Video Weekly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1fhS_vm1Fc

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

Brutus truly believed that he killed Caesar for the good of Rome and the Roman

Republic. He made a decision he thought was in the best interest of Rome and although

he was not successful in protecting the Roman Republic, his intentions were good; but,

were they justified? Like Brutus, there are many that believe that the “ends justify the

means”.

Such as in the case of Adolf Hitler, I believe that if a leader is known to be a significant

threat to his state and the people then I would say yes. Even if this act is illegal, I

believe that the assassination would be justified if it prevented a greater evil from being

committed. However, I don’t believe that Caesar was a threat to the Romans as Hitler

was to the Jews.

Julius Caesar was an influential, powerful leader who was very ambitious. When he

realized how dysfunctional the Roman society and government had become, he set forth

to reform the Roman Republic. To accomplish this Julius Caesar gained as much power

as possible. Many, including Brutus, believed that Caesar with an increasing amount of

power was a threat to Rome; therefore, they were justified in killing him, but I disagree.

If a difference of opinion in how a state should be governed is justification for murderer,

then today in the United States, there would hundreds of politicians lying dead in the

streets. So, I believe that despite Caesar’s healthy appetite for power, he was a very

accomplished Roman leader and because of Brutus’s actions, we will never know if

Julius Caesar would have been one of the world’s greatest leaders or one of its most

determined tyrants.

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.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=41.892919,12.48465&spn=0.001542,0.002411&t=h&z=19&msid=205242336608538444560.0004a00aba9d0211b488d

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

The Roman Republic was what made Rome great and what made the empire seem so big. The Roman Empire was what brought about Rome’s decline and fall. The Roman Empire basically gained a little to what all the Roman Republic had established, and then lost it all. The Roman Republic is what brought all the people together and the empire just tore them all apart to less than what they had before the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was a system and was based on law and government. The Roman republic was so affective and useful that we use the process of Checks and Balances that was first invented by the Romans during the republic. I believe the empire, was very ineffective and attributed barely anything to the Greatness of Rome. The rulers in the empire only were concerned about themselves and didn’t really contribute to the benefit of Rome. The Republic was when it was about the people and equality, and that is when Rome flourished. The Roman Republic started out as just a small city state, but then grew and grew, until it ruled practically the whole Mediterranean. All the Roman Empire did was just take what the Roman Republic had earned with hard work, and then abuse it. By far, I believe the Roman Republic was much better off than the Roman Empire. 

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

Hadrian was born in January 76 A.D to a well off family and was Roman Emperor from 117 to 138, until he died. Hadrian is most commonly known for the Hadrian Wall and is most notable for that. The Hadrian wall basically marks the most north part of the Roman Empire.  Trajan was the Roman Empire before Hadrian and Trajan named Hadrian emperor right before his death. Hadrian spent a lot of time with his military and wore military clothing most of the time. Hadrian trained his army to be the best and even gave them false alerts to make sure they’re on track. He did not really have natural military skill, but his knowledge of the army and his skill of leadership show his strategic talent.

When Hadrian was named Emperor, Hadrian did not at first go to Rome; he stayed out in the East to slow down the Jewish revolt that had broken out under Trajan. Also when he was Emperor, he surrendered Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia, considering the Mesopotamians to be indefensible. There was almost a war with Parthia, but Hadrian succeeded in negotiating a peace. This shows that we can think Hadrian as a peace maker and thinking about more of the people than himself. Hadrian also liked to demonstrate his knowledge and moreover loved art. Above all Roman Emperors, Hadrian had the most love for arts. Hadrian's Villa at Tibur was the greatest Roman example of an Alexandrian garden. People believe Hadrian to be the best Roman emperor because of his difference in personality and interests and his love to satisfy the people of the Roman Empire.

            

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

The struggle of the Orders was a time period when the Patrician class had all the power, and then the Plebeians wanted some power too. This started a major disagreement and struggle. The Plebeians were the common people, but the Patricians were the aristocrats and were used to being in control. Basically the whole thing was the recurring pattern of the Patrician class attempting to hold onto power, while the Plebeians worked to rise to equality. In 494 B.C.E a secession of Plebeians ushered in a fundamental change to the Republican government. The Plebeians formed an assembly, and their own government, until the Patricians agreed to the establishment of an office that would have ‘sacrosanctity’. The Plebeians demanded to have a magistrate. These magistrate positions were also called Tribunes. The Plebian Tribune had the power to veto any law that the Patricians tried to send threw. This started the whole process of Checks and Balances. This process made sure that no party in Roman Politics became too powerful. So the Struggle of Orders mad it possible for the Plebeians to have so power, and not it all being Patricians. Before the Struggle of Orders, the Plebeians had no say at all in the Roman Republic; however, after there were new positions that gave the normal citizens power.  The Struggle of Orders was no less than influential on the later roman Politics.   

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 a Carthaginian military commander and obviously grew up in Carthage hating the Romans. Hannibal was born in 247 B.C.E and grew up during a period of tension in the Mediterranean. Hannibal’s father was the commander of the Carthaginian army during the First Punic War. When Hannibal was little, his father taught him to hate and despise the Romans, through this growing hatred, Hannibal wanted to seek revenge. Hannibal especially wanted to seek revenge for his brother and father in the 1^st Punic War, and saw that Carthage was in devastation after not gaining Sardinia.  Now Hannibal was the emperor of Carthage and somehow needed to get revenge and wipe Rome of the world map. This is where the 2^nd Punic War started, by Hannibal invading through Spain and going to Italy. Hannibal lost his eye during one of the battles, but is a very strong leader. He almost reminds me of Alexander the Great. One successful battle he had won was the battle of Cannae in 216. B.C.E. Hannibal then went through the Alps and finally reached northern Italy with all his troops and elephants. While in Italy he destroyed many towns and didn’t give any mercy. Hannibal came within 50 miles of Rome and shows how fierce of a leader he was. In Roman eyes, Hannibal was like the boogie man today.  He even looked like one; he only had one eye. Moreover, he showed no mercy, and came within 50 miles of destroying their whole empire, and taking over all of the people. Hannibal’s reputation of being a monster (in Roman eyes) was definitely deserved; he almost burned the whole Roman Empire to ashes.  

Roman Architecture in Community

This is a picture of my neighbors house. As you can see, they have columns that hold up their porch that are made of cement. The Romans made cement and used a lot of columns in their architecture.

Ancient Rome Map

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=205242336608538444560.00049e718fd611878c9e5&t=h&z=14

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

Even though Rome was a Republic, its history has helped maintain the concept of democracy over time. Rome was a city state in Italy and was ruled by a king.  Soon the Romans started making constitutions and then fights started breaking out from the families in power and then the rest of the population. The constitution was centered on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. Today, we also use the process of checks and balances because we have a Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branch, and each checks over each other so one doesn’t become too powerful. This was just like the process the city-state of Rome had used to evenly distribute power. Also Romans were ruled by rules that weren’t agreeing to the Republican government. These laws were repealed and the result was the emergence of a new way to rule which depended on society, rather than the law, to maintain dominant. The Roman Empire was also able to establish a senate just like we have the Senate and House of Representatives today. The Roman republic lasted from 509 BCE–27 BCE. During this time, the Republic expanded its territory from central Italy to the entire Mediterranean world. The republic government of Rome wasn’t just better for the people; it was very sufficient.  From the small city state of Rome we find the Republic government that established the basis of the huge government of the United States of America. 

Was Alexander's adventure really worth it?

Alexander the Great, son of Phillip II, and Macedonian leader, is the greatest conquer of all time. From Greece to India and back, Alexander took it all, without mercy. As Alexander went on with his adventure, he started to create his own myth. Even though Alexander the Great’s original was to avenge Persian wrongs, he was obsessed about making his own myth during his grand adventure. During his conquest, Alexander suffered much causality, but still went on. Even though Alexander went on to conquer the known world and establish the largest empire the world had ever seen, I believe it wasn’t worth it at all, because Alexander ended up dying and the empire soon destroyed itself after he died. 

             First Alexander went into modern Turkey into Troy. Alexander the Great went into
Troy to show that if the Greeks can win at Troy once, they can do it again. Alexander admired and was inspired by the great Greek heroes who fought in Troy and wanted to be just like them. After modern Turkey, Alexander headed to Egypt. At Egypt, Alexander created his own port named after himself, Alexandria and went to a oracle in Siwa to find that the priests called him son of god. The first two parts of his journey were definitely positive things to the Macedonian empire, but still I believe nothing is worth you life; however, Alexander is not the same person as me. 

            From Egypt, Alexander the Great went closer and closer to the heart of Persia, until he reached Persepolis, the capital of Persia. Alexander overtook Persepolis without much of a fight. When Alexander conquered the capital of Persia, he showed no mercy, and burned the temple of Persepolis to ashes; just Persia had done to Athens earlier. Now since Alexander had conquered the capital of Persia, he threw a party and got very drunk. When Alexander conquered Persepolis, he was basically done; all he needed to do is find Darius and kill him. Unfortunately to Alexander, he didn’t get to kill Darius, Darius’s own men turned on him. Overall, Alexander adventure to Persepolis was definitely worth it.  If Alexander the Great can conquer the capital of the largest empire, what else can he do? By conquering Persepolis, it made Alexander and his army feel invincible and have more power than ever. 
            After Persepolis, Alexander the Great went on and eventually arrived in India and went as far as the Indus Valley. In India, Alexander was fascinated by their unique culture and also had many victories. After a while in India, his troops started questioning Alexander, so Alexander the Great was forced to return Greece, for near mutiny of his troops. Then the long journey back home began. On Alexander’s adventure back home, Alexander cut across a desert in which no other army made it out, just to prove he was the best. Eventually Alexander got back home to Macedonia; only to find out he had little time to live. His journey to India definitely wasn’t worth it.  After all, he lost over half of his army, and he didn’t really need to go into India to avenge Persian wrongs.
             Alexander the Great definitely lived his life the way he wanted to live it. If he didn’t want to live this life, he wouldn’t have gone into India and try to conquer everything. Alexander risked everything, just to avenge Persian wrongs, even though he went well beyond his goal just to find his death. Alexander’s adventure and conquest was not worth. To me nothing is worth losing your life and eventually his people lost everything he had worked for.
 

Weekly Assignment: 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?

     I do believe ultimately power corrupts. When a power becomes too powerful it starts to lose control and eventually destroys itself.  I don't think Alexander became corrupt, I actually believe Alexander was very successful. Alexander set goals for himself, and accomplished those goals. From my view, it would be a disgrace to call Alexander the Great corrupt. After all he did have the title " Great" after his name. While Greek was influencing Persia, Persia was also influencing Persia. Of course Greek influenced Persia because Greek took them over, but Alexander, himself, started wearing Persian robes. With all these questions, Alexander was a good leader that wasn't corrupt, but his power corrupted and  Greek was more influenced more by Persia than Persia was influenced by Greece.
         At the end, power does ultimately corrupt. When forces become to powerful; they become too big for one empire to handle. In Alexander's case when he died he had no successor. Because he had no successor, the next people in power split his empire and shared rule. After this, soon Alexander the Great's empire was destroying itself before anyone knew it. Don't get me wrong, power is a great thing, but sometimes people can have too much of it. Since Alexander was such a good leader, he was able to have all this power, and in some cases it went all to his head. Originally he wanted to avenge Persian wrongs, but then he started to try to create his own myth, and his power went to his head. Although Alexander's power was corrupt, that doesn't mean he was corrupt.
     Alexander the Great definitely was not a corrupt person. He may have had some downfalls, but overall he was driving in a positive direction. If Alexander was corrupt, he wouldn't be called "Great". Alexander the Great was a great leader and had many victories, if he was corrupt this wouldn't have happened because he people would have turned on him a long time ago if he was truly corrupt. At some points, I believe creating his own myth got to his head, and he became cruel at some points. Overall, I believe Alexander the Great wasn't corrupt; he was a great leader that just didn't accept losing as an option.
     Since he didn't accept losing as an option, he took over all of Persia and conquered basically all of the known world. Since he conquered Persia, Persia started to gain and be influenced by Greek custom and culture. Nevertheless, the Macedonian Army was also influenced by Persia as they invaded them.  I believe Persia influenced Greek more than Greek influenced Persia. When Alexander started to take over Persia, he started to wear Persian robes, and obviously some of his soldiers didn't like that. Through Persia, we can see that Alexander the Great also became a more gruesome warrior like the Persians because they were very violent.  Persia also adapted some of the Greek's religion and culture. Overall, I still believe Persia inflenced Greek more, because the affect the influence it had was greater.
     Alexander the Great was an amazing person. He viewed the world as no one else had in his lifetime. Originally Alexander wanted to avenge Persia wrongs, but then he started to try to create his own myth as soon as he realized what he was capable of.  Alexander was not a corrupt person, but he was influenced by Persia. Alexander the Great has definitely inspired me, not to kill people, but when you have a dream, pursue that dream and anything can happen.

Daily Question, "Based on what you know about Aristotle, do you think Alexander had listened carefully to his tutor?"

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Based on his writings, Aristotle covered many subjects like; physics, poetry, theater, music, logic, linguistics, politics, government, and biology.  Most of Aristotle’s works contain some of the earliest known formal studies of logic. When Aristotle taught Alexander logic and other stuff like that; Alexander was listening because out of all the things Aristotle taught him in torturing him, he used them as strategies in combat. I believe Alexander used logic to figure out most of his strategies in war, because he won almost all of his battles and outwitted most of his opponents. I don’t believe Aristotle was just a tutor to Alexander the Great; I believe Alexander was inspired by Aristotle and admired him. Alexander the Great used Aristotle’s teachings to outwit his enemies even in the lack of experience in war. Without Aristotle’s teachings, I believe there would have even been an Alexander the Great; there would just be Alexander, son of King Phillip II. Overall, I believe Alexander did listen to Aristotle because in combat Alexander the Great used logic, which Aristotle had taught him. Alexander the Great was a good leader in history and obviously a good listener to his tutor, Aristotle. 

Daily Question, "What do you think should have been done after Alexander's death?"

        On June 10 or 11, 323 BC, Alexander the Great died of a mysterious illness in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. One theory is that he died of a relapse of malaria he got three years earlier. Alexander was just about to turn 33 years of age too. After Alexander the Great died there was one major problem; he didn’t have any successors to take over the empire after he died. Some of the candidates were his top Macedonian generals and they fought each other over a share of Alexander the Great’s vast empire. The territories they shared were mainly Egypt and Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor and mainland Greece. Some of these territories changed from time to time, and the rulers of the territories also changed. Soon Alexander’s empire started to lose power and fall apart. As this was happening the Romans saw Alexander the Great’s empire fall apart and took advantage, and started taking over the empire gradually. After Alexander’s death, they probably should have adapted a new government like a democracy from Athens. With the democracy, they could have voted for an appropriate successor for Alexander instead of just winging it and just splitting the empire into to different territories. In my opinion, many things could have gone wrong with having different leaders making one big empire. With an empire like this set up, the territories could have had a civil war and could have fought against each other, and the empire would have destroyed itself. Overall, I think they should have voted on an a new successor and establish a stable and organized government.    

Daily question, "Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?"

I think a force like Alexander the great could exist today. It’s not likely, but it can happen. All it takes is some confidence and some very determined people; plus a little more. Today, with the U.N and everything, it is kind of impossible for a huge force and huge power like Alexander the Great could rise up and not be recognized as a threat by organizations like the U.N. The U.N regulates countries from getting to powerful and out of control and its purpose is to help the world live in ultimate peace. Alexander’s force had the will in heart, to defend their nation and conquer Persia. Alexander the Great’s army didn’t act that they wanted to win; they acted like they needed to win. Alexander’s army showed no mercy to Persia and had complete confidence that nothing could stand in their way in their ultimate quest to take over all of Persia. One reason Alexander the Great had such a strong powered force was because that he had the natural ability to be a great leader. Whatever it took to be a good leader back; he had it. A force like Alexander’s today would be very hard to accomplish. To make a force that big and powerful you would need a great leader, confident soldiers, good strategies, and some luck. Overall, Alexander’s forces could probably defeat any army today, but I do believe it is still possible for a force like Alexander the Great’s to exist today.