Mar 21 Daily

I am torn with this question.  Of course, I do not think that killing another human being because you do not like them or approve of them is okay; however, I do believe that Caesar’s killers were right in their interest to take him out of power.  Maybe his killers had some personal issues with him or something of that nature, but I would have wanted Caesar out of power for some other reasons.  First, I believe Rome was better off as a republic, rather than a dictatorship.  This being said, however, Rome’s becoming a dictatorship ultimately lead to the establishment of the new form of government that would develop into the Roman Empire.  Caesar had virtual absolute power.  He had worked his way into the Republic in such a way that the majority of the Senate would always be on his side (he did this by putting his own people in the legislature), ultimately allowing Caesar to do anything he wished.  In my opinion, this is not how I believe government systems should operate.  Now, I do agree with the killers’ reasons for wanting to rid Rome of Caesar; however, I do not think they should have done it if it was for more personal reasons.  If they killed Caesar because they did not like him or did not like his political views, they should not have killed him.  For the most part, I agree with the reasons why the killers did what they did, but not with the action itself.

Mar 17 Daily

The Romans invented and developed many things we use today.  These include:

Socks

Roman men and women were among the first to sport footwear such as socks.

The English Language

The Romans developed the Latin language, which was the foundation for the future Romance languages - French, Spanish, and English.

Mar 16 Daily

Hannibal, born in 248 or 247 BC, was the son of the Carthaginian commander Hamilcar Barca.  His father led the Carthaginian army through the first Punic War. He had two younger brothers, Mago and Hasdrubal, as well as a brother-in-law, Hasdrubal the Fair.  From his childhood, Hannibal was brought up with hatred toward Romans.  He was taught by his father and people around him that Romans were forever the enemy.  His father actually made him take a blood oath swearing that he would keep the Romans as the enemy.  When he came to power, Hannibal led an army with war elephants from Iberia, over the Alps, and finally into northern Italy.  During his reign, he won three battles during the second Punic Ear – the Battle fo Trebia, the Battle of Trasimene, and the Battle of Cannae.  During these battles, Hannibal gained several new allies, many of which were former allies of Rome.  Hannibal was viewed and portrayed as a monster back in Rome.  After many other battles and adventures, Hannibal found himself being wanted by the Romans with no way to escape.  Believing he did not have another choice, he took poison.

            Based on this, I do believe that his portrayal in Rome was a fair one.  The Romans saw him as the enemy, just as Hannibal saw them as the enemy.  Hannibal was a fearless, relentless, and merciless leader.  It is sort of scary to think of the power of this hate for Rome that Hannibal had been developing for years and years.  I would definitely be afraid; I can’t blame the Romans. 

Source: http://www.sacklunch.net/biography/H/Hannibal.html

Mar 15 Daily

The Struggle of the Orders, also known as the Conflict of the Orders, was a conflict between Roman Plebeians and Patricians.  Plebeians were the common people of Rome, while Patricians were the rich, powerful aristocrats.  During this time, Plebeians wanted equality with Patricians.  This struggle greatly affected later Roman politics, as public offices were now not only open to Patricians, but also Plebeians.  Virtually every citizen of Rome was able to run for public office, which in turn shifted the political landscape of the Republic, specifically the Senate.  The Roman Senate was now made up of Plebeians and Patricians alike.  With the introduction of Plebeians into the Roman government, another organization began to form – the Plebeian Council.  This council began to acquire more and more power, and its laws were beginning to not only affect Plebeians, but also Patricians.  The first Plebeian Council was the Plebeian Curiate Assembly, which was dependent on Patricians to politically support them; however, a law was passed in 471 BC that granted the Plebeian Council political independence.  At the beginning of the formation of the Roman Republic, Patricians were politically in control.  Common folk had no political input whatsoever, that is, until the Struggle of the Orders came up.  In my opinion, the Roman government was in the process of a significant transformation at the time.  No longer was the power in the hands of Patricians.  Plebeians had the right to hold public office in the Republic.  This reminds me of when African Americans were denied voting and governmental rights by the American government at the time. 


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_the_Orders

Mar 14 Daily

            The government system of the ancient Roman Republic stands a model for many democratic systems existing in the world today.  In ancient Rome, consuls, the two men in charge, decided many things.  These include control of the army, taxes, war, and laws.  In order for something to be “passed” through the system, the consuls must have agreed on the decision.  If one disagreed, they could veto the proposition.  “Veto” is Latin for “I forbid it,” and is used to stop ideas from passing through a checked and balanced government system.  This concept of vetoing propositions of law (referred to as “bills”) is still present in our American government system.  If Congress writes a bill, it must be passed to the President for approval.  The President can either approve it or veto it.  As Roman Empire began to grow, leaders were appointed to control the new province and its army.  In the United States, there are states very far away from our capital, Washington, D.C.  There are governors that control states, just as there were leaders of the many different Roman provinces.  There was a senate and assembly in the ancient Roman Republic.  In the United States, we have a bicameral federal legislature, meaning that it consists of two chambers – the House of Representatives and the Senate.  In Rome, these groups of people voted on issues, if the consuls requested this of them.  Our Congress today not only votes but also creates law, but the concept of the American Congress and the assemblies of the ancient Roman Republic remain the same.

Mar 4 Weekly

Throughout the course of human history, power has always existed.  It provides people with a way of governing and expressing authority.  With power comes an enormous amount of responsibility.  One must learn to achieve a stable balance between power and responsibility in order to avoid corruption and “getting a big head.”  If power falls into the wrong hands, it can indeed corrupt the individual in power.  Alexander the Great, for example, was corrupted by power.  He was driven by his want to conquer the Persian Empire, and once he did, he let his newfound power go to his head.  Power, if not handled responsibly, can definitely corrupt and make a person be blinded to the right decisions and actions, such as the case of Alexander.

            Power can corrupt in many ways.  If someone has been in power for a while, they may end up being corrupted.  Cultures that have government systems that include one person in power are more prone to corruption.  Usually, in cases where one person is in power, that person is able to make all the decisions and suppress political unrest and disagreement.  In this case, power is most definitely abused and the leader faces corruption.  Most people are corrupted by power because of its enormously influential effect on others.  A small amount of power may turn into a very large amount, therefore corrupting the person in power.

Alexander eventually became corrupted by the enormous amount of power that he had acquired over his lifetime.  At the start of his conquest, Alexander simply wanted to defeat the Persian Empire.  As he continued on his adventure, Alexander gained more and more power, ultimately causing him to become corrupt.  Alexander’s continuous gain of power was not the only cause of his corruption.  The myths that he created for himself also contributed to this.  He was told he was the son of a god and upheld this declaration.  He told other this, causing him to eventually believe that he was the son of a god and therefore immortal.  He was corrupted by this great amount of power that he acquired.

            Through conquering the Persian Empire, Alexander influenced the Persians more than they influenced him.  After defeating Darius and his empire, Alexander made the Persia his own.  He made the former Persian Empire part of his own empire.  Alexander had the men of his army marry Persian women.  Maybe this was a way for Alexander to leave his mark on Persia.  If Macedonians married Persians, the children of those people would not only have a Persian background, but a Macedonian one as well.  An obvious way that Alexander influenced Persia is that he conquered them.  He completed his ten year goal of conquering the empire.  When he finally did it, he wanted to have this momentous occasion for him remembered.

            Power, though it can be a positive thing to have, can corrupt people.  People must be careful when power falls into their hands.  If people in power are not held accountable for their actions, they may end up being corrupted.  In Alexander’s case, this is exactly what happened.  Alexander did not have anyone telling him “no;” therefore, he became corrupted with power.  Power, especially in Alexander’s case, must not be dealt with in an irresponsible, carefree manner, as to prevent corruption in the hand that holds it.

Week of Mar 7 Special Question

                Alexander the Great can be considered one of the most powerful and influential leaders of his time.  Over his lifetime, Alexander accumulated an empire consisting of most of the known world.  With his enormous army, Alexander trampled over the Middle East, gaining new territories with each expedition.  He won most of the battles he fought in, was treated like a god (literally), and was both respected and feared by so many people.  It seemed like Alexander could lead his empire to be anything he wanted it to be – but at what cost?  Where did Alexander draw the line when it came to expanding and bettering his ever-growing world empire?  The countless battles and adventures that lead to the continuous growth of his empire cost Alexander so much; however, all that he did was worth the cost, as the final product of all of Alexander’s work, time, and effort was an empire that, at its peak, encompassed most of the known world.

            In late October of 332 BC, Alexander the Great arrived in Egypt.  From his native Macedonia, Alexander traveled 130 miles to Pelusium.  Alexander’s final plan in his ten-year expedition was to conquer the Persian Empire; however, in order to accomplish this, he needed a “strong coastal base for both strategic and commercial purposes, from which he could not only communicate across the Mediterranean but which could also handle the highly lucrative sea-borne trade network he wanted to divert from Phoenicia” (Fildes, Fletcher).  Alexander needed to make sure he had both naval and commercial support from a reliable base, which was Egypt.  While in Egypt, Alexander was declared the son of a god.  This not only added to the many myths that Alexander would create for himself in the future, but also the amount of power and respect that Alexander had.  Alexander had made a journey of over 100 miles from Macedonia to Egypt, simply to better his chances of defeating the Persian Empire.  (Fildes, Fletcher).

            In January of 330 BC, Alexander traveled to the capital of the Persian Empire – Persepolis.  Here, Alexander and his army destroyed the city.  The city was wealthy, as most homes included some sort of very valuable treasures and other objects.  Alexander Sacks Persepolis states, “But the great royal palace, famed throughout the inhabited world, had been condemned to the indignity of total destruction. The Macedonians spent the whole day in pillage but still could not satisfy their inexhaustible greed.”  Alexander had his men destroy the city and kill its inhabitants – and for what?  Alexander may have thought that this was an appropriate action at the time, but he later regretted doing it.  In the process of conquering the capital of the Persian Empire, Alexander and his army went out of their way to destroy the city and kill its people to just satisfy their hunger for domination and declaration of power.  During his conquest, Alexander invaded Afghanistan following the Battle of Gaugamela.  Following the battle, Alexander chased King Darius of Persia into Afghanistan.  While in Afghanistan, Alexander experienced his “fiercest battles and grave loss to his army physically, mentally and financially” (Invasion of Alexander, 2000).  By chasing Darius and traveling to Afghanistan, Alexander put his army through its worst one of its worst experiences on their entire conquest.  (Alexander Sacks Persepolis) (Invasion of Alexander, 2000)

            Another tough experience that Alexander put himself and his army though was in India.  Alexander traveled here as his conquest came to its end.  Upon arriving in India, Alexander fought in a battle with Porus, a powerful Indian leader.  Alexander in India says:

The greatest of Alexander's battles in India was against Porus, one of the most powerful Indian leaders, at the river Hydaspes in July 326 B.C.E. Alexander's army crossed the heavily defended river in dramatic fashion during a violent thunderstorm to meet Porus's forces.

After defeating Porus, Alexander became a legend to Indians.  He conversed with the Brahmin (the highest Indian social class) about philosophy and other highly sophisticated topics.  Alexander endured another tough battle simply to gain more power. (Alexander in India)

            To accomplish his goal of defeating the Persian Empire and gaining more power, Alexander embarked on many adventures.  On his conquest, Alexander fought very powerful leaders in countless battles.  He ordered his army to travel on seemingly impossible paths just so that he could conquer another area.  Alexander did so many things, some of which he regretted, that added to his power and ego.  Communities and people may have been harmed by Alexander’s push for power and ambition; however, everything that he had worked for paid off in the end – in the form of a highly successful mega-empire.

Mar 2 Daily

This is a Google Map showing Alexander's conquest through the area.

March 1 Daily

                Alexander the Great had acquired so much during his lifetime as King of the Macedonian Empire.  He had conquered most of the known world, was respected and feared by so many people, and was even declared the son of a god.  Today, he is considered one of the most powerful and influential leaders of his time.  Despite Alexander’s power and popularity during his existence, I do not think someone today could accomplish what he accomplished during his lifetime.  In our world, the ideas of democracy and “power to the people” are “in.”  In most parts of the world, all people are equal.  There is not one person and or group of people that is considered more important than the next.  This is one reason that someone like Alexander would not be as successful today.  People, including myself, are not willing to raise someone else higher than all the rest to make them more powerful and more revered.  Another reason that someone could not be like Alexander today is because someone could not declare themselves the son of a god and be believed by all those people.  Also, during Alexander’s time, Christianity did not yet exist.  Today, Christianity is a huge religion of so many people.  I do not think they would abandon their religion for Alexander, as well as being naïve enough to revere Alexander as a god.  For these reasons, I do not think a force such as Alexander could exist in today’s world.  

Feb 28 Daily

           Hello, my name is Alekso.  Life around here has certainly changed since Alexander, you know, trampled over the Persian Empire.  I live in Macedon, by the way.  Right now, our king is Alexander, and he has pretty much conquered most of the world.  I used to be one his general before he conquered Persia.  I went on most of Alexander’s adventures.  We are actually quite close while we were on the move.  One of my favorite stories of Alexander and me has to do with Persia.  Let me tell you.

            About a year ago, I was traveling with Alexander and the Macedonian Army.  Alexander was set on expanding the empire (when was he not?) and his next plan was to conquer the Persian Empire – the strongest and most feared empire of the time.  Of course, Alexander could not stand the feeling of someone or something else being more powerful and feared than himself.  One night, while we were resting, Alexander informed me of this plan.  I thought about it, and advised him not to go through with it.  I felt like Alexander’s empire was already strong and that he had no reason to feel the need to conquer any other threat toward it.  I told Alexander what I felt, and he told me that he was going to go through with it.  He said that the Persians were a major threat to his empire and he couldn’t just sit around and wait for them to conquer him and everything that he had worked his entire life to acquire.  I was still strongly opposed to Alexander’s plan.  I did not want to cause him trouble or anger him, so I quietly left for Macedon that morning.

Feb 24 Daily

                Over the course of his entire life as King of Macedon, Alexander the Great had acquired so much.  He had conquered much of the known world at the time, as well as the much feared and powerful Persian Empire.  His empire was thriving, as he did not let anything or anyone stand in his way.  Despite all of his success during his life as leader of the Macedonian Empire, there was a flaw that Alexander had failed to address.  This was his death.  What was to happen to his empire when he died?  Would his generals team up and lead the empire, or would it break eventually just fall apart?  These are the questions that I think Alexander would ask himself at some point in his life.  I mean, if I had created an empire that encompassed almost the entire known world, I would definitely be making plans to preserve it after I died.  Alexander, however, did not make any of these sorts of plans for his empire.  It would seem like he would be the type of person to want to preserve something so significant that he had accomplished.  He was very egotistical, so I would think that he would want people to know and see what he had so proudly accomplished.  Maybe Alexander actually believed that he was immortal, and that he really was the son of a god.  He would then have no reason to prepare any plans for the empire after his death.  Alexander was a great leader, but his failure to address the future of his empire ultimately lead to its downfall.

Feb 23 Daily

             I think Alexander the Great was a motivated, powerful, compelling, and convincing leader.  He knew what was right for his empire and was always ready to better it, as well as let people know who he was and how powerful he was.  Without his attitude toward expanding his empire, the part of the world that he had conquered would not be the same today.  Another prominent leader of the era was Pericles, leader of Athens, Greece.  Pericles introduced many new concepts to Athenian government and society, including aspects of culture, leadership, and architecture.  In my opinion, Pericles changed Athens for the better.  Despite the fact that Alexander and Pericles share many leadership qualities, they are still very different leaders, with very different methods of governing and, in Alexander’s case, conquering.  Pericles stayed within Athens.  He bettered what he had to work with.  Instead of trying to expand Athens as Alexander did to his empire, Pericles worked on Athens and Athens alone.  Alexander, on the other hand worked constantly to expand his empire under any circumstances.  He pushed whoever and whatever out of his way to accomplish what we wanted.  In my opinion, Pericles was a much gentler leader.  He did not “stomp over” towns, villages, and even entire empires, as Alexander did.  Alexander was a completely different person than Pericles, in my opinion; however, I believe that each one contributed so much to society and the world at the time.