The Descent (Weekly for Ancient Rome)

The Descent: Roman Emperor Caligula

5- 2. How was the Struggle of the Orders influential on later Roman politics?

Before the Struggle of Orders occurred, there were two types of people in Rome: the Patricians (the wealthy business class) and the Plebians (the impoverished working class). The Roman government was somewhat similar to the one we have in America today, with a senate that had representatives to meet and discuss issues in the community. However, Plebians were not accepted into the senate, so when new laws were made, or certain policies were issued, the Plebians had no say in any of it. The Struggle of the orders then broke out, and the cause was so strong that it almost caused a civil war. However, no one in Rome wanted something like that to break out, so instead, they came up with an agreement. One Plebian would be invited to join the senate, and he would have the say in which laws would or would not be passed. This had a huge impact on the Plebian community, because even though he himself could not form laws, he had veto power over all of the Patricians. This meant that if they wanted a law passed, they had to put the Plebians in mind before presenting it to the man in charge of the veto. In the end, this made laws more fair for everyone in Rome, not just the wealthy people. This sort of thing what somewhat revolutionary, because before any of this happened, the working class was never treated fair, no matter what civilization you lived in. It had always just been a fact of life that the poor people had no say in laws, and the rich man ruled the world. The Struggle of the Orders was the first event in history to change that standard around.

Alexander The Great- Was it Worth It?

               Beginning in his early 20’s, King Alexander III of Macedon (more commonly known as Alexander the Great), spent his entire life on an escapade that resulted in his conquering of most of the known world. Having invaded countries from Egypt to India, and  everything in between, it was clear that Alexander had been a very successful king and military leader. However, there were many losses in his journey. There were hardships due to starvation and dehydration, exhaustion, mental and physical setbacks, and numerous other issues. Alexander near well lost his mind before finally losing his life to a virus that he was never able to overcome (Alexander The Great). After he died, the empire collapsed, because Alexander had no one true heir. Through all of the victory and success, there was much failure and loss. The question here is, was it all worth it? Or should he have stopped his mission after getting even with Persia?        

            To understand Alexander’s motive for this extreme takeover, we have to take a look at not only his past, but at the past of his home, in Greece. The Persian Empire had always been an enemy of the Greeks, because about 150 years before Alexander, Persia had invaded and embarrassed the city-state of Athens, getting rid of their fleet of ships, and sending that part of Greece into a downward spiral of increasing poverty. (In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great) Alexander claimed his main motive for his invasion of Persia to be for vengeance upon this deed. (Alexander The Great, Wiki) But if this was true, wouldn’t he have stopped at this point?          

   It is said that power is the sort of thing that you can only want more of, especially when it is obtained all too easily. After Alexander had successfully defeated Persia in his efforts to avenge his ancestors, Egypt became the next target. The Egyptians had also been long-time enemies of Persia, and they welcomed Alexander as a pharaoh when his army invaded. (Alexander The Great) This event, no doubt, made Alexander feel even more powerful than he had originally felt, and it compelled him to want more. However, while Alexander was off taking over the rest of the known world, acting as the son of a god, it seems as though he had forgotten all about how things are being handled in the empire that he had already obtained. He managed to put generals in charge of each area, but those generals then began to get the idea that they were the real rulers of that part of the country, and that’s how it was going to stay, even after Alexander’s untimely death (In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great).          

              After he had conquered the area which is now seen as modern-day Afghanistan, some of Alexander’s men believed that he was growing a bit incompetent. At one point, he had gotten in a drunken rage and ended up killing one of the men in his army that was very close to him. (In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great) He felt remorse for it after he was sober, but this event was a major turning point in Alexander’s command. More and more of his men started to turn against him, and the first plot for his murder had been discovered. These men were later tortured to death, but no doubt it changed the way Alexander thought about his actions ahead of time. (In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great)           

So throughout his whole journey, Alexander The Great accomplished many great feats and gave glory to many other brave men. However, his death resulted in much confusion in his empire, which seemed to fall along with him and cause much violence and chaos in those areas., some of which is still evident in today’s society.(Alexander The Great) Though his original plan was just to seek revenge against the Persian empire, (Alexander The Great, Wiki) much more had resulted. Maybe if Alexander had kept his boundaries a bit smaller, the chaos that resulted from the fall of his empire would not have happened. In his case, lack of control was most likely his biggest fault.

Bibliography:

1. Alexander The Great Wikipedia Page
2. Video: "In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great" Hosted by Michael Wood, produced by PBS
3. "Alexander the Great." Macedonia FAQ. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html>.

4b- 11. How did Alexander create his own myth?

The easiest way to answer this question is to take the specifics completely out- how are myths created in general? This question is easier to answer. Simply leave out the details and tell the story a little differently every time. By doing this, people start spreading the story around, and if someone hears two different versions of that story, then they try to make sense of it by combining both versions. Then you have a completely different and 100% original story that you didn't tell, getting spread around. Alexander made sure to keep himself vague to his citizens. He never let his personal life get in the way of his conquest, which left an air of mystery between his people, so when rumors spread about him, sometimes he'd hear the other end of it, decide he liked what he heard, and just go along with it. When he entered Egypt, they called him the son of a god, and this title left an impression on him. By the time Alexander had reached India, he truly believed that his father was not Philip II of Macedon, but an immortal ruler of the world. When you put on an act for long enough, you start to forget who you originally were, and you believe the act yourself. Not to mention that as his journey went on, Alexander lost more and more of his sanity, most likely due to the pressure and confusion of ruling such a massive empire. The truth is, Alexander created his own myth by believing that he was something different. Once you convince yourself, it doesn't take much longer before other people start to believe it, too.

4b- 10. Using Google Maps, create an illustration of Alexander's whole journey.

4b- 9. Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?

I do not think that a force like Alexander the Great could exist today. When he first took power, the people in his army were forced to follow him wherever he went, or there would be dire consequences. After a while, they see that he is a good leader and someone they would want to follow anyways, but before that was known, their only reason for following him was force. Today, if someone were to try and take control by force, there would be too much contact with outside forces for it to work. Say someone was trying to slowly take over the U.S. by military force. Someone would be bound to get online and start telling others about it. Media travels remarkably fast these days, so if a threat even seems a little possible in one area, an entire country and all of their allies can be lined up to stop that force in no time. Everything in today's age is so instant that it would be impossible to take over our entire known world, especially because we know about every piece of land on this Earth, making the known world the entire world. Alexander's force was great and powerful and definitely worked for his time, but it wouldn't be as successful in today's age. If worst comes to worst, and a great power seems just completely unstoppable, there is always the option of nuclear weapons to be sure to get rid of the threat, if necessary. However, this would have to be a last resort, because one nuclear launch would lead to another, and that could mean the demise of humanity.

4b- 7. What do you think should have been done after Alexander's death?

Alexander's death came very untimely and caused much confusion in his empire. Though he had left generals in charge of certain areas, there were no definite boundaries, so when they were left to themselves, many a battle broke out. The hard thing about Alexander's empire was that it was literally most (if not all) of the known world. That's a big territory for one heir. So leaving one person in charge of his empire probably wouldn't have been the best idea for Alexander at that point, anyways. However, I think that when Alexander became fairly sure that he was going to die, it would have been intelligent to set specific boundaries for separate provinces or city-states in his empire, and then left one person in charge of the representatives for each division of his empire. This would be a government sort of like the one we have in the United States, where there are many different heads of state, but then there is one head of the heads of state, so that there are never any major disagreements. This is sort of the way he was running things while he was alive, by leaving people in charge of each area, only it would need to be more defined and clarified in order to avoid chaos. Though this plan might seem a little complicated, I do think it would have been successful, and who knows? Maybe that region of the world would still be a country or union today.

4b- 6. Was Alexander the Great a "good leader"? Compare/Contrast with Pericles.

There is a difference between a great leader and a great ruler. To be a great leader, it takes charisma, strategy, and, of course, followers. In order to be a great ruler, one must always have his people's needs in mind, and he should always be fair to everyone that he reigns over. I believe that Alexander while Alexander was a great leader, he was not the best ruler. I see the vice versa with Pericles. He wasn't much of a leader, because there weren't too many movements that he lead his people on. However, he kept Athens thriving during his rule, and his citizens seemed to like him, so I would say that he is a fairly good ruler. Alexander lead an army to the ends of the Earth (somewhat literally), and was victorious for most of the journey. He had this thing about him that just made him likable and someone who could relate to his followers. It was easy for him to get people to do what he wanted, so he did. But you can see that after he conquered a place, he wasn't very worried about how they would thrive when he left. That evidence is there just from seeing that he never left a clear heir for his empire. Pericles, on the other hand, had lead Athens through some very tough times, and tragically died from a plague. This is where the two men are similar. Neither of them had a set successor because illness came and unexpectedly ended their rules. It's kind of ironic how that all played out, actually. No matter how powerful Alexander was, no matter how reliable Pericles was, it was sickness that caused them to lose it all in the end. Overall, I would say that Alexander was a great leader, but he could've worked a bit more on ruling his empire, instead of expanding it.

4b- 4. Describe relations between Egypt and Persia before Alexander came on the scene.

Before Alexander "came on the scene," tensions between Egypt and Persia were very high. Persia had attacked, conquered, and taken over Egypt before Alexander conquered Persia, so Egypt was under the control of the Persian Empire. This brought much confusion and dissatisfaction, because Egypt's religious beliefs were very different from Persia, so Egypt felt as though their culture had been ripped from their lives and that they were being forced to live a totally different lifestyle. After Alexander conquered Persia, Egypt was so overjoyed that they welcomed him as a god. There was absolutely no military force involved in this takeover; they simply made him pharaoh after he overtook Persia. This probably helped Alexander be more kind to the people of Egypt, and be a little more free-willing when it came to the things that he changed about their civilization. Another thing that made Alexander sort of biased towards Egypt was their deep hate of Persia. Alexander's entire reason for going off on this escapade was to avenge his father and his homeland by taking over Persia. The fact that the Egyptians supported his cause so much really helped him to like them better than he would like another territory that he overtook.

4b- 3. Based on what you know about Aristotle, do you think Alexander had listened carefully to his tutor?

Politically speaking, I don't believe that Alexander followed the teachings of Aristotle very closely. The wikipedia page on Aristotle gave this quote,  "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together."  This is saying that communities should be small in order to keep them working properly. Alexander, however, had the mindset that bigger was always better, no matter what the reason or cost. This has always been my personal disagreement with Alexander The Great, because I think that he could have been a very remarkable ruler if it weren't for the fact that he just kept going further and further, never actually stopping to establish a culture or community. This is why when Alexander died, his whole empire seemed to collapse in the confusion. I'm sure it took a while for the news of his death to reach all the way back to Macedonia, which was his birthplace and starting point to begin with. It seems as though Alexander wasn't trying to build an empire, but that he was playing a game to see how many places he could get his name known in. He may have won his game, but if he had payed more attention to his tutor, Aristotle, he may have lived a longer, and possibly happier life. I do think that if he had found a stopping point early on, Alexander could have kept his health and sanity for a much longer period of time.

4b- 1. What compels someone to lead others?

If you look through the records of some of the world's greatest leaders, you'll find many different motives for their rules and conquests. Some rule for revenge, others for riches, others to benefit their communities, and still others just for the concept of being in control. No great movement was ever pursued without someone leading the herd. And every great movement is started with an idea. That idea has to be born into someone's mind at some point, and that person is more often than not the leader of that movement. Leadership is a chain reaction of events, and a lot of times, leaders don't even see what's happening until they're thrust into that front position, and they have to decide what to do. The courageous will take matters into their own hands and dive headfirst into whatever conflict is at hand. Others might decide to take this position of leadership and give it to someone else, if they feel like they can't handle what's ahead. In the case of Alexander the Great, he was angered. His father had been killed, and his homeland embarrassed. He knew something had to be done, and he had to be the one to do it. It is seen that Alexander's drive to lead was revenge. However, in later times, you can see that other leaders (like George Washington) lead for the good of his people, or because of his hunger for power (like Adolph Hitler). There is a movement behind every leader, and a story behind every movement. That story is what compels people to lead others.

A Bad Haircut

Characters:

·         Irena (main character, daughter of Damen)

·         Damen (barber, father Irena)

·         Corydon (announcer)

·         Socrates (philosopher)

·         Old Man (tells news of great loss to the Spartans)

·         Athenian 1

·         Athenian 2

·         Athenian 3

Scene: Camera closes in on a girl sitting on a stool with a black background. Her name is Irena. She is dressed in Athenian clothing, and she is sobbing. You can tell that she has been through a lot of sorrow, and she looks years older than she really is.  She looks up to see the camera, and begins to wipe her eyes.

Irena: I’m sorry, I didn’t see you there. Excuse me for acting like this; it’s just that my homeland has recently suffered a great loss. The Spartans- well, they’ve taken everything from us. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of Athens losing so much in so little time.

Scene: The streets of Athens; many people bustling around, trying to get to where they need to be. The camera is focused on the path of a girl who looks like Irena, only happier and much younger. The frame freezes, and Irena begins a voiceover.

Irena: See that girl? That’s me. It was only about a year ago, when all of this was starting. I’m headed down to the shore, where my father’s barber shop is located. I get to go there and help him clean out the shop every afternoon before closing. I was running a little late today, and ended up running into the square just as an announcement was being made.

Scene: Frame resumes. Irena gets caught in a large crowd that is forming a circle around one man, who is holding a piece of paper in his hands. People are shouting over one another, trying to guess what the news might be.

Athenian 1: What is it, Corydon?

Athenian 2: Yeah, what’s going on? Is this about the thieves that have been going through the shops lately?

Athenian 3: No, you ape! It’s got to be about Sparta. Pericles has been talking about the Spartans for weeks!

Corydon, a jittery man with lots of nerves in front of large crowds, clears his throat and raises the paper in his shaking hands.

Corydon: P-p-precisely, Dard. (begins to shout) Excuse me! Excuse me! Here here! Percilies has come to a decision about our conflict with Sparta! All men who are warriors in the Athenian military are to report to their base tonight, as our fleet of ships leave at dawn! Your preparation is over, men! Rest well tonight, for tomorrow, we dominate!

Murmurs begin to spread through the crowd like wildfire. One man in the back clears his throat. All focus changes to him.

Socrates:  I don’t believe this is the right choice. Isn’t there any way to make peace between us and Sparta, without killing off so many of our men?

Athenian 1: Who says we’re going to kill off a bunch of our men! We can handle the Spartans!

Socrates: Is that so? How do we know this?

Corydon: Enough! Pericles has spoken! Men, get prepare yourselves!

Scene: Camera focuses in on Irena once again, as she begins to move again. Though she still moves through the crowd fairly cheerfully, there is now a worried look on her face.

Irena: (shoving her way through the crowd) Excuse me. Pardon me. I have to get through, my father is expecting me! (she pushes with more force, and finally she is free from the crowd. Camera fades as it shows Irena running away, towards the setting sun that leads its way onto the shore.)

Scene: Damen’s barber shop- there are blades hanging on the walls, and a few chairs lined up under the blades. Damen takes out a broom and begins to sweep hair from the floor of the tiny shack out the door. Irena hurries in and nearly runs into Damen.

Damen: Irena! You gave me a scare. Why are you late?

Irena: (takes broom from Damen) Sorry, father. There was announcement in the square today, and I couldn’t get through the crowd. (begins sweeping, picking up where Damen left off)

Damen: Well, out with it, girl. What was the announcement? (walks over to table, picks up cloth and takes a blade off the wall. Irena begins to speak as he cleans the blade.)

Irena: Pericles has decided to send the warriors off into Spartan territory for an attack. I’m most certain that our Navy can handle it, but I’m worried for Adelphos.

Damen: (puts blade on table with a *bang*) What’s there to be worried for? Adelphos is a brilliant fighter! And very young and healthy! Your brother will be a hero! Our family name will go down in history!

Irena: (begins to mouth the last scentence of Damen’s response) Father, I know. You’ve told me this many times. But I still worry for him. Sometimes heros have to die to become famous.

Damen: Then die, he will. But with honor. And that is what matters.

Irena: I suppose so, father…. (continues sweeping as scene fades out)

Scene: We are brought back to the more somber Irena. She has a distant look on her face, and she continues her story.

Irena: Athens was sure, at that point, that we were going to conquer the Spartans. We had a strong Navy, clever men, and powerful generals. Because they were waiting for us along the shores, the plan was that our men go around from the South, and sneak up on the Spartans from behind. We were getting news about once a week saying that our men were getting closer and closer to land. But after they had reached the area of the battle, the news stopped. We heard nothing for almost a year. But we all just assumed the battle was taking longer than expected, and our men would be home soon. Until, that is, that fateful day in my father’s shop. (camera scene begins to change, but Irena’s voiceover keeps going) It was a busy day, so I was allowed to stay in the shop all day and clean up as my father was going. When the last customer of the day came in, I was very tired.

Scene: Damen’s shop again. Around the same time as before, this time, I rena is crouched in the corner, and an old man is on one of the seats, pulled away from the wall. Damen is behind him, holding his hair up to a blade, beginning to trim it.

Damen: If you don’t mind me asking, sir, where are you from?

Old Man: I’m a traveller. I was born in Athens, but I’ve been moving around since I was about 15.  I do enjoy the nomadic life.

Irena: (jumps up) Oh, that seems so exciting! Do you have any stories to tell? What kind of-

Damen: (frustrated) Irena! Girls are only to speak when spoken to! Now sit back down and do not bother this man.

Old Man: No, it’s quite alright. There is something I witnessed recently that someone ought to know about. It was just so tragic.

Damen: (puts down blade, picks up new one) Tragic? Go on, if you please?

Old Man: Oh, it was just terrible. I met with the general of a Navy, over near the Spartan territory. He said he was one of the only ones from his fleet left. Apparently they had gone over to attack Sparta by surprise. But the men kept arguing on their way over to the territory, so there was never clear direction. Worse than that, someone had betrayed them, and the Spartans had found out about the sneak attack. So not only were they unclear about what they were to do, but the Spartans were already waiting for their attack. Many of the men ended up just drowning on their way off the ship, and anyone who didn’t drown was killed in battle, no contest. This general, he said he’s one of about 50 left. They’re going to head back to their homeland soon, but they don’t expect a very warm welcome.

Damen drops his blade and falls backward. Irena screams and runs to her father.

Scene: Back to Irena. She is crying again, and this time, she doesn’t try to hide it.

Irena: We found when the 50 men came back that Adelphos had been one of the men to drown on his way off of the ship. I will never see my brother again, and now the Spartans are after us. I don’t know much of what’s going to happen next, but I fear that our future as a community is quite bleak.

4- 5. Explain how the origins of theatre in Athens are tied to both religion and politics.

Theater in Athens was always a very large part of both religion and politics. It could probably be said that because of the theater's funding, it was more of a religious ritual, but political positions were often shown in many plays and performances, to try and get messages across to the citizens without actually speaking things outright. The funding for Athenian theater was not earned by the plays themselves, but rather given to the programs by the Athenian government itself, so a religious festival called City Dionysia could include theater. In these performances, stories were told that followed ones told about the Greek gods. When a story wasn't a direct relation to the Greek gods, things the characters said and did often had some relation to things that their religious figures had done in the past, so as to make an allusion to the gods. There were requirements for each performance, one of them being that three of the plays needed to be a tragedy (a sad tale almost always ending in death) and one of them had to be a Satyr play (A comic tragedy that often involved an irresponsible character doing comedic things, but ultimately resulting in his demise or death).Overall, theater was a huge part in Greek culture, and Athenian culture in specifics. Many a point was brought across by a good bit of theater in a festival for the citizens.

4- 4. Was Athens really a 'democracy'?

The dictionary definition of democracy is as follows: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exerciseddirectly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Going straight from this definition, Athens was not a full democracy. They did have a head leader that they looked to for the major choices in the community, such as when they would or would not go to battle. In a full democracy, all of the power is left with the people, no filters or representatives. Athenian leaders like Pericles made decisions on when they would go to battle, and that was not always in the best interest of the people. The Peloponnesian wars are a very good example of this. The citizens of Athens had lost a lot because of their losses to Sparta and Persia. We know that Socrates didn't keep his ideas to himself about these attacks, but it seems like he is the only one. In a true democracy, citizens are allowed to speak their ideas before things are voted for and decided on. I do not believe that Socrates was the only one against attacking during these wars, and if Athens had been a true democracy, maybe that would have been something that was more evident.

4- 2. Why do people write a record of their past?

 How does what happened yesterday in your life affect what you choose to do today?...or does it? Do we all see yesterday the same way? Choose a material object--get your digital camera... take at least 25 photos of it all from different angles or vantage points. Team up with a class member and have them photograph the same object -- compare and contrast your photos on a blog post. How do different human beings view the same object? - from Norman Constantine

Even the concept of something like the past is incredibly controversial. For instance, that sentence that I just typed was written in the past. Some would say that things written, done, or said in the past are less accurate than what is written in the present. But is that sentence any less true than it was when my fingers hit the keys at the beginning of this response? The whole concept of past, present, and future is completely mind-boggling, and it's incredibly hard to explain. Is there really such a thing as present? Or does every moment simply go from future to past? Everyone's view point is going to be different. Which explains why the concept of history is so confusing. It's impossible to tell how accurate a historic source is unless you are one as well. Even if the person you're talking to experienced the event first hand, there's no telling what they didn't hear or see. Many points of one event can be missed, and before you know it, the story is passed down so many times that barely any of the details are the same. Philosopher George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." However, if we do not know what truly happened in the past, is it really possible to avoid its repetition? The past influences us in different ways, depending on the outcome of an event. We are taught that because of the deaths caused by mass acts of discrimination, like the Holocaust, we need to be more open minded and accepting of those who are different from us. This is a good lesson to learn. However, if all of those killed had really been criminals, others might have felt like they deserved what they got. Would the lesson still be the same? Most likely not. The lessons we learn from history depend on the viewpoint from which they were taught. In the musical Wicked, Stephen Schwartz writes the song "Wonderful," which contains the line, "A man's called a traitor - or liberator. A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist. Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader? It's all in which label is able to persist!" This is all saying that the titles and views of characters in history depend on the viewpoint of the person who is telling the story. Hope Kelly and I took a camera to school and took turns taking photos of our friend Casey in the chorus room. These are the pictures we chose from the 50 we took altogether:

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

Each of these photos was taken from a different viewpoint, and some of them (photos 1 and 5, for instance) could arguably be seen as two different people. Because we are two different people, Hope and I took photos that will not look exactly the same. My focus was more looking down, while Hope's was more frontal and looking up at Casey. We have two different points of view, so our stories will be told differently, and past records will not be identical. Overall, past records are taken to remember, to teach lessons, and to remain as reminders of events. But it is very hard to get an accurate, unbiased view of the past. We all have different minds, so our tales of journeys and events will never be identical.

4- 1. Do you think Socrates got what he deserved? Why didn't he accept exile?

Socrates was the type of man who put honor and dignity before everything else. If he were to just accept exile, that would mean running away from the problem at hand, which was that his people no longer wanted him. Though I do not believe that Socrates got what he deserved, I also believe that his act of accepting execution showed the nobility and pride in his character that had gotten him to be such a great leader in the first place. People followed him because if there was ever a time Socrates didn't know what was going on, he  was very good at hiding it. He knew how to comfort others, even in times of great distress, such as his exile. When his followers were losing control as his hour of death came closer, Socrates remained calm and acted as if he was just going to sleep for a while. A few hours before he drank his poison, it is said that he was acting so calm that the most he was worried about was bathing. "Simmias and Cebes and you others, will each make this journey later when his time comes, as it is now, fate, as a tragedian would say, is already calling me, and it is nearly time that I go to the bath, because I think it is clearly better to bathe myself before drinking the poison and save the women the trouble of bathing a corpse."  Acting this was was most likely comforting to his followers who didn't think they could handle this turn of events. I do not believe that Socrates got what he deserved, however. I see his execution as Athens needing a scapegoat for everything that the Persian empire had put their city though. Socrates was the only one to openly question authority, and it got him into trouble. However, if no one speaks up, then nothing ever changes, and change is the reason our world keeps turning. I find it ironic that the reason Socrates was executed in the first place was because of the events that he had spoken up against to begin with, and that is the action that got him into trouble.