Strayer 4, Eurasian Empires

7/9/2013

This is a great chapter to get you interested in the study of world history. Here are the well known and not so known great empires of history in all their glory. A good way to get started posting is to offer your attempt at answering a margin question and asking for feedback.

18 Comments

Lillian Evans

9/9/2013 10:07:30

On page 117 at the end of paragraph 2 in "The Collapse of the Empires" where Strayer is talking about the Yellow Turban Rebellion, I was wondering about how the growth of the large landowning families led to this major peasant revolt and as to why it is called the Yellow Turban Rebellion. If anyone could explain that would be great.

Rachel Russell

9/9/2013 10:30:35

Well I understood the Yellow Turban Rebellion was that it was a peasant revolt from the large land owning families bc since they had all that land and they were elite they got around paying taxes and they government diminishing its authority and forced the free peasants to be tenants but the tenants were impoverished from paying taxes since the rich weren't and like anyone would be the peasants weren't pleased with the balance so they revolted. This is just what I understood, but I may not be right.

Bingham

9/9/2013 10:45:16

A turban is like a scarf worn around the head. They wore yellow ones just for identification and unity.
Rachel's explanation is spot on.

Lillian Evans

9/9/2013 11:39:36

Thanks Rachel! This helped me a lot.

Kizer Shelton

9/9/2013 10:54:10

Because these estates were so large they could avoid paying taxes. The lack of money from the people "diminished the authority of the central government" allowing the impoverished tenant farmers to revolt, after seeing the contrast in tax payment across the classes.
And the rebels happened to wear yellow turbans according to some websites. There are like four mentions of the Rebellion in Strayer that I found in the index along with about ten pages in chapter six. Hope this helps.

Lillian Evans

9/9/2013 11:38:57

Thanks for responding. I will look at those pages. Great explanation.

Bingham

9/9/2013 11:11:47

Oh, by the way, you should know that this was a Daoist based revolt... a return to the natural balance and all that. More coming in chapter 5.

Lillian Evans

9/9/2013 11:40:15

Thanks Bingham, looking forward to it.

Emily Soice

9/9/2013 13:57:37

Alright, on page 106, What changes did Alexander's conquests bring in their wake? To Greece, this brought cultural diversity and a more unified state. In its wake it brought the dissemination of Greek culture, the city of Alexandria in Egypt, intermarriage(and other cultural dissemination), and inequality to foreigners. I had a lot less answers to this question than I did the other margin questions, so I was wondering if there was something I was missing. Thanks!

Bingham

10/9/2013 11:35:32

The contribution most cited is the dissemination of Greek culture, that is the single most important role Alexander has in world history. The rest of your stuff is good, I would only add that it was yet another defeat of the Persians by the Greeks and the first European military penetration into Africa, Central Asia, and South Asia. This was a legacy that would resonate in the inspiration of many a future leader.

Alex Rodriguez

9/9/2013 14:44:02

When Strayer uses "imperial heartland" does he mean a command-like region that has a state that can keep its people safe from invasions, and where it's economy and political system is self-sufficient?
I just want to see if I understand it.
Thanks!

Emily Soice

9/9/2013 23:06:24

No, imperial heartland means the origin of an empire. Like Alexander the Great created an empire that included Persia and Egypt, but the imperial heartland of his empire was still Greece.

Bingham

10/9/2013 11:37:11

Exactly. When you encounter this kind of unfamiliar usage, break the term down. "Heartland" defined would get you there if you then added the "imperial" part.

Alex Rodriguez

11/9/2013 14:39:42

Oh, Thank you very much.

Mary Caroline Johnson

10/9/2013 14:46:05

On page 117, the margin question is, "How did the collapse of empire play out differently in the Roman world and in China?" I would like to get some help on this question because I don't really have a deep understanding of the concept, only the surface.This is kind of what I'm thinking is the difference though. It's not how they collapsed, it's what they redeveloped into. Rome became the various civilizations in Western Europe and China became China again. Is this the basics?

Conny Egozi

11/9/2013 12:17:57

Well it says on page 118 that the most significant difference between the collapse of the empires was that China, after dissolving into warfare, disorder, and disunion, was able to come out of it and return to an imperial state in three later dynasties (Sui, Tang, and Song). China's having an empire lasted into the 1900s, making it the most continuous political traditions of any civilization.
Rome, however, collapsed, and no other imperial force was able to unite and control all of Western Europe for any period of time afterwards.
That is what I got out of it, but I may be wrong...

Kathryn King

11/9/2013 12:46:47

I am a little confused by what Strayer means when he says that empires were associated with political and cultural expression and then goes on to say that empires have given political expression to a civilization or culture. Isn't he contradicting himself?

Conny Egozi

11/9/2013 14:05:19

If you meant page 98, then it actually says that it is associated with political and cultural OPPRESSION, not expression, so maybe he isn't contradicting himself after all

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Strayer 4, Eurasian Empires

Leave a Reply.

Author

Categories