Redo- Daily 4b

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?

In a variety of ways, yes, power can corrupt. Power doesn’t always have to corrupt though. In the bad case, power can make a person very evil. It can make them become rude, but this could make them lose their power. If people become too in love with their own power, they may find themselves in a bad situation. Power does corrupt and it is shown in a few ways through Alexander and his journey; more information is found that people and places change and influence other civilizations through their journeys, and how this can corrupt people weather it is by power or anything else.

If people are good leaders, like Alexander, and are doing things in the best interest of their people, they may become very powerful. Power can corrupt when you become too powerful. When Alexander became too powerful and began to realize how powerful they actually are, then they may do harmful things. Alexander realized his power and went on to continue conquering the rest of the world. When he realized how much more world there was and how much more there was to take over, he decided to take on the challenges. Power is very capable of corrupting people, and now are more aware of how power can corrupt.

Power corrupts for many reasons. Power can corrupt because of power, or because someone is tricked into being corrupted. People could also be bribed into corruption. Power is one of the very easy things to be corrupted into. Alexander, for example, was corrupted by power. He became too powerful and corruption actually bribed him into his own corruption. People could be bribed into corruption of power if someone challenges them to it. For example, if someone told Alexander that there was no way he could conquer Egypt or any other place, he would’ve done it to prove them wrong. So, power can corrupt us, but we are not always corrupted by our own power. People may be corrupted by other people’s power. If someone was more powerful then Alexander, he would have surely put them into place by becoming more powerful than them.

Alexander was corrupted by power. He didn’t want anyone to become more powerful than him, and he wanted to conquer everyone and take over everything. He wouldn’t let anything stand in his way, and he wouldn’t give up. If he were not corrupted by power, then he would not have been in such a rush to beat everyone. Persia became more Greek and that Alexander became more Persian. Alexander became more Persian though. The Persians did not like to lose and liked to conquer and so did Alexander. Persia probably tried to become more Greek after they were conquered because they wanted to be back on top.

In conclusion, it is basically proven that power definitely does corrupt. Alexander was defiantly corrupted by power. The Greeks, the Persians, and Alexander all changed during all of their journeys. Alexander originally wanted revenge for his father’s murder but ended up taking over the entire rest of civilization.

Week 5: Daily #8

View Required Daily in a larger map

Week 5: Daily #7

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

Rome was better as an empire and as a republic. The people in Rome were used to being an empire and having set rulers and just following whatever they say that it would probably be had for them to adjust to becoming a republic. This would probably also cause many arguments, people would not be able to decide what to vote for. When a new rule comes out to be voted on, there will be mixed emotions for everyone, and I don’t think that the senate would be ready for this kind of chaos. On the other hand, it would be good for Rome to try this and see how it helps and what effect it has on their society. I think since there were many emperors who cared so much about being powerful, that this would be hard for Rome. They would not want the power taken from them and given to the people. Everyone saw how the senate and higher titles reacted when Julius Caesar went out to the poor people and asked for their votes. What if the senate had to do that? Plain and simple: they would not. In conclusion, there are many pluses and minuses but we know that Rome would be a completely different place if it was an empire rather than a republic. 

Week 5: Daily #6

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

The Julio- Claudians were really as bad as they seemed. Some of them were okay rulers but others were just straight up crazy. Since I got to learn about Tiberius and I know that he was one of the Julio- Caiudians, I can say that he was not a very good ruler. He was a great conqueror, but didn’t care too much about his people. He pushed people off cliffs for self-enjoyment and tried people for treason. These people were put into jail for no fair or apparent reason. He did conquer big places life Germania, but this does not mean he was all for his people. Caligula must have gotten into reign after Tiberius. I know that he was one of the men to suffocate Tiberius. This must have been all a plan for him. He was most likely one of the senate people who did not like him. He probably just wanted to get into office to show his power and be better than anyone else. Even though Tiberius was a bad ruler, he doesn’t deserve to face a terrible death like the one he did. Claudius came into power after Caligula. Claudius was Caligula’s uncle. He did not want to be emperor and when they were looking for him, Claudius was found behind a curtain trying to hide. This to me shows that he could not be a very great leader. He didn’t even want to do what was best for his country and stand up for them. I think that yes, the Julio- Cluadians were as bad as they seemed. 

Week 5: Daily #5

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

I do not think that they were very justified in their actions. They should not have killed him. Most people, who were not poor, like people in the senate, were very angry. Julius Caesar went to the poor people for their votes. He asked them to vote for him and educated them on what and why he was running. The senate was mad because normal people would go to higher titles and ask for their vote. When Caesar did not go to the higher people, they probably felt less powerful. They also probably felt like they were of no importance because Julius could win by himself. Julius Caesar was a great leader, and showed that he was. He went and conquered places that the higher people sent him to in hopes of his fall. They were setting him up for disaster, and he had no choice but to go to war with him. In conclusion, Julius Caesar’s killers were not justified in their actions, and they should have thought twice before killing such a great, fair, and persistent man who looked for the best interest of his country. Even though some think that he was in it for himself and others believe that he was doing this for the best of the people, we may never know, but we must base it off of our own opinion and belief. 

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 toilet was created as a use of plumbing. 

The Paved road was for importing and exporting goods in and out of Rome. I was a different way to trade.

Week 5: Daily #3

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

This was a rule that the Romans came up with. It allowed them to be more free then they ever were before. It allowed them to make rules for themselves, and follow their own ‘laws’.  The Struggle of Orders took away some of the Patricians power and allowed the Plebeians to become a little bit more successful. It also helped the two groups to get along better than they did before. It helped everyone to become wealthier and overall happy. This also made it fair for both groups. This was better because the Patricians could not become more powerful than the Plebeians. This was because both parties had to agree on a rule before it was actually made a rule. It was overall better for both people, and made Rome a better and happier place for both to live.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/struggle-of-the-orders.php

Week 5: Daily#2

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 grew up in Carthage. In Carthage, they taught him to hate the Romans. Carthage people hated the Romans. After he was raised in his Carthage family, he became a general. He became a general for their military. He tried to defeat the Romans many, many times but kept getting defeated by the great Roman army. He was a very violent person, and he deserved it. In one of his wars, he came out successful by creating a master plan. It was a war against the Romans. His plan was to attract the Romans to the milled portion of his military. When the romans broke through, all of the rest of the Cartage surrounded them. Even though this was a master plan, Hannibal was a bad person, and deserved all of the losses that he had. 

Week 5: Daily #1

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

Back in ancient Roman times, the romans had to follow rules. Rules were set up for everyone to follow and obey. They were used as both a peace maker and a peace keeper. Without these rules, there would be chaos. This relates to today’s world a lot. We follow many rules, but one good example of very important rules it the Constitution. We follow all of those rules, and they have helped are society. We know this because even though they were written hundreds of years ago, we stiff obey and follow them today. In ancient Rome, they had the privilege to write new rule, or laws as we call them today, and have them be voted on. If the rule was a good one, it would be made into an official rule and all would have to follow it. One rule that is current in our society is the texting while driving law. Even though it is only a secondary offence, we still must follow it. It was elected a law by the people. This is how our rules and roman rules are alike. 

The Ancient Roman World

View The Ancient Roman World in a larger map

Special Question

Special Question: 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.

What was Alexander searching for in his huge conquest? Was he hoping to make a new world of his own, or just focused on being better than everyone else? Hopefully in this essay these questions will be answered. In this essay, the topics that will be examined and talked about are all of Alexander’s reigns and conquer in Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, and India. Alexander’s allies and competitors will be mentioned. Egypt will be the first place mentioned.

Alexander spent several months in Egypt. He stayed here against the Persian Empire and their leader Darius. Alexander came to Egypt after conquering a northern Persian Empire. (Fildes, 1)This part in Alexander’s adventure was worth it. He needed this to conquer the rest of the Persian Empire. He stayed here in Egypt to think about future plans and create a good base for himself and future conquests. After he finished his plans, his army traveled about one hundred and thirty miles to reach the town of Pelusium. They traveled this distance in only a week. After this, Alexander continued to make allies and foes in different places, and probably did not return to Egypt for some time. (Fildes, 2) In Egypt, Alexander’s conquest might not have been worth it, but going to Egypt was definitely an essential part of his journey and conquest.

In the year of 330 B.C., Alexander reached Persepolis. Persepolis was the capital of the Achaemenid Empire. Alexander wrecked much havoc in Persepolis. He was extremely upset with the fact that he was still not the Persian Empire, so he destroyed many temples and palaces. (Lendering) At this point Alexander’s journey became a little bit more worth it. If he was going to conquer everywhere, everyone, and everything that belonged to the Persian Empire, and he was already this far, than why wouldn’t he continue. Persepolis was one if not the most wealthy cities under the sun in that time. According to the article by Jona Lendering, “The Macedonians rushed into it, killing all the men and plundering the houses, which were numerous and full of furniture and precious objects of every kind.”(Lendering) The Macedonians carried away women and all of the jewels. (Lendering) this was a very vicious act of Alexander. At this point his journey should not have been worth it. Is it really worth it to force women and children out of their homes and kill everyone in sight. The answer is no. If Alexander was after the Persian Empire, why didn’t he go straight to Darius himself? Alexander was obviously confident and cocky so it should have been no problem for him to go and win his Empire.

Alexander conquered Afghanistan in about three years. These three years took place from 330-327 B.C. Even though Alexander was only in Afghanistan for 3 years, he left evidence of his being there. The traditions and cultures that he left still lasted many years after his leaving. (The Library of Congress) Afghanistan did not get its control back until about thirty years after Alexander’s death. Surprisingly, it was not even Afghanistan who took itself back over. It was an Indian group that took position as Afghanistan’s owner. The Indian group was formed by the Mauryan Empire. (The Library of Congress) This kind of shows that Alexander’s conquest was not entirely worth it. Sure, he won back all of these places for himself and his father, and in a way it was worth it for himself, but these conquests never stuck. They lasted for a while and we hear about them today, but Alexander’s successors did not continue the reign. In a way this shows that Alexander did not sit down and plan everything. He obviously did not plan well enough for people of his blood to continue his reign. This part is based off of opinion though, and there are most likely many other people that disagree with this. I think that if Alexander came back today he would be unhappy. He would want everything to still be in his control. Although, he probably would be happy that people still talk about it today.

In 327 B.C., Alexander found India. Alexander first invaded a part of India called Punjab. When Alexander invaded, Punjab was ruled by a man by the name of Porus. He was not the only ruler though; there were many princes that were at a lower position than him. The princes clearly did not agree with Alexander, because they happily welcomed him to come in and defeat Porus. They had been wanted to turn and attack him for a while, but when Porus got word of Alexander coming to conquer him, he gathered a large army to fight Alexander. The battle began, and the Greeks were faced with elephants. In the end, Alexander came out on top when Porus surrendered. After the war Alexander and Porus became good friends. (Marshall) Alexander’s quest was once again worth it because he continued to win and continued to move on. In many ways, this journey was worth it and not worth it as you read in this essay, but overall Alexander did a very good job of conquering. As you can see above, all of Alexander’s conquests were done with one right after the other. He did not waste much time resting and taking breaks. He worked his troops hard and for the most part was a good leader.

Works Cited (APA Format)

Fildes, Alan M., Fletcher, Dr. Hoann. (2011, March 3). Alexander in Egypt. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/alexanderthegreat.htm

Landering, Jona. (1995- 2010). Alexander Sacks Persepolis. http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html

The Library or Congress. (1997, July). Afghanistan, Alexander and the Greek Rule, 330-ca. 150 B.C.  http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_afghanalexander.htm

Marshall, Henrietta Elizabeth. (2011, March 10). Alexander the Great Invades India. http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/alexander.htm

Weekly #4b

I think that in a variety of ways, yes, power can corrupt. Power doesn’t always have to corrupt though. In the bad case, power can make a person very evil. It can make them become rude, but this could make them lose their power. If people become too in love with their own power, they may find themselves in a bad situation. In this five paragraph essay, you will be informed of the ways power can and does corrupt, why it corrupts, and about Alexander and his journey.

If people are good leaders, like Alexander, and are doing things in the best interest of their people, they may become very powerful. Power can corrupt when you become too powerful. When Alexander became too powerful and began to realize how powerful they actually are, then they may do harmful things. Alexander realized his power and went on to continue conquering the rest of the world. When he realized how much more world there was and how much more there was to take over, he decided to take on the challenges. We know that power is very capable of corrupting people, and now are more aware of how power can corrupt.

Power corrupts for many reasons. Power can corrupt because of power, or because someone is tricked into being corrupted. People could also be bribed into corruption. Power is one of the very easy things to be corrupted into. Alexander, for example, was corrupted by power. He became too powerful and corruption actually bribed him into his own corruption. People could be bribed into corruption of power if someone challenges them to it. For example, if someone told Alexander that there was no way he could conquer Egypt or any other place, he would’ve done it to prove them wrong. So, power can corrupt us, but we are not always corrupted by our own power. People may be corrupted by other people’s power. If someone was more powerful then Alexander, he would have surely put them into place by becoming more powerful than them.

I think that Alexander was corrupted by power. He didn’t want anyone to become more powerful than him, and he wanted to conquer everyone and take over everything. He wouldn’t let anything stand in his way, and he wouldn’t give up. If he were not corrupted by power, then he would not have been in such a rush to beat everyone. I think Persia became more Greek and that Alexander became more Persian. I think that Alexander became more Persian though. The Persians did not like to lose and liked to conquer and so did Alexander. Persia probably tried to become more Greek after they were conquered because they wanted to be back on top.

In conclusion, I think that power definitely does corrupt. Alexander was defiantly corrupted by power. I also think that the Greeks, the Persians, and Alexander all changed during all of their journeys. Alexander originally wanted revenge for his father’s murder but ended up taking over the entire rest of civilization. 

Week 4b: Daily 8

I do not think that a force like Alexander could exist today. First of all, no one would be able to take over the world and defeat every empire today. One of the most powerful people that exist is the president, but he cannot even compare to the force of Alexander. Alexander also was not afraid of anything. I think that is anyone became as powerful as him, they would be questioned. It would be almost impossible for a force like him to exist today. How do we even know that everything that Alexander did was true? It was all a myth told by people and passed down. When we did that story telephone thing in class, our story got completely messed up. It could have easily gotten a word messed up here and there and then the story could have completely changed. For example, the first person may have said that Alexander lost the war, but when the story is told over a thousand times, it can get messed up and turn into that he won the war. All of the other information could prove that the war was lost. The Greeks were outnumbered by a lot, so if they lost it would not have been a big surprise. So maybe he was not even that big of a force. 

Week 4b: Daily 7

I do not think that I would have followed Alexander into Persia. After we watched that move, I think that I would be way too scared to go there. All of the people who were being killed, it would be too much for me. I do not think that a lot if any women went anyway. Alexander probably would not even let me go because I am a women and I would not fight like a man would. I would not want to walk all that way and have to think about what lies ahead. Maybe if I didn’t have to fight and I would be allowed to wait a certain distance I might have gone but if not then there is no way. Alexander is much too tough to have a girl bring his entire army down. Maybe I would be a distraction for the people fighting each other because I would be easy to kill, but I would not want that. In conclusion, I would not go to Persia with Alexander because I would be way too scared and weak. 

Week 4b: Daily 6

After Alexander’s death, Greek should have tried to find a new leader. I cannot imagine that people were not after all of the Greeks for what they have done. They basically destroyed and took over all of the civilization. Now that Alexander is gone, everyone can get back at them. Sure they were all good fighters but they would not be able to conquer everything and everywhere that they did without Alexander. If I were the Greeks, I would have surrendered to everyone, especially the Persians. After they were defeated, they were most likely very angry at Alexander for what he did. Even though Alexander did not cause his death, now that Alexander was dead, the Persians knew they could get back at him. 

Week 4b: Daily 5

I think that Alexander was both a good and a bad leader. He was good because he wanted to try to get revenge for the murder of his dad. He cared about his army and wanted to succeed. He took charge and knew what he was doing. All of these qualities make Alexander a good leader, but they can also turn him into a bad one. I do not think that it was leader- like for him to try to take over the whole world. He should not have tried to kill everyone if he was only after one group of people. He could’ve killed the entire Persian force, but instead he wanted to take over more and more. I think because he knew that he had power and people behind him to help him fight, he thought that it was okay for him to take over all of these places.