Daily Blog 4 Week 8

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=
210663045657411626680.00049f3cff008c211110f

Daily Blog 3 Week 8

Konnor Drewen

3/23/011

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

            No, I don’t think that they were justified. Caesar claimed to be a king and that was the principal motive for Caesar's assassination by his political opponents in the Senate. Plutarch records that at one point, Caesar informed the Senate that his honors were more in need of reduction than increase, but withdrew this position so as not to appear ungrateful. Suetonius wrote that Caesar failed to rise in the temple either because he was restrained by Cornelius Balbus, who was a consul, or that he balked at the suggestion he should rise. Suetonius also gives the story that a crowd shouted to him "rex", the Latin word for king. Caesar replied, "I am Caesar, not Rex". Suetonius also gave the account of a crowd assembled to greet Caesar upon his return to Rome. A member of the crowd placed a laurel wreath on the statue of Caesar. Plutarch and Suetonius are similar in their depiction of these events, but Dio, was a Roman consul and a noted historian writing in Greek, combines the stories writing that the tribunes arrested the citizens who placed wreaths on statues of Caesar. None of these things, in my opinion, are reasons for an assassination. He was able to take over a large amount of area from France up through to England. I would think that the people would love him, but he was assassinated by opposing politicians.

Daily Blog 2 Week 8

Konnor Drewen

3/22/011

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

            Some of the emperors were as bad as they seem and made a bad name for the Juilo-Claudians. There was Nero who was one of the most insane emperors. He ordered the death of his mother, threw Christians into lion’s dens, and burned down the city of Roma. He played a fiddle while the city burned to the ground. Another one that had a bad reputation was Caligula.  The Roman historian Suetonius (who wrote of Caligula) often gives exaggerated view on Roman History, so it is hard to trust all of his accounts. Nevertheless, no one really gives a good picture of Caligula, who became deathly ill in the early part of his reign and never recovered his sanity. Philo, a Jewish man who was sent with an embassy to Rome, mentions how wrongly Caligula treated him and other Jews, ignoring and toying with his guests from Judea. He also tossed unfortunate people men, women, children, and slaves of cliffs sometimes just for the fun of the act. Claudius really was not all that of a bad or evil emperor. He made river systems and religious reforms, but he was not appreciated by future people. Nero called his actions stupid and that he was too senile to have meant the laws that he had passed. This continued to be the opinion of Claudius until Nero no longer spoke of him. So yes some of the Julio-Claudians were bad people, but that is in our opinion. The people of that time may have been fine with it. The Julio-Claudians were not all bad though. They just got a bad reputation.

Daily Blog 1 Week 8

Konnor Drewen

3/21/011

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

            Hadrian was not as popular as Trajan the emperor before him, because as soon as Trajan died Hadrian decided that the Roman Empire couldn't really keep all that land Trajan had conquered in West Asia, and he gave most of it back to the Parthians. He thought that it was too expensive to keep because of it being too far away. He traveled through many provinces visiting the various regions and cities and inspecting all the garrisons and forts. Some of these he removed to more desirable places, some he abolished, and he also established some new ones. Despite his own great reputation as a military administrator, Hadrian's reign was marked by a general lack of major military conflicts, apart from the Second Roman-Jewish War. He surrendered Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia, considering them to be indefensible. There was almost a war with Parthia around 121, but the threat was averted when Hadrian succeeded in negotiating a peace. The Emperor travelled broadly, inspecting and correcting the legions in the field. Even prior to becoming emperor, he had travelled abroad with the Roman military, giving him much experience in the matter. More than half his reign was spent outside of Italy. Other emperors often left Rome simply to go to war, returning soon after conflicts concluded. A previous emperor, Nero, once travelled through Greece and was condemned for his self-indulgence. Hadrian, by contrast, travelled as a fundamental part of his governing, and made this clear to the Roman senate and the people.

Daily Blog 4 Week 7

Konnor Drewen

3/17/011

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

            Well, the Roman legal system was somewhat like ours. First, an interesting fact is that the Romans got many governmental ideas from the Greeks. The Roman state was described as the republic and its councils, or chief magistrates, continued to be appointed even after the establishment of one-man rule under the empire, but in its pure form it lasted only until the beginning of the first century B.C. At the creation of the republic, supreme power probably resided with a popular assembly, but early on the Senate became very influential, and the traditional formula, which survived for centuries. In the case of the Twelve Tables it was said that ten Plebeians were chosen at a time to have supreme governmental power where the power of the magistrates was restricted. They could veto laws that they disapproved of and had to record new laws passed. It consisted of ten Plebeians until a second decemvirate is said to have added two further tablets in 449 BC. The new law of the Twelve Tables was accepted by the people and was passed. Another thing that was similar between the Roman government and our government today is democracy.  The democracy of ancient Romans was different in some ways like the way they voted but other than that the democracy was much like ours.

Daily Blog 3 Week 7

Konnor Drewen

3/16/011

Please write a brief biography of Hannibal and explain whether or not you think his reputation (in Roman eyes) as a monster was deserved.

            When Hannibal (in his own, Punic language Hanba'al, meaning "mercy of Ba'al") was born in 247 BCE, his birthplace Carthage was about to lose a long and important war. His city had been the most prosperous port in the Mediterranean but suffered losses in the First Punic war.  After Rome's victory, it stripped Carthage of its most important province, Sicily; and when civil war had broken out in Cartage, Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica as well. These events must have made a great impression on Hannibal who was young at the time. He was the oldest son of the Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca. The Roman historian Livy mentions that Hannibal's father forced his son to promise eternal hatred against the Romans. In 221 BCE Hannibal was elected commander of the Carthaginian soldiers in Iberia. In 216, the Roman Senate decided that time had come to solve the problem in one great, decisive battle. Taking no risks, the two counsels raised an army of no less than 80,000 men, where Hannibal's army counted some 50,000 men. The Romans and Hannibal faced off in Cannae in July of that year. Hannibal's convex, crescent shaped lines slowly became concave under pressure of the Roman elite troops in the center, which, being encircled and finally surrounded by the Carthaginian cavalry in the rear, failed to break through  the Carthaginian lines and were eventually destroyed. This information can help determine why Hannibal was a kind of Boogeyman for the Romans. He was raised from birth to loathe the Romans and made an oath of blood against them. He sacked towns all across Italy and even when the best of Roma fought against them; they were destroyed. So, yes in that way he was very deserving of being a monster in the eyes of the Romans.

Daily Blog 2 Week 7

Konnor Drewen

3/15/011

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

            First, I will explain what the Struggle of orders was. You see, during the fifth and fourth centuries of the Roman Republic, Roma faced internal class conflict. Patricians, the noble class, held claim to certain social and political rights and privileges that Plebeians, the largest portion of Roman citizens, wanted extended to their class, as well. The Struggle of the Orders lasted over two centuries of the early Roman Republic. During those years, plebeians made increasing gains toward achieving political and social rights that had before been exclusive to the Patrician class and denied them. The Struggle of the Orders caused relative peace on the social and domestic front for the century and a half following 287 BCE. Moderation had been shown on both sides. The Struggle was made up of important events which in the end caused the increase in power of the Plebeians. It caused the formation of ten man tribuni plebis and the concilium plebis whose job was to serve the needs of the Plebeian class. They created a bill that allowed the Patricians and Plebeians to marry. They also created a law that said any law passed by the tribuni plebis was binding to the whole Roman population. So, in the end the Struggle of the Orders had a major effect. It caused the formation of a different legal group, it allowed peace between the two classes, and it created an equal amount of rights to give to both classes.

Daily Blog 1 Week 7

Konnor Drewen

3/14/011

Imagine you are a Roman in the year 264 BCE (the year of the 1st Punic War). What does your future look like? Then, look at the world around you today. What does your future look like? Think about politics, technology, culture, dominance, balance.

            If I were a Roman in the year 264 BCE, I would more than likely be in the first Punic War. I would be in this war with Carthage for the next 23 years. The Roman consul Appius Claudius Caudex and his two legions were deployed to Sicily; that being the first time an Italian army has been of the Italian Peninsula. If I were a roman I would have seen Appius Claudius Caudex leads his forces to Messina, and as the Mamertines have convinced the Carthaginians to withdraw, he met with only minimal resistance. Appius Caudex with me in the army would have entered the city of Messina to defeat the Syracusans. It would be likely that I died in battle but it would have been for my country. So in 264 BCE my future would be death in battle. Today I would not likely go to war. It would be more common for me to get a job in some business. The politics would not have as much effect on my life as they would have in Roma. In Roma I would have been forced to join the army through the draft in the United States today there is no draft. The technology in ancient Roma would have been worse so I would have died earlier. The cultural differences would have been great seeing how I am not ancient Roman. They believed in many gods, on the other hand I believe in one.

Weekly 6

Konnor Drewen

3/10/011

Was Alexander's adventure really worth it?

            In the great campaign of Alexander the Great he did many things. All we know of Alexander is from five manuscripts by Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius, Diodorus and Justin.  He conquered cities and towns. He fought and won most of the battles against the Persian Empire (Michael Wood). He destroyed the largest empire in the world and became king of the known world. But was it worth it? Was all the fighting and the sacking and destruction worth doing. He could have stayed in Macedonia and ruled there, but if he had he would not have gained such a large empire. He would not have avenged wrongs or made a name for himself. Above all history itself would not be the same. So yes, Alexander’s adventure was worth it because if he had not defeated the Persians, if he had not created a new empire, if he had not become ruler of a new world; then nothing today or then would be the same.

            While in Egypt, Alexander visited the oasis of Siwa. As he arrived he was treated as if he were a god. The people there did this because they told Alexander he was. He had entered the temple of Amun and the oracle greeted him with these words: "O, paidion" meaning "Oh, my son", but mispronounced the Greek as "O, pai dios" meaning "Oh, son of god" (Fletcher). When Alexander left the temple his friends asked him what had happened but he only said that he had been given the answer his heart desired. Over the remaining years of his life Alexander sent gifts to the temples priests with more questions (Fletcher). Because of what happened in Siwa Alexander had a new perspective; that perspective was of a god. If he had not gotten this oracle’s prophecy; would he have thought that he was more than human, and as a result, would he have been as successful in his campaign?

             One of his most powerful victories was at Gaugamela. He was able to face off against roughly 300,000 Persians while he had only roughly 50,000 (Warry). Fearing that there would be a night attack, King Darius kept his army standing in battle formation all night, probably only adding to fatigue and demoralization. Alexander, himself, had almost overslept and was awakened by the sound of his troops preparing for battle (Brouilette).  The battle progress of Gaugamela is far more complex than the earlier confrontations at Granicus and Issus. Darius tried everything in his ability to stop Alexander but there was nothing he could do in the end, he had already lost (Cartledge, 2011). Alexander, the King of Macedonia, facing Darius, King of the known world; it was like David versus Goliath and just like in the biblical story the small army won. 

            During his campaign, Alexander took the capital of Persia, Persepolis. While he was there he destroyed the city as a sign of power. Alexander described it to the Macedonians as their worst enemy among the cities of Asia, and he gave it over to the soldiers to plunder, with the exception of the royal palace (Brouilette). Alexander’s men rushed into the buildings killing all the men and taking any gold, silver, or any other valuables. The great royal palace, famed throughout the inhabited world, had been condemned to the indignity of total destruction (Brouilette). So he burned the palace to the ground. He knew that he was not yet king of the empire and it was too risky to leave all the treasure behind in case of the Persians trying to reclaim it.

            Towards the end of his journey Alexander went into Afghanistan while chasing Bessus, the man who betrayed and killed Darius his king. Always fearful of leaving his southern and eastern flank exposed in his pursuit of Bessus to the North, Alexander undertook a massive building campaign, erecting a series of fortresses in a giant arc from Herat in the west to Kandahar in the south to the Oxus River in the north and beyond into present-day Kazakstan and Tajikistan. At each one of these fortresses Alexander left a number of troops along with builders, craftsmen, tillers, and other kinds of workers that would help make a settlement (DDLRMP). Alexander followed Bessus into Bactria where Bessus was killed and brutally mutilated by Alexander. The type of guerilla-style fighting that Alexander faced during the Afghan campaign was described centuries later by the chronicler Plutarch. He said that they were like a hydra, kill one head and three more take its place (Lendering, 2011) Alexander’s Afghan campaign shows that the fruit of his acts far out way the costs, for he was able to kill Bessus, the last real controller of the Persian army.

            Alexander, the man who changed the world, will always be remembered by history, for if he was forgotten or had never existed the world would have lost one of its greatest. Yes, his adventure was worth it he conquered the world during his adventure. From Macedonia to Egypt, Egypt to Persia and through Persia until there was nothing in his way. He may have been known by many to be the “Two Horned One,” but more importantly he was the hero of Greece (Michael Wood).  As the philosopher Aristotle once said, "Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice." This was Alexander’s original goal, to bring justice to the Persians and because of it we will always know that he was the one, who fought the giant and won.

Sources: 

In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great by Michael Wood (Michael Wood)

 Fletcher, . (n.d.). Alexander the great in egypt. Retrieved from http://www.arabworldbooks.com/new/alexander.html  (Fletcher)

Cartledge, . (2011, Febuary 17). Alexander the great: hunting for a new past. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/alexander_the_great_01.shtml (Cartledge, 2011)

Brouilette, . (n.d.). "the greatest legend of all was real". Retrieved from http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=alexander-the-great-2 (Brouilette)

Warry, J. (n.d.). Major battles of alexander the great. Retrieved from http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=major-battles#gaugamela  (Warry)

Lendering, J. (2011, March 3). Alexander sacks persepolis. Retrieved from http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html  (Lendering, 2011)

DDLRMP, Initials. (n.d.). Alexander the great (330-323). Retrieved from http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-04enl.html (DDLRMP)

Weekly 5

Konnor Drewen

3/4/011

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?

            Yes, I do believe that power does corrupt. Power is an interesting thing to have. It can be corrupting especially if you are a person who has never had power before. If you, all of the sudden, come into a large position of power you don’t know what to do with it. You could use your power in a good way, or in the case of corruption you could use your power in a poor way. If you don’t have the experience to handle power than you will corrupt, only for the reason that once you got the power you only wanted more. Power corrupts because it is like an addictive drug; once you have it you only want more and more until you go into a downward spiral into oblivion.

            How power corrupts can be a number of things. Edward Abbey once said, “Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best.” According to Edward Abbey, power can make the best of us begin to corrupt into the worst. Along with that the thought of power attracts the worst. You could make the argument that the person was corrupt when they came into power. Corruption could occur because of a want for more power or because if you don’t have power before then, then you would not know how to control it. Power does not always corrupt though. If you have an all-around good person then they might not give in to corruption.

            The other part of the question is the why power corrupts. Why, is a very hard question to answer. It could just depend on the type of person that has the power. David Brin once said, “It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.” The corruptible are the ones that are attracted to power so the way is because they are easily corrupted. But why power corrupts, that is a matter of opinion. I think that it is only for one reason… that it can. The corrupted only becomes that way because he/she can become that way.

            Do I think Alexander was corrupted? No, well at least not at the beginning of his journey. In the beginning I truly believe that he was fighting to avenge Persian wrongs. He was fighting to avenge the Greeks, but after Darius was killed he was fighting for power. He could have been fighting to make the Persians like him, or for the glory of battle. He could have also done it to avenge Darius because he thought that he died in a dishonorable way. His mind was just becoming more and more splintered.

            In the end I think that Persia was not much influenced by Alexander the Great. The countries that make up Persia all have the same picture him. A demon with horns is the most common, some going as far as to call him Alexander, The Cursed. But Alexander in the end was influenced by Persia in my opinion. He began to wear Persian garments first of all. He also began to recruit young boys from the villages to be in his army.  In conclusion, power is a drug that once getting addicted, it is hard to leave it behind.

Daily Blog 4 Week 6

Daily Blog 3 Week 6

Konnor Drewen

3/2/011

Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?

            Well, you could make the argument in two ways. Yes, Alexander was a great conqueror, but he was not just that. He was also a military tactician, and a great leader, but most of all he was human. If he was able to conquer the world than, possibly, another human could too. But then you could make the other side of the argument. Aristotle once said, “Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person at the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not within everyone's power and that is not easy.” That I think is a good way to describe that Alexander was not a normal person, so, you could say that a person could not do what he did in that way. Someone could not do what he did today for one reason, allies. Yes, it is true that Persia had allies and the Greeks had allies, but there is on difference. Today our allies could help us in a matter of hours, back then it would have taken days, weeks, or months depending on how far they are away. If someone started to conquer the world all the countries we attacked would fight back and with their allies and the conquerors allies might disagree with what they are doing and not help them.    

Daily Blog 2 Week 6

Konnor Drewen

3/1/011

Would you have followed Alexander into Persia? Write a short story telling your tale from the point of view of one of Alexander's inner circle.

            Yes, I would have followed Alexander into Persia. The next part is a short story written about a soldier in Alexander’s army.

“This is the third week in the battle with Persia. We have been walking for days, but we get breaks to fight in battle. The days are long and his men grow tried, but I would not trade it for anything. Alexander is a friend of mine and I would not desert him in this place. My father fought with his father and we are connected by blood. We will fight alongside as our fathers, and their fathers did. The Persians will face the cold of our steel. The day trudges on as if the days will never end. We approach the walls of the city of Halicarnassus, it is time for battle. Alexander has a plan to siege the castle, but I don’t know how he will do it. It seems impossible but I believe in him. I believe that he can do, and will do great things. This battle will be decisive and people will know the name of this city and the people who fought here for the rest of time. So today we fight on for honor, for glory, and for history.”