Strayer 4, Eurasian Empires & Encounters

28/8/2014

Bingham

31/8/2014 07:45:53

Oh.

Bridget Kennedy

31/8/2014 12:05:54

Hey Mr. Bingham! I'm honored to be the first commenter on the Strayer 4 forum.

I wanted to show you the answer I got for the second margin question- Why did semidemocratic governments emerge in some of the Greek city-states?- and just make sure I didn't miss anything and addressed the question in the correct way.

Here goes-
At first, Greek democracy only allowed for a small group of aristocrats to vote on the assembly, hold public office, and fight in the army. But gradually, middle and lower class men were able to exercise these rights as well. One reason for the expansion of political rights was the growing number of men able to afford the armor and weapons that would allow them to serve as infantry men in the armies of the city states. Another was the intense class conflict that was threatening to lead to a civil war. Cities like Athens were able to achieve even further rights for voters their because of reforming leaders like Solon, Cleisthenes, and Pericles.

Bingham

1/9/2014 08:31:13

That looks good. Solon was probably the most influential in that regard by breaking the power of rich land owning families and abolishing debt slavery. That made economic mobility more possible, which led to the guys being able to buy armor and weapons.

By the way, this is one of the strongest arguments for an armed citizenry. Tyrants tread more lightly when the citizens can shoot back. Thomas Jefferson said something like, any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have. I'm not a libertarian, but I feel obligated to point out this historical connection to our own times.

Cristina Micci

1/9/2014 03:11:29

I'm going to go ahead and throw out my answer for margin question #1: How did Persian and Greek civilization differ in their political organization and values?
Persia was organized as a large, interconnected imperial empire that stretched from Egypt to India, based off of previous empires like Babylonia. It was ruled through divine kingship in which the monarch, said to have been sent to rule by the gods, exercised absolute power and could only be approached through ritual. The strong, bureaucratic, and centralized state governed its vast land with satraps (governors) in each of 23 provinces, along with local officials and a system of imperial spies. Additionally, infrastructure such as canals, roads, and a postal service kept the empire constantly in communication. In contrast, the Greeks, internally separated by divisive mountains and valleys, governed themselves in small independent city-states, which often found themselves fighting with one another. Instead of trying to become a large empire, Greece focused on colonizing distant lands in the Mediterranean and spreading people and culture out there. The largest contrast between the political structures would be Greece's popular participation of free male citizens in politics, being able to vote on policies and serve in office as regular citizens. At first this system only included aristocrats but was soon opened to the middle and lower classes.

Is this answer decent or is it too long (or am I missing something)??

James O.

1/9/2014 07:48:54

Sounds pretty good to me! If I find anything you missed I will let you know!

Bingham

1/9/2014 08:46:06

That looks very solid. This is three column tee chart stuff. One of several you could create in this chapter.

The only thing I notice missing is some mention of the Persian willingness to be accepting of non-Persian culture among conquered people. This is in stark contrast to the Greek certainty that their culture was superior (with some good reason). Fortunately, they didn't do all that much conquering.

Interestingly, the Romans, who could arguably be considered the inheritors of much of Greek culture, adopted a more Persian approach to conquered people.

Jackson Wagner

1/9/2014 03:43:33

Maybe I'm misreading the question, but i feel like MQ#2 is asking why semi democratic governments emerged in Greece, not how it transformed over time, but i could be wrong.

Isabella Jarosz

1/9/2014 07:48:09

Are you wondering because it's a 'Change' question? I think the point of the "why" is the idea that something had to change/a change had to occur in order for a new type of government to emerge.

Bingham

1/9/2014 08:37:49

Well yes, but the how in this case tends to answer the why. This trend toward leveling the economic playing field made democratic systems more likely.

There is a geographic explanation as well, one that I don't think Strayer brings up. In short, the theory is that the rocky, mountainous nature of the Peloponnesian Peninsula prevented large scale agriculture and therefore the need for lots of labor, (slaves). And further that that geography kept the cities smaller (population) and more isolated. A smaller group of people are more likely to accomplish political equality when the scale of the state is limited by the physical space.

James O.

1/9/2014 07:57:17

In this chapter, I noticed that Strayer is really getting chronologically historical in that he is describing lots of changes in a history-textbook type way. He includes so many names (other that the big ones: Augustus Caesar, Shihuangdi etc.) of seemingly unimportant rulers, what they did, and when they did it. Are the dates important enough to know for the reading checks? I am also unsure about the names as well because I do remember Bingham saying that names were big in the chapter since there are so few of them.

Bingham

1/9/2014 08:56:28

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that this chapter was very much like a traditional history. So yes it is chronological, it has to be to support his overarching purpose. Remember I encouraged you to figure out his point in the opening vignette? That purpose is Strayer's purpose in the entire chapter. Knowing that will make the reading more accessible and it will make you look super engaged in class...'cause I'm going to ask about that.

There aren't many names you need to memorize in a World History environment, but the two you mentioned are among them. They are both hugely important, as is Alexander. You should be able to explain why those three are different than say Phillip II, or Wudi.

Remember, there is stuff in the "Classical Era" page to help you with these chapters.

Isabella Jarosz

1/9/2014 10:18:46

I know in class we were discussing how the opening vignette is significant in deciphering what Strayer's point/thesis is, and I noticed that the closing 'Reflections' appears to be equally as significant. What seemed to hold the most weight to me was Strayer's final line: "Lively debate about the continuing relevance of classical empires shows that although the past may be gone, it surely is not dead." I think the point Strayer is trying to make with this chapter is that despite the fact that (looking at the big picture) empires did not last for a long time, and fell apart and came back together often, there is a lot we have learned and to be learned from them. They have made a lasting impression on civilizations in the past, present, and future (most likely). So, I think one of the most important questions to ask ourselves when trying to decipher the key information of the chapter is- How did this particular empires' actions impact later empires/civilizations, and the future of their own empire? Tell me if you guys came up with anything different.

Lorenz

1/9/2014 11:35:17

Just a question on reading in general, when Strayer says, "In 500 BCE, the largest and most . . ." and, "The classical Greece of historical fame emerged around 750 BCE . . ." Do both intros to the date mean the same thing? Like, is 500 BCE when the Persian Empire "emerged" or when it became noticeable.

Lorenz

1/9/2014 13:35:17

Mr. Bingham,

You had said that Strayer 3 was a combination of reading check and test. Will the reading check be only multiple choice, and the test only open answer?

Cristina Micci

2/9/2014 11:36:47

There are a few of the margin and big picture questions that I've noticed that ask for an opinion as an answer. example: "In comparing the Roman and Chinese empires, which do you find more striking- their similarities or differences?" as well as big picture questions #3 and #4. Is there an actual "correct" answer to these or would you accept whichever side of the argument we choose as long as we support it with evidence?

Bingham

2/9/2014 12:18:42

It's all about the argument, an evidence based argument.

James O.

3/9/2014 11:31:55

For the margin question: "Which do you find more striking- the differences or similarities when comparing the Roman and Chinese Empires?" I am leaning towards the similarities (limited as they may be in comparison to the number of differences) solely because the two empires were not close neighbors and had limited if not nonexistent contact with each other. I feel like the separation and secluded relationship between the two make the similarities all the more remarkable. Is that enough to answer the question or am I lacking more specific or abundant evidence?

Cristina Micci

3/9/2014 12:22:15

I was going for this answer as well. I think we should try to point out specific similarities and provide the evidence from both empires, like for example if you were using the fact that they both used religion to strengthen the power of the emperor, you would have to point out how China did it and how Rome did it.

Bingham

3/9/2014 12:24:17

Well your analysis of the striking similarities is good, mainly as you said, because of their relative isolation from each other. But keep in mind, I could ask it either way, i. e. similarities OR differences.

James O.

3/9/2014 12:47:15

The problems I am having with the "striking" aspect of the differences is that I can't distinguish WHAT is striking about them. They weren't neighbors and they were isolated from one another: so there will obviously be extreme differences between the two.

The only "striking" thing I can vaguely conjure up is a statement about how the differences between the two radically influenced the characteristics/culture they left behind after their collapses. In short, the differences between them determined and differentiated their individual legacies to subsequent civilizations (sounds a bit like opening vignette). Am I at all on track or have I gone off on a tangent?tangent

Bethany V.

3/9/2014 14:35:48

For the first margin question: How did the Persian and Greek Civilizations differ in their political organization and values, is it fair to say that the Greeks valued citizenship and equality, while the Persians valued strong, divine monarchs, conquest, and grandeur?

Bridget

4/9/2014 14:29:58

I agree with Thomas; the Greeks allowed all men (eventually; at first it was just the aristocracy) to participate in politics (in Athenian politics, the assembly), but not women or slaves or foreigners (Greeks saw their culture as superior to others'). All of this and more can be found on pages 101-104.

Thomas G.

4/9/2014 13:37:39

About your statement of equality, I think it was just equality for actual Greek citizens, right? Because as it says, "Women, slaves, and foreigners, together far more than half the population, were wholly excluded from political participation." So that says to me that the Greeks were very much not all about actual equality, but about equality of free men.

Bethany

4/9/2014 16:09:33

Yeah that's a good point.

Ananda Dimock

4/9/2014 14:28:16

So I am having trouble with margin question 6: how and why the making of the Chinese empire differed from the Roman. I don't know how well it answers the question.
The Chinese made their empire by restoring the old instead of creating something new like the Romans did. In 2200 BCE, a civilization emerged from China and flourished until 500 BCE when China fell and became warring states. Many saw this as disgrace to China and some tried to restore China. Many tried and failed but a man from the sate of Qin succeeded in restoring China. Qin already had a good base(an effective bureaucracy, subordinate aristocracy, iron weapons, and a flourishing agriculture) paired with a new political outlook (Legalism which punished those who tried to enforce authority over the state) allowed this man to launch a military conquest to unify China. He later called himself Shihuangdi, meaning the first emperor.

Bethany

4/9/2014 16:20:27

I found these main points.
How their rises differed: The rise of the Chinese empire under Xihuangdi was much faster than the rise of the Roman empire, 10 years vs. more than 500. Why: The Chinese were reconstructing a previously existing empire, while the Romans were starting from scratch.
How their rises differed: The rise of the Chinese empire caused much less domestic strife than the rise of the Roman empire. Why: The Chinese were used to state government in the form of autocratic rule, due to it being all they had ever known. They found it unnatural to not be part of an empire. The Romans, however, were used to republicanism and its accompanying values. With the rise of the empire and with it, an all powerful emperor, republican values such as simplicity, service, and the authority of the senate, declined. This led to conflict. Many Romans felt guilty about abandoning their republican roots.

Bethany V.

4/9/2014 16:21:00

*Shihuangdi

Strayer 4, Eurasian Empires & Encounters

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories