Strayer 4, Eurasian Empires

29/8/2015

T-charts, elaboration, anticipated questions, and hand written answers to margin and "big picture" questions are the keys to your survival! I'd say "good luck", but that has little to do with the outcome. Effort is the difference between success and failure!

22 Comments

Bingham

29/8/2015 00:36:56

Oh yeah, don't forget to visit and spend some quality time with the "classical era" page on this site. There's lot's of good stuff there to help an engaged (motivated to succeed) student there. Use the big ideas and other references (like the people, places & things) to frame your thinking as you read and reorganize the information in chapter 4.

Alyssa Cooper

29/8/2015 06:22:03

Guess I'll go first.
My question is about Margin question 3 "What were the consequences for both sides of the encounter between the Persians and the Greeks" and I'm going to assume by "consequences" it means both the good and the bad.
I made a list for the Greeks:
1. The victory against the Persians was a great sense of pride for years.
2. Radicalized Athenian democracy.
3. Led to the Golden Age for Greek culture.
4. In Athens's attempt to solidify its dominant position among allies it lead to the intense resentment and eventual Peloponnesian War, causing the Greeks to exhaust themselves and magnified their distrust for each other.
5. Opened up to their eventual takeover by the growing forces of Macedonia
But, the book mentions that it had a little effect on the Persians. (Besides perhaps the East/West divide.) Do I need to keep reading or what? Any additions or new ideas appreciated.

Alyssa

29/8/2015 06:29:47

I forgot to mention the one thing I had for the Persians: They had a hit to the ego. Getting defeated by the Greeks (twice) was embarrassing considering how largely they outnumbered them. Anything else I need?

Bingham

29/8/2015 07:24:05

Nice to see you hacking through the jungle Alyssa.
I'm glad you mentioned the Persians, and you're right, it didn't really impact them, except as you say, for a bit of wounded pride. But back on the other side of the Aegean Sea, these wars really set the idea of an East/West divide in the minds of the Greeks, an idea that would grow and spread to all the peoples of what would become known as "the West." That notion persists to this day. The West came to symbolize freedom, and the East despotism.

Have you thought about what is meant by a "radicalized democracy"? Remember our discussion about real understanding versus learning the syntax of the author? Here's what I think it means; because of the important contribution to these wars by common men, they felt they earned, and were granted ever more participation in the government. So, for a while at least, we see something like a true democracy, a widespread degree of engagement by all citizens (as long as you don't count women and slaves!). More, we see the faith in Athenian democracy grow so strong that the Athenians attempt to build a Greek democratic empire among those city-state that helped defeat the Persians. Eventually, this would lead to the Peloponnesian Wars. Then the Athenians would learn what the Persians had, don't mess with the Spartans! Ultimately, as you mentioned, this would lead to the takeover by the Macedonians.

Bingham

29/8/2015 07:05:32

Hey there! I thought I'd be nice and model a big picture question (BPQ) for you guys.
What common features can you identify in the empires described in this chapter?
All empires controlled large areas and populations.
All empires were brought together by conquest and funded in part by extracting wealth from conquered peoples.
All empires stimulated the exchange of ideas, cultures, and values among the peoples they conquered.
All empires sought to foster an imperial identity that transcended more local identities and loyalties.
All empires ultimately collapsed. And that my fine young friends, is a lesson from history. All things, including you and I, are transitory. Sometimes that's hard to face, whether it's an empire like America, or our own existence on this earth. *Jeez Bingham, that's so deep, and depressing!

Trevor Fu

1/9/2015 13:46:46

The impact of empires don't go away. And that's why we have this WHAP test tomorrow.

Bingham

29/8/2015 07:34:27

I keep getting the same email, so let me post my reply here for all of you,
Dude, remember the conversation about Fridays are reserved for analysis & document studies? So again, WHAP works like a four day week, we don't count Friday. The first time I see you, either Monday or Tuesday, you will do what I post on Monday - almost always a reading check. The second time I see you, either Wednesday or Thursday, you will do what I post for Wednesday - usually a chapter open ended test. There are exceptions for weeks that have no Monday, or when there is an early release Wednesday. Forget about Red/Grey days in WHAP.

Sean Angelle

30/8/2015 08:06:21

For Margin Question 2 "Why did semidemocratic governments emerge in some of the Greek city-states?" I am a little confused. My answer is: The reason for semidemocratic governments to emerge in some city-states is, because unlike Persia Greece is very spread out rather than centralized. Therefore, an absolute monarch would not be very effective, because it would be better if each city-state had their own government. If each city-state had a monarch that would lead to violence between city-states, because they would probably disagree some things. It would be safer if there was a semidemocratic government in some of the city-states to prevent violence and rebellion.

Is there a better way to answer this/ anything that I need to add?

Morgan Levine

30/8/2015 09:50:23

I had trouble with this question too, and I agree with your answer, but I also would like to add that the Greeks had a much smaller population than Persia, which lent itself more to democracy. The peninsula that the Greeks inhabited was divided geographically, which meant that it was made up of the competing city states that you mentioned - each one fiercely independent, and unwilling to submit to a higher authority. Once democracy(ish) was introduced, it grew as lower classes gained political power via joining the armed forces and "tyrants" confronted the wealthier classes to include the lower class. However, I don't really know what led to the idea of democracy, or the creation of the system, which the question seems to be asking. Maybe something about how it was the best solution to class conflict, but I don't know how best to phrase it.

Bingham

30/8/2015 09:54:34

Yes, you guys are on track, but missing some important points that Strayer makes.
1. Growing numbers of men were able to afford the armor and weapons that would allow them to serve in the armies of the city-states.
2. In many places, dictators known as tyrants emerged for a time, usually with the support of the poorer classes, to challenge the prerogatives of the wealthy. One example is the Athenian leader Solon, who emerged in 594 B.C.E. During his rule, he broke the hold on power of a small group of aristocratic families in Athens. At the same time, he abolished debt slavery, increased access to public office to a wider group of men, and allowed all citizens to take part in the Assembly.

You missed #1, and you're tap dancing around point two. Remember our discussion last week, we are looking for specificity (evidence) to support our larger assertions!

Shreyas Karki

30/8/2015 13:08:34

Hello Mr. Bingham and fellow lambs to slaughter, I'm going to try and answer a margin question today.
"How did Persian and Greek Civilizations differ in their political organization and values?"

Persia favored an over-arching bureaucratic government with a "divine" king as its ultimate figurehead, whereas Greece, as a result of geographic determinism, ended up as a series of individual city-states with differing political values. For example, Sparta was an oligarchy and Athens was one of the world's first democracies(ish). This is somewhat influenced by population size, I believe, because since Persia has a large population(nearly 35 million!) it was extremely limited in effective forms of government. Persia relied on highly organized infrastructures, the authority of satraps, and kings to govern day-to-day affairs. However, since Greece had a mere 2-3 million people and was divided into largely independent city-states, it served as the perfect habitat for the conception and application of "citizenship." Naturally, the individual's word meant a lot more when it wasn't drowned out in a chorus of other voices.

So, in essence
Persia:
-Unified authoritative monarchy that relied on the word of the king and Satraps,
-Inequality is natural and justified
-the king's word is god, everything he touches is god, he himself is basically god.
-expanded out of want(territory expansion, someone spilled tea on the king's garb and now he wants to take over the known universe, etc.)
Greece:
-Separate city-states had their own form of government, unified only by a common language and maybe culture
-Independence was a key belief held by all of the city-states
-Believed in the popular participation of its citizens
-expanded out of necessity(farmers looking for more land, traders looking for more iron)

I hoped my random bullet-spray covered everything. This is WHAP, though, so I probably just sailed past the New World in terms of relevant information.

Shreyas Karki

30/8/2015 13:09:50

Oh shoot, reading this again I notice that the entire first section is completely irrelevant.

Shreyas Karki

31/8/2015 17:01:54

I also forgot the whole bit about Persian conquest and general respect for non-Persian customs; it was one of their main values. Like when they allowed the Jews from the Babylonian Exile to return to Jewrusalem, it was a bit of brown-nosing on the king's part, but also an expression of Persian freedom of religion. And, of course, the ruling of the king through the divine sanction of Ahura Mazda.

Trevor Fu

1/9/2015 14:14:37

It really depends, seeing as to how it is up to the individual whether or not one wants to make a list or write it in essay format. I would prefer having it in one cohesive paragraph, although the bullet points are more efficient.

Elena Margolin

31/8/2015 16:45:28

Hi, it's Elena Margolin here! Me and my friend Elle Norman had a question about the Big Picture Question #2, "In what ways did these empires differ from one another? What accounts for those differences?"

We thought that this question was very broad, and we didn't really know how to tackle it at first... But here's what we got:

-Political systems and forms of governance
-Religions and divinity of rulers
-Different ways of cultural diffusion
-Social and economic classes
-Languages
-Empire origins

I know these are super vague, but how would we effectively answer such a broad question without explaining the whole chapter? And are there any differences that I forgot?

Bingham

1/9/2015 00:05:56

Well yes, you've identified solit categories for analysis, but as you mentioned, you need more. Here's what I would add, I'm going to use the term "some" which is vague, you would identify which civilization fit each description, okay?

Some empires sought to rule through local elites; other empires sought to rule with a more centralized power structure.

Some empires were new; others drew on older traditions.

Some empires lasted for considerably longer periods than others.

Some empires assimilated conquered peoples more quickly and completely than others.

Tuesday Haynes

1/9/2015 10:34:45

My question is about margin question 4 "What changes did Alexander's conquests bring in their wake."
1) unified Greece through war against Persia at the cost of the independence of its city states
2)created a vast Greek empire that included a variety of languages and cultures
3)Greek culture was spread throughout Eurasia and blended with other cultures through the establishment of cities throughout the empire
4)Greeks and Macedonians, only ten percent of the population, were seen as elites
5)cities in the Greek empire resembled those of much older empires such as Mesopotamia and Persia with the goal maintaining the authority of the monarch

Trevor Fu

1/9/2015 14:19:06

I don't know if this is relevant or HORRIBLY off topic, but I think that Alexander's conquests also provided and example for the later expansion of the Roman Empire. Not only that, the spread of Greek language and culture also made assimilation easier for locals once the Romans conquered them, and therefore helped form the Roman at the height of it's glory, the Pax Romana (YES! Vocab term)

Ilona

1/9/2015 13:22:13

Hello everyone :) Oh this chapter is very interesting, I was wondering if anyone had more insight on the question "Why did semi-democratic governments emerge in some of the Greek city-states?"
First I'll just run through how I thought it should be answered and how I'm still a bit confused!
- More and more men were able to be able to get army equipment, which helped them serve in armies of the city-states, giving them more power
- history makes with tyrants brought in to challenge the upper class mark conflict between socio-economic groups, which eventually..
-led Solon to challenge and uproot the aristocracy in 594 B.C.E. , giving the more ordinary man the right to rule.

This answer still feels so incomplete to me though as I am still wondering why this did not happen in Persia,, why the question of men ruling themselves was so revolutionary as to the foreign king who visited Greece?

I'm still wondering why Greek civilization was so tied and open to the New as opposed to Persia being more tied to past Civilizations and their organization, the reason for the East/West divide...

Maybe it has something to do with the geography not allowing so much for one great ruler as Persia had, and encouraging small city-states. This might have allowed people to question authority more as it wasn't so rare,.... in Persia it seems like their respect for authority was huge, with the elaborate palaces and of course all the rituals they had to be able to even talk to the King , it separated them so much from leadership,, Maybe by making someone more of a God they made themselves less capable of being in their position (as then they would have to be "Gods" too, so it was not in their imagination, and the possibility of ruling was even more revolutionary to them then the Greeks..)

At this point I'm just rambling, I'm so sorry! I would love to hear anyone else's thoughts. :)

Ilona

1/9/2015 13:31:57

Aw I just saw above that lovely Sean and Morgan had this question answered by Mr.Bingham,, and so I am sorry for the repetition. i just ah all the questions I had I still have,, its hard for me to find the connection between war weapons and class struggle to the idea of citizenship and the right we have to our own governing, as this idea seems so new in its context, especially since ah class struggle was maybe might have been a struggle in most places, as it is today..

Diego Salazar

1/9/2015 16:11:07

Well, here goes nothing:

The way I answered Margin question #4 was:

The changes brought by Alexander's conquest in their wake were:

Political unification of Greece, at the cost of original city state independence, through a military campaign against Persia

Creation of a Macedonian empire extending from Egypt to Anatolia to the west and Afghanistan and India to the east

The division of Macedonia into 3 kingdoms ruled by different Macedonian generals after Alexander's death

Widespread dissemination of Greek culture all throughout the classical world including India

The creation of cities (that unlike Greek city states, lacked independence typical of city states) throughout the empire (ex. Alexandria) that served as centers for cultural diffusion due to their high cultural diversity and immense population numbers

Greeks representing 10% of the empire's populations, marking them as elites and creating a desire among different ethnic groups to become Greek citizens.

Any suggestions over how to improve this answer? :/

Zoe Gillikin

27/9/2015 17:29:44

My friend Jordan and I are trying to answer the margin question "What factors made the formation of an empire in India less likely than elsewhere?"

India's vast cultural diversity, their unique social hierarchy, the caste system, and their political fragmentation made the formation of an empire less likely.

I feel like this answer is missing something any suggestions?

Strayer 4, Eurasian Empires

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories