Roman Emperor Video

Adam Beard, Josh Mannion, Andrew Tran, and Andrew Beard are in my group.

Week 5: Daily #13

Read Augustus' 'Res Gestae ' paragraphs 19 - 21 and scavenger hunt for as many pictures relating to the places mentioned as you can find and chart them on a Google Map.


View Roman Places in a larger map

Week 5: Daily #9

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

I do not think that the Julio-Claudians were really as bad as they seemed. Each of them may have been crazy and insane during their life, but the good things that they each did in their lifetimes made up for their insanity. Despite their insanity, they helped Rome become a very strong and powerful empire when they were each emperor of Rome. The first emperor of this dynasty was Augustus. When Julius Caesar died, Rome needed this fierce leader who could fill in for Caesar. Augustus did just that. As emperor, Augustus ruled through patronage, where he was loyal to his military and also the Roman senate. Many people started to respect Augustus with his loyalty as emperor. Augustus’s style of rule became a model for all later imperial governments. Tiberius was the second emperor in this dynasty. Even though he is known for throwing people off cliffs for his amusement, he helped Rome drastically with military. Tiberius was one of the greatest Roman generals of all time. While the third emperor in this dynasty, Caligula, was an insane tyrant of Rome, he initiated the construction of two new aqueducts in Rome and he constructed structures that were for the good of the people. The fourth emperor, Claudius, was inexperienced as a leader but he constructed fantastic buildings and structures all over Rome and he began the conquest of Britain. The fifth emperor, Nero, showed insanity when he played his fiddle during the Great Fire of Rome. But Nero was focused on trade with Rome and with negotiating peace with the Parthian Empire, avoiding a possible war with them. So even though the emperors in this dynasty were a bit crazy and insane with their power, they each made positive contributions that helped Rome grow as a whole. 

Week 5: Daily #8

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

I do not think Caesar’s killers were justified in their actions. Their reason to assassinate Caesar was completely wrong. Killing a great leader like Caesar was a very bad mistake since many Romans looked up to him as a special and born leader. Other people looked up to Caesar as a role model. I know that the Roman senators feared Caesar gaining in power, but following their first instinct to kill him was just a dumb idea. The senators were only focused on power, and if Caesar stayed alive longer, he thought of himself to be a great king. These Roman senators never thought about what Caesar could do in the long run, even if he made Rome a strong empire or completely made them fall. But Caesar never live another day after March 15 of 44 B.C.E. The assassination of Caesar was very gory, with him being stabbed over 20 times. It was not a pretty day on the Ides of March. It was easy to understand why these senators hated Caesar, but killing him wasn’t the right solution. Their actions killed a potentially great leader for the future and a person that Plebeians all over Rome looked up to. Being a dictator, many senators, who formed a group called the Liberators, also feared that Caesar would overthrow their Senate in favor of tyranny. So the Roman senators had reasons to kill Caesar, but their motives were not right, making their actions in the end completely wrong. Caesar’s killers did not do the right thing at all with this once great dictator of Rome. 

Week 5: Daily #10

Question: Why do many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor"?

Many historians believe that Hadrian was a very good and the “best emperor” for a number of reasons. First of all, he influenced the great architecture of Rome. He was responsible with the building of the Pantheon, one of the greatest Roman buildings of all time that is still standing today. He also ordered the Temple of Venus and Roma to be built, which was thought to be one of the biggest temples in Ancient Rome. But other than being emperor, Hadrian had a love for Greek culture. He admired all of Greece and he ordered a reconstruction of Athens with new temples and large buildings to make Athens the cultural center of the Ancient world. Many historians like Hadrian because of his taste for Greece, even though he was a Roman emperor. Also, Hadrian was deeply involved in the military. He wore military garments and sometimes even ate with his soldiers. He ordered deep military training for all of his soldiers in case there was an attack on Rome. In 121 A.D, Hadrian with his army almost had a war with Parthia, but Hadrian avoided it because he negotiated peace between the two. Hadrian developed a new peace policy after this. This policy though was further strengthened with one of his greatest accomplishments. He built the famous Hadrian’s Wall, which marked the northern boundary of the Roman army. This wall stretched 60 miles across Great Britain. Hadrian was also unique with his love for the arts. Hadrian loved the arts of Rome and he himself could write in Latin and also Greek. Hadrian also had a beard, where every emperor before him except Nero was clean-shaven. These are all good reasons why historians think of Hadrian as the best emperor, with his uniqueness, his versatility, and his way of doing various things.  

Week 5: Daily #3

 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. and he became one of the best military commanders in his time period. He lived during a time when the Roman Empire was gaining power in the Mediterranean, overcoming forces like Carthage. After Hasdrubal, Hannibal’s brother-in-law, was assassinated in 221 BC, Hannibal took over as military commander of Carthage. Then, Hannibal was going to take the Romans by surprise because he was going to invade them with a plan made from his brother-in-law. So in the spring of 218 B.C, Hannibal departed Carthage. He traveled north through the Pyrenees, slaughtering thousands of people along the way while also losing some troops. Hannibal traveled with his troops on war elephants, a unique way of traveling. Then, Hannibal made his way through the Alps in France, defeating all of the Roman fleets that he encountered. He then won two important battles as he made his way south down Italy. He won the Battle of Trebia and Battle of Lake Trasimene. But now came the battle of Cannae in Cannae, Italy in 216, B.C. The Romans had between 80,000 and 90,000 troops and they came prepared. But Hannibal knew his army was undermanned. So the Romans came right at Hannibal’s middle infantry. But the two cavalry of Hannibal, who were lined up on the sides, came in behind the Roman troops and slaughtered all of the Romans, not taking any of them as prisoners. This was one of the worst losses in Roman history and it made Rome think more about Hannibal. His reputation was like a monster in the Roman eyes after the battle at Cannae and it made all of the Roman citizens fear him. Hannibal just came in with fewer troops but he dominated the Romans with his unique military tactics. So I think Hannibal’s reputation as a monster was deserved in Rome because he was a nightmare for Rome after the Battle at Cannae. Hannibal just wasn’t bad, he was a monster that terrified all of Rome.

Week 5: Daily #1

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

There are many elements in the Roman Legal system that are alike in the systems of modern democracies. One element in the Roman legal system is an even amount of power distributed to each person in government. This means that one person does not have more power over another person. This is present in our modern democracy because there is a balance of power between the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Legislative Branch. If one person thinks they have more power than someone else in the Roman legal system, that person could be taken out of the government. So all power is equally distributed in a democracy and the Roman political system. The Roman legal system also contained a constitution that contained many laws that are present in the Constitution in our modern democracy. These laws included checks and balances, the ability to veto, and the ability to impeach someone out of office. So our modern democracy includes a Constitution that is very similar to that found in Ancient Rome, another key element that these two systems share. Also, there was one person who had the ability to veto in the Roman legal system as well as in a democracy. That person in the Roman system was the Plebeian who served as the Tribune of the Plebs. Just like how the President in our democracy can veto bills from Congress, that one Plebeian could veto any laws passed by the Roman Senate. So if the Roman Senate thought of a bill to go into law, the Tribune of the Plebs could turn it down immediately, just like the President. So these are a couple of elements from the Roman political and legal system that are present in our modern democracy.

Week 5: Daily #2

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

The Struggle of the Orders fought to make the Plebeians politically equal with the Patricians. In the early 400s B.C., the Patricians were the most well-known people in society. They had most of the wealth in Ancient Rome at this time and they lived in luxurious palaces. They were the aristocrats in society. On the other hand, you had the Plebeians. The Plebeians were the “rest of society” and were made up of the common and regular people in society. But in society, the Patricians had all of the power and they only used it for themselves. Patricians also made up the whole political office, at first. But over time, the Plebeians got sick and tired of the Patricians having all of the power. The Plebeians then argued with the Patricians because they wanted to be represented in the Roman Senate. So after long periods of arguing, the Struggle of the Orders finally gave the Plebeians a spot in the political office. This position was called the Tribune of the Plebs, where one Plebeian represented all of the Plebeians in the Roman Senate. But this position was even more important because this one Plebeian had the deciding power in the Senate. So if the Plebeian did not agree with a bill from the Patricians, he could turn it down immediately. The Tribune of the Plebs helped all of the Plebeians in Ancient Rome get politically equal with the Patricians. This helped the Patricians show more respect for the Plebeians because after all, they had the deciding power in the government. So this is how the Struggle of the Orders helped shape Roman politics in the future with the Plebeians and Patricians being equal in the political aspect of life. 

Week 5: Daily #4

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

The columns on my front porch appear to be influenced by Ancient Rome because they are tall, square columns that look like they went with ancient temples and palaces in Rome. Also, the columns are white like those in Ancient Rome. So Roman columns influenced the columns on my front porch.

Ancient Roman World Map Embedded Code

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=211422251480291194755.00049e718ff8f37fdb645&amp;ll=41.896012,12.483098&amp;spn=0.020053,0.025599&amp;t=h&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=211422251480291194755.00049e718ff8f37fdb645&amp;ll=41.896012,12.483098&amp;spn=0.020053,0.025599&amp;t=h&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">The Ancient Roman World</a> in a larger map</small>

Special Question for Week 4b

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

           

Alexander the Great led an extraordinary conquest through Persia and also through Afghanistan, Egypt and India. He as one of the fiercest leaders of all time and he and his army were full of confidence on their epic journey. Alexander’s long and endless journey was definitely worth it in his eyes, and also in mine too. Alexander accomplished a feat that astonished everyone in his time, even his own army. He paved the way for what great leaders could do with a lot of power, by conquering everything. He had the knowledge of a military genius and the speed of a gazelle on his long journey of conquest. With a reliable and strong army, Alexander the Great conquered civilizations in Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, and Egypt in the blink of an eye.

In 332 B.C., Alexander the Great steamed into Egypt when many people thought he was going to go to Persia directly. While in Egypt, Alexander ordered his army to build a great city along the sea which is now known as the Mediterranean Sea. Alexander named the city after himself, Alexandria. Alexandria became the intellectual capital of the Ancient world with humongous libraries that were never seen up to his date. But the most important thing happened in Siwa Oasis at the temple of Amun. Alexander with a couple of his soldiers made their way across the hot desert to this temple. When Alexander stood at the steps of this temple, he was declared the son of God by the Egyptian God Amun Re (http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.module&story_id=&language_id=1&module_id=330&text=text). This gave Alexander the confidence and power to march into Persia and destroy their empire completely. With Egyptians worshiping Alexander as a king since they hated the Persians too, Alexander was now determined to conquer the whole Persian Empire.

In January of 330 B.C., Alexander the Great reached Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire. After Alexander fled Darius and his army up north, Alexander was determined and set out to destroy Persepolis. So Alexander, along with his army, came into Persepolis and completely turned a once great city into complete ruins. He knocked down all of the standing buildings in Persepolis but the building with the most damage was the Palace of Xerxes. This great palace was burned down by Alexander because he wanted revenge on the Persians. Alexander even killed all of the men currently living in Persepolis and pulverized their houses too. The women were taken as slaves in Alexander’s army and his soldiers took all of their silver and gold jewels (http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html). The destruction of Persepolis was one part in Alexander’s journey where he corrupted his power. Alexander just came in and killed all of the innocent people and hammered down all of their houses. This event basically ended the Persian Empire and what completely downed the little that they even had.

With Alexander’s army being very strong with Greek reinforcements and Persian prisoners, he marched into Afghanistan. But with Afghanistan came harder difficulties. Alexander was still in pursuit of Darius, but Darius was actually taken prisoner by a man named Bessus, who was Darius’s kinsman. As Alexander grew closer, Bessus stabbed King Darius and proclaimed that he was the successor of Darius. But Alexander thought he was the successor of Darius, and he set out with his army to take Bessus down. While trying to find Bessus, Alexander founded many great cities, including Kandahar in modern day Afghanistan. But in 329 B.C., while near the Oxus River, Alexander found Bessus and ordered him to be executed (http://www.archaeology.org/0411/abstracts/alexander.html). This defeat of Bessus made Alexander the King of the Persian Empire, and this officially ended the once great Persian Empire. Alexander was now on his way to India, where before he thought that he had conquered the whole world. But there was still much left for Alexander to conquer.

           

In 327 B.C., Alexander and his army stormed into India and immediately invaded Punjab. But he was faced with a tough challenge after that with the battle against Porus, a powerful Indian leader at the Hydaspes River. Even though Alexander’s army was surprised by the elephants in Porus’s forces, they managed to defeat Porus (http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html). But after Alexander captured Porus, he let him go. Alexander then rode down the Hydaspes and Indus Rivers in search of the great ocean in the Southern part of the world. Alexander then conquered many villages along the way. He was almost at the village of Malli, where an arrow pierced his chest area. After reaching the mouth of the Indus in July 325 B.C., Alexander and his army headed west for home. But during Alexander’s long journey, he conquered almost all of the Ancient world in various areas with strong armies, like in Persia, Afghanistan, and India. Alexander rarely hesitated along his journey and his confidence took the better of him. When Alexander was determined to win, he won. Alexander the Great showed magnificent strength and determination and in the end, his long fought work payed off. Alexander the Great’s journey of conquest was definitely worth every day of it and with every conquered civilization came more success and worth in the life of Alexander the Great.

Works Cited in APA format

Eternal Egypt, (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 11, 2011, from http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.module&story_id=&language_id=1&module_id=330&text=text

Lendering, J. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 11, 2011, from http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html

Macedonia FAQ, (2000). Retrieved Mar. 11, 2011, from http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html

Romey, K. M. (2004, Nov.). Retrieved Mar. 11, 2011, from http://www.archaeology.org/0411/abstracts/alexander.html

Weekly #5

Adam Beard

Honors Western Civilization

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

Power was extremely important in the ancient world, as it showed which leader was the strongest out of the bunch. When a leader had a lot of power, they were worshipped like a god by the people. The amount of power a leader had during the ancient world separated him from every other leader. But sometimes if a leader had too much power, he could have used it all in the wrong way by making poor decisions that affected him and the army that he had. Too much power by any one leader could sometimes result in a huge mistake that the leader will regret for the rest of his life. It is important to use the power that one has wisely. Power does corrupt and when it is used in the wrong way, a leader can lose their common sense and make poor choices that have serious consequences.

Power can corrupt in a multitude of ways. When a leader possesses too much power, they can lose their sense of leadership. Then the leader can use his power for evil and not good. Leadership skills are probably the most important skill in being a good leader, and when you lose this quality, power can be used in the wrong way. Power can also corrupt through too much confidence shown in the leader. When a leader is over-confident, he thinks he can use his power for good when it only results in evil actions. It is as if too much power causes the leader to be ignorant from too much confidence. Power can also corrupt when a leader thinks that he has the opportunity to do something that will make him and his army along with his homeland the strongest in the ancient world. The power then can be used by the leader without even thinking the situation through. When the power is not used wisely by the leader in the right way, this can come back to haunt him forever, depending on the importance of the situation.

I do think Alexander the Great was corrupted since he had the most and if all the power during his time. Alexander assumed king as soon as his father, Philip II, died and this gave way to an unlimited amount of power. With so much power, Alexander had corrupted his power during his goal of conquest. Alexander the Great wanted to avenge the Persians for what they did to Greece, and he had so much power in his journey that it was corrupted in the process. Even though Alexander corrupted the power that he gained on his journey, he was still unstoppable and could not have been stopped. But with total domination came corruption of power, where his army did not even know or care about it. They just accepted the commands of Alexander and did what they were told. So even though Alexander conquered the whole Persian Empire, corruption was a major problem in his journey where he was “mad with power”.

Alexander also corrupted his power through complements from the gods. The gods of Egypt told Alexander that he would defeat the Persian Empire and rule the world at the oracle at Siwa. With this, Alexander was motivated and overly assertive in his rule. This led to Alexander corrupting his power from too much excitement and confidence where he then went straight to Persia without thinking many things through. A similar thing happened with the Gordian Knot. After untying this knot, gods told him that he would be the king of Asia. This event had a similar effect on Alexander’s journey where his power would corrupt from an excessive amount of it. Alexander may have been one of the best military commanders of all time, but the amount of power that he had would eventually lead to wrong uses of his power.

In the end, I think Alexander became more Persian because he conquered the whole Persian Empire, bringing influences from this empire with him on his journey. When Persia did wrongdoings in Greece by burning their temples, Alexander came to Persia and slaughtered many warriors in Darius’s army and eventually conquered this once great empire. With this, Alexander developed some Persian qualities that they possessed when they did bad crimes in Greece. Also like Persia, Alexander gained an unlimited amount of power that Persia possessed after the Golden Age of Athens. As a leader, Alexander did things that were similar to Persia when they were one of the leaders of the ancient world. Alexander did so much in his life that was influenced by Persian traits. Alexander also trained Persian soldiers to be in his army, so Persian soldiers started to influence part of Alexander’s army. Alexander even wore Persian garments at the end of his journey, after he conquered the Persian Empire. Conquering the Persian Empire gave Alexander a great view on Persian life and influences. So in the end, Alexander the Great was heavily influenced by the Persian Empire and the power that he possessed was corrupt when he had an infinite amount of it. With so much power, Alexander the Great relied on it too much and spent less time thinking important decisions through with his army, even though he was one of the greatest leaders of all time.

Week 4b: Daily #7

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

After Alexander’s death, the people of Macedonia I think should have scrambled quickly to find a leader so they could rebuild their army in a short amount of time. I think Macedonia should have found a legitimate solution for king, especially since they had many intelligent people in Alexander’s army. Macedonia should have had an answer for their leader when Alexander died, because they knew he would not live forever. Someone should have stepped up to the position of leader since no one was selected for it. One reason why no person was selected as leader right away was because Alexander the Great did not choose an heir to follow him when he died. Many people thought that if Alexander picked someone to be an heir, he would be an all-powerful leader like Alexander himself. But since he did not choose one, Macedonia had to scramble to find a leader before someone attacked they state. Many people began fighting about who should lead the city state, especially Alexander’s army. Each person wanted to assume the position of leader and follow in Alexander the Great’s success. If Macedonia as a whole came together to decide a leader, I think this would have worked out because then they could find the person best fit for the job. But since everything was very disorganized at the time of Alexander’s death, this did not work out. So I think if Macedonians as a whole chose their successor of Alexander the Great, this would be the most fair and logical choice for a new leader. 

Week 4b: Daily #2

Question: 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 different people could have their own opinions to this question. Some people could say that Alexander actually wanted to avenge the Persians for what they did to Greece as a whole. Persians negatively impacted Greece with the burning of their temples and their acropolis, which was sacred to Athens. So when King Philip II died, Alexander wanted to avenge the Persians for destroying their religious buildings. People could say that Alexander was sick and tired of the Persians wrongdoings in Greece so he wanted to destroy the Persian Empire. This shows that Alexander the Great had an important reason to get back at the whole Persian Empire. Other people complain that Alexander really had no major purpose to destroy the Persian Empire. These people could say that Alexander had all of the power in the world at his current time and he just wanted to rule the ancient world with this power. With this power, Alexander the Great could conquer the whole ancient world in the blink of an eye. Alexander also could have conquered the world just to make himself known to the people living in the future. It is as if he just wanted to put himself in the record books and to be famous. Alexander conquered the world for fame, some people on the other side think, especially when Alexander had someone right next to him write down all of the events that happened during his journey. So some people think that Alexander had a notable reason for conquering the Persian Empire, while others think his journey was all propaganda. It just depends who you ask. 

Week 4b: Daily #4

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

Before Alexander came on to the scene, Egypt and Persia despised and hated each other so much. Each of the two could not stand each other when they saw each other. The relationship between Persia and Egypt was filled with so much hatred and enmity that they just could not be around each other. If Persia and Egypt came across each other, they would get into a nasty brawl with each other. It just was not a good scene if Persia and Egypt saw each other before Alexander came about. But when Alexander the Great came about, Egypt accepted him as a natural leader. Egypt accepted Alexander because Alexander also greatly despised Persia since he wanted to avenge the wrongdoings Persia did in Greece, like the burning of their temples and the acropolis. So Alexander came to Egypt and was accepted as a leader because they each despised the Persians. Alexander the Great would combine with the great country of Egypt to have a great army that would destroy Darius and his army in Persia. A lot of the hatred that flowed between Egypt and Persia came from Persia not worshiping the gods of Egypt. Persia did not think these gods in Egypt meant anything so Egypt would not accept them into their own country. The ill-will flowed rapidly between the two civilizations and it was not a fun sight to see the two come between each other. This was the case until Alexander came onto the scene to permanently destroy the Persian army.