Map of India

Huran al-Rashid

I believe that the Wikipedia page of the Harun al-Rashid is a good one because there are many facts and it also gives the myths and stories of his life that could be taken into consideration. The page is pretty organized and its categorized into sections (Life and Anecdote). There is a lot of information in the life section and its well written in my eyes because it was chronological and it gave insight to his parents and their influence on him. I don't believe that this article is biased at all, but there are some stories and myths that could be not true. There are many facts, though, that do seem to be true. They could be open to be argued, but it seems highly unlikely to me.
I do have some questions about the stories he is in, but other than that, the article answers all the basic questions I had and added some more info to back up the answers. I rather like this article. I would go to the books referenced in the article or I would use the ever famous Google. I would filter my search by added more key terms to his name, like if I wanted to search his mother, I would put in " Huran al-Rashid's mother" and that would narrow down the search. To narrow it ever further, I could say "Huran al-Rashid's mother's influence" to find more about her influence on Huran's life.
The stories written about him add a spark to feed people's imaginations. There could be more stories written or different stories written that give different aspects and achievements that people find interesting. He is so prevalent in pop cultures because his life style can altered to fit into such poems and books, and the books about him from his time and the stories about him make him popular to be put into other works. His fame comes form his stories, in my opinion, and the Wikipedia tempers the fame he has becasue it's just general information about him and then mentions the books and the books are where his fame lies in.

Benjamin of Tudela

From reading the descriptions of Constantinople and Bagdad by Benjamin of Tudela, I believe that he seems unbiased. For the description of Bagdad, he talks about it in an almost indifferent view. He points out things that would work for strategies to overtake the city and it’s merely facts. He talks about the caliph and his role, the wealth of the city, and the location of the city. The same for Constantinople, although he talks about the location, the amount of business in the city, the wealth, and explains the city in the same manner as how he explained Bagdad, which makes me believe that Benjamin of Tudela is a reliable source to read and use information from.

The Expansion of Islam Map

Comparing the Quran to Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism

The Quran’s teachings on the relationship between Allah and humans are similar, but also different from the views of Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians. In Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the idea of a judgment day is there and the same principle is in the Quran, however, in the Quran, Allah is the only one who can pass the soul’s judgment. Allah can also get a little moody and angry at his people if they disobey him, which appears in Judaism and Christianity. Also, Allah is the only God ever mentioned in the Quran, it’s a monotheistic religion, which is just like Christianity and Judaism, too. Zoroastrianism has Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Islam also had one main prophet, which was Muhammad. In Christianity there was Jesus, and then in Zoroastrianism, there was Zoroaster. Each one of them founded their own religion and then tried to spread the word about it.  

The Islamization of the Silk Road

Foltz does prove Bentley’s point in the writing of The Islamization of the Silk Road, it actually says so before the selection, and it’s also in the text. Foltz has the three main themes in his wiring: voluntary association, syncretion, and pressure. An example of voluntary association of Islam would be Muhammad preaching to the people in Mecca about the divine voices of God he heard and told his followers God’s plan, which was all voluntarily and no one was forced to believe in his practice. An example of syncretion that happened was the principle of mawla, which was to have a new believe be paired with an older, experienced follower who would essentially be the newbie’s mentor and guide to the new religion. The pressure to join Islam could be about the marriage laws (a non-Muslim can marry a Muslim, but the children have to be brought up like Muslims) and business (merchants got better deals if they were Muslims since so many people were Muslims). I’m sure there is a better example for pressure, but I got confused when Foltz started talking about the rulers and the changing of capitals and keeping track of what religion was what.

Constantinople

1. I think the author of this reading is viewing Constantinople in a negative way. He describes the city in a way that makes me think that was trying to conquer it or destroy it. He described the churches as "too filthy and mean." The decription of the bazar itself wasn't positive; it was overall negative. When he described the church of Hagia Sofia, he seemed neutral because he didn't seem to exactly like it, but he didn't hate it either. I think this particular reading isn;t truthful because it seems too opinionated, but it does seem like a primary source so it has to be credible to some degree.

2. Benjamin of Tudela gives a distinct impression to the reader that his experience and thoughts about Constantinople are positive. He talks about the riches and all of the items found. He even mentions that Constantinople is a unique city: "It is a busy city and merchants come to it from every country by sea or land, and there is none like it in the world except Baghdad, the great city of Islam." He also seems awed about the entertainment that the emperor gives the people and that no other city in the world has that. I think that i can count this article as an accurate piece of history because it seems truthful and he's pointing out the good things of the city and not all of the day. He isn't trying to make the city seem like anything else but what he saw. He might have exaggerated some things, but I can't be too sure.

3. Liudprand of Cremona didn't like Constantinople at all. Apparently, his emperor wasn't given the correct respect and was called a king instead of an emperor: "He called you not emperor, which is Basileus in his tongue, but insultingly Rex, which is king in ours. I told him that the thing meant was the same." You can also tell that he doesn't like Constantinople because he insults their king by making him seem like an ugly and evil man. I'm not sure if this article is credible or not because Constantinople might have been awful and mean to the people who went there for royal business, and then if you were just visiting it could have been a pleasant experience.

Postclassical Era

Based upon the essay, I expect the postclassical era to be a readjustment of societies and the formation of new empires. It seems as though there will be a lot more advances in economics such as the long trade and making goods specifically for export. New technology will come about like a new irrigation system. The number of people increases dramatically in this new era too, and this all helped with the speed of production for agriculture and the manufacturing of goods. Religions also appeared, like Islam, Eastern Orthodox churches, Roman Catholic churches, and the spread of Buddhism and Christianity is covered; traditions started to arise. Then the fall of the empires will be covered and I'm guessing it will look similar to all of the other falls of empires we have seen.

Basically, advances in technology, agriculture, religion, and the economy will be seen in the postclassical era.

Rome's status to the Han Emperor

If I were the Han Emperor, I would view Rome as a rival, but as a rival to respect, not to fight. It is obvious that Rome is just as powerful as China based upon how big their territory is and how many different kinds of animals and products they have to use as they will. Rome is too far away to be a real rival for China, but Rome would be someone to watch out for because they are so powerful. I believe that Rome is considered a rival to China because when I read the passage it seems like the Chinese merchant who was reporting back to the Emperor was reciting everything he saw that could be valuable information to know about of your enemy. He told the Emperor, the location of Rome, it's resources, it's products, and the kind of people found in Rome. You don't normally notice those kinds of things unless you were spying to gain an advantage over a certain enemy. But like I said before, Rome is too far away to be a real threat to China, but Rome could invade the countries that are neighboring China and if China's ally was one of those countries, then China would have had to gone to their aid. The account also gives a vibe that, in my opinion, it is almost like respect. It seems to me that when an Emperor hears about another empire almost as powerful to their own, they either become paranoid and try to stop the other empire from being better than them, or they have a mutual respect for one another until they get in the way of one another and have to fight.

The Silk Road

Becki and I made this map of the Silk Road. The hardest part of making this map was figuring out where all the cities went and how far apart they had to be. If we actually had to use this map in modern times and tried to follow the Silk Road, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be using the Silk Road; we'd most likely be walking through the Taklamakan Desert. So besides our map not being completely accurate, we got all the right cities and names and the relative area of where everything is. The easiest part of the making of this map would probably be connecting the lines to the cities.

The Roman Empire

My image of the Roman Empire seems to be a bit negative now that I’ve seen the videos and read about the marriages and divorces in Roman times. I believe that the Romans were a little too big on power and showing it off. Showing off power to a certain extend is needed for an empire to remain in control, but obsessive control can have a negative effect. For the marriages and the betrothals, I think it’s disgusting and revolting for a seven year old to already have someone to marry and then be married to them at fourteen. But I thought it nice to know that they could be divorced pretty easily, but then the only issue is that if there is a divorce, the kids belong to the husband unless the father of the bride can try and acquire them. If someone gets divorced, both parents should be able to see their children and in most cases, I believe that the mother should be the one who gets to keep the children. It’s her right as a mother and the person who brought and gave the child life to be the one to be responsible for that life. But what really shocked me was the fact that around the third century of Rome, if a woman divorced her husband, she could be deported to an island and not able to marry again depending on what side of the empire you were on. The same thing could happen the male too. I don’t think that that’s fair to either of them. If you want a divorce you should be able to get one, no penalties. Even when people are getting married, it isn’t for love. It’s either decided by your parents, you just want to have children, or feel it is your duty to get married. Marriage should be about love and commitment like it is in modern times. The Roman Empire may have lasted for a long time, but the life in the Empire was not all that glamorous or happy. Most people were unhappy in their marriages and couldn’t even get a divorce unless they wanted to be deported or never have been able to see their children again.

From a Republic to an Empire: Roman Style

The transition from a republic to an empire in the Roman era was completed in several events and steps. The first step was the writing and enforcement of the Twelve Tables, which set up elaborate and specific rules that allowed the common people to be ruled over. It gave overall organization and enforcement of large measures to the people living in the Roman land. However, the higher class citizens and the senates still thought that they had the power to enforce the punishments and carry out actions that were not approved by the people. Yet despite this, Rome continues to grow and conquer more land turning the Rome’s region to look like an empire with the amount of land and people it has.  But with more land comes more conflicts. Some of these conflicts would include the assassination of Julius Caesar. But Augustus rises to power and takes control and establishes the Roman Empire.  The Roman Empire lasted for a long time, which suggests that the transition from a republic to an empire was an overall successful move despite the flaws and conflicts that came with it.

Alexander the Great for President

If Alexander the Great was brought back from the dead and was running for president, I would maybe vote for him. He may be a bit crazy, but he would actually do something rather than do nothing. I personally don't like either Obama or Romney, so I would choose Alexander. Alexander seems like the kind of person who would end our war in Afghanistan and end all conflicts that the U.S. has right now. However, based on the actions and personality he has portrayed in history, I feel as though Alexander would want to conquer the world and start World War III and we, the U.S., would be the bad guys. The U.S. has never been a bad guy in the history of the world so far. If Alexander was elected as president I feel as though he would either be the savior of the U.S. or the destruction of us all. I also feel as if the religion of the country would change back to the ones he had in Greek, because he's the "son of the god" so if someone doesn't believe or thinks he's wrong, then that person would most likely be killed depending on how bad the person offended the President Alexander. But then again, I think that Alexander would actually do something about the wars and, not particularly good per say, but something nether the less Obama and Romney just want to focus on taxes and such.

King Abdullah of Jordan

I believe that King Abdullah of Jordan is facing a failure about keeping his country democracy free. Like he said, I do believe ever country will have its own sort of democracy with a couple things here and there different, but for the most part, I think the Middle East at some point will all become a democracy. For all I know, he could succeed, but I pretty sure within the next 100 years, Jordan will have a democracy despite what King Abdullah said. Being surrounded by democratic countries isn’t going to help him either because if the people in the other countries like it and turns out to be better than the King’s rule, then the people in Jordan will want a democracy and they could revolt to get what they want.

Democracy

In class, we went over the different kinds of governments and we also went over Democracy and how our current government wasn't a democracy. The definition of a democracy is when the citizens choose the rules to follow; it's the citizens choice.

I believe in a smaller society or town, the democracy would work. In a small society, there aren't a lot of people and that way everyone can be heard and can have a say in the rules. The less people there are, the more the things they want can come true and happen in their society. But it would be harder in the fact that the people would have to do more things than the people in a bigger society would such as having a big production unit for agriculture and having an army.

However, I think that a bigger society would have issues with a democracy. When you have a big society, you have a lot of people and it would be impossible to listen to ever single person and make sure that they got what they wanted. It's just not possible. It would take to much money and effort to have everything and it might make people more happy t have everything but taxes and such are sometimes needed to help the society and not everyone would want that and that society would fall.

pg. 223 Sources from the Past

This story from Ashokavadana might have appealed to various groups of early Buddhists because it has a moral in it and it shows a different perspective of the caste system. For lower class buddhists, it could appeal to them because higher castes above them still worship them and deem them important. For higher castes, it could have appealed to them showing how even the emperor will bow down and prostrate themselves to the Buddhists. The moral of the story could appeal to Buddhists because its about what they believe because the story explains how some people are "obsessed" with the caste system and they shouldn't because they are "harming themselves and others."

Map of Ancient China

Chinese Dynasties and Indian Dynasties

The Chinese Dynasties and Indian Dynasties were very different form each other, yet they had some similarities. But all in all, China had a better time maintaing their Dynasites than India did. One of the big differences was that in China, religion played an important part in their political system with the emperor, but in India, religion wasn't such a big part. In China, some rulers ruled their people with the ideas of Confucianism, while in India, some of their rulers used a handbook called the Arthashastra to rule their kingdoms. Ashoka of India, used Buddhism though. The rulers in India didn't expand as much as the emperors in China. The empires in China were way bigger than the empires in India. But in terms of safety, India was the best place to be. No one was robbed when they were traveling and they didn't need traveling papers. In China, that wasn't the case. China had nomads sometimes in their lands and nomads do whatever they want, which included stealing occasionally, and China was usually at war with its neighbors trying to get more land, so people like the Xiongnu would attack Chinese settlers. Another big difference was how the Dynasties fell. For example, the Han Dynasty fell because of land reform issues and such, while the Mauryan Dynasty fell because the empire was paying their soldiers too much and the soldiers weren't even doing anything besides drinking and it was a time of peace so there wasn't really anything to do anyways.

Mencius and Xun Zi

Mencius is an optimist. From his writing, we can see how he wants everyone to act good so that it benefits the other people around them or the people in the empire. He also believes that everyone should help each other for the benefit of the economy and empire. He also says, "The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge." those are some of the things he believes are associated to each other and things that people should feel and do.

Xun Zi is a pessimist and believes in strict rituals and swift punishments. He believes that desires cause disorder and destruction of a kingdom and he feels that everyone is over come with negative feelings such as grief, despair, and depression. He also believes that sages are the only people that can do the correct rituals and have the correct feelings. He thinks that: "They are born with fears and hatreds. If they follow them, they will become violent and tendencies toward good faith will dies." He means to say that people are generally born bad per se and when they give in to fears and hatreds, any of the good inside the person will die. Xun Zi likes to compare humans to a piece of wood meaning that if heat is applied, they can shape the wood however they want, but it take a lot of force and "torture" to do it.


I believe with Mencius's ways. I am an optimist, meaning I believe in the good in everyone. I believe in many of the things he believes in such as the ideas that will make people happy. One was how if the king employs talented men int he position that he deserves, then other scholars will love him and want to work for him too. I also believe people are filled mostly with good, endless something had happened to them to make them bad. I also believe about what he says about how most people can't bear to see other people suffer, it makes the good people sad for them and wanting to help. I feel the same way. I want to help people in any way I can, just like the example he uses in Book 2, Part 1, Chapter 6, Number 3, about how if a child was about to fall in a well, you'd feel distressed and go to try and help them and stop the child from falling in the well.

Confucianism

1. I believe that this sort of religion. I believe it's more of a philosophy rather than religion. In a religious text, there are strict rules and guidelines to follow, God is mentioned a lot, there's reference to heaven and hell, and everyone must be good endless they want to have a horrible afterlife. In this text, however, there are rules, but they make it seem you don't necessarily have to follow them; there's a choice. They don't mention any God, just a Master, and they only make reference to Heaven a couple times.

2. This reading does support having people born neutral. In book I, chapter VI, the text says, "The Master said, 'A youth, when at home, should be filial, and, abroad, respectful to his elders. He should be earnest and truthful. He should overflow in love to all, and cultivate the friendship of the good. When he has time and opportunity, after the performance of these things, he should employ them in polite studies.'" the word "should" is throughout that passage because it's showing how the child has a choice in what he wants to do. He can do the good things, or not do them and be bad. "The Master said, 'The superior man is catholic and no partisan. The mean man is partisan and not catholic.'" (II, XIV) this passage is showing how the man has a choice to either follow the religion that they deem "good," or to follow the religion that they deem "bad." The man has a choice though, to follow what he wants. "The Master said, 'I do not know how a man without truthfulness is to get on.'" (II, XXII). This certain passage is showing what the Master thinks about people who lie. Everyone has a choice as to wether or not they want to be truthful, or not truthful. The Master is merely stating how he feels about people who are untruthful.

The Persian Empire Map

Pg. 176 Question

What assumptopns does Zarathustra make about human nature and the capacity of human beings to make morally good choices out of their own free will?

I believe that Zarathustra is making the assumption that they are good and bad people out in the world, and the number is always balanced so that if there's a good person, there's an evil person. He believes that the person has a choice of choosing which path to take though. They could take the path of good and truthfiulness, or the path of evil and untruthfulness. Zarathustra believes that most people would read his pasage and want the joy of salvation that he promises of rather than long punishment in the after-life.

Comments for the Poster Project

One:
Hey Rachel! I love your timeline! It must have taken a while to put down all those dates, but they look great! Your choice of photos is also really good. If you'd have to change anything, I'd say that you should change the size of your external photos and make them bigger so that they could fill up more space and you could see them clearer. India is similar to Mesopotamia because they had similar hierarchies. But India is different from Mesopotamia beacause they had different belief systems. I thnk that it's pretty interesting to chose a female symbol for an internal picture. What made you decide to put the symbol on the poster rather than just a picture of an actual woman?
~Sam

Two:
Tim! Hey! I agree that the images for your history head are great and that everything is nice and organized, but also, you had a timeline with a lot of events on it, which is good! I like it! You could've made your title a little bigger so that it pops out and people could totally tell that it was a poster from Mesoamerica. India is simialar to Mesoamerica because they both had hierarchies and religon played an important part in their societies. A difference between India and Mesoamerica is that the Mesoamericans had a rich culture including art, alters, and pryamids, while the Indians didn't have those. As I was looking at your photos, I noticed we had a similar photo, which would be the one with the hierarchy. Where'd you find that photo?
~Sam

Themes Project

My Poster

First Test and Essay

I have to say I was very surprised at both the test and essay. The test was alright, it was easier than I thought it would be. I thought all of the questions were goin gto difficult thinking questions, but I was glad that there was a mix in the questions. Some were straight-forward and easy, while some were harder and required a lot of thinking back on the chapter. I think the test went pretty well though. I was pretty prepared for the test, I didn't really know what to expect since it was the first test, but now I know what to study...which is pretty much everything. For the next test I'm pretty much goin going to do the same thing, but study a little harder and longer. The essay however threw me off. I didn't know what to study and I studied the wrong things for that essay. Next time I know I'll do better because now I know what things I should study! It wasn't a hard essay, I just didn't study the right things. All in all, though, everything was pretty good. The next test and essay will be a bit easier now.