Shakespeare

Shakespeare because his works William Shakespeare is widely considered to be the greatest playwright of the English language, if not the greatest and most influential. His works are still being taught in schools today.  He writing is considered the and none has ever been compared to his works. He is a true mastermind to most pupils and legacy will still continue on.  

Romanesque vs Gothic

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zamek_wysoki_wieza_glowna.jpg

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedral were very influential buildings that stood out from the rest in the early centuries and even today they are considered to be a sight to see. They were so complex that the building often took more than a generation to be completed. The main purpose of the Cathedrals was that they were to be a place of worship. Romanesque Cathedrals doubled as fortification in case any invader decider to attack. Gothic Cathedrals were magnificent and it showed true beauty in the exterior and the interior in structure and artwork.  There were no different theological understandings between the two types of Cathedrals; both of them were to be used for the Christian faith and both were a place for worshipped. The theological understandings of the cathedrals were different as well as the structures themselves; each express the people’s own view on the Christian faith.

Romanesque Cathedrals structure looked more like a bastion that an actual Church. The reason for that is because during the time not all was peaceful, constant threats from the Vikings in the north and the possible Norman attack from the south, so if an invader were too come the safe haven for the townspeople was the Cathedral. Bigger cities had an entire castle to protect themselves in it from invaders. These Cathedrals had little to no windows and if they did it would always be on the second floor (See Figure 1) the reason being was that the number of projectiles that could have been fired into the buildings were limited. Other fundamental features were that the walls were very thick and the bell towers could also be archer towers.  Some may say that they are completely different from Gothic Churches so the theology behind them were completely different as well, but in reality they did not choose to make Cathedrals a fortress rather than a piece of artwork it was because at the time they were under attack so they made the Cathedrals into strongholds; if it was a peaceful time then probably the Cathedrals from the Romanesque time would look a lot like the ones in the Gothic Era.

As stated before the Cathedrals in the Gothic Era were all about artwork.        During this time everything regained to its peaceful nature. Nobody had to worry about Vikings knocking on their doors or Normans demolishing their cities. The architects had really gotten creative at this time with so complex structures and with the actual Church inside of the Cathedral. The symbolism behind the Cathedrals was mainly about rejoice and celebration. By now Christianity had a tight grip in all of Europe. Theology still stayed but the people were happy so they thanked God by building these impressive structures.

             Many still argue that the Theology was different between the two eras. The only difference in the buildings was the appearance and the actual structures as well. There are also a lot of similarities between them as well. In both eras people spend a lot of time and effort into making the Cathedrals. Another similarity was that the different types of Cathedrals were greeted by storms of praises and complement

What did I learn?

I learn a lot in this class that I probably would not learn in another class. However we should limit the use of the Computers because many times people get distracted by them

Black Death

No one knows for sure how it had began but the most accepted theory was that the fleas and mice had been spreading it and it was different strains of the virus so no one could fine a cure for it at the time.

If I was a mid-evil doctor I would think the black death was a work from the Devil and it was God's way of punishing us. To treat someone with the Black Death I would probably think that putting a very hot rod down their throat would be the solution for thier coughing. And I would put leeches on them to suck out the disease filled blood with in them.

May people would probably cause panic and they would be total mayhem in the street of America. There would be a lot of pressure for the Scientists and Researchers to find a cure for the disease. No one would care for the law and police would have been over powered by the people. Many would lose their lives and the infected would probably be quarantined

Richards Story

Richards Campaign!

Do you want to stop the Muslim tyranny on our Holy City of Jerusalem.
King Richard Wants You! Not Your neighbor, Not Your Parents, but he wants YOU!\



Richard is like the new blizzard!

Dear Editor.

Hey! We Muslims are actually very friendly people. We were just taking what was right fully ours! It is not our fault that we had won the battle. We would even let you come and go if you did not try to kill us in the process. I am not happy with the information posted here. You do not see us Muslims slandering about you guys.

I am also not happy with him saying that the city is their city. We Muslim have the rightful owner ship of it and we will fight to the death than rather see it go to your hands. The war is far from over and we shall win. Remember what you are getting into Richard for this is will not be the last time that you will see me. Also you army is no where the level of my army.
From
Saladin

Essay Question

      Is it possible that ancient civilizations can be resurrected once again but in the disguise of a new nation? Well that is what some historian think about the modern day United States and civilization of Rome. To some however it is not the case. They argue the similarities between the United States and Rome are coincidental and that United States does not even have the same government that Rome had. The United States and Rome my have some similarities, but it is not the modern day Rome.

United States military power is no where near comparison with Rome's military. The US has an extensive array of weapons and man power. Rome on the other hand consisted of multiple weapon systems and man power but the way they utilize it is beyond different. The United States goal in every war they had fought was to find a solution to win and bring back most soldiers as possible. Rome on the other hand goal was to do anything to win the battle. There have been battles where entire Roman legions have been diminish yet Rome still had persisted.

Another way that the United States is different from Rome is people's role in the government. In America people can choose and vote for their leaders. They have the power of freedom of speech and they also have a checks and balances system so no one man or group is able to take control. Rome on the other hand was that the Emperor would choose the next Emperor which lead to a dictatorship. If a plebeian in Rome had spoken out against a richer or higher individual they would be most like be killed.

The last and most important reason why United States is different from Rome is the culture. In America    everyone has rights and no one is treated differently. Everybody is equal and if violations do occur the police system would interfere and stop it from happening. "Jesse Perry was   In Rome only the rich white adult males had the say of what is best for everyone in the nation. Nothing really had happened if someone had killied a plebeian but it was a big deal if some one rich had died.

Herodotus vs. Thucydides.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=September%2011&st=cse

The NY Times is an example of Thucydides style of writing

Herodotus was not a good source to look form. He had believed in anything that had been told to him. Thucydides spend a lot of time gathering and researching the information given to him.

Herodotus style of writing would have been like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The opinion page anyone can post in it with out any knowledge on the subject. This form of writing

Egypt and Greece views on the After Life.

Egyptians and Greece views on the afterlife are very different from each other. In Egypt they believe that once they die they will be going to the God Horus to be judged. However to get there was very hard. The path to the afterlife as laid out in the Book of the Dead was a difficult one. The dead was required to pass a series of gates, caverns and mounds guarded by supernatural creature. These Creature often had huge weapons and could only be stopped by chanting the appropriate spells. Once you had made it the judging had begun. Your heart was to be place on the scale with a feather, if the feather was lighter than the heart than you passed but if you did not you would had been stuck in limbo sort of speak forever.l 

"The Greeks believed that at the moment of death the psyche, or spirit of the dead, left the body as a little breath or puff of wind. The deceased was then prepared for burial according to the time-honored rituals." ( Source listed below" 

Source:Death, Burial, and the Afterlife in Ancient Greece | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Agricultural Revolution

The Agricultural Revolution was very import achievement for man-kind. People were able to settle down in one place. People started to grow things themselves. New Jobs were created for the people and the teachers started to broaden the subjects that they teach rather than just teaching the pupils how to hunt and survive. It also was a big impact on the growth of civilization. The town and villages started to grow bigger and bigger until they had became cities. 


The three main places where the Agricultural Revolution had occurred was in Asia, Around the Mediterranean and in Northern Africa.








The Agricultural Revolution Collapses!


Theyso called revolution turned out to be a flop! Many cities have been abandoned and people are now resorting back to hunting and gathering. Many the inventions we have today are no longer here! Many inventors stop pursuing thier careers and now all they care about is if they can get food on their plate before tonight. The Animal population is decreases and entire forests are being chopped down to find any food available. 


Reporting live from the remains of Bel Air where no one seems to be here anymore. Pressure is building up on the human population and there are rumors being spread around that some are resorting to cannibalism! Co2 levels are going up in the atmosphere because all people are trying to do is traveling to find food where ever they find 

View Final Exam Map in a larger map

Agricultural Revolution

The Agricultural Revolution was very import achievement for man-kind. People were able to settle down in one place. People started to grow things themselves. New Jobs were created for the people and the teachers started to broaden the subjects that they teach rather than just teaching the pupils how to hunt and survive. It also was a big impact on the growth of civilization. The town and villages started to grow bigger and bigger until they had became cities. 


The three main places where the Agricultural Revolution had occurred was in Asia, Around the Mediterranean and in Northern Africa.


<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;msa=0&amp;ll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;spn=39.780156,79.013672&amp;t=h&amp;msid=215149308146765611255.0004a53494f5cc6604774&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;msa=0&amp;ll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;spn=39.780156,79.013672&amp;t=h&amp;msid=215149308146765611255.0004a53494f5cc6604774&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">Final Exam Map </a> in a larger map</small> 




The Agricultural Revolution Collapses!


Theyso called revolution turned out to be a flop! Many cities have been abandoned and people are now resorting back to hunting and gathering. Many the inventions we have today are no longer here! Many inventors stop pursuing thier careers and now all they care about is if they can get food on their plate before tonight. The Animal population is decreases and entire forests are being chopped down to find any food available. 


Reporting live from the remains of Bel Air where no one seems to be here anymore. Pressure is building up on the human population and there are rumors being spread around that some are resorting to cannibalism! Co2 levels are going up in the atmosphere because all people are trying to do is traveling to find food where ever they find 

Link to Chat

http://todaysmeet.com/sarahpatt

Storybook for Kids

http://storybird.com/books/the-third-crusades-kids-edition/

Queso's Life Story

Queso had a very nice freshman year. Queso favorite part of the year was the homecoming dance at John Carroll. Queso was having so much fun at the dance that he had forgotten his cell phone there. Queso dad, Nacho, was not very pleased this with at all. The at the basketball game Queso had a lot of fun with his friends. He enjoy most of his classes especially West Civil. He had a learn a lot about people and then realize who his real friends are. So yeah he also did not do good on his mid terms. He made the Tennis team just so he could help a friend out because that friend was the person on the team. He made a lot of new friends and his vernacular had greatly improved. He met a lot of new kids from different schools because of his friends at this school. He was also starting to procrastinate but his father set  him straight about that and now he no longer does it. Yeah his life had pretty much changed during his high school. He had witness a lot more drama and even took part in it . The most funniest part of the school year was when Queso made a southern accent in Freinch and everybody laughed. So since then Queso had pretty good life going for him  

Weekly 9 Final

Weekly 8 Final Draft

Quasay Multani

Mr. Wojo

4/27/11

Question: How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedral were very influential buildings that stood out from the rest in the early centuries and even today they are considered to be a sight to see. They were so complex that the building often took more than a generation to be completed. The main purpose of the Cathedrals was that they were to be a place of worship. Romanesque Cathedrals doubled as fortification in case any invader decider to attack. Gothic Cathedrals were magnificent and it showed true beauty in the exterior and the interior in structure and artwork.  There were no different theological understandings between the two types of Cathedrals; both of them were to be used for the Christian faith and both were a place for worshipped.

Romanesque Cathedrals structure looked more like a bastion that an actual Church. The reason for that is because during the time not all was peaceful, constant threats from the Vikings in the north and the possible Norman attack from the south, so if an invader were too come the safe haven for the townspeople was the Cathedral. Bigger cities had an entire castle to protect themselves in it from invaders. These Cathedrals had little to no windows and if they did it would always be on the second floor (See Figure 1) the reason being was that the number of projectiles that could have been fired into the buildings were limited. Other fundamental features were that the walls were very thick and the bell towers could also be archer towers.  Some may say that they are completely different from Gothic Churches so the theology behind them were completely different as well, but in reality they did not choose to make Cathedrals a fortress rather than a piece of artwork it was because at the time they were under attack so they made the Cathedrals into strongholds; if it was a peaceful time then probably the Cathedrals from the Romanesque time would look a lot like the ones in the Gothic Era.

As stated before the Cathedrals in the Gothic Era were all about artwork.        During this time everything regained to its peaceful nature. Nobody had to worry about Vikings knocking on their doors or Normans demolishing their cities. The architects had really gotten creative at this time with so complex structures and with the actual Church inside of the Cathedral. The symbolism behind the Cathedrals was mainly about rejoice and celebration. By now Christianity had a tight grip in all of Europe. Theology still stayed but the people were happy so they thanked God by building these impressive structures.

             Many still argue that the Theology was different between the two eras. The only difference in the buildings was the appearance and the actual structures as well. There are also a lot of similarities between them as well. In both eras people spend a lot of time and effort into making the Cathedrals. Another similarity was that the different types of Cathedrals were greeted by storms of praises and complements. Christianity both occupied the same Cathedrals and performed the same functions during both times. It was not as if the Christians had completely different view when they were in the Cathedrals.

            So in the end Theology still remained the same in both the eras. Many people only see the one difference instead of all the other similarities in the Cathedrals. Theology or not the Cathedrals are a sight of beauty that showcases one man’s greatest creations at that time. Another aspect to be noted is during the Gothic period people still revered Romanesque Cathedrals a lot also. Thanks theology everyone can see the reasoning and motivations between the eras.

Figure 1

Santa Cruz de Seros Monastery, 12th Century, http://www.aragonguide.com/621/aragon-guide-place-jacetania-romanesque-route--aragon-pyrenees.html

Figure 2

Rheims Cathedral, 13th Century, http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.longpassages.org/images/Beautiful%2520gothic%2520cathedral.jpg&imgrefurl=http://rammthm.xanga.com/667784198/item/&usg=__AAjQ, 

Essay Weekly 8

Quasay Multani

Mr. Wojo

4/27/11

Question: How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedral were very influential buildings that stood out from the rest in the early centuries and even today they are considered to be a sight to see. They were so complex that the building often took more than a generation to be completed. The main purpose of the Cathedrals was that they were to be a place of worship. Romanesque Cathedrals doubled as fortification in case any invader decider to attack. Gothic Cathedrals were magnificent and it showed true beauty in the exterior and the interior in structure and artwork.  There were no different theological understandings between the two types of Cathedrals; both of them were to be used for the Christian faith and both were a place for worshipped. The theological understandings of the cathedrals were different as well as the structures themselves; each express the people’s own view on the Christian faith.

Romanesque Cathedrals structure looked more like a bastion that an actual Church. The reason for that is because during the time not all was peaceful, constant threats from the Vikings in the north and the possible Norman attack from the south, so if an invader were too come the safe haven for the townspeople was the Cathedral. Bigger cities had an entire castle to protect themselves in it from invaders. These Cathedrals had little to no windows and if they did it would always be on the second floor (See Figure 1) the reason being was that the number of projectiles that could have been fired into the buildings were limited. Other fundamental features were that the walls were very thick and the bell towers could also be archer towers.  Some may say that they are completely different from Gothic Churches so the theology behind them were completely different as well, but in reality they did not choose to make Cathedrals a fortress rather than a piece of artwork it was because at the time they were under attack so they made the Cathedrals into strongholds; if it was a peaceful time then probably the Cathedrals from the Romanesque time would look a lot like the ones in the Gothic Era.

As stated before the Cathedrals in the Gothic Era were all about artwork.        During this time everything regained to its peaceful nature. Nobody had to worry about Vikings knocking on their doors or Normans demolishing their cities. The architects had really gotten creative at this time with so complex structures and with the actual Church inside of the Cathedral. The symbolism behind the Cathedrals was mainly about rejoice and celebration. By now Christianity had a tight grip in all of Europe. Theology still stayed but the people were happy so they thanked God by building these impressive structures.

             Many still argue that the Theology was different between the two eras. The only difference in the buildings was the appearance and the actual structures as well. There are also a lot of similarities between them as well. In both eras people spend a lot of time and effort into making the Cathedrals. Another similarity was that the different types of Cathedrals were greeted by storms of praises and complements. 

Did the Roman Empire Fall Essay

During the final years of the Roman Empire there were many losses. "A great amount of art was lost, cities and roads were destroyed, and trade routes became extinct (Shenkman, 1993)." But most importantly, all of Europe’s peace was demolished by the invasions from the Germanic tribes (Shenkman, 1993). However there was one act of improvement that had happened which the new law that stated that there shall be no more slavery (Shenkman, 1993). Many historians mistake the falling of the Roman Empire into the evolution of something else. Ultimately, the Roman Empire was drastically destroyed, those who say it evolved failed to see that Roman had been destroyed by barbaric tribes, there was not one single good emperor during its final years, and that the Empire had already been split in two. 

The great Roman Empire had slowly started to decline. "This slow decline occurred over a period of approximately 320 years, culminating on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odo-acer, a Germanic chieftain” (Wikipedia).  Meaning that since of the slow fall of the empire many people did not realize it was before it was too late. The final collapse of the Roman Empire was when its emperor was killed by a Germanic chief. After that the empire was truly destroyed and there was no chance of reviving it back.

             Rome’s collapse was the result of several emperors who did a very minimal job at maintaining order for the empire. “During the third century Rome suffered from a cycle of near-constant conflict. A total of 22 emperors took the throne, many of them meeting violent ends at the hands of the same soldiers who had propelled them to power” (History Channel Website). One important aspect of this quote to be noted is that over twenty emperors ruled over a short period meaning most of them did not get to hold the throne for long.  Also, many of the fights and wars that came about from the result of the Emperors’ failure to preserve peace and order for the empire. During this time, many emperors showed violence towards their armies, causing fights that had long-lasting effects on the future for leaders of Rome.

            Another major factor in the Roman Empire’s decline was the suffering they had due to loss of land.  “Rome eventually collapsed under the weight of its own bloated empire, losing its provinces one by one: Britain around 410; Spain and northern Africa by 430” (The History Channel Website, 2011).  Immense battles and chaos broke out in the empire but Rome did not appear to realize it.  Other places however were fully alert of what was occurring and many people fled from the empire. Many countries left the falling empire and became their own independent empire.  Rome was not able to recover its loss due to its current state and the attacks from barbaric tribes.

Rome in the beginning was a solid dominant empire but through many mistakes of many emperors it did fall. If Rome could have pulled itself together it would have been successful against the attacks of the barbaric tribes instead waging war with itself. The empire started to decline when it had been split into two parts but it did last a long while during its final days.  The Roman Empire still is known as one of the greatest empires today and many nations learn from their mistake and prospered from not repeating what they had done, after all history does repeat itself to those who do not learn from it.

APA Bibliography

Ancient Rome, (2011). In Decline and Disintegration. Retrieved Apr. 13, 2011, from

http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome

Decline of the Roman Empire. (2011, April 9). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Theories_of_a_fall.2C_decline.2C_transition_and_continuity

Roman Empire Essay

   

 During the final years of the Roman Empire there were many losses. "A great amount of art was lost, cities and roads were destroyed, and trade routes became extinct (Shenkman, 1993)." But most importantly, all of Europe’s peace was demolished by the invasions from the Germanic tribes (Shenkman, 1993). However there was one act of improvement that had happened which the new law that stated that there shall be no more slavery (Shenkman, 1993). Many historians mistake the falling of the Roman Empire into the evolution of something else. Ultimately, the Roman Empire was drastically destroyed, those who say it evolved failed to see that Roman had been destroyed by barbaric tribes, there was not one single good emperor during its final years, and that the Empire had already been split in two. Ultimately, the Roman Empire evolved into another civilization over a great length in time.

The great Roman Empire had slowly started to decline. "This slow decline occurred over a period of approximately 320 years, culminating on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain” (Wikipedia).  Meaning that since of the slow fall of the empire many people did not realize it was before it was too late. The final collapse of the Roman Empire was when its emperor was killed by a Germanic chief. After that the empire was truly destroyed and there was no chance of reviving it back.

             Rome’s collapse was the result of several emperors who did a very minimal job at maintaining order for the empire. “During the third century Rome suffered from a cycle of near-constant conflict. A total of 22 emperors took the throne, many of them meeting violent ends at the hands of the same soldiers who had propelled them to power” (History Channel Website). One important aspect of this quote to be noted is that over twenty emperors ruled over a short period meaning most of them did not get to hold the throne for long.  Also, many of the fights and wars that came about from the result of the Emperors’ failure to preserve peace and order for the empire. During this time, many emperors showed violence towards their armies, causing fights that had long-lasting effects on the future for leaders of Rome.

            Another major factor in the Roman Empire’s decline was the suffering they had due to loss of land.  “Rome eventually collapsed under the weight of its own bloated empire, losing its provinces one by one: Britain around 410; Spain and northern Africa by 430” (The History Channel Website, 2011).  Immense battles and chaos broke out in the empire but Rome did not appear to realize it.  Other places however were fully alert of what was occurring and many people fled from the empire. Many countries left the falling empire and became their own independent empire.  Rome was not able to recover its loss due to its current state and the attacks from barbaric tribes.

Rome in the beginning was a solid dominant empire but through many mistakes of many emperors it did fall. If Rome could have pulled itself together it would have been successful against the attacks of the barbaric tribes instead waging war with itself. The empire started to decline when it had been split into two parts but it did last a long while during its final days.  The Roman Empire still is known as one of the greatest empires today and many nations learn from their mistake and prospered from not repeating what they had done, after all history does repeat itself to those who do not learn from it.

Stoicism Essay

Seneca was a man who was close to Nero and was trusted by Nero. Even though he was sentenced to death, Seneca showed a great deal of stoicism even in the face of death. Death fell upon Seneca, but he was unaffected by it.  Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one’s emotions; Seneca at his death was a perfect example of a stoic.

One quote that defines stoicism is from the Death of Seneca. “Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship” (Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE). This quote makes a good point about Seneca’s character. Even at the brink of death, Seneca held his emotions on the inside and showed that he did not care that death was coming. Seneca knew he was going to endure the pain of death, but he did not show that he cared at all. Seneca showed the ability to control his emotions on the inside while his friends and family didn’t see that Seneca even cared about death. Seneca was unaffected by the effect of death and death did not even matter to him.

Seneca can also be defined as a stoic by another quote from the Death of Seneca. This quote is, “Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks” (Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE). This quote tells how Seneca was just sentenced to death but he showed no emotions from it. Seneca did not even show any tears and he was not even scared at the thought of death.  He was unaffected by Nero’s sentence of death to him. Seneca was going through a lot of suffering at the time but it did not seem to upset him. It is as if Seneca just dealt with the pain and didn’t even care his life would be coming to an end. This quote also shows that Seneca was stoical near his death.

Another quote also describes the stoicism shown by Seneca. The quote is, “He had no reason," he said, for "preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery” (Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE). This quote shows that Seneca did not really show any interest in any one person. He also didn’t really say anything to the people he was close to or complement them for what they have done. Seneca just did not really show an interest in meeting other people or spending time with them. He kept his emotions on the inside and did not show enthusiasm in others. Seneca was more for himself than the wellness of other citizens.

These quotes show the significance of how Seneca represents a stoic. Seneca showed that he was a stoic by the way he reacted to death and by the reaction to others. The truth is that Seneca really did not react to death or other people. He kept all of his feelings and thoughts on the inside and did not show any emotions. Seneca did not show a tear and did not send out a cry of fear. Seneca just endured his hardship and controlled his emotions to a point where he didn’t even show any. Seneca was very quiet and subdued about a topic of death when many other people would cry and scream at the moment of death.  Seneca did not complain or whine; he persevered through feelings of pain. This made Seneca a great example of a stoic.

11 Point Cititation

News Flash: Starting tomorrow, April 7th, we will stop doing dailies. Instead, we will be concentrating on the weekly essays. This week's rough draft we are finishing in class. From then on, every Wednesday you will have a rough draft due for Peer review (you'll receive participation credit: P/F for having the draft ready). On your rough draft, please underline the thesis statement and in a different color prove it is an opinion by writing the opposite side; underline one quote properly cited with in-text citations for each body paragraph; make bold your four-sentence analysis of each quote; analysis should explain how the quote serves to support your thesis. After peer review, a final draft will be due on Fri by Midnight.

Eleven-Point Critique (for peer reviews and grading of final drafts)

1. 5 paragraphs -- 5 to 7 sentences per paragraph.

2 Clear, coherent thesis statement expressing an opinion to be argued in the paper.

3. One quote or piece of sourcable evidence properly cited in APA format per body paragraph / proper in-text citation format

(author, date). APA format bibliography at end of paper. Use top-notch sources (BBC, Met Museum, Nat Geo, Internet History

Sourcebook, school-library based databases, etc.)

4. Four sentences per body paragraph analysis. This is your own analysis demonstrating how the evidence supports your thesis.

5. Solid conclusion demonstrating the validity of the argument.

6. Emphasis: Put strongest evidence in the fourth paragraph.

7. No 1st or 2nd person personal pronouns (I, we, us, me, my, myself, you, etc.)

8. Academic Tone: No slang, no contractions, make it coherent and readable.

9. Avoid generalizations -- give specific information; I'm not looking for you to write an "encyclopedia" article. I'm looking for

your ability to construct an academic argument.

10. Avoid unnecessary information: "more" quotes doesn't mean a "better" paper.

11. Original and honest writing voice and a creative and remarkable take on the subject.

Read Tacitus' description of the Death of Seneca and Book One of M. Aurelius' Meditations. Find quotes within those two texts that help explain what Stoicism is all about.

Quotes from The Death of Seneca and Book One of Marcus Aurelius:

"Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks."(The Death of Seneca)


"At the same time he called them back from their tears to manly resolution, now with friendly talk, and now with the sterner language of rebuke." (The Death of Seneca)


"Even at the last moment his eloquence failed him not; he summoned his secretaries, and dictated much to them which, as it has been published for all readers in his own words, I forbear to paraphrase." (The Death of Seneca)


"From my governor, to be neither of the green nor of the blue party at the games in the Circus, nor a partizan either of the Parmularius or the Scutarius at the gladiators' fights; from him too I learned endurance of labour, and to want little, and to work with my own hands, and not to meddle with other people's affairs, and not to be ready to listen to slander."(Book One of Marcus Aurelius)


"His fame rest, above all, on his Meditations, a series of reflections, strongly influenced by Epictetus, which represent a Stoic outlook on life." (Book One of Marcus Aurelius)

"From Alexander the Platonic, not frequently nor without necessity to say to any one, or to write in a letter, that I have no leisure; nor continually to excuse the neglect of duties required by our relation to those with whom we live, by alleging urgent occupations."(Book One of Marcus Aurelius)

Stoicism was a Hellenistic Philosophy in the city of Athens by a man named Zeno of Citium. Stoics considered emotions to be an error of judgement meaning that no matter what the situation is a Stoic may not show any feelings at all. Stoics have a fundamental concept called Prohairesis. This concept states that nothing is good or bad. Meaning with Prohairesis a person can rationally react to impression that has happened upon him/her. A stoic believes that only a sage is truly free. To a Stoic a Sage is a person who was morally and intellectually perfect. Stoicism was viewed by the Fathers of the Church as a pagan philosophy and as a consequence all of it's philosophy schools were to be shut down by the order of Emperor Justinian I.

Sources:
Bunson, Matthew, A Dictionary of the Roman Empirepage 382
Fitch, John (2008). Seneca. City: Oxford University Press, USA. p. 32

How was the Struggle of the Orders influential on later Roman politics?

           Struggle of the Orders fought to make the Plebeians politically equal with the Patricians. In the early 400s B.C., the Patricians were the most well-known people in society. They had most of the wealth in Ancient Rome at this time and they lived in luxurious palaces. They were the aristocrats in society. On the other hand, you had the Plebeians. The Plebeians were the “rest of society” and were made up of the common and regular people in society. But in society, the Patricians had all of the power and they only used it for themselves. Patricians also made up the whole political office, at first. But over time, the Plebeians got sick and tired of the Patricians having all of the power. The Plebeians then argued with the Patricians because they wanted to be represented in the Roman Senate. So after long periods of arguing, the Struggle of the Orders finally gave the Plebeians a spot in the political office. This position was called the Tribune of the Plebs, where one Plebeian represented all of the Plebeians in the Roman Senate. But this position was even more important because this one Plebeian had the deciding power in the Senate. So if the Plebeian did not agree with a bill from the Patricians, he could turn it down immediately. The Tribune of the Plebs helped all of the Plebeians in Ancient Rome get politically equal with the Patricians. This helped the Patricians show more respect for the Plebeians because after all, they had the deciding power in the government. So this is how the Struggle of the Orders helped shape Roman politics in the future with the Plebeians and Patricians being equal in the political aspect of life. 

Daily Number 1 Week 5

 What elements of the Roman Republican political and legal system appear present in the systems of modern democracies? 



           There are many examples of the Roman Republican political and legal system that appear in the systems of modern democracies today. One instance is that both modern governments and the Roman Republican government had constitutions that they followed, allowing the people to abstain by an orderly set of rules and regulations that were agreed upon by the people. Like the United States constitution, the Roman Republican constitution centered on the aspect of checks and balances and the equal distribution of power among leaders. Thus, allowing each person to have the same amount of power and responsibility. Eventually the Roman Republican government also elected one person to represent their people, the princeps, or also known as the imperator. The United States has had one single leader for almost as long as its existence and other countries have and or are starting to, do the same. The Romans had many similar government organization technics that the United States shares also, for example both have Senates and Councils. The Senate of the Roman Republican government was made of Senators who passed decrees on what they thought of certain matters of the time. Like today, Senators had certain requirement that they had to meet in order for them to be on the board. For example a Senator had to be born a patrician, or nobleman, and the person would have had to have held a seat in public office once before. The Senate today has requirements for the senators that are elected for their positions too, like a Senator must be a U.S. citizen for at least nine years and they have to be at least 30 years old. The more a person looks into the formation and makeup of the United States government the more they might find 
link back to the times of the Roman Republican because there are many similarities. 

Alexander the Great Essay

Alexander is known as the greatest military commander of all time. Through his military expeditions he had conquered most of the known world and proclaimed that he himself was the son of God. He had an unusual sense of personality and he is known for his lack of care for life. His expeditions gave him a vast numbers of treasure and fortunes but they come with a price; that if things were ever to go awry they face the consequence of never returning to their homeland, to their loved ones and families. Despite losing the company of his friend and family in Greece, Alexander still had a lot to be proud of, I think that Alexander the Great had gain more than he had lost because of his expeditions, he was known as the son of God and no one want to be in his way.

To fully understand the reward of Alexander’s expedition to the ends of the world, you need to look at his greatest achievements, and the most important one was creating his own myth. His first step of taking of proclaiming that he was indeed the son of God was to untie the Gordion knot. The legend behind the ancient knot was that the man who could untie it was destined to rule the entire world. Alexander simply slashed the knot with his sword and unraveled it. (http://faq.macedonia.org/history). The next big step for Alexander was his military expedition to Egypt. The Egyptians, unlike the Persians, welcomed Alexander to their kingdom and even made him the pharaoh.  In the spring of 331 Alexander made a pilgrimage to the great temple and oracle of Amon-Ra, Egyptian god of the sun, whom the Greeks identified with Zeus. The earlier Egyptian pharaohs were believed to be sons of Amon-Ra and Alexander, the new ruler of Egypt, wanted the god to acknowledge him as his son. The pilgrimage apparently was successful, and it may have confirmed in him a belief in his own divine origin. (www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html). While in Egypt, Alexander spontaneously decided to make the dangerous trip across the desert to visit the oracle at the temple of Zeus Ammon (Alexander is known for his courageous yet impulsive actions).  At the temple what Alexander did was unclear but most historians agree that he had spoken with a priest who had told him he was destined to rule the world.  (www.notablebiographies.com/A-An/Alexander-the-Great.html).

Alexander had a great success of creating his own myth. If that was not enough he had vast monetary resource to supply him with whatever he need. How he had gotten the wealth was through his military expeditions. His most famous one was the conquest of Persia.  The greatest of his battles was of Persepolis (also known as the battle of the Persian Gate), the capital of the Persian Empire. The battle strategy used by Alexander is still studied and used by military generals today. He had split his army in two to circle the city and ambush them from behind were they were less defended. The Persians were getting from all sides and had to rely on their inner defenses which did not last very long against the might of the Macedonians. (www.Gaugamela.com). With the victory of Persepolis, Alexandra had gained an abundance of wealth and now he could pay all of his military expenses.  Alexander was ruthless to the civilians of Persepolis, he had given the order to plunder the city and to kill all the men. After he had done that he burned Persopolis to the ground as if it had never existed. (www.gaugamela.com). Darius escaped but when Alexander had caught up with him it had turned out that he had been assassinated by Besus. Alexander made it his immediate goal to kill him and he did, brutally. With the death of Besus Alexander was now the king of all of Persia.

Alexander had acquired so much wealth from the conquest of Persia but yet that was still not enough. However the most unusual thing had happen to him that no one ever expected; he had fallen in love. The girl that he had not even met agreed to marry him when he proposed to her out of random at a Persian hall.  His last conquests were to what is modern day Central Asia and India. This was the hardest of all his conquests and he had suffered many casualties but in the end he was victorious. Alexander described India as place of wonders and also said their customs were bizarre to say the least. The greatest of Alexander's battles in India was against Porus, one of the most powerful Indian leaders, at the river Hydaspes (http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html).  They had won the fierce battle and Alexander allowed to still rule in the local area. When they had reached the mouth Indus River Valley they had decided to go back.

Alexander had gained more than he had ever lost. He conquered to known world at the time and was considered the son of god by many. In his adventures he had gained many new allies and an abundance of wealth. The whole was at his disposal and he was not going to stop there. He had plans to go to places no man had ever seen, but unfortunately had died of sickness at the mere age of 33. His name still lives on and many respect and study the way he led his army to war and how he manage to fulfill his family’s legacy.

Weekly 4B

Power was very important to Alexander the Great in the ancient world. With it, he led to many accomplishments and became a prevailing ruler. His success in history still leads us wondering today about how a young man could conquer the entire Persian Empire. Alexander’s power definitely led him to do many unscrupulous things to people. Power was misused in the ancient world and corrupted the rulers.

            The rulers in the ancient world were fascinated by power. It led them to do some pretty crazy things. When there is no heir after a king dies, men fight for the position. They are not orderly or profession at all. Men in the ancient world just wanted the authority to have people follow them. Like Alexander the Great, many also wanted to be looked up to. They wanted to be seen as some kind of god or goddess, so people would respect them. They would also gain authority. People would do whatever they wanted.

Although Alexander the Great looked as if he were a very good leader to some people, it seemed that he did certain things for personal gain. He became infuriated with Bessus when Bessus killed King Darius III. When, in reality, Alexander wanted Darius dead anyway; he just wanted to kill him himself. Since his enemy died, he decided to make Bessus his new rival. After all, he had no one else to conquer. He gained from the power that he had, and he needed to start wars to earn it. He seemed to only care about himself most of the time and not about his followers. He was very good at accomplishing his goals. The Greeks were probably upset about his decision to become allies with the Persians because of the Persian wrongs and what they did in the past to Alexander. Alexander was, without a doubt, corrupted as a leader.

            The Persians became more Greek after their defeat. They were influenced by Greek civilization and culture. Alexander the Great made them transform into his army. Women had to leave their husbands, while their husbands became soldiers for Alexander the Great. The women had to marry Greek men. The impact of the Greeks’ power on the Persians started the Hellenistic Civilization. Alexander the Great became more Persian because the Persians were no longer his enemy. It was a new life for him. The Persians were influenced by Alexander more, though.

            In conclusion, power does corrupt. It causes severe things to happen. Some people ignore their morals just to become more powerful. Alexander the Great changed after his corruption and lacked integrity to the Greeks after he became allies with the Persians. After all, power was an important ambition that every leader wanted to have.

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

Before Alexander came on to the scene, Egypt and Persia despised and hated each other so much. Each of the two could not stand each other when they saw each other. The relationship between Persia and Egypt was filled with so much hatred and enmity that they just could not be around each other. If Persia and Egypt came across each other, they would get into a nasty brawl with each other. It just was not a good scene if Persia and Egypt saw each other before Alexander came about. But when Alexander the Great came about, Egypt accepted him as a natural leader. Egypt accepted Alexander because Alexander also greatly despised Persia since he wanted to avenge the wrongdoings Persia did in Greece, like the burning of their temples and the acropolis. So Alexander came to Egypt and was accepted as a leader because they each despised the Persians. Alexander the Great would combine with the great country of Egypt to have a great army that would destroy Darius and his army in Persia. A lot of the hatred that flowed between Egypt and Persia came from Persia not worshiping the gods of Egypt. Persia did not think these gods in Egypt meant anything so Egypt would not accept them into their own country. The ill-will flowed rapidly between the two civilizations and it was not a fun sight to see the two come between each other. This was the case until Alexander came onto the scene to permanently destroy the Persian army.

What do you think should have been done after Alexander's death?

If the all and mighty Alexander the Great died without leaving any heirs to the thrown or really any plans, at first I wouldn’t know what to do. This great powerful leader who defeats and conquers the Persian Empire and also many other large city states has just died. But the ironic thing is that he didn’t die in war, and he also was not assassinated by one of his many fellow enemies. Instead, he died from a fever. Of course, everyone else from that time who praised and worshipped Alexander the Great was very surprised. Astounded would actually be a better term to describe the people of Alexander’s empire. Who would have thought that he would die at such a young age? Then when the shock decreased a fair amount all of his generals were left power hungry, each and every one of them wanting to replace Alexander the Great. And from then on everything that Alexander the Great created and built for the Greeks was demolished over time. However if I was living back in the time when Alexander the Great died, I would have handled his death differently. For one I think that there should have been an election so all the Greek citizens could vote for who they thought was the best replacement for Alexander the Great. Then whoever got the most votes would be the Greek’s new leader. Personally, I think that would have been much more successful compared to all of his generals just striving to gain power.

Question: Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?

I do not think a force like Alexander the Great could exist today for a number of reasons. First of all, there are so many people in the world that if you had this kind of power, there would be enough people to stop that leader. It is very hard to obtain all of the power Alexander had in today’s world since there are armies and soldiers of all kind to stop him permanently. The world today, especially the United States, has power in the people who could stop a force similar to Alexander the Great. Another reason a force like him could not come about is because power in our world today is very limited, unlike in Alexander’s time. Back then, power was abundant and Alexander the Great used it all to create a huge empire. But today, our world has many leaders who have an equal amount of power and authority. Since power is doled out equally to each leader, no leader can have an abundant amount of power. This means that no force could have the power like Alexander the Great to be a driving force in the world. The last reason a force like Alexander could not come about is because each country has its own strong army that is capable to stop a force like Alexander the Great. The United States, for example, has maximum security that could stop a leader from invading our country and we have allies that could help us with this. Other countries have this too where they can stop a powerful force. All of these reasons show how a force like Alexander the Great could not exist in today’s world. 

How did Alexander create his own myth?

Alexander created his own myth by first asking the oracle Didnamon about his future. Today we can easily disregard this as an ancient that was never true but it all was in Alexander eyes. The oracle had told him that he would be the king of all of Asia. The next thing that happen to him was when he and his men were in the sea and it the tide had lowered. To Alexander he thought that the sea was bowing down to him and it increased his confidence. The last thing that happen to him that help created his own myth was the Gordian Knot. Legend had it that whoever untied it will be the king of Asia. Alexander did untie it by cutting the rope with his sword and later that day it was heavily raining. This meant to Alexander that the God were now with him.

Based on what you know about Aristotle, do you think Alexander had listened carefully to his tutor?

Aristotle was a very big influence on Alexander the Great’s life. Aristotle was an important Greek philosopher during the Greek Empire and was one of the main teachers of Alexander the Great. Aristotle began to teach Alexander when he was about thirteen years old because Alexander’s father, Philip, wanted young Alexander to have a better education. Aristotle taught Alexander a wide variety of things including medicine, philosophy, religion, morals, and art. Alexander learned a lot from Aristotle and began to admire Aristotle as one of his main role models. Since Aristotle was one of the most prominent philosophers in the Western Civilization, he tried to pass on as much information as he could to Alexander and give him more knowledge about philosophy. After Aristotle was done tutoring Alexander at the age of sixteen, Alexander started to gain power in Macedonia and became the ruler after his father had died. I do not think that Alexander the Great listened carefully to Aristotle because later in his life, he would be part of wars and violence and he did not use much of the knowledge that Aristotle gave to him.

Aristotle taught Alexander very well, but unfortunately Alexander did not use Aristotle’s teachings to his advantage. Alexander was always trying to conquer as much land as possible and his main goal was to conquer the entire Persian Empire so he could be the ruler. Sadly, many teachings from the brilliant Aristotle were not present during most of Alexander’s life. Alexander not really listening to Aristotle could have been a good thing because he achieved his ultimate goal without using most of the knowledge given to him by Aristotle. Alexander could have accomplished a lot more during his life if he actually used the knowledge given to him. Alexander the Great did not listen to Aristotle because he resorted to war and wanted all the power, which is not what Aristotle taught him as a boy.

Do you think Alexander honestly felt like he was avenging Persian wrongs? Or was that just propaganda to mask his goal of conquest?

  I think the main reason Alexander the Great decided to go to war with the Persian Empire was because of revenge. It wasn’t because he wanted to be honored or praised for his conquest or even to gain more land or more power for the Greeks. Instead I really think he went on his conquest to regain Greek’s dignity. I mean imagine how you would feel if some guy just came into your house and stole something that was valuable to you while you just stood there. And there’s the best part, you also can’t do anything about it. You can’t fight back. And worst of all you can’t stop them. But this person is not only stealing your possessions from you but also you’re respect. And everyone deserves respect right? So wouldn’t you be mad too? So mad, that you would want revenge right? That’s what it was like for the Greek city states when the Persian Empire invaded them. But not only did they just completely ruin their land by burning their homes and destroying their belongings, they also stole their honor. So when Alexander the Great went back to the Persian Empire for revenge, he went to reclaim his land’s dignity. Then also gaining control of their land was just a plus kind of like icing on the cake. So I think his mine priority or his main reason for avenging the Persian Empire was not just to gain more land. Instead I think that he wanted to restore the Greeks’ integrity.     

Week 2 Daily # 2

If I accidentally discover an invention, I would immediately help millions of people. Helping other people, in my opinion, is better than just securing a patent and becoming rich. Besides, being rich does not always make people happy. It is definitely an option, but I would be happier if I could help a lot of people. I would probably get rich for just discovering the invention anyway, but I guess, in this case, I would not. I think that the world would be a better place from my discovery. Everyone would know who I am, and people would probably thank me for being a hero. If I helped that many people, I could receive the Nobel Peace Prize or something like that because I started the invention. Other poeple could still remake it, but I would have the knowledge of knowing that I was the first person who created it. I would change the world. My discovery could lead to other discoveries, too. With all of the inventions made, a new culture could be formed. The future would finally be here. Helping millions of people could change my life, too. It is very important to help a lot of people. If you are nice to people, then they will treat you the same way. If I helped millions of other people than they would all help me, too. The world would be a better place with people helping each other. Wouldn’t it? If all of the wars, diseases, hunger, and homelessness ended, I would be very happy. I hope that I eventually do end up accidentally discovering an invention, so I can change people’s lives for the better.

Daily

 Don't our traditional forms of information communication, notably "the book" and especially "the textbook" contribute to our belief in linear history? 


Yes because in most books and text books there are always timelines that shows they support linear history. Most textbooks use linear history instead of the other forms because it is easy for students to understand it, Another thing with linear history models it is very easy to to see what happened and when did it happened. It may not have the whole cause and affect cycle like the other from of interpreting history but in some cases it does not matter. Researchers can easily find when and where a major event happened using linear. They cannot do that with the other forms of history.