Strayer 4 Classic!

20/10/2012

I hope you enjoy the extension of our conversation concerning America's status as a modern empire or not in Strayer's discussion of the comparison that many are making between Rome and America today.

One note on dates - it may be obvious, but just in case. While we are in BCE time moves from larger numbers to smaller numbers. The way I keep track of that is to think of BCE as negative numbers and CE as positive numbers. Just throwing that out there.

56 Comments

Bingham

20/10/2012 07:08:22

So anyway, I'm throwing some stuff on line on a new Classical Era page. You can get to in from the WHAP page. So, yeah...whatever...if you wanna look...you know...that's cool...or not...whatever...

Kat Muraviyova

20/10/2012 07:38:25

Coool first comment. I want to take a stab at a margin question.

Why did semidemocratic governments emerge in some of the Greek city-states?

Because of how the geography for the Greeks was set up, instead of having one large area, they were dispersed into small competing city-states, allowing various degrees of popular participation in political life. Also, a couple pages after that he mentions earlier steps to this system. He briefly talked about the intense class conflicts that almost lead into a civil war and how Solon took power and pushed politics into a more democratic direction. Debt slavery was abolished, access to public office was opened up to a wider group of men, and all citizens were invited to take part in the Assembly.

Any add-ons or corrections are appreciated

Kat M

20/10/2012 08:17:06

Oh and also it was the poorer classes that rowed their ships to victory, so they could now demand full citizenship.

Bingham

20/10/2012 08:35:58

Good answer Kat! I like that you are ranging around to find a complete answer. I think that covers it, I might just add that along with the rowing stuff, more men could afford armor and become a hoplite. An interesting parallel is in the US during the Vietnam War; the voting age back then was 21. But kids, usually poor kids, could be drafted at 18. So the reasonable complaint to the government was, oh, so we can die in your war but we can't vote? Similarly, if a man could be a hoplite, it was a good argument for participation in the assembly. In 1970, the 26th Amendment changed the voting age in America to 18. The past is prologue!

Kat M

20/10/2012 12:47:27

Phew, what a reassurance! Thanks Bingham. That's a quite interesting similarity, too. I guess when people fight for their country, they can't be denied right anymore.

Elizabeth Martinsen

21/10/2012 03:29:41

Margin questions to come! Also, is the reading check tomorrow open ended?

Bingham

21/10/2012 04:10:34

Oh Elizabeth! My my. The reading checks are never on Monday and they're always multiple choice. ;-)

Bingham

21/10/2012 04:40:23

Wait, I guess there was one last Monday! So, they're usually not on Monday. They're either Tuesday or Wednesday.

Christina Hong

21/10/2012 06:41:00

Oh, we just saw "Open ended. Based on the week's assigned chapter" as the description and it gave us a good scare.

Bingham

21/10/2012 06:55:02

Oh! Now I see what you mean, I put that up as a reoccurring event quite a while ago and forgot. Sorry :-/ From now until the end of the year, reading checks are multiple choice, tests are open ended or essays.

Christina Hong

21/10/2012 07:16:44

No big deal, figured something was up! :)

John

21/10/2012 05:33:41

How did rome grow form a single city to the center of a huge empire?

Rome started out as a small city-state ruled by a king, then they threw off the monarchy and established a republic. The Romans then began to make an empire when they expanded their teritories into many different areas and the population grew. Another way rome became an empire was because of its central location in the mediterranean basin and its army which was "well trained, well fed and well rewarded"

Bingham

21/10/2012 06:00:32

Glad to see you here John. That's a good answer, but not a complete one. Here are some hints...
What were the values of the Republic (before the Empire)?
What about the Punic Wars?
As Rome grew, it added new "vulnerabilities". How were they resolved?
What did soldiers get out of the deal?
What was in empire building for the rich folks?
What were the politics of expansion?

I think if you find that stuff, you'll have a complete answer. Maybe someone will help!

John

21/10/2012 13:06:39

The republic was dominated by the wealthy class, it also gave the Romans more freedom which they enjoyed. During the time of the republic they also set up a written code of law which gave the lower class some protection.

The victory of the Punic Wars agaist Carthrag, a powerful empire in North Africa, extended Roman control in the Mediterranean and made Rome a naval power.

The Romans could resolve the vulnerabitlities by more conquests, the growth of the empire represented opportunity for many Romans.

The soldiers hope for land, loot and saleries to lift their families out of poverty. There was no shortage of motivation for the creation of the empire.

For the rich the empire enabled them to aquire large estates and slaves to work the estates which made other farmers go into poverty. The rich also empowered a small group of military leaders who recruited there troops from the poor.

Finally, the building of the empire declined the republican values by the free farmers as the backbone of the army and the senate which seeked the ambition of the rich and powerful.

Does this make my answer complete? Im not sure this has everything

John

21/10/2012 13:10:12

oh my bad i didnt see that jeremiah already had answered this question

Darion Greggs

21/10/2012 07:01:34

Okay, I would like to try for one of my first margin questions.

How did Persian and Greek civilizations differ in their political organizations and values?

Persian Empire centered on an elaborate cult of kingship in which the monarch, secluded in royal magnificence, could be only through an elaborate ritual. Scared fires all across the land were extinguished and Persians shaved there hair when kings died. While the Greeks were in great contrast because of idea of citizenship of free running people affairs of state, equality for all citizens within the city-states before the law.

Bingham

21/10/2012 13:54:55

Hmmm Darion, I came up with more than that! Don't just copy from the text!
1. he Persians built an imperialt political system that drew upon previous Mesopotamian polities, including the Babylonian and Assyrian empires. The Persian Empire was far larger than its predecessors, stretching from Egypt to India, and ruled over 35 million peps.
2. The Persian system was centered on an elaborate cult of kingship in which the emperor was secluded in royal magnificence and was approachable only through an elaborate ritual.
3. Persian emperors were considered absolute in their power and possessed a divine right to rule by the will of the Persian god Ahura Mazda.
4. The Persian Empire was ruled through an effective administrative system that placed Persian governors, called satraps, in each of twenty-three provinces, while lower-level officials were drawn from local authorities. This system was monitored by imperial spies.
5. Persia’s rule of its conquered peoples was strengthened by a policy of respect for the empire’s non-Persian cultural traditions.
6. In contrast, Greek political organization was based on hundreds of independent city-states or small settlements of between 500 and 5,000 male citizens.
7. The Greeks did not build an empire but did expand through the establishment of colonies around the Mediterranean and Black seas.
8. The most distinctive feature of Greek political culture was in the extent of popular participation in political life that occurred within the city-states. This participation was based on the unique ideas of “citizenship,” of free people running the affairs of state, and of equality for all citizens before the law. Political participation in Greek city-states was much wider than in Persia, but it varied considerably between city-states and over time. Early in Greek history, only the wealthy and aristocrats had the rights of full citizenship, but middle- and lower-class men gradually obtained these rights in some city-states.
9. Nowhere was participation universal. The widest participation occurred in Athens beginning in 594 B.C.E., when the reforming leader Solon took Athenian politics in a more democratic direction, breaking the hold of a small group of aristocratic families. Debt slavery was abolished, access to public office was opened to a wider group of men, and all citizens were allowed to take part in the Assembly. Later, all holders of public office were chosen by lot and were paid, so that even the poorest could serve. Athenian democracy was direct rather than representative. Even at its height, it was far from universal, with well over half the population, including women, slaves, and foreigners, excluded from participation.
See how I've offered a more complete answer based on what's in Strayer?

Darion

22/10/2012 13:43:33

Ah I see, understood

Patrick Song

21/10/2012 07:59:11

I think i'll doing my first post on this too.

What changes did Alexander's conquest bring in their wake?

- Creation of a Greek Empire from Egypt and Anatolia in the west to Afghanistan and India in the East.
- Persepolis was looted and burned.
-Widespread dissemination of Greek culture during what historians call the Hellenistic era.
-Resulted in one of the great cultural encounters.

Feedback would be nice. I probably missed a lot of stuff anyways XP

Christina Hong

21/10/2012 08:11:26

I also mentioned--
*spread of the Greek language from the Mediterranean to India
*fall of the Persian empire (I guess that kind of goes with the second bullet point)
*city-states were replaced cities
*Greeks adopted a variety of different religions and were assimilated into different cultures, just as others were assimilated into theirs
*Pharisees developed their own school system (that might be a little too specific?)
*long distance commerce and Greek learning flourished

I think I'm going to post more often lol
this is kinda fun >.>

Bingham

21/10/2012 08:39:26

Nice!

Crowder, Shylah

21/10/2012 17:25:13

I also had that the Greeks lost their independence, raised their taxes, maintained order and authority, and basically returned to an empire much like those of the early Mesopotamia, Egypt, Assyria, and Persia.

Jeremiah Pratt

21/10/2012 08:39:40

Time for me to take a stab at one. I'll elaborate on one that's already been attempted.

How did Rome grow from a single city to the center of a huge empire?

•Roman aristocrats overthrew a monarchy and established a wealthy class dominated republic. Conflict with the poorer classes led to important political changes.
-A written law designed to protect the poorer classes from abuse
-a new office designed to represent the lower classes
•With this political system, the romans began to build their empire.
•Rome took over Italy, and defeated a powerful North African empire known as Carthage. This allowed Rome to become a naval power.
•Rome also took over Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and expanded into much of Europe.
•The driving force behind their imperial expansion was defensive- every time they added territory, vulnerabilities were created that required more land to cover.
•The expansion of the empire was also motivating as a source of opportunity for the poor and rich alike.
•Rome had a powerful, brutal army.
•The political forces in Rome favored its continued expansion.

Did i get it all?

Bingham

21/10/2012 09:02:02

Very complete. Well done grasshopper.!

Jeremiah Pratt

21/10/2012 09:42:55

Heh. Grasshopper.

Steffannie Alter

21/10/2012 08:46:07

I think I'll give one of the questions a try as well.

How did the collapse of empire play out differently in the Roman world and in China?

In Rome more than China, the fall of the empire produced a new, blended culture. A Chinese imperial state was later re-assembled while another European empire on the scale of the Roman empire has never been successfully re-established.

I feel as though there must be more to it than that, but those were the only main differences that I noticed in the collapse of the empires. There were lots of similarities mentioned, but where there any other differences?

Bingham

21/10/2012 09:05:47

Well, in the case of Rome, the western part disintegrated, but the east lived on as Byzantium. Nothing similar in China.

Jeremiah Pratt

21/10/2012 08:49:59

I'll do another because this helps me internalize.

How and why did the making of the Chinese empire differ from that of the Roman Empire?

•In Rome, the establishment of an empire was a new idea. In China, an empire had existed before and the making of an empire was seen as a renewal of the old one.
-To answer the "why" part of the question, the Chinese saw the loss of their old empire as unacceptable.
•The two leaders differed in that Caesar showed much ambivalence (mixed feelings), while Shihuangdi did not.
•The Chinese process of empire formation was more compressed than the extended Roman one.
•There were fewer domestic repercussions in the Chinese imperial expansion.

Bingham

21/10/2012 09:07:08

See my comments to John above

Christina Hong

21/10/2012 13:04:13

Would this also be categorized as part of 'the making of an empire' or would it be irrelevant to the question?

Rome
*started as a small, impoverished city-state
*empire only lasted 1500 years

Chinese
*started with an effective bureaucracy, rapidly rising agricultural output, and growing population
*lasted into the twentieth century

Bingham

21/10/2012 13:32:56

Only 1500 years? Anyway, that has more to do with the legacy of Rome and the Han; both last down to the present.

Marlene Marlowe

21/10/2012 13:30:00

What were the consequences for both sides of the encounter between the Persians and the Greeks?

- Athenian efforts to solidify it's dominant position among the allies led to intense resentment and then civil war, or the Peloponnesion war.

I'm actually really unsure as to whether or not that's true, I can see why no one else tried to answer it, that's really the only good example I could find in the text... :P

Bingham

21/10/2012 13:45:21

Maybe I can help. :-)
1. While no doubt embarrassing, the failure of the Persian invasions of Greece had very little impact on the Persian Empire.
2. Defeat of the Persian armies was a source of enormous pride for Greece. For the Greeks (especially the Athenians), it confirmed their view that Greek freedoms strengthened their will to fight, while Persia came to represent despotism. This view persisted into the twentieth century in European thinking in the notion of an East/West divide in which Europe (the West, you know, the whole Eurocentrism thing) represented freedom and Asia (the East) represented despotism.
3. Greek victory radicalized Athenian democracy, because service by poorer Athenians as rowers in the navy placed them in a position to insist on full citizenship.
4. The fifty years following the Greco-Persian Wars were the high point for participation in Athenian democracy.
5. The fifty years following the defeat of the Persians also witnessed the Golden Age of Greek (and especially Athenian) culture, a period when monumental buildings like the Parthenon in Athens were built, Greek theater was born, and Socrates (my man!) was beginning his career as a philosopher.
6. But the Greco-Persian Wars also led to an era of dreams of empire. After the war, Athens tried to solidify its dominant position among the Greeks who had allied against Persia, and this led to intense resentment and finally to a bitter civil war (right Marelene, the Peloponnesian War.) Athens was defeated, while the Greeks exhausted themselves and magnified their distrust of one another. This infighting ultimately opened the way for Macedonia to conquer the Greek city-states. Here comes Alexander!

Marlene

21/10/2012 13:49:44

You basically just typed up the entire section. I agree about the part where the Persians were not very affected though, that's why I was having trouble finding stuff. Do I really need to know all that though for the test or....?

Marlene

21/10/2012 13:51:17

I don't think all of the bullets you posted could be considered consequences too. That is what it's asking right? Or am I reading it the wrong way... again.

Crowder, Shylah

21/10/2012 16:24:00

I think that what Mr. Bingham put makes sense. I interpreted the question as basically what effects came from Persians and Greeks encountering each other, and all six of his points are basically listing things that happened because of the Persians' and Greeks' encounter through the military expedition that was launched. Does that clarify at all?

Bingham

21/10/2012 21:53:32

I typed up what answered the question, that's as shallow and deep as you need to go. And yes, they are all consequences; events that resulted from the war.

Elizabeth Martinsen

22/10/2012 15:35:34

Why were centralized empires so much less prominent in India than in China?

-India was much more culturally diverse with competitive states that never showed an interest in a larger union

-several Chinese invasions and attacks prevented imperial growth

- political disorganization and "fragmentation"

-Indian empires such as Mauryan or Gupta did not last very long at all

Emily Sherman

23/10/2012 14:12:11

Also, the policies of Ashoka and the Mauryan Empire promoted peace and good will, but altogether were not very successful, leading to its downfall.

Giovanni

25/10/2012 12:33:49

HEY GUYS BIG NEWS!! I made a forum, as a supplement not a substitute to bingham's, where we can keep an active discussion going on strayer in general rather than specific chapters. Go on the site and read my message there, it will explain what my vision for the forums is and if you like it please make an account and join the community (which currently consists of just me, help I'm lonely!) go to http://everythingbingham.proboards.com and just check it out, I'm sure it will be a great thing! And yes Bingham, you're invited!
P.S I will be posting here in a little bit with my thoughts on the chapter!

Jeremiah Pratt

25/10/2012 13:07:34

Okay so night before the test and i'm kinda scared because for once Bingham hasn't given us any freebies about big picture questions, so I'm gonna be the first to stab one. Hopefully he sees it.

What common features can you identify in the empires described in this chapter?

Just a note, since the Greeks weren't really a unified empire until they were conquered by Alexander the Great, I am excluding information from that section in my answer here.

•As described by Strayer in the introduction, empires are generally Larger, more aggressive states, that conquer, rule, and extract resources from other states. They encompass many peoples and cultures.
•All shared a common set of problems- whether or not to impose their culture on their subjects, how to rule the people they controlled, how to extract wealth, and finally, they all eventually collapsed.
•All the empires both diffused and absorbed cultural ideas-the Hellenistic era in Macedonia and the induction of Greeks into the Indian caste system, The religious adoption of Christianity in Rome and the adoption of Buddhism in China, the spread of Roman style buildings, rituals, and language, and Chinese culture experienced no resistance in spreading. Finally, the Persians were very eager to assimilate foreign luxuries.
•All of the empires focused on public works projects
•The following is a quote from Strayer: "...their violence, exploitation, and oppression, empires also imposed peace and security, which fostered economic and artistic development, commercial exchange, and cultural mixing."

Please comment and contribute!

Bingham

25/10/2012 13:37:26

You're a good man Jeremiah. I think you anticipated well, the test I mean. And I also think that's an excellent answer. Others would be wise to follow your advise. Your post and the others on this forum will lead everyone to success.

What I still can't understand is why you guys wait until the night before to digest the text!

If you're working, you'll be fine. I promise.

a bad joke that needed to be said

25/10/2012 14:10:38

because we have really long inTESTines

sorry had to happen-anna-

Giovanni link

25/10/2012 13:52:35

What I mainly took away from this chapter:
What we see in this chapter are examples of empires which have quite a few parallels as well as differences (China, Rome, Persia) and then we see two countries in which the term empire is only correct in theory and very loosely in that (Greece, India). If I were Strayer I would've arranged the chapter accordingly, however I'm not, but whatever. Now in Greece and India we see that they are exceptions to the rule of empires, what we as "historians" must ask ourselves is why that is. Thankfully, Strayer provides the answer. I'm going to focus on Greece and India, because I personally find them fascinating.
Greece was divided by many mountains and deep valleys, which at the time were extremely difficulty to traverse, leading the Greeks to create city-states rather than one unified state ruled by a central government. Therefore back then the notion of Greece as a "country" was only in theory, and not politically correct. There was no Greece, there was Athens, Thebes, Sparta, etc. This therefore made it illogical to have a different monarch with absolute power within each one of these city-states, (imagine it, it would be worse than the sharply divided states of Europe during the Renaissance) therefore the political form of government started out more like an oligarchy than anything else (ruled by a small number of "elites") and progressively evolved from there into different forms of public political inclusion (however some polises, such as Sparta, were less inclusive than, oh let's say Athens).
In India however, geography had nothing to do with the incompatibility of empires. Strayer gives us three reasons why empires just didn't last long in India when attempted. The first and the one that I personally find the most interesting is India's strong connection to Hinduism which involves the caste system. For those of you who don't know (Strayer doesn't really talk about it) the caste system (in a very brief definition) is a system in which Hindus believe they are reincarnated into different classes based on how they acted in their previous lives . This of course upset the balance of imperialism because rather than following the political authority of an empire the people of India were obedient to the caste system. Another reason we're given is the extreme cultural diversity within India due to the migration of various peoples from Central Asia. The third reason given to us is frequent invasions from Central Asia (notice how India was effected both positively and negatively by Central Asia, sheesh talk about conflicted feelings) that crushed states that may have risen up to become the "nucleus" for an all Indian Empire.

Also if you haven't checked out my forum please do so at everythingbingham.proboards.com and please sign up! It's really simple just click the link at the top!

Bingham

25/10/2012 14:10:16

Wow Giovani, I'm kind of impressed. Your analysis is solid. I would just caution you, in a world history course, to include the Hellenistic era - aka Alexander the Great - as part of the Greek "empire".

I don't understand why we need a different forum. Convince me.

Giovanni link

25/10/2012 14:26:43

Thanks! Will do in the future. And i'm not saying we need to move away from this forum, however I feel as if the one I made can work as a supplement, here what we have going tends to go like this, we get through a chapter and we try to survive the tests by answering the margin questions and getting them okayed by you, and that's fine, it seems to be working great! However, and you can probably tell this from my posts, I'm the kind of person that likes to learn more in depth about history and look at everything in a much broader sense, and I feel like due to the fast paced nature of an AP class we don't have much time to do that as deeply as we could in class. Also due to how we are blazing through a chapter a week on here, I feel like it would benefit us all to in our free time take a few minutes and just slow down, sit down, and communicate our ideas on all elements of Strayer with each other, not just separate chapters, but the whole text in general. Everything we've covered so far, and even more! History is so expansive, why stop? There are things Strayer doesn't cover and things he doesn't go into depth about that are just as interesting as what he talks about. I think it would also be a great place for us to help cycle our knowledge so that we don't forget it, writing helps a whole lot in the remembering process, but I've noticed that in this digital age sometimes typing helps a whole bunch as well. You said it yourself, we don't really know enough yet to be writing essays, I feel like this will help us delve deeper into fields that will help us even more when we get to essays, and it would just be beneficial in general for future finals and the AP test. This is basically my vision: We keep doing our thing here and tackling chapter by chapter together, and on the side we can use my forums as a sort of database of knowledge on all things world history. It can serve as a place for kids who are struggling (and not able due to time constraints to come in to talk to you) if they need tutoring, it can serve as a place to help us get each others opinions on various matters, and it can help us overall as a coalition of WHAP classes to survive what's awaiting us in the future of this course. What have we got to lose right?

Anonymous

25/10/2012 14:08:05

Anonymous IV

25/10/2012 14:29:26

Camille

25/10/2012 15:49:37

Giovanni, in regards to having a supplemental forum to gain additional background knowledge on what we're already covering with Strayer I would say that it would be good to help understand some topics or events but might also, ultimately, end up being unnecessary. (Only in regards to future finals and the AP tests. I hope students are interested and curious enough in what we're learning to dive even deeper into the topics discussed in Strayer and in class.) On the AP test you're only allotted 40-50 minutes per question (50 for the DBQ, 40 for the comparitive, and finally 40 for the change over time) to compile an essay over a single, often broad, topic. I feel that it will be more beneficial to try and focus on the big ideas in World History because it covers, literally, the entire history of the world. While additional background information and detail may help us grasp the concepts better, in regards to the AP test it may just be extraneous material.
I've been through the conflict of becoming so interested in what I was being taught that I would oftentimes get distracted from the primary focus the course and teacher were going in.
In college you can shift your own focus to find what you're really interested in and spend all your time on that one subject but for now, broad may be better.
Just a warning.
Also, you'd be surprised but what you can form a whole essay around! Every test we've taken in class has practically been an essay, it's just a matter of transitioning from one idea to another.

Giovanni

25/10/2012 16:02:57

You may have misunderstood me, one of my main points for the forum is so that we can talk about the broad subjects, we're just focusing on the margin questions which are details of separate chapters. I know what you're saying however I think I may have not have clearly gotten my point across. I just think it would be a nice place to conjoin our ideas about what we're reading and to help each other out throughout the whole book instead of strictly focusing on the chapters individually.

Camille

25/10/2012 16:09:37

Yes, apparently I did! Aha. So are you saying that instead of just making connections between ideas from the same chapter we would make connections between ideas throughout the entire book? Sorry, I'm still a little perplexed about what you're trying to say.

Giovanni link

25/10/2012 16:16:15

It's hard to explain, but yes that's the gist of it. It's like what we do in class when aren't taking a test, just more of it. We'd make connections throughout the book, how things that happened here relate to what happened here etc. It would also be a place where we can share our thoughts on what we've read, where we can say what we've taken away from the book in our own words rather than simply regurgitating Strayer's words. It could also work as a place for people seeking new study skills, or if someone found something really interesting about history that they'd like to share. Just a place where people can start finding History interesting and being able to say "I get it now! It makes so much more sense when you put it that way!"

Camille

25/10/2012 16:33:11

Gotcha. For instance, for chapters 21- 24 I found that mapping all major events out on a timeline, similar to the timeline at the very beginning of Part 6, really helped see the big picture.
I see what you mean now, great idea!

Giovanni

25/10/2012 16:48:31

Exactly! things like that could be extremely helpful! Glad the confusion was cleared up :) you should join and spread the word!

Cobb, Harris

26/10/2012 02:33:56

Just one quick question Bingham if you're reading this In Greece they had a "direct" democracy as opposed to "representative" democracy and I am not quite sure what that means but I am assuming it means direct being literally controlled by the people in political affairs whereas REPRESENTative is people electing officials to REPRESENT them in politcal matters and that because Greece had a direct democracy that meant that the citizens HAD to be so involved especially in Athens. Also the Roman Empire was a republic isn't that a representative democracy?? If you don't reply Bingham thats fine I can just ask you during lunch along with a few other detailing questions about ch 4

Giovanni

26/10/2012 10:14:23

You're right when it comes to Greece, however with the Romans it's a bit different. In the period of rule you're talking about, how it worked is that 2 people were "elected" as I guess you could say the main decision makers and were limited to one year terms except in a crisis. These people (sorry I don't know the technical name) served along with a senate council that was also "elected". So in a way the Romans had the first effective (at least for a time) empire that we see in world history. Sorry, this is kind of late, and I know I'm not Bingham, but I figured I could help

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Strayer 4 Classic!

Leave a Reply.

Author

Categories