Decline of the Roman Empire

My group and I reached a consensus that the Theory of Transformation states that the Roman Empire did not collapse but rather combined with the barbarians to create a mixed culture/society. For example, the historian Lucien Musset states that the Roman Empire “just transformed…so did the Germanic populations which invaded it”, which supports a mixture of culture and society within the barbarians and Rome. Overall, I would agree with the idea that the Roman empire did not fall apart, but just transformed into a new empire with barbarians included in it.

* Absent on day of assignment, did not really do in group

Fall of Han Dynasty and Roman Empire Venn Diagram

Here is my diagram screenshot. 

Silk road simulation

On the meta level, I learned that the Silk Road was not an actual road...I believe it was both beneficial and not. First off, it did spread culture and goods, and helped distant lands proliferate and kept their economy stable.

However, My view on the road has altered after today. First off, as a banker, it was tempting to accept bribes from societies in order to 'raise' their currency above what it is really worth. Next, my society got robbed twice: the first time we asked for a refund and did not get one and the other time I was threatened. Next, I also noticed how the translators were trying to make some quick cash by abusing their power as the middle man. Take for example Aman, who deliberately charged more money for the price of goods in order to accumulate his own wealth. I believe this simulation gave me a good idea of how the silk road worked. The pros of the silk road was support for economic stability and the spread of culture and goods. However the cons were bribery, muggers, threats to the traders, and untrusted middlemen. I think this was an interesting way to learn about the Silk road since it seemed a little confusing while reading about it in the book. It helped me understand the history better. We should defiantly try this again. Credits to Mr. Whitten for coming up with a brilliant idea.

Roman City Video

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

- The forum contains significant public buildings and can be found within the center of the city. The forum is symbolic in that many cities had it, which showed a sense of organization. It can also symbolize the nucleus of the city in a way, since it was almost like a major control center with its significant components. The Classical Greek Era had a similar component, known as the plateia, which was located in the center, and was where feasts, celebrations, and meetings would take place.

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

- An aqueduct moves water by using gravity to its advantage via a downward slope. The acqueduct and qanat in Persia are similar in that both were used to carry water lengthly distances. The qanat also made use of slopes to carry water.

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

- Marcus could not marry Aiden because she was not a Roman citizen. This scenario is similar to Classical India because people were not allowed to marry someone that was a different caste. The attitude is similar in both societies because it was disallowed in both.

Roman Republic to Empire

The Roman Republic was far too weak and vulnerable to withstand conflicts from internal/external forces. The destruction of the Roman Republic eventually lead to a form of government which did had the ability to withstand conflicts. This government form was known as the Roman Empire.

Some questions I have are...

What factors caused the downfall of the Roman Republic, and how did the empire arise?

McNeil Article

1) McNeil's argument is that Indian and Greek societies developed differently due to many factors arising from culture.

2) McNeil's definition of a caste is a "group of persons who will eat together and intermarry", the book's definitions is an organized guild with an unchangeable status in a social hierarchy.

3)
a. "ceremonial purity"
b. Doctrine of Varna
3. Unification through caste system

4) I think these ideas seem convincing since these reasons make sense as to how caste systems were effective at the time.

5) The caste system caused the decentralization of state, and the make it very unlikely for a ruler to arrive, since people were most likely to just stick with their caste.

6) The desire for detailed prayer is what caused the shift, this ultimately ended up giving Brahmin more power since people were convinced that Brahmin's prayers could be answered by gods.

7) The Upanishads explained that priests were not necessary to achieve the goal of breaking free from the cycle of reincarnation and that it could be achieved through self discipline, meditation, asceticism, and letting go of ordinary concerns of daily life.

8) McNeil's definition of "Territorial Sovereignty" is that it is when the state has the right to govern its territory without external influences.

9) Greeks began to turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in the organization of society because individuals began looking toward logical inconsistencies of religion.

10) The consequence of the Greek's rigid adherence to the polis was that there was a difference in thought of how the universe functioned. Because laws governed people in the polis, natural laws governed the universe.

11) I buy McNeil's argument that the societies of India and Greece developed differently due to cultural differences because McNeil asserted that the caste system is what caused India to have no central government, and how Greeks began to look toward logic as opposed to religion. These two reasons support his claim.

Alexander the Great

I think Alexander of Macedon did not deserve the title "the Great" for his outstanding achievements. First off, he was a very young ruler(in his twenties) when he began to conquer the middle east. He was also a wise and strong leader for his army which is why he defeated the Persian army at such a young age as well. However, he was also a feared ruler, for example - he backstabbed some of his people, burned Persepolis, and often acted for his will without hesitation. He also consumed a lot of alcohol, which is similar to how he wanted revenge (at first). Although Alexander the Great was an outstanding military strategist who conquered much of the world, I do not think he deserves the title "the Great" mainly because in my opinion, a leader who is "Great" is able to listen to their people instead of instilling fear in them, not backstab others, try to practice peace instead of constant warfare for land, and not forcefully take over land. Because if I was living back then, and I might be living in fear of Alexander the Not so Great.