Strayer 3, Eurasian Empires

27/8/2016

You guys seem to be a group interested in using this space, so here you go.

Please remember what I talked to you about study groups, and teaching others as a powerful tool for learning and success.

Let's do this.

74 Comments

Bingham

27/8/2016 10:58:34

Here's one for free.

BPQ2: Are you more impressed with the “greatness” of empires or with their destructive and oppressive features? Why?
These kinds of questions make people's heads hurt. This question can reasonably be answered either way:

On the one hand, Empires were impressive because of the impact they had on regions that they conquered; their sheer size and the number of subjects over which they ruled; their military conquests; and their monumental architecture, often associated with the promotion of political authority.

On the other hand, their use of force in the creation of empires and their use of coercion to extract resources, particularly from conquered peoples, offer a strong argument that they were destructive and oppressive.

That’s all you need say for a question of this type from the text.

Cassie Barham

27/8/2016 13:54:22

In the section Collision: Alexander and the Hellenistic Era, Strayer brings up the widespread dissemination of Greek culture through established cities. He also mentions how the cities in the Hellenistic area are much more culturally diverse than the previous Greek city-states.

I was curious about the increased spread of Greek culture as opposed other cultures found in these cities. What I gathered was that because these cities were part of large states of conquest under Greek rule, Greeks were able to facilitate the building of monuments, schools, sculptures, museums, and libraries resembling Greek culture throughout those states.

I think this could also be a distinguishing factor between those cities and the city-states of the pre-Hellenistic Greece because before, cultural unity (though not necessarily political) was kept alive through the motivation that the freedoms of Greece inspired.

I think what I'm struggling to connect in this is the comparison between the two infrastructures in regards to culture, and I think I'm struggling to understand the cultural and, I guess even social, state of the Hellenistic states. Pre-Hellenistic Greece shared strong cultural unity and motivated patriotism, but lacked political unity. Then Hellenistic Greece achieved political unity, but at the expense of many of the freedoms from before. However, cultural unity, or at least cultural blending was still maintained. Some resentment was harbored over Greek elitism, so what would have been the factor that prompted the relative cultural harmony at this time? Strayer lists some examples of ways in which cultural interaction occurred, but if the Macedonians and Greeks were so eager to distinguish themselves from non-Greeks, what prompted interaction in that respect at all?

Bingham

27/8/2016 19:19:12

I'm sorry Cassie, I'm having trouble parsing out exactly what your question is. Let's talk in class.

I will say this, remember, strayer is only addressing social and cultural issues to the extent they relate to political issues. The next two chapters address each of those other aspects of these societies.

Bingham

27/8/2016 19:20:12

http://www.roman-empire.net/
Great site on the Romans.

Cindy Xia

27/8/2016 22:51:53

Hello helpful forum. I'm again confused on how to answer questions such as BPQ#2. Would I list the the separate features of the greatness and destructiveness of empires, and if so, how would it be different from the Seeking the Main Point question on page 119? Thank you. 🙏

Cindy Xia

27/8/2016 22:55:04

Oops. Haha the top of the page says it all. Sorry about that.

Eliza Pillsbury

28/8/2016 16:12:48

Hello again! Here is my attempted answer to the margin question for "Rome: From City-State to Empire".

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

- motivation to defend Rome's territory: with each new territory conquered, there were more risks to manage; Rome felt the only way to manage those risks was to conquer more territories! (not the best logic, but it sure worked for them)
- Rome was conveniently a central location in the Mediterranean Basin
- ***Rome's army: drew from Italy's growing population to form a particularly brutal army --> able to conquer
- transition from republic to empire: wealth of empires placed power in elite/military leaders --> bitter rivalries between military leaders led to Roman civil war --> after civil war, absolute power was placed in an emperor

I don't know why, but this chapter is giving me much more difficulty than the last. I am worried that I did not sufficiently answer this question? Thanks for the help

Amy Vaughan

28/8/2016 22:30:11

I'm a little confused by what Strayer meant when he wrote that the Roman army "drew on the growing population of Italy." Wouldn't a larger populated neighbor be more of a hindrance than an asset? I might be misinterpreting the sentence though. What did you get from that?

Eliza Pillsbury

28/8/2016 22:36:51

Well, Rome was a city-state of Italy before it became a full-fledged empire, right? So the larger population gave them more men to pull from for their army.

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 19:03:58

I'm reading over the answers on the forum, and I need to correct myself. I said the wealth of empires placed power in elite/military leaders, but what I meant was the wealth of the Roman republic! This wealth led to the transition from republic to empire.

Sorry for the vague answer!

Eliza Pillsbury

28/8/2016 16:23:20

MQ1: How did Persian and Greek civilizations differ in their political organization and values?

PERSIA
- population: 35-50 million
- centralized empire
- divinely ordained kingship
- expansion through conquest
- administrative system: absolute monarchy --> satraps (governors) in each of 23 provinces --> local authority **and imperial spies thrown in there to spice things up a bit!
- products of state authority: standardized coinage, taxes, canal linking Nile & Red Sea, "royal road" for commerce and communication

GREECE
- population: 2-3 million
- organized into small, independent city-states
- expansion through settlement
- direct democracy: citizenship allowed most free males to speak/vote in assembly, hold public office, fight in army
- in Sparta, the Council of Elders was composed of 28 elite males over the age of 60

Persian values reflected the needs of a significantly larger population; power was consolidated in the hands of a single monarch with absolute power. The numerous city-states in Greece led to the strongly held values of independence, a individual's voice in government, "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Amy Vaughan

28/8/2016 21:30:25

Okay, I have a few suggestions. I'm not sure I would consider all of your listed characteristics as political organization. For example, I think of population as under Interactions-environment (demography), and I would categorize the "products of sate authority" under Economic (monetary systems, taxation, and trade routes). Also, for values, I would write about how the Persians valued non-Persian traditions, often adopting them into their culture (ex: the Egyptian breastplate). Of course, these are only suggestions, and they may not even be right. What do you think?

Eliza Pillsbury

28/8/2016 21:33:31

I included the population on purpose, because for me it frames a lot of the rest of the characteristics. I agree with you on the Economic vs Political distinction, and I think your comment about the non-Persian traditions is insightful! Would you consider that political, though? Not sure either way, but I think it is an interesting addition regardless :)

Amy Vaughan

28/8/2016 22:18:52

Oh! I was reading it as political organization + values in general- not political organization and political values. Although, I suppose you could argue that Persia worked to include minority cultures as an attempt to gain their support and avoid any political unrest/revolts.

Amy Vaughan

28/8/2016 22:21:46

Also, I understand why you included the population now. It does makes more sense that Greece was less populated and therefore had smaller city-states and settlements. :)

Eliza Pillsbury

28/8/2016 22:43:17

I will go back and look at the question how you interpreted it to see if there is anything I should add (because I guess it could be read either way). And I totally still agree with your added point, thank you!

Eliza Pillsbury

28/8/2016 16:59:39

Why was the Chinese empire able to take shape so quickly while that of the Romans took centuries?

The Roman empire had the steep task of establishing something Strayer describes as "wholly new", an empire that stretched throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. However, the Chinese empire had to resurrect something old and already had the framework from the Chinese First Civilization that had begun in 2200 BCE. Also, thanks to Qin Shihuangdi, the Chinese empire's process for forming an empire was speedy and brutal. Within 10 years, Shihuangdi had conquered the six other warring states and named himself the "first emperor". Unlike Augustus in Rome, he did not beat around the bush to protect the values of a failing republic--he continued his conquests proudly and forcefully. Once the Qin dynasty inevitably collapsed, the Han dynasty was able to continue building on the unified China that Shihuangdi had established, adopting a more moderate political system and consolidating the territories he had conquered to form a centralized imperial state.

Does this distinguish the two empires enough? I am trying to infer from what Strayer specifies about the Chinese empire... Does anyone have anything else to add to this? Thanks

Cassie Barham

30/8/2016 17:36:26

I think you could add the comparison of the political infrastructure of the two. In the section "Consolidating the Roman and Chinese Empires," Strayer says that China had a much more elaborate bureaucracy that they developed, and that was what held the empire together (under Han, an imperial academy was established, which was the beginning of a civil service system). By comparison, Rome's administration was much more disorderly. They relied more on regional aristocratic elites and the army to provide cohesion, which would make coordination and construction of the empire more difficult.

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 19:06:42

Thanks, Cassie! This is a great addition to this answer.

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 19:15:36

I'm thinking about this more, Cassie, and would you say that this elaborate bureaucracy led to the rapid emergence of the Chinese empire? In my mind, the bureaucracy (or lack thereof in Rome) came after the empire was developed. What do you think?

Amy Vaughan

31/8/2016 21:13:07

Strayer also writes that China had much more productive agriculture and advanced metallurgy

Melina

28/8/2016 21:13:11

Would someone mind elaborating on women's roles in the second wave civilizations? The section on Rome discussed how men had complete control over women and children, and even had the power to kill them. I'm curious about the roles of women in China, Greece, and Persia. I may have just missed the section, but I don't recall reading anything about women's roles?

Eliza Pillsbury

28/8/2016 21:37:24

Let's see...Strayer specifically references women when he talks about Greece being a direct but limited democracy. Free Greek men could become full citizens but not women, slaves or foreigners. (And this isn't really women's roles, but the portrait on Trung Tac is serious girl power.) What else did y'all find? This is an awesome question

Amy Vaughan

28/8/2016 22:36:58

Going off of what Eliza said about Trung Tac and Trung Nhi, Strayer does mention that these two women represent the "more fluid gender roles available to some Vietnamese women in comparison to the stricter patriarchy prevalent in China." He doesn't really go into depth about Chinese women and their roles in society though, so I'm not sure how helpful this is.

Cassie Barham

30/8/2016 16:21:21

This was briefly mentioned by Strayer, but during the introduction and integration of Christianity in Rome, women were apparently prominent in the leadership of churches.

Amy Vaughan

28/8/2016 21:41:40

MQ3: Connection: What were the consequences for both sides of the encounter b/w the Persians and the Greeks?

The Persians didn't experience any immediate consequences, aside from the embarrassment of defeat. For the Greeks however, the victory boosted moral and initiated a Golden Age for Greek culture (Parthenon, Greek theater, Socrates). It also marked a high point for the newly radicalized Athenian democracy (the poor had played a significant role in the victory and were granted the right to political participation). Since Athens led the city-states to victory, it felt endowed to a dominant position among the other city-states, sparking conflict between the city-states (namely Athens vs Sparta) in the Peloponnesian War. Later on, when Greece fell under the control of Alexander the Great, having a common enemy (Persia) unified the Greek city-states and motivated them to take the offense in conquering Persia.

Amy Vaughan

28/8/2016 21:42:31

*morale, not moral

Yasmeen Gaber

29/8/2016 19:14:45

Alright I'm going to take a stab at the Collision: Alexander and the Hellenistic Era margin question:

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

-Greece was politically unified at the expense of the city-states' freedom
-Persia was associated with despotism, beginning the East/West divide
-widespread dissemination of Greek culture, Greek language
-anti-Persia/imperialistic attitude shifted focus from domestic disputes between city-states to outside enemies or conquests

I know I'm missing a few things, please let me know what they are!!

Amy Vaughan

29/8/2016 19:51:56

I included the development of cities centered around Greek culture (ex: Alexandria) and housing a variety of advanced community structures, such as museums, major harbors, and libraries. Cities also ended up acting as a hub for cultural interaction and dissemination. I also listed the development of social inequality between the elite Greeks and non-Greeks/"savages" (vocab word!).

Yasmeen Gaber

29/8/2016 19:57:38

Okay, so I wasn't so much missing another change as more detail. On the note of social inequality between the Greeks and non-Greeks, because the question of change doesn't necessarily revolve around Greece, could we also list that Egypt, for example, saw the subjugation of its people due to the Greek conquest?

Amy Vaughan

29/8/2016 21:07:30

Yes, I would say that the subjugation of Egyptian people was a result of the idea of Greek superiority spreading throughout the Hellenist/Greek empire.

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 18:31:59

Interesting, Strayer states the East/West divide as a consequence of the Greco-Persian Wars. Do you agree with this?

I also added the increased cultural and ethnic diversity of the Greek empire (much of this came from the development of cities that Amy talked about!), and that Alexander totally destroyed the Persian empire.

Yasmeen Gaber

31/8/2016 19:38:19

I definitely agree with the East/West divide as a consequence of the Greco-Persian Wars because there was such an interesting dichotomy between Greece and Persia (dictatorship vs. democracy, independent city-states vs. a centralized state, etc), a lot of which I think carries over to today. For example, during the Cold War, the United States had a similar relationship with the Soviet Union, the US being Greece, and the USSR being Persia. This is a flawed example, due to the poly-republican political structure of the Soviet Union, but the key to the dichotomy is in the attitude of the people; the US saw the USSR as a powerful, massive threat, all the while believing America to be superior in the way of democracy and freedom, the image on which Greece really thrived during that period. A more contemporary example would probably be the reluctance of European countries (*cough cough FRANCE*) to accept refugees from the Middle East because of the East/West attitude that blossomed so early in history.

That's a good point about the diversity that the Greek empire acquired, I will be sure to add that to my list! Alexander was such a badass when it came to the Hellenistic period. He seemed like a new kind of Greek (even if he was Macedonian anyway).

Bingham

1/9/2016 06:26:13

Yes, but they'll be back, later in our story.

Yasmeen Gaber

29/8/2016 20:29:11

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

China's constant persistence in sinicization meant that cultural diversity was a not an issue in consolidating the empire, whereas India possessed much more cultural diversity that political fragmentation was only natural. Because Indian values did not center on a common culture, centralized state was both less important and less feasible in India than in China.

Yasmeen Gaber

29/8/2016 20:35:40

I should also add that specific ideologies, such as the caste system, placed emphasis on local social structure and personal/spiritual identity as a member of a caste, rather than the mission of a common goal of conquest of grand imperialism.

Eliza Pillsbury

29/8/2016 21:17:53

Also, the area was subject to frequent invasions from Central Asia which consistently extinguished burgeoning states before they had a change to turn into an empire.

Amy Vaughan

29/8/2016 21:42:15

Towards the end of the section, Strayer also mentions that frequent invasions from Central Asia snuffed out potential empires before they could really begin.

Amy Vaughan

29/8/2016 21:43:03

Oops, I didn't see Eliza's comment until after I refreshed the page.

Amy Vaughan

29/8/2016 22:39:09

As I've been reading, I've been writing my own questions in the margins to help me review and make sure I understand the material. This isn't an official question, but I thought it posed an interesting topic to think about:
Why did languages develop from Latin but not from Chinese?

Chinese characters represented ideas and words (pictographic) that were hard to translate into/mix with other languages. Because of its relative uniformity (very characteristic of the Chinese empire) it was easily understood by all literate Chinese.
Latin, however, was an alphabetic, phonetic language, which made it more flexible, allowing for it to easily differentiate based on the influences of a particular region (resulting in cognitive languages like French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc.)

This is what I tried to infer from the reading, so I'm not sure if I'm on the right track. What do you guys think about this question?

Bingham

29/8/2016 23:08:06

Great analysis! This is a fantastic inference about the reading.

Yasmeen Gaber

30/8/2016 08:22:02

That's actually a great study tip, I'm going to try to employ that in future reading!

Bingham

29/8/2016 23:09:45

What a great dilogue guys. Let's review this in class

Cassie Barham

30/8/2016 17:16:53

Hello! I'm going to take a shot at the second big picture question: How do these empires of the second-wave civilizations differ from the political systems of the first civilizations?

--Empires covered much larger territories than the first civilizations, and as a result, there were more people and different types of people to be governed under one political system. In first wave civilizations, most people were of similar culture and ethnicity (such as being part of the same kinship)
--Expansion came to be a focal point of empires
--Second-wave empires saw the rise of military power (and warrior culture) for the sake of conquest
--Extraction of resources from other states and people was a principle tool for the growth of empires.
--Second-wave empires, primarily with Greece, saw the rise of citizenship and inclusion in government of the free population
--Empires often gave a political expression to a civilization or a culture, whereas non-centralized or non-imperial civilizations, such as those of the first-wave civilizations were expressed through elements of common cultural patterns.

Is there more to it? Am I misinterpreting anything? Please let me know what you think! :)

Cassie Barham

30/8/2016 17:44:27

Sorry! It's the 4th BPQ.

Audrey Deigaard

30/8/2016 22:01:01

I could be wrong but I was wondering if another difference would be that empires were more diverse due to their massive size?

Cassie Barham

30/8/2016 17:56:29

Hi again! I'm going to try to answer one of the margin questions: What internal and external factors contributed to the collapse of the Roman and Chinese empires?

External:
--Pressure from nomadic pastoral peoples on frontier regions of both empires

Internal:
--Rivalry among elite factions created instability and eroded imperial authority
--got too big, too expensive, and too overextended to be sustained by the available resources, and no fundamental technological breakthrough was available to enlarge these resources
--large, wealthy families began avoiding tax-paying, which impoverished lower classes-->peasant revolts
--epidemic disease ravaged both empires --> decreased population = diminished production, less revenue for the state, and fewer men available for defense

Do y'all have anything to add?

Taylor Scott

30/8/2016 18:54:44

Hi. I am attempting to answer the orange Seeking the Main Point box on page 119.

"How might you assess- both positively and negatively- the role of empires in the history of the second-wave era?

Positives:
--empires stimulated the exchange of ideas, cultures and values because of a variety of peoples
--imposed substantial periods of peace and security which led to economic and artistic development, commercial exchange, and cultural mixing

Negatives:
--empires eventually grew to be too big
--there was so much violence from conquests and wars
--generated a warrior culture which gave men even more prominence and distinction over women

Is there anything I'm missing?

Nathan Shu

31/8/2016 03:37:12

I'd also add that in the periods of time when they had peace, it led to artistic development.

Nathan Shu

31/8/2016 03:41:05

Never mind I just saw you had that on there. My bad.

Taylor Scott

31/8/2016 19:51:43

Under negatives:
empires used violence, exploitation, and oppression

Taylor Scott

30/8/2016 19:07:59

I would also like to present the margin question on page 124 about change.

"How did semidemocratic governments emerge in some of the Greek city-state?"
--under the idea of "citizenship", free people managing the affairs of the state
--in early Greek history, only the wealthy could have full-citizenship, which allowed men to speak and vote in the assembly and hold public office
--Council of Elders gave political leadership in Sparta
--women, slaves, and foreigners could not hold office

Is there another interpretation of the question that I am missing? If so, could you please inform me?

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 18:13:32

Hey, Taylor! I interpreted this question as a cause/effect question. How did Greek democracy begin and what changed it along the way? That would give me a flow chart that looks something like this:

class conflict (acted as a catalyst! poor lower class calling for change against wealthy elite) -->
only wealthy, property-owning men had full citizenship -->
lower class farmers gained these rights (more could afford armor/weapons to serve as hoplites)
tyrants, with support of lower classes, challenged the elite -->
reforming leaders such as Solon, Pericles, and Cleitsthenes, extended democracy even further
- debt slavery abolished --> more males could vote in Assembly
- holders of public office chosen by lot and paid --> even the poorest could serve

You also pointed out that democracy excluded women, slaves, and foreigners. This is an important observation!

I'm not sure that I have the full answer here, but it gives me an easier way to think about this question. Do you agree? Does anyone have anything to add?

Taylor Scott

31/8/2016 18:25:55

Thanks, Eliza!

Taylor Scott

30/8/2016 19:15:02

Lastly, I would like to answer the margin question on page 136.

"Why were the Roman and Chinese empire able to enjoy long periods of relative stability and prosperity?"
--used supernatural sanctions to support rule
--offering state support towards regions

Is there anything else to add or anything to expound upon?

Amy Vaughan

31/8/2016 19:53:47

Like you said, the use of religion to support authority and the development of central government (more complex laws and bureaucracy) both were key in keeping the peace.
I would also add that the investment in public works like roads, bridges and canals worked to unify and connect both empires.
A common language also helped with unification in China (more so than in diverse Rome).
Both empires also worked to integrate and keep the loyalty of minorities; in Rome, citizenship was granted to those who were a part of the army, and in China, minorities were absorbed/Sinicized to maintain a unified empire.
I would love to hear your thoughts :)

Audrey Deigaard

30/8/2016 19:33:46

Yo! I know we already discussed half of the first bpq in class today but I wanted to try answering the rest as well as confirm the first part!

Common features between empires:
1) Cultural diversity and ethnic diversity in all empires except China and India
2) All eventually collapsed
3) All were states powerful enough to acquire resources from subjects
4) All were expansionists (and all except for Greece were military expansionists)
5) All rulers used the supernatural as justification for their position/actions. This is not unique to only empires however, but most, if not all, rulers today as well.

Differences:
1) Forms of government:
Greece - a democratic system in which all male citizens can vote
Rome - one emperor (or 'first man' who was essentially an emperor in all by title)
Persia - royal absolutism
India - often fragmented politics but ruled by an emperor
China - an emperor who ruled by the Mandate of Heaven
2) Diversity
While Rome and China both forced assimilation, they went about it in two very different ways. While those conquered by the Chinese empires gradually began to adopt the Chinese culture and language, Rome instead offered citizenship. In Greece's case, many found their culture admirable and sought out to become a part of it. In India, however, because of their mountainous terrain, Indian civilization was much more diverse due to the isolation of each group. Lastly, Persia was generally accepting of the native cultures in lands they conquered. For example, Persian kings made sure to preserve Egyptian and Babylonian religious cults in order to earn the favor of their subjects.
3)Social structure
China - held a class hierarchy in which bureaucrats and males with land were elite
India - caste system
Persian - supportive of minorities
Greece - males with land are at the top of the social ladder, with slaves at the bottom
Rome - same as Greece
4) Specific religions and art

There's probably plenty more to add so if anyone has other ideas please comment! o((*^▽^*))o

Audrey Deigaard

30/8/2016 20:46:00

Oops! I also forgot a 5th item for differences: language.

Taylor Scott

30/8/2016 22:52:57

Under common features between empires, you said that India did not have cultural diversity. Could you explain this to me because I thought India did have cultural diversity?

Bingham

31/8/2016 06:34:14

In spite of a great post by Audry, we need to be clear that India did, and does have extensive cultural diversity. That's its super power.

Audrey Deigaard

31/8/2016 18:03:36

Ah no sorry I meant that India and China didn't have ethnic diversity, but all of the empires (including those two) had cultural diversity! Sorry I probably didn't phrase it very well >O>

Matilda

31/8/2016 19:24:14

When you answered this question were you using the examples to explain what accounted for each difference, or did you leave them out? I am having a hard time figuring out that part of the question.

Audrey Deigaard

31/8/2016 20:17:53

Sorry I'm not entirely sure what you're asking ;; basically how I answered this question though was by finding the differences (which are the ones that are numbered) and then showing the differences for each country.

Marissa Kapp

30/8/2016 20:22:41

Hello! I'm going to try my best at answering MQ7, "Why were the Roman and Chinese empires able to enjoy long periods of relative stability and prosperity?"

- Both empires invoked supernatural sanctions that served to regulate the the citizens and also reinforced the authority of the emperors.
- Both empires invested in public works (roads, bridges, aqueducts, canals, protective walls, etc.) which further secured and integrated their respective territories both militarily and commercially.
- Both empires established strong and effective centralized control over their vast regions and large populations providing security and regulation within the empires.
-The non-Chinese people living in the Chinese empire became Chinese culturally, linguistically, and through intermarriage, while Rome slowly, but surely, bestowed citizenship on almost all free people of the empire. These made both empires more stable and prosperous because with fewer disputes and differences among the people, there was less internal conflict within the empires.
- Both empires used their environments to provide for the necessary resources the citizens needed,not only for survival, but for wealth and success. (although this did lead to extensive deforestation, large scale pollution, and soil erosion, which does not exactly symbolize stability nor prosperity...)
- Language increased the general stability of these empires because it allowed the Romans to maintain their separate cultural identities, while in the Chinese empire, it served as yet another instrument of elite assimilation which aided in keeping the social order in the empire firm.

I found this question to be one of the more difficult ones because it relies on you to infer WHY these instances lead to increased stability instead of just providing it for you, so I would love to hear what others have inferred about this question!

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 19:23:34

MK!! I think this is a great answer. I agree with you about the inferences required on this question, but I think this is spot on.

I would add that both empires absorbed foreign religious tradition, which provided unification throughout the empire. (In China, Buddhism. In Rome, Christianity.)

Oh also, Mr. Bingham pointed out in our class that the investment in public works across both empires was for different reasons. In Rome, the roads were mainly used to transport the army throughout the empire. In China, the roads were used for commerce.

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 19:27:11

I just saw that you said "militarily and commercially", so you probably already know what I just added ;)

Bingham.

1/9/2016 06:22:13

True, and "why" is the essential question always.

Bingham

31/8/2016 10:29:35

On another note... the IT people tell me they loaded the text to your HUB accounts. I'm hoping the videos and practice quizzes will be there with it.

Would you guys please check your accounts and let me know what you find tomorrow?

Thanks!

Taylor Scott

31/8/2016 18:40:21

Hi. My question is in regards to China. We've established that as the empire expanded, China encompassed areas containing different cultures. However, Strayer also states that China "assimilated the non-Chinese... to become Chinese, culturally, linguistically, and through intermarriage in physical appearance. So could China be interpreted as diverse in some ways and uniform in others? Or would China be interpreted as diverse until China sinicized the non-Chinese?

Please let me know.

Eliza Pillsbury

31/8/2016 18:51:31

I think it is important to remember that one of China's distinguishing features is its uniformity...But you are right that this occurred through a process of sinicization/assimilation. So maybe your last statement is the most accurate?

This assimilation set them apart. China's strategy in becoming an expansive empire was to have everyone conform so that the empire was easier to control. Could you say that this was the opposite of Persia, which practiced tolerance of non-Persian cultures with the same goal in mind?

Yasmeen Gaber

31/8/2016 19:10:37

I agree that what became the Chinese empire was diverse by nature, after all, it included Korea, Vietnam and parts of Southwest Asia, and that's important to keep in mind when recognizing China's uniformity because the process of sinicization was their trademark; none of that would have happened if it hadn't been for a natural/initial diversity in the empire.

Amy Vaughan

31/8/2016 20:05:51

A common difference between the first civilizations and empires was that first civilizations were composed of culturally unified people, while empires encompassed many cultures due to their great size. However, it is important to remember that before China was an empire, it was a first civilization. This set the Chinese empire up with an already culturally unified group of people. From there, it was easier to apply cultural conversion to minorities, as there was already a major culture existing. I tried to infer this from the text. :)

Yasmeen Gaber

31/8/2016 20:21:20

Great point! I don't think I was thinking enough about China being a first civilization as well as an empire; that really informs its continuity! However, China as an empire incorporated much more conquest and invasion, like in the case of Vietnam, than it ever did as a first civilization. Its political ambitions forced China into a diverse population of peoples, who were then sinicized, and the diverse cultures and ethnicity were, more or less, snuffed out during their incorporation with China. So, I guess what I mean to say was that China did have to deal with diversity in certain cases, which made sinicization a necessary and relevant tool for Chinese leaders through the years, although for the most part, China is extremely culturally unified and always has been. I hope that makes sense!

Bingham

1/9/2016 06:52:36

And just to add to this insightful analysis of China, it's important to know that in every instance, coming under Chinese rule came with significant benefits. We are talking about the most advanced civilisation in the world during this time all the way through the 18th century. And maybe again in the 21st?

Bingham

Welcome class of 2019. Some years students collaborate in this space effectively, some years not so much. One thing I know, collaboration significantly enhances learning. If you want access to my thoughts, this is the collaboration space to use. Most people propose an answer to margin questions, big picture question, or anything else related to managing Strayer. Other people can then comment leading to a stronger answer. I'll keep an eye on these pages, and pop in when I think you need me.

Strayer 3, Eurasian Empires

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories