Were the Julio Claudians really as bad as they seem?

             The Julio Claudian dynasty refers to the first five emperors who ruled in the Roman Empire. These rulers consisted of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. They held their reign in the time of the second half of the first century, ending when Nero took his own life. Both ancient historical writers did not write about any of the five emperors in a positive way, instead making them out as unsuccessful and even a bit crazy. Augustus kept on remarrying his only daughter, Julia, so he could possess an heir to the thrown after he died. Tiberius was next who was officially adopted by Emperor Augustus. Tiberius was known for his extreme cruelty, breaking a young boy’s legs when he complained. Then there was Caligula who became the first actual “Julio Claudian” emperor, belonging to both ancestries. Not only that however, he was also a direct descendent of Augustus Caesar. But even with his powerful dynasty, Caligula was still a little insane. To ensure his right to the throne, he killed his own cousin Tiberius Gemellus. Caligula also found amusement in death, money, and sexual intercourse. Following Caligula was Claudius who was Caligula’s uncle. Claudius was found hidden behind a curtain when told he was the new ruler of the Roman Emperor. His great nephew, Nero, was next in line to the throne when Claudius died from poison. Nero also being another direct descendant from Augustus Caesar, executed his own mother then framed it as a suicide. It was also said that he sang and dressed up in costume when the Roman Empire erupted into flames, destroying three out of the fourteen Roman districts and severely damaging seven more. These first five emperors of the Roman Empire were all too eager to commit murder if to only guarantee their own rule to the throne. They only cared about the power instead of the greater good of the Roman Empire. These rulers were not extraordinary instead they were ordinary at the most.          

Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?

            On March 15, 44 before the Common Era, Julius Caesar was supposed to attend a senate meeting. This was the perfect opportunity for the conspirators or as they would like to be called “Liberators” to assassinate Caesar. Since he would be by himself because only senators could attend such a meeting, they decided this was the time. When he got there he was presented with a petition to recall his exiled brother. The other senators then crowded around him, trying to give their own consent. When Cimber grabbed Caesar’s shoulders and pulled down his tunic. Casca then brought forward a dagger and attempted to stab Caesar in the next. Quickly, Caesar turned around and caught Casca’s arm. Casca then shouted for help, creating commotion from all the other senators. Caesar then tried to escape but could not see from all the blood. The rest of the senators ran after him and then stabbed him to death. According to historians, sixty or more men participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar. He got stabbed twenty three times, but only one was considered to be lethal which was the second one to his chest. The reason for his assassination as far as I can tell, is basically because the other senators didn’t want Caesar to possess the power of dictatorship anymore over the Roman Empire. They didn’t want him to have access to anymore more power than he already did. And as a solution they decided to plan an assassination. Now was this right? No, I do not personally think so. Just because you do not like someone ruling over your town, city, or country does not mean that you have the right to go and murder them. I don’t think anyone no matter what circumstance has any right to take another human being’s life away from them. That just isn’t fair.        

Why do many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor"?

            Publius Aelius Hadrianus or also known as Hadrian ruled as emperor in Rome from one hundred seventeen to one hundred thirty eight. Many historians consider Hadrian to be the “best” emperor in the time of the Roman Empire. And in there justification, Hadrian did accomplish many great achievements in his lifetime. He is best known for constructing Hadrian’s Wall, which was built for defensive purposes for Rome’s northern land. In addition he also built the Pantheon and the Temple of Venus and Roma. During his reign, Hadrian traveled through almost every province that was located in the Roman Empire. He also has a great reputation as a military commander even though during his rule there were no significant military conflicts that occurred. However, Hadrian was not only intellectual in the knowledge of ruling the Roman empire or in the field military strategy. He was also very intelligent academically too especially anything involving art. Another one of his interests was architecture, poetry, and hunting. Compared to many of the other Roman emperors that came before and after him, Hadrian was one of the more successful. I don’t know about the “best” but he definitely made one of the biggest impacts on Roman empire. For starters, he was sane. He was not found hidden behind a curtain when told he was empire. His nose did not run whenever he became excited. He did not push his enemies off cliffs to have them met their death head first, literally. Or he did not sit on his balcony playing an instrument while watching the Roman Empire erupt in flames. All of these emperors were at the very least a little crazy. Sure they might have made some great accomplishments, but were they really good leaders? Hadrian was.          

Scavenger hunt for as many pictures relating to the places mentioned as you can find and chart them on a Google Map.

Please write a brief biography of Hannibal and explain whether or not you think his reputation (in Roman eyes) as a monster was deserved.

             Hannibal lived in the period of when the Roman Republic established more power over other great cities such as Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms which include Macedon, Syracuse, and the Seleucid Empire. He was born in two hundred forty eight before the Common Era and died in the year of one hundred eighty three before Common Era. Hannibal was the son of Hamilcar Barca who like him was also a Carthaginian military commander. Mago and Hasdrubal were his two younger brothers but he also had several sisters and two brothers in law, Hasdrubal the Fair and the Numidian king Naravas. It is said that his father, Hamilcar, held his son over a roaring fire in the sacrificial chamber and made him swear to never be a friend of Rome. So in the First Punic War when Carthage was defeated, Hamilcar set out to reclaim Carthage’s fortune. When his father was then killed in battle, Hasdrubal got promoted to his father’s earlier position. Hannibal then served as an officer under him. Then in two hundred twenty one before the Common Era Hannibal’s brother, Hasdrubal, was assassinated. Hannibal then took his place as commander in chief by the army. For the next two years he fought in battle for the conquest of Hispania south of the Ebro. Throughout the rest of his life, Hannibal fought and also led many battles. Some of the most memorable are the defeats and victories against the Roman Empire. Hannibal was the Roman’s biggest enemy at the time. So yes I do think that Hannibal got the reputation he deserved if only because he is the Roman’s enemy. When you have an enemy in this time or theirs, you are going to stretch the truth to your advantage. This is what I think Rome did to Hannibal.              

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

            Back in the time of Ancient Rome, the government was called Roman Republic. This government was ruled by separation of powers and checks and balances. The Roman Republic also had an unwritten constitution called the Constitution of the Roman Republic, which was a set of rules and guidelines that was passed down through generations. The main job of the Roman senate was related to foreign policy. However, it did not have any official role in the management of military conflicts. Instead this branch was to administrate such affairs. Another focus for the Roman senate was to maintain civilization over the town and city. When it came to the election of new magistrates, the enforcement of new laws, carrying out for capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and finally the establishment or destruction of alliances with other cities the people of Rome had the final say in this decision. As for law enforcement and rights, the law of the twelve tables was the main foundation for Roman law. These twelve laws consist of civil procedure, debt, inheritance, property, marriage, crimes, excreta. Today in the United States there are some similarities with government and law. Such as the Roman Republic had we too possess different branches of the law for separation of powers and checks and balances. The United States also has a constitution called the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law in United States of America. However, this document is a written record. As for the election of any new authority, citizens of the United States get to vote as long as they are older than eighteen. The Roman Republic contains many similarities compared to the government in the United States today.       

Please take a picture of something in your own neighborhood or town that appears to have been influenced by Ancient Rome.

The housing in Ancient Rome had both public and private bathrooms.

Many buildings in the time of Ancient Rome used bricks and concrete throughout the empire.

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

            The struggle of the orders was a political conflict between the plebeians who were the commoners in Ancient Rome and the patricians who were the aristocrats. In the senate, plebeians did not have any power at the time. So in four hundred ninety four before the Common Era, the plebeians all left the city creating the first plebeian secession. As a result of this secession, the government created the plebeian tribune which is the first kind of power any plebeian was given in the Roman Senate. These plebeian tribunes were elected by other fellow plebeians instead of the people of Rome. They had the same amount of rights as any other magistrate, meaning that it was a capital offense to harm a tribune, disregard his veto, or it interfere with the tribune himself. Eventually, more and more power was given to the plebeians over time. So not long after, the senate contained not only patricians but now also plebeians. In two hundred eighty seven before the Common Era, this conflict was now resolved with having the plebeians possess just as much power as the patricians. However, the plebeians’ predicament did not change. Then in forty nine before the Common Era, Julius Caesar began a civil war against Ancient Rome. He eventually overthrows the Roman Republic and instead created the Roman Empire. The struggle of orders greatly changed the plebeians’ rights, and it also was a main component in the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Because of this conflict, plebeians now had the final power to pass or veto a law. The power of democracy now was not only controlled by the patricians, but instead the new Patricio plebeian aristocracy.          

Was Alexander's adventure really worth it?

           Alexander the Great sacrificed many important values on his conquest through Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, and India. Ruthless as Alexander the Great was he had no mercy for his enemies, which was a good thing when in battle. However because of this rage, he also made some decisions that he would soon regret. Many of his men were lost in battle, but there were also some great achievements that changed the world of the ancient times. By the time Alexander was the age of thirty, the Macedonian Empire stretched from the Ionian Sea to the Himalayan Mountains creating the one of the largest empires ever known in ancient history (Alexander the Great, 2011). Even though Alexander the Great lost an abundant amount of worth throughout his journey, in return he gained even more than he could ever imagine.

            In 331 B.C. when Alexander arrived in Egypt, he was welcomed as a great king for going to battle against the Persian Empire (Alexander in Egypt, 1996-2000). The Egyptians even honored him by naming one of their major cities after him, Alexandria (Alexander in Egypt, 1996-2000). Alexander then made a dangerous pilgrimage to claim his reign as son of Zeus Ammon (Alexander in Egypt, 1996-2000). When he arrived, priests treated him as a god (Alexander in Egypt, 1996-2000). They then proclaimed him to be the actual son of a Zeus and said he was destined to rule the world (Alexander in Egypt, 1996-2000). The Egyptians then named him as pharaoh of Egypt (Alexander in Egypt, 1996-2000). While in Egypt, Alexander gained the respect and praise of the Egyptians. He took great risks by leading his men through the desert on his pilgrimage to the oracle at the temple of Zeus Ammon (Alexander in Egypt, 1996-2000). Luckily, it paid off. 

            The Battle of Gaugamela also known as the Battle of Arbela was between the Macedonian Empire ruled by Alexander the Great and the Persian Empire lead by Darius III of Persia (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). Taking place in 331 B.C., the Persian army greatly outnumbered the Macedonian army (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). When it was time for battle, Alexander led his flank of the Macedonian army to the right on horses (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). The Persian cavalry followed closely behind Alexander and his companion cavalry, not knowing where they were going (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). On Alexander the Great’s signal, him and his cavalry charged straight for the center of the Persian army (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). Since King Darius’s cavalry were following Alexander, they would not have enough time to reach them when they attacked (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). Therefore, the Persian’s cavalry left a huge gap right heading straight towards King Darius (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). When Alexander and his companion cavalry reached the center, Darius and his men began to retreat scared of being cut off (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). At the end of this battle, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian army completely destroyed the Persian’s capturing at least four thousand men (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). In the Battle of Gaugamela, Alexander lost many of his great men but it was also inevitable and a sacrifice he was willing to make for victory.

            Alexander the Great had very high expectations so winning the Battle of Gaugamela was not enough for him. So instead he planned to chase the Persian army so he personally could kill King Darius (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). Bessus, however, who was one of Darius’s men had different plans. Before the Persian army could leave, Bessus kills King Darius (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). Shortly after Bessus proclaims himself as the king of the Persian Empire (Bessus, 2011). They then leave Darius to be found by a Macedonian soldier (Bessus, 2011). Once Alexander receives the news of this cruel murder, he then pursued to kill Bessus for betraying his king (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). Alexander eventually caught up to Bessus and his army a year later (Battle of Gaugamela , 2011). The Persians were then so scared that they handed over Bessus to the Macedonians (Bessus, 2011). Alexander the Great then ordered for Bessus’s nose and ears to be cut off (Bessus, 2011). However, the reason for his actual death is unknown (Bessus, 2011). Some historians claim he was crucified (Bessus, 2011). Others believe he was killed by torturing (Bessus, 2011). Either way Alexander the Great yet again was successful in his conquest.

            When Alexander and the Macedonian army reached India, his men refused to go any further (Alexander in India, 1996-2000). However, Alexander the Great was very persuasive. Because of this, he was able to convince his men to follow him into battle against Porus who was a very powerful Indian leader (Alexander in India, 1996-2000). The battle was a victory for Alexander and the Macedonians even though the Indians fought with elephants, which Alexander and his men have never seen before (Alexander in India, 1996-2000). In battle Alexander lost not only great men but he also lost his horse, Bucephalus which he had ridden into every battle before (Alexander in India, 1996-2000). To honor the death of his horse, Alexander the Great names a city after Bucephalus (Alexander in India, 1996-2000). This battle for Alexander had been one of the toughest battles yet consisting of sacrifice and victory.

            Throughout Alexander the Great’s journey, he conquered many city states and won even more battles. But he also lost many of his men and even sacrificed his horse, Bucephalus (Alexander in India, 1996-2000). Alexander knew the price of victory. He knew that there were going to be some great loses, fierce battles, and difficult obstacles in which he and his army would all have to overcome. But he also he knew the worth that would come out of all the sacrifices. In the end, Alexander had made history. He accomplished the impossible. What more could he ask for?       

Bibliography

Alexander in Egypt. (1996-2000). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Macedonia.org: http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html

Alexander in India. (1996-2000). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Macedonia.org: http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html#g

Alexander the Great. (2011, March 7). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Battle of Gaugamela . (2011, March 7). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela

Bessus. (2011, February 5). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessus

Does power corrupt?

            Power is the ability to control. It can be the ability to control something such as the TV remote or something as big as a piece of property or land. But it can also mean the ability to control somebody. Either way power is power, and that power can be the cause of a lot of different effects such as corruption. Power can certainty corrupt you, because with that power there also comes responsibility which can be easily misused. But more importantly you have to be able to handle that power correctly or you have the risk of being corrupted. This power corruption has been seen throughout history especially in one of the memorable Greek leaders, Alexander the Great.

            Alexander the Great inherited the thrown after his father was assassinated by the captain of his body guard. Alexander was then pronounced king at the young age of twenty. From then Alexander conquered many city states of Greece including one of the most powerful, the Persian Empire. With every victory, Alexander only gained more and more power and with that power he also gained confidence. Then soon enough Alexander proclaimed himself as undefeatable, a god even. And eventually the famous Alexander the Great was corrupted by power.

            After King Darius of the Persian Empire was killed by one of his men, Alexander the Great didn’t have another enemy to fight. So as a solution Alexander went after Bessus, the man from the Persian army who killed Darius his king. While on the move to defeat Bessus and his army, Alexander also captured many other city states in central Asia renaming them all to be called Alexandria. During the time, Alexander also acquired the Persian name of “king of kings” and adopted some other Persian customs. He began to dress in some of the Persian robes such as the custom of proskynesis which was either a symbolic kissing of a hand or prostration on the ground. Alexander the Great was influenced greatly by the Persian customs rather than Persia becoming more Greek.

            Power corruption is all in the head. It is a certain thought process that is caused from a great access to power. But with this power also comes responsibility, which is where normally all chaos breaks out. To have this possession of power, you also need to be able to be rational. But because of this possession of power, you also build confidence. The confidence mixed with the power then overtakes the rational part of your brain. Then with too much power and too much confidence, you can become power corrupted.   

            The possession of too much power can change a great leader into a bad one. Power corruption can twist the thoughts in your head into something greedy and selfish. Because after you are corrupted by power, that power is all you want. You begin to lose interest in the wellbeing of your people and the safety of your men. But more importantly you don’t do what is right anymore. Instead you worry about yourself and what you want. Then you find yourself willing to do anything to get more power. Alexander the Great was said to be corrupted by power, and I agree.   

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

              Aristotle was one of the famous western philosophers along with Plato and Socrates. He was a Greek, born in three hundred eighty four before the Common Era and dying in three hundred twenty two before the Common Era. His writings were one of the first to contain a complete method about Western philosophy consisting of morality and aesthetics, logic and science, and politics and metaphysics. However, he also had very strong beliefs and theories on the use of things, how things should run, and what is good. In ethics, Aristotle believes that an object or any other thing person, plant, animal, whatever the thing is, is only as good as its proper function. For example, an eye depending on how much it can see is how good that eye works or even how good it is in general. In politics, Aristotle considered the city a natural community. He thought that the city should be more than just about economic stability and justice, but also allowing the citizens to have a good life and have them be able to do amazing things in their life. But besides just being a great writer and philosopher, he was also a great teacher. One of the most legendary students that he taught was Alexander the Great. And even though Alexander’s father did die when Alexander was at a young age and he didn’t really have a role model, I don’t think he necessarily listened to his teacher Aristotle either. Alexander the Great was a great leader which does explain how he got his nickname, but he also was very power hungry. Every time he defeated some other city state, he would just want more and more. He basically just wanted to be the ruler of the world. So to me Alexander the Great’s morals were completely different than what Aristotle was trying to teach him.          

Would you have followed Alexander into Persia? Write a short story telling your tale from the point of view of one of Alexander's inner circle.

            The men around me are all ready for battle, dressed in their armor with a spear in hand. And even though we are extremely outnumbered, our hopes are high. Alexander has a strategic plan that could help us win this battle. Instead of having his flank charge straight towards Darius, he is going to lead his men on horse to the right. Then Darius’s left flank would follow Alexander, not knowing where he was going or more importantly what he was doing. Then Alexander the Great would give a signal, and on that signal his men on horses would turn around and charge for Darius. Since Darius’s left flank would be completely thrown off guard, they would not have enough time to catch up with Alexander and his men heading towards their king. Hopefully, everyone follows their orders so this plan will work and we will win this battle not the Persians. Last night Alexander the Great was even considering attacking at night. If we did attack I personally think we would be able to take out a good chunk of the Persian army but, Alexander explained that he was not an ordinary general so he wasn’t going to act like one. Now that it is time for battle I am getting more and more anxious. We all line up in our formation and listen to Alexander the Great as he talks. Then on his order, we all race forward to face the Persian army. And even though, we might not win and even I might die it will be worth it because as Alexander himself has said before, the greatest honor a man can ever achieve is to live with great courage and to die with his country in battle for his home.  

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

            Alexander the third of Macedonia, more commonly known as Alexander the Great, was the king of Macedonia, Greece. He inherited the thrown after his father, Philip, died. By a young age, he had already conquered the Persian Empire which was the most powerful empire at the time from king Darius the third. Not long after he controlled everything from the Ionian Sea to the Himalaya Mountains, creating one of the largest and most powerful empires known in ancient history. Nowadays we also have a leader in the United States, our president. However, our government is instead a democracy. And yes, in a way Greece also had a democracy too but their rights only applied to the Greek citizens. These citizens consisted of only males. There were no women or children allowed. But also, these males had to come from a more privileged family so not just everyone could become a citizen. In the United States, anyone can become a citizen. Personally, I don’t think that a ruler like Alexander the Great could lead a country from this time such as the United States. Back then it was all about power. Now however it’s more about our country and more importantly what is best for the citizens who live there. Our president can’t just be worried and concerned for himself, but even more than that he can’t just want power. He has to genuinely care for the citizens of the United States and also for our welfare. Alexander the Great was a great leader, but what makes a great leader then and what makes a great leader now are two very different things.