http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNAb4M6MIE
enjoy :)
Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Daily #31
Required Daily: 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.
The Temple of Apollo
The Senate-House
Chalcidicum
Temple of divine Julius
The Lupercal
Portico at the Flaminian Circus
temple on the Capitoline of Jupiter Subduer and Jupiter Thunderer
Temple of Quirinus
Temple of Minerva
Temple of Queen Juno
Temple of Jupiter Liberator
Temple of the Lares
Theater of Pompey
Flaminian Road
Temple of Mars Ultor
Sources for pictures
http://www.google.com/imgres
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
The Temple of Apollo
The Senate-House
 |
Chalcidicum
Temple of divine Julius
The Lupercal
Portico at the Flaminian Circus
temple on the Capitoline of Jupiter Subduer and Jupiter Thunderer
Temple of Quirinus
Temple of Minerva
Temple of Queen Juno
Temple of Jupiter Liberator
Temple of the Lares
Theater of Pompey
Flaminian Road
Temple of Mars Ultor
Sources for pictures
http://www.google.com/imgres
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
http://www.google.com/imgres?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Daily #30
Were the Julio-Claudians really as bad as they seem?
I think that most of them did get a little crazy. Augustus was the most sane, he just had an issue with trying to marry his daughter off to whoever was a good ally to have. Then he made his crazy move, adopting Tiberius as his son. After Tiberius's son died, he went a little crazy. He began to kill anyone who possibly could become emperor over him, and for fun, while at his summer home, he would throw people off a cliff. He tried innocent people for treason, had numerous people executed, and people all over Rome were terrified of him. Then came Caligula. He tried to get his horse appointed onto the Senate. He also had people worship him as a god, and he would dress up as various gods and that is the name he would be called by. After Caligula, there was Claudius. When he heard of Caligula's death, he was found hiding behind a curtain in his room because he didn't want to be emperor. After Claudius, Nero came along. Rumor has it that Nero played the fiddle while the city of Rome burned to the ground. This is only just a rumor because the fiddle wasn't even invented until a thousand years later. Nero had his mother and his stepbrother executed. Instead of being killed like most of the other men in this dynasty, he committed suicide. I wouldn't necessarily say that all these rulers were bad, but I would definitely say that they were crazy.
I think that most of them did get a little crazy. Augustus was the most sane, he just had an issue with trying to marry his daughter off to whoever was a good ally to have. Then he made his crazy move, adopting Tiberius as his son. After Tiberius's son died, he went a little crazy. He began to kill anyone who possibly could become emperor over him, and for fun, while at his summer home, he would throw people off a cliff. He tried innocent people for treason, had numerous people executed, and people all over Rome were terrified of him. Then came Caligula. He tried to get his horse appointed onto the Senate. He also had people worship him as a god, and he would dress up as various gods and that is the name he would be called by. After Caligula, there was Claudius. When he heard of Caligula's death, he was found hiding behind a curtain in his room because he didn't want to be emperor. After Claudius, Nero came along. Rumor has it that Nero played the fiddle while the city of Rome burned to the ground. This is only just a rumor because the fiddle wasn't even invented until a thousand years later. Nero had his mother and his stepbrother executed. Instead of being killed like most of the other men in this dynasty, he committed suicide. I wouldn't necessarily say that all these rulers were bad, but I would definitely say that they were crazy.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Daily #29
Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?
I don't think they were. Caesar was planning on getting rid of the Senate and naming himself king, which is why the Senate members killed him. Caesar was well liked by much of Rome, and I think everyone would have been happy to have him as king, but the members of Senate liked being in power, so they had to stop him. Just wanting to stay in power doesn't justify your action. Many times, the people tried to get Caesar to become king, but he would refuse the crown every time. Members of Senate became annoyed with him, and they began to conspire against him. They formed a group called the Liberatores, or Liberators.
On the day of the assassination, many people told Caesar not to go to the Senate, but he went anyway. Mark Antony had heard of the plot, and he went to try to warn Caesar, but he was headed off. Once he heard the commotion inside he ran away in terror. Caesar didn't even want to be king and they killed him. Once, when Caesar was returning to Rome, someone put a wreath on the head of his statue and he ordered that it should be removed. The "Liberators" were the exact opposite of liberators. They were only freeing themselves. The rest of the country wanted Caesar to stay. So, in conclusion, the "Liberators" had absolutely no justification for the murder of Julius Caesar. He didn't want to be king, and they had no reason to kill him except to save themselves.
I don't think they were. Caesar was planning on getting rid of the Senate and naming himself king, which is why the Senate members killed him. Caesar was well liked by much of Rome, and I think everyone would have been happy to have him as king, but the members of Senate liked being in power, so they had to stop him. Just wanting to stay in power doesn't justify your action. Many times, the people tried to get Caesar to become king, but he would refuse the crown every time. Members of Senate became annoyed with him, and they began to conspire against him. They formed a group called the Liberatores, or Liberators.
On the day of the assassination, many people told Caesar not to go to the Senate, but he went anyway. Mark Antony had heard of the plot, and he went to try to warn Caesar, but he was headed off. Once he heard the commotion inside he ran away in terror. Caesar didn't even want to be king and they killed him. Once, when Caesar was returning to Rome, someone put a wreath on the head of his statue and he ordered that it should be removed. The "Liberators" were the exact opposite of liberators. They were only freeing themselves. The rest of the country wanted Caesar to stay. So, in conclusion, the "Liberators" had absolutely no justification for the murder of Julius Caesar. He didn't want to be king, and they had no reason to kill him except to save themselves.
Redo #4
Describe relations between Egypt and Persia before Alexander came on the scene.
The relations between Egypt and Persia were not good. When Alexander the Great came into Egypt, he was hailed as a liberator. Egypt had been under the rule of Persia for many years, and they were ready to let Alexander come in, take supplies, and move on to Persia. While Alexander was in Egypt, he went to an oracle, and when the priests came out, they hailed him as the son of a god. He also created the city of Alexandria, which became one of the richest cities in the world.
Persia was Alexander's goal all along. Ever since he was born, he was raised to try to avenge Persian wrongs. That is the reason Alexander went out to conquer anyway. He began his war against them 334 BC. His rival was King Darius the third. They battled many times, and Alexander eventually won. Alexander the Great's goal was finally complete, and Egypt couldn't be happier.
Relations obviously weren't good between Egypt and Persia. Egypt was sick of being under Persia's rule, which explains why they were so willing to let Alexander come in and why they hailed him as a liberator. They wanted to be free from Persia at last, and they knew that if anyone could free them, Alexander the Great could. Persia didn't really have anything against Egypt, I personally think they were tired of Egypt as much as Egypt was tired of them. Thanks to Alexander the Great, Greece had avenged Persian wrongs, Egypt was finally free, and Greece was now the most powerful empire in the world.
sources:
Thank you so much for letting me redo these!
Redo #3
How did Alexander create his own myth?
Alexander created his own myth in many ways. My favorite of all these stories is the Gordian Knot. The basic legend is that whoever can untie the knot will conquer all of Asia. There are two stories explaining how Alexander untied the knot. The first on talks about how Alexander took the knot out of its pole pin which exposed the two ends so he was able to untie it. The one I like better is that Alexander looked at the knot for a while, took out his sword, and chopped the knot which revealed the two ends so he could untie it. Many people said that the second way was cheating, but Alexander said that it didn't matter how the knot was untied. This legend came true because Alexander did conquer all of Asia. By conquering all of Asia, Alexander really created his own myth. He conquered more land than anyone else in the world ever had before. People today probably couldn't conquer all the land that he took over.
Another story that I love is the story of his horse. When Alexander was a boy, a horse was brought to because it was unable to be tamed. Alexander made a bet with his father that he could be able to tame the horse, and he did. I think this has a lot of meaning because it made Alexander think and strategize which eventually came in handy later in life. The horse stayed with him for most of his war years. Alexander did create his own myth, and he will be remembered for a long time.
sources:
Monday, March 21, 2011
Daily #28
Write a skit/Pixton/xtranormal (your choice) detailing major events in the life of Julius Caesar.
Characters:
Caesar
Interviewer
Interviewer: Hello everyone and welcome to todays episode of Interview with a Famous Person! Today we have Julius Caesar with us. So Caesar, tell us a little bit about your childhood.
Caesar: Well, I was born on July 13, 100 BC. I was born into a Patrician family, my dad governed the province of Asia. My mother came from an influential family. My house wasn't great to live in because my dad was always worried about Roman politics. Suddenly in 85BC when I was 16, he died. This put me at the head of the family.
Interviewer: That must have been hard for you. What did you do after that?
Caesar: The year after that, I was nominated to be high priest of Jupiter. I married Lucius Cinna's daughter Cornelia. After that, I was stripped of my inheritance and my priesthood. Even though that happened, I refused to divorce Cornelia and had to go into hiding.
Interviewer: O my gosh! Did you ever go out of hiding?
Caesar: Well, before I could I went out of Rome and joined the army. I am almost thankful for having to go into hiding, otherwise I never would have joined the army. A little while after being in the army, in 78BC, I decided it would be safe to return to Rome. Shortly after that I was kidnapped by pirates.
Interviewer: No way! What did you do?
Caesar: I just acted superior to them. I wasn't captive long before my ransom was paid and I made a fleet, went after the pirates, imprisoned them, then had them killed. I told them I would kill them once I was free, but they didn’t believe me. Look who got the last laugh.
Interviewer: Wow, you lead a fascinating life. Did you rejoin the army?
Caesar: Actually yes, I was elected military tribune. Then shortly after that I was elected quaestor in 69BC. That is the year my wife died. After her funeral, I went to serve my quaestorship in Spain. When I returned, I married Pompeia, but I ended up divorcing her a few years later. Then in 63 BC I became chief priest of the Roman state religion. I was then appointed to govern Spain, but I was in debt so I had to pay it before I left. I turned to the wealthiest man in Rome, Marcus Crassus for help. He paid most of my debt, and we became close friends. In 59BC, I was elected a consul. I remarried to a woman named Calpurnia, and I married off my daughter Julia to Pompey so I would have an alliance with him.
Interviewer: Well you certainly stayed busy didn't you? How did your alliances go?
Caesar: My alliance formed into one alliance, and we called ourselves the First Triumvirate. Then I was appointed to govern part of Gaul. I worked my way north with my army conquering much land and becoming very successful. While I was in Britain, my daughter Julia died in childbirth. Pompey then became angry with me, and I started a civil war.
Interviewer: So, did you win?
Caesar: Duh I did! I followed Pompey down into Egypt, and Pompey was murdered there. While I was in Egypt, I met Cleopatra, and I had an affair with her for around fourteen years. Many people think that I had a son with her named Caesarian. I then worked my way east and was appointed dictator for quite a while.
Interviewer: Well, that's all the time we have! Thank you so much for your time Caesar!
Caesar: Anytime, anytime.
Interviewer: Until next time everyone.
Redo #2
Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?
I don't think a force like Alexander the Great could exist today because once we realized what they were planning, we would stop them before they became too powerful. By now, I don't think a leader is really out to conquer the world. For example, even though the United States is currently trying to help the situation in Iraq, they are not trying to take over and have Obama lead Iraq. All they are doing is trying to help get rid of nuclear weapons. Wars still happen, but it isn't really to try an conquer as much as it is trying to help the people of that country. A force like Alexander the Great just isn't possible today. Our weapons have improved so we would be able to keep them in check and make sure that they don't take over the world. Even if a leader like him did exist, the same thing that happened after Alexander would happen again, everything would basically go back to the way it was.
I do think that there could be a possibility of a leader like Alexander the Great, but not a large one. It doesn't necessarily mean that this leader is going to go out and conquer, maybe they are just a good leader who respects their country and is willing to do what is best for them. Not all great leaders have to conquer everyone. There are other skills that make them a good leader. But a force like Alexander definitely couldn't exist.
Redo #1
What do you think should have been done after Alexander's death?
Sadly, after Alexander the Great died, the empire he spent most of his life building fell apart. Parts of his land were mostly given out to his generals. Not many of these tiny empires flourished (with the exception of Egypt, which remained until conquered by the Caesars ). Most of the tiny empires began to fight because they wanted to own more land.
I think that after Alexander's death the general he was closest to should have taken over. I don't know if even that general leading the empire would have kept it together, but I do think he would stand the best chance. He would understand where Alexander was planning to go, he would know how Alexander had kept the empire together. Maybe instead of breaking the empire into pieces, the general could oversee the empire with other generals leading separate sections. That way all that Alexander did wouldn't go to waste. I'm not saying it went to waste completely, most of the empire remained strongly Greek. Or who knows, maybe Alexander wanted a specific person to take his place but he never told anyone. If Alexander's son had survived, maybe he could have kept the empire going strong. It just seems sad that the giant empire he had created had been broken to pieces so quickly after his death. Even though I can say all I want about what I think should have been done, what is done is done, and there is no going back to change what happed all those years ago.
Source:
http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/alexander/14.shtml
Source:
http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/alexander/14.shtml
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Daily #27
Please take a picture of something in your own neighborhood or town that appears to have been influenced by Ancient Rome.
http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_inventions.htm
 |
| Our calendar is thanks to Julius Caesar. |
 |
| Public newspaper |
 |
| Socks |
 |
| reinforced concrete/ fast curing cement |
 |
| Heating (hot air was circulated under floors of houses) |
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Daily #26
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 248 BC in Carthage. His father was Hamilcar Barca, and he had many sisters and two brothers. When his father was killed, Hannibal's brother-in-law took control of the army with Hannibal serving as an officer. After his brother-in-law was assassinated, Hannibal was proclaimed commander-in-chief. The overland journey to Italy was originally planned by Hannibal's brother-in-law, but Hannibal was able to achieve that plan. He fought his way north, gaining land and wealth. After Hannibal won the Battle of Trebia, the Gauls and Ligurians were encouraged to join the cause, raising his number of troops to around 40,000 men. The counsels of Rome decided to send out troops to the east and west to block Hannibal from getting through to Rome. The Battle of Cannae is, in my opinion, one of Hannibal's most memorable battles. Though they were greatly outnumbered, Hannibal was able to surround the Romans and kill every single person in the opposing army. As a result of this victory, many parts of Italy joined Hannibal on his quest. In 212 BC, Hannibal captured Tarentum but failed to gain control of the harbor. Hannibal had to return to Carthage to fight the Roman invasion. In 195 BC, Hannibal went into voluntary exile. Hannibal took poison and killed himself rather than die at his enemies hands. The exact year of his death is unknown.
I think that Hannibal should be called a monster. He was clever in each battle, and he slaughtered many people. He came very close to conquering all of Italy, and I think that many people were frightened by him because of that. He was a great leader and he was definitely a force to be reckoned with.
Hannibal was born in 248 BC in Carthage. His father was Hamilcar Barca, and he had many sisters and two brothers. When his father was killed, Hannibal's brother-in-law took control of the army with Hannibal serving as an officer. After his brother-in-law was assassinated, Hannibal was proclaimed commander-in-chief. The overland journey to Italy was originally planned by Hannibal's brother-in-law, but Hannibal was able to achieve that plan. He fought his way north, gaining land and wealth. After Hannibal won the Battle of Trebia, the Gauls and Ligurians were encouraged to join the cause, raising his number of troops to around 40,000 men. The counsels of Rome decided to send out troops to the east and west to block Hannibal from getting through to Rome. The Battle of Cannae is, in my opinion, one of Hannibal's most memorable battles. Though they were greatly outnumbered, Hannibal was able to surround the Romans and kill every single person in the opposing army. As a result of this victory, many parts of Italy joined Hannibal on his quest. In 212 BC, Hannibal captured Tarentum but failed to gain control of the harbor. Hannibal had to return to Carthage to fight the Roman invasion. In 195 BC, Hannibal went into voluntary exile. Hannibal took poison and killed himself rather than die at his enemies hands. The exact year of his death is unknown.
I think that Hannibal should be called a monster. He was clever in each battle, and he slaughtered many people. He came very close to conquering all of Italy, and I think that many people were frightened by him because of that. He was a great leader and he was definitely a force to be reckoned with.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Daily #26
How was the Struggle of the Orders influential on later Roman politics?
The Struggle of the Orders had an important influence on Roman politics. Because the Patrician class was so desperate to hold on to power, the Plebeians had no say in the government. A group of Plebeians seceded to the Sacred Mount outside of Rome because they wanted a say in the government. The Patrician class needed the Plebeians to supply the things that maintained the economy and Plebeians made up most of the army. The Plebeians formed their own government and were keeping things that way until the Patricians let them have some say in the government. The Patrician class agreed to let them have one representative in the Senate (the tribune of the Plebes). The Plebeians agreed to this because their representative had the right to veto any act proposed by a member of the Senate. Any person who harmed this representative could be killed by the Plebeians. This event became known as the Struggle of the Orders.
Because the secession went so well the first time, the Plebeians seceded again; this time demanding for a group of ten men in the Senate. The Patricians agreed, and even though the Plebeians had men in the Senate, the Patricians held much of the power. The Senate became a powerful government force doing things like overseeing matters of war and peace, foreign alliances, state finances, founding colonies, and making laws. This new Senate helped lessen the anger between the Plebeians and the Patricians. As you can see, the Struggle of the Orders helped create a better life for the Plebeians and the government strengthened greatly because of it.
Source
http://www.unrv.com/empire/struggle-of-the-orders.php
The Struggle of the Orders had an important influence on Roman politics. Because the Patrician class was so desperate to hold on to power, the Plebeians had no say in the government. A group of Plebeians seceded to the Sacred Mount outside of Rome because they wanted a say in the government. The Patrician class needed the Plebeians to supply the things that maintained the economy and Plebeians made up most of the army. The Plebeians formed their own government and were keeping things that way until the Patricians let them have some say in the government. The Patrician class agreed to let them have one representative in the Senate (the tribune of the Plebes). The Plebeians agreed to this because their representative had the right to veto any act proposed by a member of the Senate. Any person who harmed this representative could be killed by the Plebeians. This event became known as the Struggle of the Orders.
Because the secession went so well the first time, the Plebeians seceded again; this time demanding for a group of ten men in the Senate. The Patricians agreed, and even though the Plebeians had men in the Senate, the Patricians held much of the power. The Senate became a powerful government force doing things like overseeing matters of war and peace, foreign alliances, state finances, founding colonies, and making laws. This new Senate helped lessen the anger between the Plebeians and the Patricians. As you can see, the Struggle of the Orders helped create a better life for the Plebeians and the government strengthened greatly because of it.
Source
http://www.unrv.com/empire/struggle-of-the-orders.php
Monday, March 14, 2011
Daily #25
What elements of the Roman Republican political and legal system appear present in the systems of modern democracies?
Many elements are the same between the Roman Republic and the legal system today. The Twelve Tables were established the basis of law for all Roman citizens. We have the same type of system where our government comes up with laws for all American citizens to follow. In Rome, if you were accused of a crime, you could request to be sent to a trial. The same thing happens today where we go to trial when we are accused of a crime. Like today, if trials are won, there is some kind of reward. Also like today, you could plead not guilty, but if you were found guilty it was double the value. In Rome, there were several kinds of Roman courts, just like today. We have federal courts, circuit courts, and district courts. The government was, in theory, a participatory and representative democracy, but voting and offices were limited to certain people. Today however, anyone who wants to run for office can run for office, and voting is open to anyone.
On the other hand, the role of a lawyer in Rome is much different from lawyers today. The persecutor and defendant were responsible for their own presentation. The lawyer could offer advice and could give a speech for the client, but he was not paid for his services. Today it is the opposite, lawyers do the talking, and the client can only talk when they are being interrogated.
As you can see, Roman political and legal systems are like our systems in some ways, but different in others.
Sources
http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/legallatin/legal01.htm
http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romangvt.html
Many elements are the same between the Roman Republic and the legal system today. The Twelve Tables were established the basis of law for all Roman citizens. We have the same type of system where our government comes up with laws for all American citizens to follow. In Rome, if you were accused of a crime, you could request to be sent to a trial. The same thing happens today where we go to trial when we are accused of a crime. Like today, if trials are won, there is some kind of reward. Also like today, you could plead not guilty, but if you were found guilty it was double the value. In Rome, there were several kinds of Roman courts, just like today. We have federal courts, circuit courts, and district courts. The government was, in theory, a participatory and representative democracy, but voting and offices were limited to certain people. Today however, anyone who wants to run for office can run for office, and voting is open to anyone.
On the other hand, the role of a lawyer in Rome is much different from lawyers today. The persecutor and defendant were responsible for their own presentation. The lawyer could offer advice and could give a speech for the client, but he was not paid for his services. Today it is the opposite, lawyers do the talking, and the client can only talk when they are being interrogated.
As you can see, Roman political and legal systems are like our systems in some ways, but different in others.
Sources
http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/legallatin/legal01.htm
http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romangvt.html
The Ancient Roman World Map
<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=213858624826943619408.00049e718fe658cd28da6&t=h&ll=41.896151,12.480404&spn=0.019438,0.030083&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=213858624826943619408.00049e718fe658cd28da6&t=h&ll=41.896151,12.480404&spn=0.019438,0.030083&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">The Ancient Roman World</a> in a larger map</small>
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=213858624826943619408.00049e718fe658cd28da6&t=h&z=14
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=213858624826943619408.00049e718fe658cd28da6&t=h&z=14
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Alexander the Great
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.
I think Alexander's adventure was worth it. He conquered all of Asia, finally returned honor to Greece, and created an epic tale for himself. He was a brave leader, he fought with his army, he starved with his army, and he walked with his army. People must have been proud to call him their leader. I know I would have been. Alexander worked hard to achieve his goals, and he led one of the greatest armies in history to truly terrific victories which really makes the whole thing worth it.
An example that really proves what a power he was is when Alexander got to Egypt. "Alexander was therefore hailed as Savior and Liberator, and as the people's choice and legitimate heir he was offered the double crown of the Two Lands. Anointed as pharaoh in Memphis on 14 November 332 bc, the culmination of his coronation was the climactic moment when the high priest named him 'son of the gods' according to traditions dating back almost 3,000 years," (Fildes, 1996-2010). If this doesn't seem like a good enough reason to go there, I don't know what is. He was respected and loved by the people of Egypt, and he was called son of a god. This, I think, encouraged Alexander to continue on in his conquest. At this point, Alexander thought he was unstoppable.
Compared to the way he was welcomed in Egypt, Persepolis was the complete opposite. Alexander's goal there was to kill and conquer, which is exactly what he did. When he arrived there, he gave over the city to the army to plunder. "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," ("Alexander Sacks Persepolis," 2011). Men, women, and children were killed or sold into slavery. This is one of Alexander's darkest hours, but what he did was necessary for their victory. This part of his adventure might not have seemed very god-like, but he gained land and money toward his goal of conquest.
"By 330 BC Alexander has the world’s richest crown with riches and wealth of Persian Empire, which would fuel his invasion of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan he faced his fiercest battles and grave loss to his army physically, mentally and financially. After 4 years of battle he passed through Afghanistan to Central Asia and with 100 thousand reinforcements from Greece and newly captured central Asian kingdoms returns to Afghanistan and captures Balkh, Qandahar, Heart, and Kabul and begins his invasion of India. In Afghanistan he falls in love with a local chief's daughter named Rokhsana (Roxanne) and they get married before the invasion of India," ("Invasion of Alexander," 2000). This part of Alexander's journey was worth it because he married someone who would hopefully create his heir.
When Alexander was in India, he was like he was in Egypt and like he was in Persepolis. He fought many battles, and made a few friends too. "But now that Porus was defeated Alexander was gracious to him, and treated him as one great king and warrior should treat another. Henceforth they became friends," ("Alexander the Great Invades India," 2011). I believe this proves that Alexander isn't fighting just to be ruthless, he is conquering all this land, and he is making friends with some of the leaders. He knows how to keep powerful allies. Alexander was very bright in all his war tactics, and every step of his journey he learned something about himself.
Alexander's journey was obviously worth it. He made friends, found a loving wife, and conquered more land than anyone ever has. Sure he made some mistakes and made quite a few enemies, but he is only human. He set goals, and he achieved them. Alexander the Great sometimes gets a bad rep because he was "ruthless". It was just part of his character. I think that Alexander will never regret doing what he did because it was worth it.
Works Cited
I think Alexander's adventure was worth it. He conquered all of Asia, finally returned honor to Greece, and created an epic tale for himself. He was a brave leader, he fought with his army, he starved with his army, and he walked with his army. People must have been proud to call him their leader. I know I would have been. Alexander worked hard to achieve his goals, and he led one of the greatest armies in history to truly terrific victories which really makes the whole thing worth it.
An example that really proves what a power he was is when Alexander got to Egypt. "Alexander was therefore hailed as Savior and Liberator, and as the people's choice and legitimate heir he was offered the double crown of the Two Lands. Anointed as pharaoh in Memphis on 14 November 332 bc, the culmination of his coronation was the climactic moment when the high priest named him 'son of the gods' according to traditions dating back almost 3,000 years," (Fildes, 1996-2010). If this doesn't seem like a good enough reason to go there, I don't know what is. He was respected and loved by the people of Egypt, and he was called son of a god. This, I think, encouraged Alexander to continue on in his conquest. At this point, Alexander thought he was unstoppable.
Compared to the way he was welcomed in Egypt, Persepolis was the complete opposite. Alexander's goal there was to kill and conquer, which is exactly what he did. When he arrived there, he gave over the city to the army to plunder. "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," ("Alexander Sacks Persepolis," 2011). Men, women, and children were killed or sold into slavery. This is one of Alexander's darkest hours, but what he did was necessary for their victory. This part of his adventure might not have seemed very god-like, but he gained land and money toward his goal of conquest.
"By 330 BC Alexander has the world’s richest crown with riches and wealth of Persian Empire, which would fuel his invasion of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan he faced his fiercest battles and grave loss to his army physically, mentally and financially. After 4 years of battle he passed through Afghanistan to Central Asia and with 100 thousand reinforcements from Greece and newly captured central Asian kingdoms returns to Afghanistan and captures Balkh, Qandahar, Heart, and Kabul and begins his invasion of India. In Afghanistan he falls in love with a local chief's daughter named Rokhsana (Roxanne) and they get married before the invasion of India," ("Invasion of Alexander," 2000). This part of Alexander's journey was worth it because he married someone who would hopefully create his heir.
When Alexander was in India, he was like he was in Egypt and like he was in Persepolis. He fought many battles, and made a few friends too. "But now that Porus was defeated Alexander was gracious to him, and treated him as one great king and warrior should treat another. Henceforth they became friends," ("Alexander the Great Invades India," 2011). I believe this proves that Alexander isn't fighting just to be ruthless, he is conquering all this land, and he is making friends with some of the leaders. He knows how to keep powerful allies. Alexander was very bright in all his war tactics, and every step of his journey he learned something about himself.
Alexander's journey was obviously worth it. He made friends, found a loving wife, and conquered more land than anyone ever has. Sure he made some mistakes and made quite a few enemies, but he is only human. He set goals, and he achieved them. Alexander the Great sometimes gets a bad rep because he was "ruthless". It was just part of his character. I think that Alexander will never regret doing what he did because it was worth it.
Works Cited
· Fildes, A. M., & Fletcher, D. J. (n.d.). Egypt: Alexander the Great in Egypt. Egypt Travel, Tours, Vacations, Ancient Egypt from Tour Egypt. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/alexanderthegreat.htm
· Afghanland.com Afghanistan and Alexander the Great. (n.d.). Afghanland.com. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.afghanland.com/history/alexander.html
· Alexander the Great Invades India. (n.d.). About Hinduism - What You Need to Know About Hinduism. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/alexander.htm
· Alexander the Great: the destruction of Persepolis. (n.d.). Livius. Articles on Ancient History. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.htm
Friday, March 4, 2011
Weekly #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?
I think that power does corrupt most people. Everyone has their reasons for wanting to be powerful, and many people are influenced by the power that they have. One of the best examples that I can use is Adolf Hitler. Honestly, his name answers this question. Hitler used his power to kill millions of people so that he could create the perfect world where everyone with blonde hair and blue eyes lived. I find this a little ridiculous because Hitler himself did not have blonde hair or blue eyes. It was not just the Jews who were affected. Homosexuals, people with disabilities, and many different religious and political groups were affected. He used people for experimental reasons, to help aid in the recovery of injured soldiers. He was so corrupt by power he was, in my opinion, completely insane. Alexander was like Hitler in a lot of ways. When researching for this essay, I discovered that after his father died, Alexander killed everyone who could get in the way of him having all the power. He killed many of his own family members, and the main general of the army. At that time, Alexander didn't even have all the power, he just wanted to have it all, just like Hitler.
Another example of a person corrupt by power is Senator John Edwards. He seems like a perfectly nice person; he had a wife and kids and he was liked by a lot of people. In 2007 he had an affair and the girl he had an affair with became pregnant and had a baby. He used his power to keep everyone who might know about the story quiet, and he even got his friend to say the baby was his! Edwards's wife got the last laugh though when she wrote him out of her will. He thought he could use his power to lie to all of America, including his wife and kids. I find this story especially bad because his wife had breast cancer. To cheat on someone who is so perfectly innocent and fragile just seems wrong to me. He might be indited because he spent the money he got for his campaign to keep things about his affair hushed up. People think that because they have power they can get away with anything. Alexander thought the same thing. After his wife died, Alexander went crazy and slaughtered an entire town. A good leader would do what is right for the people, not just slaughter them because he was upset. Power corrupts people in different ways. John Edwards used it to cheat on his wife. Alexander used it to kill people because his wife died.
I do think that Alexander was corrupt by power. Alexander became so used to winning, he took over everything in his path. Although he didn't do anything completely terrible like Hitler and John Edwards, he still used his power for the benefit of himself. He did what he did to make a name for himself in history. I think he did care for his country, but I think all he really wanted to do was go down in history as a legend. The stories about him are all different, and who knows if he even did win every battle. Not all leaders are corrupt don't get me wrong, but most of them have done something wrong because they have the power to.
I believe that the question about Alexander becoming more Persian or Persia becoming more Greek could be answered either way. Persia obviously became more Greek because they were conquered by Greece and they were influenced by Alexander the Great and his decisions. Persia was greatly influenced by Alexander. Many of their people were killed or sold into slavery. I'm sure that because of that Persia was changed.
I also do think that Alexander became more Persian. He crossed paths with tons of Persians on and off the battle field. He learned a lot from his journey to victory there. Alexander learned how to think on his feet and make quick intelligent decisions about the way to fight. He wanted to be worshiped as a Persian god, which upset many of his own people. While taking over Persia, he began to dress more Persian and honor Persian gods as well as Greek gods. I think Alexander himself changed because of Persia. He was intelligent and brave, and I now know why he is called Alexander the Great.
I think that power does corrupt most people. Everyone has their reasons for wanting to be powerful, and many people are influenced by the power that they have. One of the best examples that I can use is Adolf Hitler. Honestly, his name answers this question. Hitler used his power to kill millions of people so that he could create the perfect world where everyone with blonde hair and blue eyes lived. I find this a little ridiculous because Hitler himself did not have blonde hair or blue eyes. It was not just the Jews who were affected. Homosexuals, people with disabilities, and many different religious and political groups were affected. He used people for experimental reasons, to help aid in the recovery of injured soldiers. He was so corrupt by power he was, in my opinion, completely insane. Alexander was like Hitler in a lot of ways. When researching for this essay, I discovered that after his father died, Alexander killed everyone who could get in the way of him having all the power. He killed many of his own family members, and the main general of the army. At that time, Alexander didn't even have all the power, he just wanted to have it all, just like Hitler.
Another example of a person corrupt by power is Senator John Edwards. He seems like a perfectly nice person; he had a wife and kids and he was liked by a lot of people. In 2007 he had an affair and the girl he had an affair with became pregnant and had a baby. He used his power to keep everyone who might know about the story quiet, and he even got his friend to say the baby was his! Edwards's wife got the last laugh though when she wrote him out of her will. He thought he could use his power to lie to all of America, including his wife and kids. I find this story especially bad because his wife had breast cancer. To cheat on someone who is so perfectly innocent and fragile just seems wrong to me. He might be indited because he spent the money he got for his campaign to keep things about his affair hushed up. People think that because they have power they can get away with anything. Alexander thought the same thing. After his wife died, Alexander went crazy and slaughtered an entire town. A good leader would do what is right for the people, not just slaughter them because he was upset. Power corrupts people in different ways. John Edwards used it to cheat on his wife. Alexander used it to kill people because his wife died.
I do think that Alexander was corrupt by power. Alexander became so used to winning, he took over everything in his path. Although he didn't do anything completely terrible like Hitler and John Edwards, he still used his power for the benefit of himself. He did what he did to make a name for himself in history. I think he did care for his country, but I think all he really wanted to do was go down in history as a legend. The stories about him are all different, and who knows if he even did win every battle. Not all leaders are corrupt don't get me wrong, but most of them have done something wrong because they have the power to.
I believe that the question about Alexander becoming more Persian or Persia becoming more Greek could be answered either way. Persia obviously became more Greek because they were conquered by Greece and they were influenced by Alexander the Great and his decisions. Persia was greatly influenced by Alexander. Many of their people were killed or sold into slavery. I'm sure that because of that Persia was changed.
I also do think that Alexander became more Persian. He crossed paths with tons of Persians on and off the battle field. He learned a lot from his journey to victory there. Alexander learned how to think on his feet and make quick intelligent decisions about the way to fight. He wanted to be worshiped as a Persian god, which upset many of his own people. While taking over Persia, he began to dress more Persian and honor Persian gods as well as Greek gods. I think Alexander himself changed because of Persia. He was intelligent and brave, and I now know why he is called Alexander the Great.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Daily #24
What do you think should have been done after Alexander's death?
There should have been a wild party at the Jersey Shore house (aka Persia). Jasper and Jasmine would go hang out with Mike and Snookie. Danish would bring the pickles, and Jasmine would bring the sandwiches. All of Persia would meet on the beach to plan their rise back to power. Because Macedonia was so weak because of Alexander dying, it would be easy to plan a comeback attack.
On the other hand, the funeral for Alexander was being held. It was a very upsetting occasion. Almost all of the army was there, and they were all very upset. Their brilliant leader was defeated by a fever. After all they went through with him, that had to be awful for them. To see their leader so weak. Even after a battle he went and tended to the people who were more hurt than him. Many people would assume that Alexander died in battle, but he actually died from a fever. Alexander the Great was a great leader and a good friend to all. I wish I was as terrific as him. Did you know how good gummy worms are?! I'm at play practice again, and I can't focus because the girl next to me is eating gummy worms. My favorites are the sour gummies with red and yellow. There are no calories from fat! Dude, this is gonna be my new workout; eatin my gummies. I don't understand why its a dollar. All the healthy foods are always more expensive!
There should have been a wild party at the Jersey Shore house (aka Persia). Jasper and Jasmine would go hang out with Mike and Snookie. Danish would bring the pickles, and Jasmine would bring the sandwiches. All of Persia would meet on the beach to plan their rise back to power. Because Macedonia was so weak because of Alexander dying, it would be easy to plan a comeback attack.
On the other hand, the funeral for Alexander was being held. It was a very upsetting occasion. Almost all of the army was there, and they were all very upset. Their brilliant leader was defeated by a fever. After all they went through with him, that had to be awful for them. To see their leader so weak. Even after a battle he went and tended to the people who were more hurt than him. Many people would assume that Alexander died in battle, but he actually died from a fever. Alexander the Great was a great leader and a good friend to all. I wish I was as terrific as him. Did you know how good gummy worms are?! I'm at play practice again, and I can't focus because the girl next to me is eating gummy worms. My favorites are the sour gummies with red and yellow. There are no calories from fat! Dude, this is gonna be my new workout; eatin my gummies. I don't understand why its a dollar. All the healthy foods are always more expensive!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Daily #23
Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?
I don't think there could be a great force like Alexander the Great today because we would nuke them before they became too powerful. So, because this was an easy one sentence answer, I am going to once again rant for two hundred fifty words because I would like to get an "A" in your class for this semester. Sorry Sam, I don't have much for you to use today. Did you know its March already! So, did you know it is immoral to smack a nun? Because it is. I learned about it in Morality with Mr. V. OOOOOO, I do know what to say about this topic. Please see the paragraph below for more information on my cool self.
I WOULD BE THE GREAT FORCE! They would call me Amanda, and I would kill everyone who gets in my way. I would ally with Canada because I like their bacon, and they would name a city after me. I think it would be called Amandia. As queen of the world, I would be rich rich rich, and I would have beach houses all over the world and stables so I can horseback ride on the beach with my buddy Emily. I would obviously be a world power because everyone loves me, and everyone who hates me can be burned at the stake. Thanks to my awesomeness, the world would be changed forever, and I will forever be... AMANDA QUEEN OF THE WORLD. (evil laugh here) Well, good luck Mr. Wojo!
I don't think there could be a great force like Alexander the Great today because we would nuke them before they became too powerful. So, because this was an easy one sentence answer, I am going to once again rant for two hundred fifty words because I would like to get an "A" in your class for this semester. Sorry Sam, I don't have much for you to use today. Did you know its March already! So, did you know it is immoral to smack a nun? Because it is. I learned about it in Morality with Mr. V. OOOOOO, I do know what to say about this topic. Please see the paragraph below for more information on my cool self.
I WOULD BE THE GREAT FORCE! They would call me Amanda, and I would kill everyone who gets in my way. I would ally with Canada because I like their bacon, and they would name a city after me. I think it would be called Amandia. As queen of the world, I would be rich rich rich, and I would have beach houses all over the world and stables so I can horseback ride on the beach with my buddy Emily. I would obviously be a world power because everyone loves me, and everyone who hates me can be burned at the stake. Thanks to my awesomeness, the world would be changed forever, and I will forever be... AMANDA QUEEN OF THE WORLD. (evil laugh here) Well, good luck Mr. Wojo!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Daily #22
Was Alexander the Great a "good leader"? Compare/Contrast with Pericles.
I don't think Alexander the Great was a good leader. I think he was a Great leader! Haha get it.. oookay well this is awkward. Well anyway, I think he was a good leader, but he was the total opposite of Pericles. Pericles was all about improving the city, but Alexander was all about being a world power. If my goal was to be the ruler of the world, my first job would be to destroy Sam and his army of losers. I think I honestly preferred Pericles way of leading. He worked on his city, not things for his own personal goals. Alexander, however, just worked to create his own personal myth. Pericles build up the city to a major power and I think that is something that makes the people happy. Alexander taking over all of Asia obviously made the people happy too, but I would prefer to not be worrying about if the men were going to come back all right. Pericles was pretty chill. I like him a lot more than I like Alexander the Great. If he was more attractive, I could seriously hear the bells chiming at our wedding ;). We would name our kid Sam and then he would be killed in one Alexander's battles. I have to say as much as I love Alexander the Great, Pericles is just better. Pericles led the people to a happy golden age, and Alexander led them to victory. Both are great leaders, and both deserve a lot of credit for what they did.
I don't think Alexander the Great was a good leader. I think he was a Great leader! Haha get it.. oookay well this is awkward. Well anyway, I think he was a good leader, but he was the total opposite of Pericles. Pericles was all about improving the city, but Alexander was all about being a world power. If my goal was to be the ruler of the world, my first job would be to destroy Sam and his army of losers. I think I honestly preferred Pericles way of leading. He worked on his city, not things for his own personal goals. Alexander, however, just worked to create his own personal myth. Pericles build up the city to a major power and I think that is something that makes the people happy. Alexander taking over all of Asia obviously made the people happy too, but I would prefer to not be worrying about if the men were going to come back all right. Pericles was pretty chill. I like him a lot more than I like Alexander the Great. If he was more attractive, I could seriously hear the bells chiming at our wedding ;). We would name our kid Sam and then he would be killed in one Alexander's battles. I have to say as much as I love Alexander the Great, Pericles is just better. Pericles led the people to a happy golden age, and Alexander led them to victory. Both are great leaders, and both deserve a lot of credit for what they did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)