Decline of the Roman Empire (Decay Theory)

I agree with what the Wikipedia article, "Decline of the Roman Empire" claimed to be the cause for the decline of the Roman Empire. I agree with the idea of how the Roman Empire collapsed because of the loss of civic virtues. People were not self-sustaining and relied on barbaric mercenaries who ended up turning on them. In addition to the military decline, I concur with the article that the Roman Empire had collapsed because of the development of a nonprofitable economic system, where the Roman Empire had a market economy that and a free trade policy; flaws like this are reusable causes for inflation. In addition to this, I also agree that the many occurrences of civil wars between decided parts of the Roman army, fighting for control over the empire. What once was a strong military force, and weather it had barbarians or not, was weakened by the decline in economic status. In total, I believe the factors that the Wikipedia article gave for the decline of the Roman Empire where quite accurate and evidently possible.

Link to full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Decay_owing_to_general_malaise

Collapse of the Roman Empire & Han Dynasty

Silk Road simulation #swindled&hustled! :)

Overall, I feel like I have learned a lot from today's silk road simulation. I noticed that the silk was more than just a route for trading and intact was is a series of dealings that happen in a common area between China, India, Malaya, Turkestan,  Greece, and the Roman Empire. I was also not very surprised when I realized how unsafe the whole process was. As a representative of Turkestan my group was the center of most trading between China and Malaya and Greece and Rome. Although this may be, it didn't safe my group from getting robbed. A member of my group was fooled into a deal and gave the money before anything could be formally arranged, and the person just took the money and walked away. From this I learned that dishonesty would have been common amongst the people trading in the silk road. Then once the language and money barrier was broken with a translator and a banker did not help anybody! The banker was constantly bribed and some of the translators were being robbed. In the end only the corrupt and clever made it to the top with the majority of the money. I believe this shows reason for a nation to conquer another because if I was China or Rome and got my money swindled I would not just sit down and forget about everything after the bell rings. NO, I would have raised an army and marched on over to whichever nation took my money, and would have taken it back! In the end though, I would not say that the silk road completely detract from the societies that participated in it and I believe it was beneficial to a certain extent. Despite all the fuss, my group was successfully able to purchase weapons by selling some horses, and this was a win for me. So basically, I learned that even a broken system for trading could carry out tasks of several nations to a certain extent (where at least somebody is happy); but the real question is, for how long did this last?

This simulation was amazing. I felt like I was learning a lot about trade through the silk road, while simultaneously having a good time with it. The pros are mostly made up of the fact that it was a fun and intuitive learning experience and I recommend we definitely do this again. The cons were consisted of the fact that it teaches you things in an indirect way. I feel like there would have been situations in this simulation that could have lead be to a different understanding of the silk road trade. For example if everybody I had traded with were extremely honest and saw my deal through, until the end; I would have been lead to believe that the silk road was a fantastic trading system. So this brings me to the conclusion that this method of learning could work for other things but not all, but today was excellent in sending the message and we should definitely do this again.

Roman City Video Prompt Responses

b. What is the Forum and where is it located? Why is that symbolically significant? What other Classical Era society located politics in this way?

The Forum was a rectangular open area at the center of a Roman city and it was a vocal point for commerce and politics. Being located at the heart of the city, allowed for it to physically connect with the farmlands in outer areas and in term linking the entire region with rome. Around the Forum was government buildings, huge shops, and spiritual temples. The Roman Forum was symbolically significant because it represented the soul of a whole city that connected neighboring regions to the core of Roman culture. Similarly at the center of their cities, the Greeks had a Plateia, which were basically town squares that also had similar features and applications to the Roman Forum.


c. How does an aqueduct move water? How is this like or unlike the way a qanat worked in Persia?

The aqueducts in Ancient Rome moved water through the aid of arches and more arches. Roman constructers began by establishing a water source by the edge of a mountain or hill from where they built a bridge on top of which the water can flow to the city. In order for these bridges to be at level with the water source, which was usually high up a hill, they built arches that allowed them to extend the hight of their constructions, substantially. Upon reaching the city, the bridge lead the water to a storage facility from where the water flowed the the homes of the rich, public baths and lavatories, and public fountains. In addition the Romans had also established a drainage system from where waste water can be taken out of the city. The Roman aqueducts were similar to how the Persian qanat worked. They both applied basic constructions to obtain water from within large hills or mountain like structures. The difference between the two was that the qanat brought water from underground and to a water well or portion of land, whereas the aqueducts brought water from a higher elevation and required arches to raise a large bridge to have the water flow all the way to a city.

f. Why can’t Marcus Fabricius marry Aiden? How does this compare to attitudes about marriage in Classical Era India?

Marcus Fabricius was unable to marry Aiden because she was not a Roman citizen but later on after she was granted her citizenship by Caesar himself, for saving his life by preventing the assassination, he was still unable to marry her. This was because he got promoted by Caesar to become supervising architect for all of the empires new cities in the Phoenician frontier, and had to leave because of it. This idea of marriage compares to Classical India through the Indian caste system, which basically prevented people from different castes to marry one another just like how Fabricius was unable to marry Aiden just because she was not a Roman citizen.

Why did the Roman Republic become the Roman Empire?

Rome definitely made the transition of government from a Republic to an Empire, because of the strict control an Empire provided. With an Empire, Rome could be controlled through a single person, which proved more efficient when trying to expand, conquer, and obtain new territory; or even in applying new laws. I think, to further explain and support this statement, I would require more information about the advantages and disadvantages Rome received from the transition in government.

Alexander's conquests

Greece and Turkey (Aegean Sea Region)

India and Greece by William McNeil

1. McNeill’s establishes the point, about how India and Greece were taken over by foreign Eurasian population and given structure and order at the same time, but developed, over time, in a completely different way. His argument is that the Indian caste and the Greek territorial sovereignty had enormous effects on the Indian and European society.  

2. McNeil defines the cast system as a system of division amongst a group of people that separates them by some feature or mark. He states that the system establishes difference in power amongst a population. The book defines the cast system to have emerged as the Aryans established settlement though India where the Aryans established a difference in color between the Dravidians and themselves; over time the different populations mixed until they were all the same. Both, the book and McNeil’s definitions for a cast system are different.

3. Three feelings and thoughts that helped maintain the idea of caste.

1. Ceremonial purity, a fear of contaminating oneself by establishing contact with a member of a lower caste
2. All castes of people, except the lowest of the lowest, had a caste to look down upon.
3. The doctrine of reincarnation and of “varna” gave the idea that all men were divided into different castes, naturally.The Brahmins at the top, then the Kshatriyas, followed by the Vaisyas, and at the bottom is the Sudras.

4. Yes, the cast system was indeed convincing due to the fact that reincarnation made logical sense when it came to explaining the natural separation in castes. The logical basically surrounded the principle of how castes were based off punishment for whatever sin a person may have done in a past life. So, basically a person was led to believe he/she exist in the cast they do, based on weather they have lead a good or bad life in a previous existence.

5. Caste itself did not allow for strong political organizations to form because people were so divided, into their separate caste, that they refused to follow any ruler or king from a different caste. The caste became a primary government for each separate population. Taxes and legislation were only followed when they are applied within the same caste; anything else was seen as foreign and unnecessary to follow.

6. The idea that, by performing a ritual perfectly, brahmans could compel the gods to grant their demands was the cause for Indian religion to shift from diety pleasing to the act of worshiping, itself.

7. The Upanishads changed the nature of Indian religion by stating that a persons only goal is to break free of the cycle of reincarnation. This changed the goals of Indian society by making it a necessity that people live conservative lives in order to break free of the cycle of life and be spiritually enlightened.

8. McNeil defines “Territorial Sovereignty”  as self governing city states that the Greeks used as method of government, and division.

9. The Greeks turned away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society, because philosophers who pondered about the creation of the world did not like mythical ideas but rather wanted a theory derived from the laws of nature.

10. The consequence of the Greeks’ adherence to the polis was the limitation of ideas being approved by society due to the lack of seekers of knowledge being able to be accepted in the polis system.

11. I do agree with McNeil’s argument because I feel he has made a good case on how indian and Greek societies have developed so differently, in areas of religious and scientific understanding of the world, political system, and social structures.

Why the "Great" in Alexander the Great?

Alexander is a man worth of his title, I believe. He conquered landmass larger than anybody else could at his time, which is parly the reason why I can concur in giving him the title "the great". He conquered Persia at the age of 25, showing his clever intellect at such a young age. Although he was mainly only seeking to satisfy his own goal he was still a very respected man for his great companionship, and a leader who truly fights alongside his soldiers, is a man worth calling "the great". He not only proved his himself worthy of his title but also earned it in his own time by convincing his soldiers and many other he came across, of his greatness coming from godly descent. Darius, at the time of his death, said to Alexander that he wishes for god to aid him in his pursuit to concor the world. Though Alexander was not a flawless person, I still believe that his actions have rightfully given him his title of being called "Alexander the Great".