I'll Blame Catastrophe..

The collapse of the Roman empire is pretty confusing to historians.  I agree with the catastrophic collapse cause/idea.  The fall of the empire did not occur in one event, but a domino effect based on multiple events. I also agree that these events were inevitable.  All of them were bound to happen at one point or another.  J.B. Bury states that "a number of crises" lead to the fall of the empire.  All of these crises being catastrophic  and harmful to the empire.  This cause is also thought to have a cycle of events that seem to lead to the fall of an empire.  I also agree with this because it makes sense for certain events, all being similar, to lead to the end of an empire.  The venn diagram shows that both the Han and the Roman empire fell because of similar events and reasons, so the cycle of events makes sense and has evidence supporting it.  The fall of the Roman empire was pretty catastrophic for the Romans.

Venn Diagram: Han&Roman Collapses

Silk Road Simulation

On the meta level, I understood that the Silk Road must have been really confusing and trading must have been a challenge because of currency and language barriers.  But it probably got to some level of organization at the end because people did start accomplishing some goals.  I think the Silk Road must have been beneficial to the middlemen societies because they got goods cheaper and were able to communicate with more people. But it probably detracted from societies that were farther away because they couldn't directly get their goods and their goods cost more.  Looking at it over all, it did seem beneficial because people did get their goods and they did sell. 

On the practical level, this didn't work for me because people were all over the place.  We were all confusing each other and of course we were trying to swindle each other because that's realistic. It also didn't work for me because I don't like chaos, it drives me crazy even if I find it really funny. One pro of learning the Silk Road is that we could really see how currency and language barriers were issues.  We were also able to see how geography affected how people could travel, even if we were still in the classroom, we weren't allowed/supposed to go over to a region that wasn't assigned to us. One con of learning this way was that we didn't have enough time to simulate what might have happened over time.  Like one of the cons of this was that we couldn't establish a conversion for the currency.  Over time, I would assume someone(other than our banker because he didn't knew what he was doing) would have created a common currency or a conversion for people to use.  Also, another con was that there weren't like natural disasters and thieves that could have destroyed the traders.  After doing it, I think we would have liked knowing who had what product and how much they wanted to sell it. 

I think we should totally do this again because we all know what we would be getting ourselves into.  

Roman City Prompts

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?

Th Forum was the center of the city and it was the center of politics. The Forum had important buildings and shops. It is symbolically significant because it shows like the center of the commerce and culture. This is similar to the Greek society as the city-states had cities as the center of politics and everything else and outside of the city was rural land where most people lived.

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

The aqueduct of Rome uses gravity to move water from like a mountain. In the case of rivers and other bodies of water, they use arcs when they cannot use the large columns or pillars. In qanats, the Persians dug underground canals from a source of water.

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

Marcus can't marry Aiden because he has Roman citizenship and she does not.  This is similar to the attitudes about marriage in Classical Era India as marriage between castes was frowned upon.  It is basically the same idea here, people in different social standings are not permitted to marry.  

Republic to Empire: Why Did They Do It?

The Romans definitely expanded because they had a lust for more power, land and valuable goods.  They were capable of expanding because of their strong government and laws. I feel like I need to know who specifically decided to begin expanding and what their initial incentive was to conquer other lands.

Questions on McNeill's Article

1. What’s McNeill’s argument?
McNeill's argument is that the Indian caste system and the political ideologies of Greece structured two different societies from similar types of nomadic people. 

2. How does McNeill define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s definition?

McNeill defines caste as how people associate with each other.  It is mainly based on how people separate each other and look down upon people of lower classes.  His definition refers to people eating with each other and intermarrying rather than the occupational reasons that the textbook brings up.  

3. What three feelings and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste:

1. The higher caste's rejection of association with those of the lower castes allowed for the caste system to stay.

2. The feelings and thoughts of superiority and inferiority maintained the idea of the caste.

3. The hopeful thought of being born into a higher caste through reincarnation also allowed for the caste system to remain intact.

4. Are these convincing?

 I would say that those three feelings and thoughts are pretty convincing.  People definitely did not want their reputation to be soiled if they were to have anything to do with someone in a lower caste.  The higher class people definitely wanted to keep their social standing and had a superior air to them while the lower class people believed they were inferior and had little hope to change it.  The final thought is probably the most convincing as a person would be content with their current status if they hoped to have a more favorable conditions in their next life.  Hope is pretty strong and that probably maintained the caste system as no one would argue or defy it if they could look forward to something better. 

5. Why did caste itself not cause strong political organization to form?

People of higher caste did not want to associate with people of lower caste, creating a communication and unification boundary among the groups. 

6. What causes Indian religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself?

The shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself is caused by the Upanishads.

7. How did the Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals of Indian society?

 The Upanishads basically got rid of the priests and allowed people to strive for a release form the cycle or rebirth through asceticism, meditation, and withdrawal from worldly pleasures. 

8. How does McNeill define “Territorial Sovereignty?”

McNeill defines "territorial sovereignty" as political organization through territorial sovereign or states. In order words, a political structure where states serve as the primary unit.

9. Why did Greeks turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society?

The Greeks turned away from religion because they wanted to created a political structure using the laws of nature, not "mystical illumination."  There were no agreements on the reason why he world was the way that it was, so they got rid of gods in order to find answer through natural law. 

10. What was the consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?

The consequence of the Greeks' rigid adherence to the polis was that they could agree on certain things.  The Greeks were unable to remain loyal to the state as they tried obtaining holiness. 

11. Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?
I do not buy his argument because he is discussing two different cultures base don two different things. He is discussing the strange unification of India through the caste system, a social hierarchy, and the political stratification of Greek city-states through the belief of natural law. His argument for India is based on religion and social structures. His argument for Greece is their political arrangement based on their pursuit of natural law.

Greece's Map and Alexander's Conquest Map

Was he great?

Alexander the Great always seemed like a great person to me, mostly because his title has the word "great" in it.  But after watching clips of the documentary, I would have to disagree and exaggeratedly state that it was all a lie!  I am convinced that he was a drunk who had multiple issues ranging from his father to anger.  One clip that held my attention proves that point.  It was when many people became drunk and Alexander started to complain about his father.  That part shows that he had some issues with his father.  The other part that caught my attention was that he became furious when Cleitus defended Philip and basically insulted Alexander.  Clearly, Alexander was not acting responsibly because he was drunk, but I am convinced he was drunk most of the time any way.  He managed to kill Cleitus which proves he has anger issues.  He also proves to be pretty full of himself and the word "arrogant" sums him up. Alexander definitely seemed like the kind of man who wants everyone to know him and know that was great.  But I am also convinced that he didn't just decide to leave home one day thinking "I'm going to make myself seem like a hero today and go on a journey to make people believe that!"  I think he was just genuinely trying to be the best that he could be.  Some people say that he was great, but I do not agree with them after watching those clips.