caesar, but it did not mean that they should kill him. Julius Caesar was becoming a tyrant type dictator. He was reported as being cruel and nasty. Some people believed that he was only conquered all the land and was in power for himself. They though he wanted to have all the power. Some of the other people of his empire thought he was helping them. We can only make assumptions though. Caesar was also a threat to the Roman Republic, so the senators could have felt that they would lose power as Caesar grew stronger. There were about sixty men who participated in the assassination of Caesar, so something had to be really wrong. Caesar was also warned of this plan before he entered the senate meeting. He ignored it though. As bad as the circumstance were, I do not think the killers had any right to kill Caesar. It did change the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire in the end, but I do not think that is what the killers truly wanted. They were probably relieved when Caesar was gone. The senators that killed Caesar had a reason to kill him, but it was a selfish act. The Ides of March are still remembered today because of the day Caesar was killed by his senators, March 15. 

Source: http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t09.html

Daily 28

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

These are pictures of my front door and a window. They look has if they were influenced by Ancient Rome because of the arches and parts of the columns. The Romans were known for the arches, domes, and columns. The Romans were also known for using concrete. The arches are similar to the arches of the aqueducts. 

Daily 27

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

     There were many elements of the Roman Republican political and legal system that appear present in the systems of modern democracies. When the Patricians and the Plebeians were fighting over power, they came up with an idea called the Struggle of Orders. This gave the common class, the Plebeians, more power because they were allowed one person, called the Tribune of the Plebes, to be part of their Senate. He had the power to veto ideas that anyone in the Senate came up with. The United States has a similar way of doing this as well. A law can be written, but if the President does not approve of it he can veto it. We also vote for people to represent us in the government, like the Romans did. In Rome there was a group called the Assembly of the Tribes. This group was based on geographical location. This, in part, is how Americans vote for Congressmen and Senators. The Congressmen represent a group of people based on where they live. There was also an Assembly of Centuries for the Romans. This was made up of families and tribes. They created allies and worked together. This is similar to the parties in our government. Republicans and Democrats are like the tribes. Within these groups, people work together and vote for similar people to represent them. The Romans also came up with SPQR, which means the Senate and the People of Rome, which is still intact today. There were many elements of the Roman Republican political and legal system that appear in modern democracies. 

Daily 26

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

The Struggle of the Orders changed Roman politics for the better. In Rome, there were two classes, the Patricians and the Plebeians. The Patricians were the wealthy aristocrats. The Plebeians were basically everyone else, or the common people. The Patricians were the ones that had the important assemblies and meetings. They had all the power and control. The Plebeians wanted to be part of the control because they were not as influential in politics as the aristocratic families. The two groups started to argue. The arguing became so bad that it almost broke out into a civil war. So, the Struggle of Orders was started to try and solve these problems the people were facing. The Struggle of Orders gave the Plebeians a position in the Roman Senate. They could elect a Tribune of Plebs how went to the Senate meetings. He was given the power to veto anything and it would not be overridden. This made the Plebeians very happy. This influenced the Roman Constitution. The laws after this event took in more consideration about the Plebeians because their one person in the Senate could veto the law. The Plebeians gained more equality in Rome. The Struggle of Orders created a more peaceful situation and treated the Plebeians more fairly. It influenced Roman politics because the Plebeians were better represented in government. They eventually were almost equal to the aristocratic Patricians. Julius Caesar eventually had to end this because of a civil war that broke out, creating the Roman Empire. 

Daily 25

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 born in 247 B.C.E. in Carthage. The city was going through a very difficult time since the First Punic War. The area lost Sicily and Hannibal must have seen the results of this action. His father was Hamilcar Barca. Hannibal was his first son. Hamilcar was a strong leader, who gained more territory, but it is said that he made Hannibal swear to hate the Romans. Hamilcar died in 229 B.C.E and Hasdrubal the Fair took over. He improved the diplomatic ideals of the city. Hannibal then married a native princess of the area. In 221 B.C.E Hasdrubal was murdered and Hannibal became commander. Hannibal attacked and conquered Salamanca and Saguntum (an ally to Rome). The Romans were very upset with this attack and they wanted Hannibal gone. Hannibal continued his conquests and eventually conquered the Iberian Peninsula. The Romans were so upset that they declared the Second Punic War. Hannibal saw this coming and attacked Rome when the Romans were unprepared. He also defeated the Gauls. Hannibal was trying to attack the Apennines, but he lost an eye during this battle and was forced to try again later. Rome received a new dictator that was actually successful to Hannibal’s surprise. The Romans decided to attack and they beat Hannibal’s army. After this attack, Sardinia revolted and Hannibal had to switch the capital to Capua. Hannibal made an alliance with King Philip V of Macedonia, which meant he had an ally. Hannibal started conquering southern Italy. Hannibal’s most famous battle was in the Second Punic War when was defeated by the Romans and forced to resign as general. In Roman eyes, yes, Hannibal was a monster. He defeated them several times, killing many, but the Romans later became just as bad, ruining Hannibal’s life. Both areas got what they deserved in the end. 

Source: http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/hannibal2.html

Ancient Rome Map

View The Ancient Roman World in a larger map


http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=41.899642,12.467701&spn=0.008193,0.013797&t=h&z=16&msid=207819926040162733728.00049e719085b98ad4dd2

Special Question

     Alexander the Great was an impressive, strong, ambitious leader. He conquered land in most of Asia Minor. The man was only in his twenties while doing this great feat. Yes, Alexander’s adventure was definitely worth it. Without this journey of conquests, the world would not have the writings from Alexander’s travels, the information about battles, and the knowledge of other civilizations. There are many reasons why Alexander the Great’s adventure was worth it, but there are specific events that happened that also support his trip’s worth. Alexander had many great conquests in Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, and India.

     Alexander the Great made his way to Egypt in 331. He traveled through what is now the city of Alexandria. In his time, the area was nothing. Alexander ordered a magnificent city to be built with a library and a beautiful harbor. This became a cultural center for many years to come. If Alexander did not go on his adventure, there would not be the city of Alexandria and the great library that once existed. The most important event that happened for Alexander in Egypt was his voyage to temple of the Egyptian oracle, Amon-Ra. He was told that he was the son of this god and that he would rule the world. (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html)  This trip to Egypt was extremely important for Alexander the Great.

     Alexander the Great was fighting the Persians and their king, Darius. They have had a few battles before, but the battle of Gaugamela was the most important. Darius always turned his back and ran away from battles, but Alexander did not let that happen again. He chased Darius for miles. Alexander stopped following and went to the area of Babylon. The city of Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire was waiting to be attacked now that Darius was gone. Alexander and the army went to the city and destroyed it. There were many treasures and magnificent palaces in the city that Alexander had destroyed for revenge because the Persians destroyed Athens. After this conquest, the Persian were basically conquered; their king had left, their capital destroyed, and Alexander was in power. (http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html) Persepolis was an important event for Alexander the Great because he ended the Persian Empire.

     Alexander the Great then moved toward Afghanistan. Alexander was still looking for Darius, but he found a man named Bessus. Little did Alexander know, but Bessus killed Darius. So, Alexander’s next move was to take out Bessus because he was now king. The first attempt was in Herat. Alexander was forced to retreat because his army could not take Bessus. The next time, Bessus was killed. (http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-04enl.html) This was the true ending point for the Persians. Alexander had finished their kings. Alexander moved on toward India. In 327, Alexander the Great and his army faced the hardest Indian army on the Hydaspes river. The army, led by Porus, had elephants. An advantage the Greeks had never seen before. Alexander did win this battle and continued south in India. (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/ AlexandertheGreat.html) Alexander wanted to see the Great Ocean at the end of the Indian peninsula, so he continued. He started his return home after the conquests in India. The trips in Afghanistan and India were very important to the Greek force.

     Alexander the Great led his men in many fierce battles, through dry deserts, and into unknown terrain, but in the end the voyage was worth it. The men stuck with Alexander and Alexander stuck with his men. The Greek were a force to be reckoned with. They made history, conquering more land than anyone had before. They had impressive battle all over Asia Minor, but especially in Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, and India. Alexander may have died young and been a bad person, but he was a strong leader. His long adventure was worth it, including every battle, struggle, and conquest.

Sources:

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html

http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-04enl.html

Weekly 5

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 always corrupt. When you have a leader who keep conquering and getting more and more powerful, they become less concerned with basic needs or values. They lose their “common” sense. They become too powerful. This leads to corruption. They stop doing their jobs for the right reasons. Sometimes it involves bribery, dishonesty, and/or exploitation. Power can always corrupt. That does not mean that always has to. If the leader can control all of these factors, they will most likely not have to deal with corruption.

                Power corrupts for many different reasons. Sometimes, it is the leaders fault. He or she may be too assertive or confident. They may ride on a “high horse”. Then they lose the true meaning of leadership and what it means to be a good leader. Sometimes the leader may be assisted or forced into doing something that would lead to corruption. They may have a bad advisor or general. Being a leader requires a person who can fight against this and make the right decisions. For example, a leader may be told if he or she does something, than in return, they will receive another thing in return. This is bribery. It is very easy for a leader to fall for this, especially if they are stuck in a difficult situation where it feels as if nothing good is going to come. They have to be smart and strong enough not to. Leaders, especially during the time of Alexander the Great, had so much power. It was very easy to become corrupt. Alexander even had to face some of these problems.

                Alexander the Great is considered one of the best leaders in all of history. He conquered more land than anyone before him. He was young, strong, and smart. It would have been very easy for someone like him, with so much power to encounter a problem like corruption. Greece was rising once again. Their only enemy was Persia. Alexander became corrupt. He said that he wanted to attack Persia to avenge the Persian wrongs. He truly wanted the power and the land. He was fighting for the wrong reasons. He even went to Egypt to create an ally because the Egyptians hated the Persians. Alexander was worshipped in Egypt. He was told that he was the son of God. This did not help his esteem. Alexander the Great did become corrupt, but he was a military genius. He led armies that were unstoppable.  He was a good leader, but the amount of power and control became overwhelming. Alexander the Great had astonishing leadership talent, but did not always say what he was actually trying to accomplish.

                Alexander the Great became more Persian, but there is something to be said about Persia as well. The Persians became Greek too. The Persians were slowly but surely falling. They did not have a strong army or a good leader. The military was being decimated by Alexander. They were looking more and more like the Greeks did a few years earlier. Alexander the Great was fiercely conquering more and more land and people. He was becoming brutal. He was killing thousands, taking land. He was unstoppable. The Persians were ruthless rulers and fighter. Alexander was changing, but anyone could have predicted his outcome. The boy was able to tame an “untamable” horse. He did the impossible. He became somewhat “big headed”. Alexander was always in Persia, fighting and gaining their land. Alexander the Great became more Persian than anyone else.

                Power may corrupt, leadership may not be the best, and control may be lost, but Alexander the Great was a story for the history books. He did things no one else could ever do. Alexander was a great leader. He did not always fight for the right reasons, but the man was only in his twenties. He was so young, but he made up for it in his knowledge. Alexander did not experience enough life to understand corruption and what power can do to person. Alexander the Great is an example of corruption. He was strong, but uninformed. Without Alexander the Great, we would not have one of the greatest history stories ever. 

Daily 24

Using Google Maps, create an illustration of Alexander's whole journey.
Some of the important events during Alexander the Great's travel are labeled.

Daily 23

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

     The relationship between Egypt and Persia, before Alexander the Great came into the scene, was very bad. Persia did not respect the Egyptian gods or goddesses. The Egyptians felt a strong hatred towards the Persians. Their relationship was not a great one. Alexander the Great was so loved in Egypt because he was going against the Persians. The Egyptians treated him like a god. The Persian Empire was a very strong, formidable, and powerful empire, until Darius. Alexander fought the Persians in many battles. The most important battles took place in Issus and Gaugamela. The Persian Empire had control of most of Asia Minor. Alexander the Great eventually conquered all of this land. Before Alexander, Egypt did not have many libraries. When Alexander came, he established a city that is now called Alexandria. He built a flourishing port and a library unlike any others before or after it. Scholars from all over the world went there to study and learn. Egypt and Persia never got along. Alexander the Great once said, “I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexander_the_great.html#ixzz1FVEXHHTZ ) Alexander the Great understood the power of leadership. He knew the problems Egypt and Persia had with each other. He would use this as a tool to win both territories over. The relations between Egypt and Persian before Alexander would lead to their downfall. Persia would lose many battles to Alexander the Great. 

Daily 22

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

I think that Alexander the Great was not honestly avenging the Persian wrongs. I think that the Persian wrongs definitely were a factor, but not the main factor. Alexander the Great was a young, ambitious leader. He was traveling around Asia Minor conquering land. While he was doing this he was creating his own mythos. Alexander the Great fought the Persians several times. He was always fighting Darius, too. I think that the wars and battles could have been a rivalry between these two leaders. Darius always turned his back on a battle though. Alexander was creating his own mythos throughout his journey. Especially in Egypt, Alexander went to an oracle and was “told” he was the son of God. No one knows how true this really is though. The people of Egypt regarded him as a god. He was loved by the people because he was against the Persians. Alexander the Great truly wanted to conquer. When his father died, he asserted himself and decided to take control and conquer his enemies. Alexander the Great definitely had a goal of conquest, specifically in Persia, but in general he just wanted to rule everywhere. I think Alexander the Great wanted, in part, to avenge Persian wrongs, but he truly wanted to conquer land. So, in the end, he probably did mask his own goal with avenging the Persian wrongs for conquest. The man had many followers and people who would fight for him, so he could do whatever he wanted. Alexander the Great was going to avenge the Persian wrongs through his own conquests.