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.