daily

Rome was better off as an empire. One of the factors that affected my reasoning is the fact that Rome allowed it's people to live by their own rules and didn't force anything on them. They respected everyones rights, and let them believe in who they wanted to, they realized that not everyone was going to think the same way. As a republic, the government and the people had a lot of differences and disagreements. When Rome expanded and became an empire, all the issues of the republic seemed to no longer exist or matter. Their was more opportunities for the people, even the ones that had been added to the empire by the means of roman conquest. This allowed them to go on with their lives, and their really wasn't much changes. Rome was expanding and there fore was respected as a large empire. The Roman army protected the empire from intruding forces, so there wasn't much for the people to have to worry about. The Empire definently made Rome a lot better off.

daily

Julius Caesar’s killers were not at all justified in the killing of Caesar. Caesar was really the first person that had a lot of power that really wanted to please the people, not just the rich people that could pay others to vote for them. This was the beginning of a revolution in the way that it started how we vote for others. By just showing other rulers that people are able to take control of who they put in power revolutionized us to being a republic, and it was a slow but steady step in the dissolving of dictatorship. In this way, Caesar could have shown some other brilliant leadership skills that would have a positive, or maybe even negative, effect in the government views today. I can’t really say whether they had justification, because I never lived through his time, nor do I have the mindset of ancient Rome. But, it is my belief that taking someone’s life is only justified, not acceptable, if this person was a serious threat to those innocent people around him or her. So, unless Caesar had people at gun, or knife point in this case, I really don’t think he could have done much harm. The people who assassinated him saw their dictatorship coming to an end, and in their fear, they decided that it would be best to kill him, to show all those who believe in Caesar’s way, are really believing in a dead man’s way.Julius Caesar’s killers were not at all justified in the killing of Caesar. Caesar was really the first person that had a lot of power that really wanted to please the people, not just the rich people that could pay others to vote for them. This was the beginning of a revolution in the way that it started how we vote for others. By just showing other rulers that people are able to take control of who they put in power revolutionized us to being a republic, and it was a slow but steady step in the dissolving of dictatorship. In this way, Caesar could have shown some other brilliant leadership skills that would have a positive, or maybe even negative, effect in the government views today. I can’t really say whether they had justification, because I never lived through his time, nor do I have the mindset of ancient Rome. But, it is my belief that taking someone’s life is only justified, not acceptable, if this person was a serious threat to those innocent people around him or her. So, unless Caesar had people at gun, or knife point in this case, I really don’t think he could have done much harm. The people who assassinated him saw their dictatorship coming to an end, and in their fear, they decided that it would be best to kill him, to show all those who believe in Caesar’s way, are really believing in a dead man’s way.

daily

this is a house that has been influenced by roman architecture.

daily

Italian senate 

lupercal

the portico at the Flaminian circus,

temple of Appolo

Temple of Jupiter Liberator. http://www.greatdreams.com/lebanon/baalbe

Theater at Pompey 

temple of mars

daily

coliseum

roman forum

circus maximus

arch of constantine

daily

"Hannibal, son of Hamilcar Barca was a Carthaginian military commander and tactician who is popularly credited as one of the most talented commanders in history." He made a desperate attempt to fight back against Rome who had once fought as allies with Sardinia. The victory cause Rome to have control of trade across the whole western Mediterranean . Hannibal decided he wouldn't accept defeat fighting Rome many more times. One conquest lead him across northern Africa, through Spain and France and finally to Canine. Where he has his first important victory, it is important because it is very near to Rome , and he defeated a force much larger than his.
I think the Romans would think of Hannibal as a monster because at the battle of canine he took no prisoners and then he forged ahead farther into Italy.

daily

In 494 BC, only 15 years after the founding of the Republic, a secession of plebeians(struggle of orders) to the Sacred Mount outside Rome, ushered in a fundamental change to the Republican government. The Plebes formed a tribal assembly, and their own alternative government, until the patricians agreed to the establishment of an office that would have sacrosanctity. This was the right to be legally protected from any physical harm, and the right of help, meaning the legal ability to rescue any plebeian from the hands of a patrician magistrate. These magistrate positions were labelled as Tribunes or tribuni plebes. Later, the tribunes acquired a far more formidable, and often manipulated power, the right of intercession. This was the right to veto any act or proposal of any magistrate, including another tribune, for the good of the people. The tribune also had the power to exercise capital punishment against any person who interfered in the performance of his duties. The tribune's power to act was enforced by a pledge of the plebeians to kill any person who harmed a tribune during his term of office.

map

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=213896113858981935687.00049e71922e7d56d1058&amp;t=h&amp;ll=41.900758,12.475496&amp;spn=0.029099,0.040352&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=213896113858981935687.00049e71922e7d56d1058&amp;t=h&amp;ll=41.900758,12.475496&amp;spn=0.029099,0.040352&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">the ancient roman world</a> in a larger map</small>

daily

The roman government is broken into four groups while the american government is broken into three. The roman government is divided as such;EXECUTIVE BRANCH, SENATE, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH and OTHER, which contained man sub sections made up of consuls of plebeians. Plebeians were ancient romans, most likely the lower class or the common people. Today the american government contains two of the four branches; executive, judicial, and legislative. The executive branch controls  the daily administration of the state bureaucracy. The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of case brought before them including laws and trials. The legislative branch writes the bills or laws. There are two groups of the Legislative Branch, The senate and the house of representatives. There are 100 senators and 435 representatives, a total of 535. When the bill is written they need a simple majority to make it a law. When the representatives and senators meet together they are called the congress. Senators serve six years in office. A representative serves 2 year terms. All bills and laws have to go through the Congress to get to the President who make the final decision.

essay

The life of Alexander the Great was a big long trip that took him across continents and earned him his reputation of "Alexander the great".  The son of a prominent King, Alexander would quickly surpass his father’s reputation and make his own as a brilliant military leader. Tutored by Aristotle and pushed by his ambitious mother, Alexander sought greatness and believed it was his destiny. Even as a prince, Alexander found success on the battlefield. Alexander’s conquests as the ruler of Macedonia would take him across the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa making his rule worthwhile and influential throughout the world.  

After King Phillip’s murder, Alexander easily took over rule of the Macedonian army and quickly sought to fulfill his father’s lifelong ambition of bringing down the Persian Empire. He mobilized his army and marched toward Egypt taking all cities with ease, except Tyre which he battled over for close to seven months. Ironically, the seizes of Tyre and Gaza brought about a letter from the King of Persia, Darius, who attempted to invoke a truce with Alexander, but it was refused as Alexander would not have any peace unless the entire Persian Empire was given to him. By the time Alexander reached the heart of Egypt, the Persian satrap welcomed Alexander and surrendered without a fight. Taking each city with brutal force, Alexander was known for slaughtering the men and leaving women and children for slavery. Alexander had successfully taken Egypt and promptly called a son of a god, for all his power and reign by the liberated Persians.

Having several victories behind him, Alexander continued to move toward his ultimate goal- the Persian Empire. Darius continued to flee Alexander, even leaving behind his wife and children in Tyre. Alexander was noted for treating them like royalty and not harming them. Alexander traveled to the center of Persia’s rule, Persepolis. Alexander attempted to beat Darius with a risky battle strategy which caused Darius to flee from battle yet again. Eventually Alexander caught up to Darius, but to find him already murdered by a fellow Persian, and close friend. Alexander claimed Persia, making him more powerful than ever. Conquering the Persian Empire was a smart and well-constructed move made by Alexander. He also took his first wife, Roxana, a known beauty among Persians and from Persepolis.

Despite having achieved his ultimate victory over the whole Persian Empire, Alexander would chose to continue his ambitious campaign seeking to rule the Far East. His army would divide due to disillusionment, and his most formidable opponent would be a former ally, Spitamenes. Alexander would not win a victory over Spitamenes for two years when he would finally gain control of the Sogdianian region, present-day Afghanistan. It is from this region that Alexander would take his first wife, Roxana, in an attempt to gain allegiance from the locals. A successful strategy that Alexander used when seeking governors for his conquered cities- he gained allegiance by chosing a person from the area. After this victory, Alexander led his troops to another hard battle with India, an area in present-day western Pakistan. Like all the battles before, Alexander proved a genius at battle strategy and won over the Indians. Yet with seven years of marching and fighting done, it is no wonder that Alexander’s troops wanted to turn around, and they talked of a mutiny after the Indian area was won. Although Alexander wanted to press forward toward China, he realized that without his men he could not and began to head homeward.  

          Alexander’s influences are seen today in the trades and sharing of cultures as well as in his brilliance as a military leader. Throughout his rule, Alexander sought to fulfill his destiny as a great leader. He used the wisdom gained through tutoring with Aristotle and the ambition shared by his mother to propel him through his campaigns. Fantastic strategies where shown at each battle while clever decisions were made when choosing who would govern newly won cities. Each step towards victory was a step closer to ultimate control for Alexander. His title of greatness is truly a reflection of his amazing life and its impact on the world as we know it today.

"Alexander the Great." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 11 Mar. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great>.

daily

The relationship between Egypt and Persia was very complicated and violent. The Egyptians and Persians were at war for a very long time, since both were evenly matched in power and strength. The wars between them continued for centuries. Many times one would come into power over the other and then the other would make a huge comeback. Finally Persia took over Egypt, and the Egyptians were under Persian rule. The Persians were cruel and very unfair to the Eyptian people. Alexander the Great changed this when he came into power. He felt that someone needed to get revenge on the Persians. He eventually took over Persia and conquered the Persians regaining and giving power to the Egyptians.Before Alexander the Great Egypt was falling in part in need of a ruler.The Persians were harsh rulers who had no commpassion for the Egyptians. 

The King Philip chose the tutor for Alexander wisely. Aristotle was a logical thinker who followed mostly Christian views. He also was into the sciences, since his father of the King’s physician. In the time period that Aristotle lived he was often considered eccentric or odd. Aristotle taught Alexander many things, in Meiz, this was the place where Alexander was tutored. Aristotle had mostly a formal relationship with Alexander and taught him regular subjects. Alexander respected his tutor and mentor he took heed to what Aristotle said. Alexander took Aristotle’s word to shape himself into a strong man of honor. Even though Aristotle believed that conquers were barbarians that lacked sense. Alexander craved power and honor and he soon became what his father wanted him to be. Alexander did listen carefully to Aristotle because he studied and had a want to receive honor. The only thing that Alexander may have disagreed with his teacher is about conquers. Alexander took the knowledge he learned from Aristotle, like geometry and the sciences and used it in his life. It was even said he would give medicine he created to friends. 

weekly

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.

Alexander was not a cruel leader, he tried to be fair to his people, but often manipulated them. He was considered a "good leader" to many people because of the inspirational speeches he gave before battle. Alexander was also very selfish and wanted power badly. He risked many lives in doing this, he also earned a reckless reputation. He was allabout his ego risking his troops and his own life for power. He was dangerous in his ways and he caused many problems with other nations. Pericles was different he instead wanted to do the best for the people. He showed them this by caring and attempting to hear what the people had to say. Pericles was not as egotisticle and almost an odd ruler for that time period since he cared about his people so much. He was willing to listen and wanted to keep them safe. Without a doubt Pericles was a better ruler than Alexander, because of many reasons. Alexander might have been a good leader on the battle fields, with amazing strategies, but he was not ready to take care of his people

daily

 I think that there were many things they could have done after Alexander the Great’s death.  One thing I believe the Macedonian Empire could have done was to create a plan that would help them work out the issues that followed Alexander the Great’s death.  The first step of the plan should have been to start a new system.  The senators and other political figures that had been part of the government when Alexander had been alive should have split the empire equally and each been in charge of their own separate nation.  The second step should have been to assign them to the nations.  In order to pick what political figure will be assigned to what nation, they should have “drawn out of a hat” so to speak.  Some political figures might want a certain nation to be in charge of, but the politicians might have conflicting opinions on this matter.  This subject could result in a major conflict throughout the government if they are not precautious when they get to this step in the plan.  The third step of the plan following Alexander the Great’s death should have been to assign a ruler that would be in control of all the nations.  This ruler should have been in charge of all the nations as a whole.  This ruler should have also been in control of the other senators or politicians.  These should have been the senators and politicians that would have been in control of their own states that were a part of the Macedonian Empire that Alexander the Great had built.  The fourth step would have been to make the former Macedonian Empire into a democracy.  If the Macedonian Empire would have been made into a democracy, many of the issues that have rose up recently might have been prevented.  These issues include how Egypt had been controlled by a dictator and the citizens of Egypt had recently protested to get him to step down.  The dictator eventually stepped down.  Moreover, currently in Libya, some of the citizens are protesting to get the dictator, Gadhafi to step down.  This conflict is still taking place and needs to be resolved.  The plan previously mentioned would have helped these nations out to prevent these current

daily

I believe that Alexander the Great honestly felt like he was avenging Persian wrongs, but he also had a goal of conquest.  Alexander the Great’s father, King Phillip, had been killed by Greeks and he wanted to get revenge on these people for killing his father.  Additionally, Alexander the Great felt that Persia had destroyed many places in Greece during the Persian War and he wanted to avenge Persian wrongs, per say, against the Greeks, especially during the Persian War.  I also believe that Alexander the Great did have a goal of conquest.  Someone had told Alexander the Great that he was the son of a God.  If told that they were a son of a God, what ruler would not think that he could conquer any place he wanted?  Alexander the Great was just acting upon what somebody had told him.  Alexander the Great more than likely thought this very thing and thought, in addition to avenging Persian wrongs, he could conquer them.  He also, more than likely, believed he could conquer any other places.  Additionally, many rulers become power hungry, if not already.  I believe that it was likely that Alexander the Great had become selfish and resulted in conquering the many places that he later defeated.  I believe that Alexander the Great had multiple reasons for why he overpowered numerous places and became the ruler that he is known as today.

daily

Alexander created his own myth by doing something no one had ever done before.  He went to the town and untied the Gordian knot.  The knot seemed impossible to undo and many people couldn’t do it.  Alexander stepped up to the challenge anyways and was able to untie it.  People made up many different stories on how he did it.  One story involved him taking a piece of the shaft out which losened the Gordian knot.  Another story said that he took out his sword and said, “There is no rule saying how the not needs to be undone.” And slice it.  On his journey to the Gordian knot Alexander was able to trudge through the ocean with a full army and visit oracles such as the oracle of Didyma in a treacherous journey.  It was evident that he has great luck.  Many people worried that Alexander wouldn’t be able to undo the knot and it would make him look bad, but he proved them wrong.  Alexander the Great achieved many things people didn’t think was possible.  These things were so impossible they became a myth, but they hold some realities to them.  Another thing that made Alexander create a myth for him was how he undid the knot and many stories were told about it.  No one is exactly sure what story is true so it has become a myth that has yet to be uncovered.  Alexander the Greater created a myth for himself by the impossible things he achieved.

daily

In my opinion, a force like Alexander the Great could not exist today. This is for many reasons. He was a young leader, that just basically went around conquering land. He basically had full control. Some countries may let something like this happen, but I don't for see any countries allowing something like this to go on. I don't think they would let someone rule with that control. America definately would not. He was indeed a good leader, but most of the people that he ruled over, would not allow someone like that too rule their country. They probably didn't know about his drinking problems and other flaws. He was raised by a good father, but he died young and was left with the responsibility of ruling an area. Thankfully, Alexander thirsted for power and just wnted to rule more. Honestly, although he was a good ruler of the time, I can't see anyone putting up with these actions today.