The Dutch Empire was in power from 1581 and flourished until its slow decline to England, which started in 1689. The results of the Dutch Empire were the great trading enterprises – the Dutch East India Company and the Dutch West India Company. Without the existence of the Dutch Empire, the world would probably have never been introduced to such a large network of trade systems around the world as the Dutch gave them. Therefore, without the Dutch Empire, the world would not have been able to gain wealth, transport goods throughout the world, or have ties with other places around the world that were not close to them.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: THE CARE AND FEEDING OF EMPIRES. -- nicole, 14:09:26 05/09/02 Thu

Nicole Sawyer
Sparta
Sparta was a Greek city-state located on the Eurotras River in southern Laconia on the Peloponnesian peninsula. It was the capital of Laconia and the chief city of the Pellopenesus. Sparta was originally founded during the Dorian invasions in the 9th century BC, and lost its independence in 192 BC when they were defeated and forced to join the Achaean League. It was forced to be made part of the Roman province of Achaea. Since Sparta was between two mountain ranges, it was cut off from the rest of the Greek city-states. The ranges acted as a natural barrier, which helped the development of the Spartan State. Sparta eventually turned into a military state, and become the strongest army in Greece.
The ruling class of the Spartans devoted themselves to war. At the age of seven, boys were sent to the community barracks to be trained in military and athletic aspects. The young boys were taught survival skills, discipline and to endure pain. After 13 years of training they served in the army. The men had to serve in their army until the age of sixty, all the while being supported by a plot of land given to them and farmed by helots. The soldiers were allowed to marry, but had to continue living in the barracks. When they were thirty, they were recognized as adults, and were able to take part in the Assembly. Spartans were raised with the belief that loyalty to the state was the only reason for living, therefore allowing Sparta to remain at the head of Greek culture.
The Spartan Society had a three-tier class system. The bottom class was slaves also called helots. The slaves provided labor for the Spartan agricultural system. They worked areas of land owned by a Spartan who would receive a percentage of the helot’s harvest. The next class was called the perioeci. Perioeci were foreigners who lived in Sparta. They carried out most of the trade and commerce within the state and city. They had many of the same privileges as the Spartiate, the native Spartans that formed the top tier in the social ladder. They received full legal and political rights. The Spartan law was also based unfairly on the three-tier system.
The Spartan government was run by a dual monarchy. Below the monarchy was a council, which was made up of 28 nobles who had retired from the military service. Below the council was the assembly of all the Spartiates, forming a fake democracy since the monarchy still had the final say.
The Spartans expanded their territory by winning wars. Since they had such a strong army, they won most of their battles and took the land of the people they defeated. After a series of battles they managed to gain a great deal of land, and expand their empire. In 725, however, needing land to feed a dramatically growing population, the Spartans marched over the Taygetus Mountains and blocked all the territory of their neighbor, Messenia. The Messenians occupied a fertile plain and the Spartans found themselves with more than enough land to support themselves and their newly conquered people. The Messenians did not appreciate the loss of their independence. With the help of the city-state of Argos, the Messenians revolted in 640 BC. Not only did the Messenians almost win, but they almost destroyed Sparta.
The Spartan Empire lasted until AD 396 when the Visigoths captured and destroyed the city. The Spartan army had a lot to do with why they lasted so long. Since they were so strong, no one could defeat them to take over their city. Although they didn’t have the best government, their army made up for it.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: THE CARE AND FEEDING OF EMPIRES. (and no, I'm not going to spell stuff the wrong way) -- Jimmy McCumber, 18:35:48 05/09/02 Thu

-----The beginning of what is now the country of Germany is unclear in many places. The nation had its beginnings with barbaric groups before becoming the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation during the Middle Ages. The modern Germany wasn’t unified until the 1870s. Only forty years later, they attempted their first of two attempts to take over the world. Throughout these many phases, many different countries were revealed, from weak empire, to the racist, fanatical Adolf Hitler, who struck fear into every country in the world.
-----The early Germans were not unified, instead they were a collection of tribes. They did not partake in sacrificial ceremonies. They had multiple gods, representative of things they needed including the sun and moon. Children were trained early on in life in fighting and hunting, which were the two main responsibilities of men at the time. Agriculture was less important to them, and their main food sources were milk, cheese and meat.
-----In the final hundred years before Christ, no one officially owned land in the German tribes. Instead, the magistrates and chiefs of the tribes would assign land to the different clans they controlled. The Germans at the time were nomadic, seldom spending more than a year in the same place. They did not want people to settle down and lose their enthusiasm for war.
-----The German tribes’ biggest war aim was to destroy all lands around them. They would pillage other nearby villages and make the land inhospitable so as to remove nearby threats. Robbery was considered an honor if done to another tribe. Despite this harsh treatment of outsiders, it was considered a crime to mistreat a guest. No matter what their purpose, visitors were to be regarded as sacred, protected from injury, and given the finest foods available. This strange contradiction was indication of the importance of loyalty to the Germans, who detested all outside of their tribe, but befriended all who came to them in peace.
-----A different picture of Germans was painted late in the first century. The Germans were still not a major empire, and were still composed of mainly barbaric groups. Unlike today’s Germans, they had mainly red hair with blue eyes and were on average the largest race at the time. People were not allowed to intermarry with other races, leaving the gene pool relatively unchanged.
-----The Germans did have a unifying government at the time. Kings were chosen by birth, and they did not have absolute power. A king’s generals did not have disciplinary privileges, instead only the priests could punish citizens. Clans went into battle together. The Germans believed that this way, the troops would be more united, since they were fighting alongside their loved ones. The women in the tribe would also go to war to supply the soldiers with food and medical attention.
-----The Germans had a remarkable legal system. Punishments for different crimes were all regulated followed through on. Traitors or deserters were hanged, while cowards were buried alive in the swamp. The definition of coward was one problem with law, but the priests’ “spiritual guidance” was trusted as the final word. For smaller offenses, a man was fined a set number of horses or cattle. Half were given to the government, and half were given to the person who was wronged and sometimes his relatives also. The Germans also had a strict marriage code, and usually married only one person.
-----The German empire in the Middle Ages was the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.” Their kings were crowned by the pope under this title, so as to be linked to Charlemagne, the most powerful king of the time. For the protection this alliance brought, there were prices to pay. For starters, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was not entirely German. It included Burgundy and parts of Holland and Italy, and although the emperor was German, there were interior conflicts between nations which were costly to the empire.
-----Princes of the church in the area were able to claim independence from the emperor and also control peasants living on their land, taking away power from the emperor. German princes also caused problems for the empire. In the Investiture Controversy in 1120, German princes won all the land back that they had owned before the Holy Roman Empire had taken over. This “compromise” reached at the Concordat of Worms took away power from the empire, a blow from which the empire may never have recovered from.
-----Popes always had veto power over the German emperor until 1356. That year, emperor Charles IV formed the Golden Bull decree. He established an electorate of seven princes: the archbishops of Mainz, Cologn, and Trier, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony and the Margrave of Bradenburg. Charles formed an electorate representative of all of his empire, and since three of the princes are from the church, that constituted the church’s power and dispelled with the papal veto.
-----In the thirteenth century, the Reichstag was formed as the main branch of the empire after the emperor. The Reichstag was separated into three estates: the seven imperial electors, the other imperial princes, and the free imperial states. The princes had a tendency to band together and outvote the imperial states, leaving them with little legislative power. The princes would also take away as much power as possible from the nobles in their areas so as to retain complete power over their lands, and over the next hundred years the princes were able to greatly reduce the power of the lower nobility. There were, however, estates of nobles to restrain the central government. This form of government is known as a Standestaat, where nobles of imperial cities practiced restraint on the emperor.
-----In the 1870s, the modern country of Germany was formed. In the early 1900s, Germany nearly rose to a new level of power, almost controlling all of Europe. However, their empire was twice destroyed in what are known as the two World Wars.
-----On June 28th, 1914, Austria’s archduke Frances Ferdinand was assassinated, and Austria declared war on Yugoslavia. Because Yugoslavia had an alliance with Russia, Germany agreed to defend Austria. Germany wanted to avoid being surrounded by enemies, but had also been planning an attempt at total control over all of Europe. This strategy was known as the Schlieffen Plan.
-----The Schlieffen Plan started with Germany conquering Belgium, then encircling France. On August 3rd, 1914, Germany declared war on France, beginning World War I. They defeated Belgium in only three days, and assaulted France. The French army retreated to Paris, and there, with England’s help, defeated the Germans at the Battle of Marne.
-----Germany then focused their attacks on Eastern Europe. Austria was wiped out by Russia, but Germany defeated the Russians at the Battle of Tannenburg, taking them out of the war. Germany conquered Rumania, but drew the United States into the war after setting a navy attack on the Americans.
-----Germany continued their military agenda in Eastern Europe, defeating Ukraine after signing a peace treaty with them, and then forcing the Russians to surrender to them. However, this was the end of Germany’s dominance. When they turned back west to attack France and England, over two million American soldiers came to the rescue, and together with the French, who used their new military invention, tanks, pushed the German army back. They also liberated Rumania, the Balkans, and joined forces with Austria. When Hungary and Bulgaria fell, Germany requested an armistice. They surrendered their weapons and returned to their own borders. They were also forbidden to make any more attempts to strengthen their army. The armistice was signed on November 11, 1918.
-----The defeat plunged Germany into an economic crisis. Germans didn’t work because their wages were used to pay for war deficits. German money became worthless. The Mark fell more than twenty-billion times its’ pre-war value!
-----Germany halted their war efforts, but were never actually forced to admit defeat. The allied forces were convinced that Germany could never rise to power again. Instead, influential leaders spread the propaganda that Germany would have won the war if the armistice had not been signed. Behind one man, the German empire would rise again, even stronger than before, only twenty years later.
-----Adolf Hitler, a poor Vienna artist, joined the German army in 1914. After being wounded in battle, he entered the world of politics and started a small party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, known as the Nazis. Hitler’s party grew, and began taking over the German Parliament. In 1933, Hitler used lies of peace intentions and his Nazi army to terrorize voters into passing the Enabling Act, which ended democracy and made Hitler the Dictator of Germany. Hitler then combined the positions of Reich Chancellor and Reich President and made himself the Fuhrer of Germany, or absolute leader. The former president, Paul von Hindenburg, forbade this in his will, but Hitler simply destroyed the letter and forged a new one in which Hindenburg pledged his support to Hitler. This letter convinced 90 percent of the voters to approve Hitler as Fuhrer. Hitler immediately made all soldiers swear loyalty to him, not to Germany.
-----Hitler chose to blame the Jews for the war failures. He took away all rights from Jewish people, and would later attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth. In 1937, Hitler made his first conquest, using his alliance with Italy to take over Austria. He also annexed part of Czechoslovakia, despite the Czechs’ alliances with Russia, France, and England. He also conquered Poland before World War II officially began.
-----In 1940, the Allied Forces of England, France, United States, China, and the Soviet Union declared war on Germany. Despite the fact that all these powers were united against them, the Germans continued to take over Europe. Norway, Holland and Belgium all fell in early 1940. Spain and France were also easily conquered.
-----Despite these attacks, an assault on England never really materialized. Hitler instead began conquering eastern European countries, and even some of Northern Africa, including Egypt.
-----During the war, Hitler also waged a war on Judaism. He arrested Jews from all over Europe and placed them in concentration camps. At these camps, they were starved or burned to death. During “The Holocaust”, over six million Jews were killed.
-----In July 1940, Hitler began an attack on the Soviet Union which would last four years. Hitler managed to march within several miles of Moscow, but could not take it. Then Hitler tried to hold the city of Stalingrad, and was surrounded by Russians. Russia then went on the offensive and regained their land as the United States weakened the Nazis back in Germany. At the end of the war, Hitler, suffering from mental instability, poisoned his wife and shot himself to death.
-----Adolf Hitler’s death ended not only the war, but also all attempts at global domination by the Germans. Germany has retained the same borders up to today, and is back on good terms with most countries in the world. The more civilized Germany of today resembles neither its’ distant past of disorder and constant changing of power, or its recent past as a disciplined, stoic military machine.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Map -- Map, 08:12:42 05/08/02 Wed

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

HITTITES -- Mike Lesniak, 08:07:54 05/08/02 Wed

The Hittites Empire stretched from Mesopotamia to Syria and Palestine. Their invasion spelled the end of the Old Babylonian empire in Mesopotamia. The Hittite civilization dominated Mesopotamia from 1600 BC to 1200 BC.

Their civilization ended abrupted just as it had started. Hittite cities and territories thrived independently until they were finally conquered most likely by the Assyrians and others.

The Hittites were a warrior people noted for their ferocity. They invented iron which was used to forge weapons. They developed many siege tactics which were used by other nations that followed.

Hittite civilization was almost unknown until excavations in the 19th century revealed the extent and importance of culture. The Hittites themselves seem to have left few accounts of their history, so until this century no one really knew their culture or the greatness of their political ascendacy.

Hatti was the homeland of the Hittites. The heart of HATTI-land and Hittite power was located in central Anatolia.



Homeland of the Hittites

Hittites assimilated much from the Sumerian civilization. King Suppilulimas (C. 1380-1340 BC) spent most of his time expanding Hittite borders and conquering enemies.

The Hebrew scriptures have little to say about the Hittites.

The Egyptians regarded them as barbarians. From 1300-1200 BC, the Hittites waged a war against Egypt that drained both empires tragically.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LANGUAGE

Hittites seemed to have spoken a language from the Indo-European language family, which includes English, German, Greek, Latin, Persian, and the languages of India.
Hittite tablets were excavated from the ruins of the ancient Hittite capital Hattusa located near the modern Turkish town of Boghazkšy about 210 kilometers east of Ankara.

Scientific excavation of these ruins by a German expedition began in 1906. About 10,000 clay tablets script were recovered.

Although some were written in the Akkadian language and could be read immediately, most were in an unknown language, correctly assumed to be Hittite.

Within ten years the language had been deciphered, and a sketch of its grammar published. Gradually, the international community of scholars, led by the Germans, expanded the knowledge of the language. The number of common Hittite words that one could translate with reasonable certainty increased steadily. Glossaries published in 1936 by Edgar Sturtevant (in English) and in 1952 by Johannes Friedrich (in German) admirably served the needs of their contemporaries. Yet today, seventy-five years after the decipherment, there still exists no complete dictionary of the Hittite language.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LEGAL SYSTEM
The Hittites greatly modified the system of law they inherited from the Old Babylonians. The most extensive literature that the Hittites have left us is, in fact, decrees and laws. These laws were far more merciful than the laws of the Old Babylonians, perhaps because the Hittites were less concerned about maintaining a rigid, despotic central authority. While you could lose your life for just about everything under the Old Babylonian system of laws, including getting rowdy in a tavern, under the Hittites only a small handful of crimes were capital crimes. Even premeditated murder only resulted in a fine - a large fine, to be sure, but far preferable than losing your head. They modified the role of the monarch in that they gave the king ownership of all the land under his control.

Previously, under the Sumerians and Amorites, private property was allowed and the monarch only owned his own private property. Individuals were allowed control over land, which belong to the king, only by serving in the king's army. So the bulk of the population became tenant farmers.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RELIGION
The Hittites adopted many of the gods of the Sumerians and Old Babylonians. The odd thing about the Hittites, though, is that they seemed to have recognized that all gods were legitimate gods. Whenever they conquered a people, they adopted that people's gods into their religious system.

As far as history is concerned, this has tremendous consequences for the history of the Hebrews. The Assyrians seem to have adopted the same tolerance towards other religions, which allowed the Jewish faith to persist after the Jewish state was decimated by the Assyrians. And the Assyrians seem to have adopted the same tendency to adopt the gods of conquered people, so the Assyrian conquerors of Palestine adopted the Hebrew god, Yahweh, into their religion. This eventually led to the only major religious schism in Hebrew history, the schism between Jews and Samaritans (there are still Samaritans alive today).

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic 4 -- Jimmy McCumber, 07:24:42 04/07/02 Sun

----------The Middle Ages, a time period from the fall of Rome in 476 AD to around the year 1500, is commonly known as the “Dark Ages”. But were these times truly dark? I believe so. They were full of fighting, anarchy, and terrible misuse of power on the part of the Catholic
Church.
----------There may have been more killing during the Middle Ages than in any other time period. Tournaments were held regularly in which knights would compete in practice jousts. Unfortunately, these were usually not practice, and many deaths resulted. The point of a knight’s lance could be sharpened to wound the opponent, or widened to increase the impact and sometimes break the opponent’s back. Most knights cheated, because if they didn’t, who was to say that their opponents wouldn’t? Out on their own, knights would sometimes joust for real, or find themselves beset upon by archers in the woods.
----------The church sent thousands of Christians on crusades to Jerusalem several times. These were for the most part unsuccessful and resulted in the death of the majority of the crusaders. People also died by the thousands in the constant struggles for power between the different countries at the time. All this, plus the kill-whoever-threatens-you-or-whoever-you-just-don’t-like
mentality which led to many assassinations and murders in every class of society.
----------While kings and nobles fought for control over lands, they really had very little control over individual people. This led to anarchy throughout Europe, usually without justice for the common, everyday kill. People were left to fend for themselves, especially out in the woods, and could expect no punishment if their supplies were looted, their pets harmed, or if they themselves were attacked. If poorer people had no swords, it was not a problem. They merely beat each other up with staffs. About the only justice was the church’s, and it was the least just form possible.
----------The Inquisition was going on during this time period. The church would try and kill anyone who was suspected of being a witch or a heretic. The trials were unfair, and the accused was never aquitted. Even a dishonest person could report that the nicest person in town was a witch, and that person would be killed without any investigation or anything.
----------With all this killing, anarchy, and misuse of power, the Dark Ages were truly dark. Throw in the horrible hygeine issues, and the improper medical care, and you have a time that I would never, ever want to live in.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic 4 -- Marie Grunbeck, 18:15:31 04/04/02 Thu

I do believe that the Dark Ages were really dark. When I say dark, I do not mean literally, as in the sky was dark. But rather I mean that the way of life was dark, in the sense that life was terrible and the people’s only focus in life was “staying alive”. Also, when I say that the Dark Ages were dark, I mean in comparison to present day. There are many aspects of life in the Dark Ages that contribute to the reasons why they were dark. However I have only chosen a few to talk about. They are that the ruling system collapsed, transportation between cities was destroyed, and the people’s personal hygiene declined.
After the fall of the Greek and Roman Empires, the civilized ways of the people were also lost. People no longer cared about having an organized way of living, the only thing that mattered to them way “staying alive”. This caused an instable society, including the government, and everything else that goes along with living successfully and happily. The main purpose of living to the medieval people was surviving, they didn’t care how, all they wanted was to stay alive.
With the collapse of organized society, the transportation between different areas was also demolished. This caused the problem of people not being able to find out what was happening in other cities or towns. Which in turn caused the people to be unaware of an attack from an enemy, people’s deaths, and any other news that was necessary for them to stay alive. Another conflict that the decline of transportation caused was the ability to travel from one area to another. If a peasant had family in another city, they would not be able to communicate with their other family members. Since the nobles were the only ones to likely have a horse or way of transportation, this was only an inconvenience to the lower class. However, in the upper class, even if people did have a way to transport themselves, it was nearly impossible to do so without being killed or injured. The dense forests between cities provided the perfect hiding places for enemies to ambush a traveler. Therefore creating a fear of travel, along with the other aspects that made transportation hard.
During the Dark Ages there were so many obstacles that the people had to face, that taking care of their personal hygiene was not among their list of essentials. As mentioned before, the people’s main focus was “staying alive”, which caused them to only concentrate on this task, therefore allowing them to forget about staying clean. They usually only had only two changes of clothes, hardly ever washed themselves, and no one noticed that another person smelled bad because they, themselves, also smelled. This created a general unsanitary problem in society, which may be one of the causes of early deaths during the Medieval Period. The people had so many other conflicts they had to deal with in order to stay alive, that taking care of their personal sanitation was easily forgotten and unnecessary.
Finally, the Dark Ages were figuratively dark in the sense that the majority of the people’s lives was spent trying to stay alive, rather than being able to enjoy themselves and live their lives. There are many ways in which the Dark Ages were dark. A few of these reasons include the fact that their government was unstable, transportation was almost impossible, and no one took care of their personal hygiene. Therefore, the people who lived during the Middle Ages only cared about “staying alive” and did not take many things into consideration when living, except the things that were necessary in order to stay alive. This is a much different perspective than we have today, which is probably why their lives were so dark, and the majority of ours are filled with happiness.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Topic 4 -- Denise Stone, 12:42:16 04/03/02 Wed

I believe that the Dark Ages was actually dark. This was due to a variety of things. First of all, people were very focused on living and education was definately put on the back burner. It may seem amazing that many kings back then couldnt read but it was actually quite common. You dont have to be smart or "well learned" to live so people in the Middle Ages kind of forgot about it. You may think it's great when you're five years old but when you're an adult it not only influences the person that you become but it also can effect the way you make decisions and how you use your logic to get out of problems. Also, since people were so uneducated they didn't connect the fact that good hygiene can help keep colds away and help you live in a healthier way. This could have stopped things like the Plague for instance. So, as you can see education is directly related to how you live your life and since people in the Dark Ages certainly did not lead very nice lives if they were educated I feel very strongly that the Dark Ages would not have been so dark.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

RE: Topic 4 -- Brad Reed, 07:55:09 03/30/02 Sat

I Think that the Dark Ages, a medaphore of the timees, were acually dark. This is because of the lack of learning. In The Dark Ages the people were only foucused on living, and you don't need to be literate to survive. In the Dark Ages there wwas learning going on, but only in the Monestaries, were the monks would copy the old books that they didi not know how tho read so a lot of material could be left out unknowingly. Most kings back then would be lucky if they could singn there names, that they could not tell some one else to spell if asked. Other than that the people were able to have enouf reason to beable to survive.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Roman Empire -- Meaghan Giangregorio, 14:56:52 03/11/02 Mon

>Every civilization to come down the pike has visions
>of lasting for a thousand years. This is especially
>true of the Romans. Investigate why the romans were
>so successful for so long and what finally caused
>their downfall. Compare this to any more modern
>culture to see if there are any reasons why the more
>modern civilizations are not able to LAST. Use
>specifics when making your arguement.
The Roman Empire was a very powerful empire. I believe that one of the reasons it lasted so long was because of the enormous amount of fear that the empire and its rulers bestowed in their people. Another reason why the empire was so powerful was their artistic abilities and their skills in war.
The people of Rome were probably terrified of their rulers. The emperors could do anything they pleased. The people were mostly to intimidated if they wanted to change laws or question authority. The many rulers made it their purpose to be worshiped. Citizens were to busy worrying about their survival and their importance to do anything about their own government.
Women were not considered as anything in that timne period. Being a large part of the population, they didnt have a sday in anything that went on. One of the reasons the roman empire lasted so long was that, not everyone was heard just the men of high status.
In those days, their was one dictator that issued all laws and excpected everyone to obade him. No one was about to risk their own lives to change what they accept as the law.
The Romans did steal their artistic ideas from the greeks. But they had so much skill and were feared by man. The Romans also believed they were better so therfore in their eyes they were better.
We could compare the United States to the Romans. We feel that we are inferior to everyone and everything. We believe that no one can hurt us. We have lasted and still remain powerful. But as weve said history can repeat itself.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Roman Empire -- Jimmy McCumber, 09:10:59 03/13/02 Wed

>>We could compare the United States to the Romans. We
>feel that we are inferior to everyone and everything.
>We believe that no one can hurt us.

Isn't this a contradiction? Feeling "inferior" means feeling like you aren't as good as others. Don't you mean something like "superior"?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

topic 3 -- julie harrington, 07:13:26 03/11/02 Mon

The Romans were a very strong civilization for a long time before their downfall. They involved many of their citizens with their decisions in government, therefore were able to maintain unity with their citizens. Rome was also very strong because of their ability to conquer other civilizations. They had a very strong militia that could easily defeat many of the other civilizations. But like all civilizations, Rome’s empire started to decline.

The fall of Rome happened for many reasons. After Rome defeated Carthage, they took all the survivors, and made them slaves. This caused many problems. Many people ended up losing their jobs in Rome, because they had the slaves to do it for them. Many Romans ended up getting no income, which made them poor. The rulers of Rome also contributed to the downfall of Rome. Rulers like the five Julio-Claudius’ destroyed Rome by the way they ruled it.

We can compare the United States to the Romans because of our government, and our ways of fighting. We think of ourselves as inferior in the world, and now are beginning to realize that others can defeat us. For example September 11th showed us how we are not inferior to all the other countries, and that in fact they might have the same weapons as us, and are not afraid to stand up to us. Also the way the Christian religion is turning out with all the priests being accused of being rapists. Christianity is probably our biggest religion in the United States and it seems as if our religion is dying by the way people think of it now. The Romans thought they were everything, and that no one could beat them, and I think the United States felt that way for awhile until a cruel awakening from the Afghanistan’s when they bombed us.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

topic 3 -- j curboy, 05:21:40 02/26/02 Tue

Every civilization to come down the pike has visions of lasting for a thousand years. This is especially true of the Romans. Investigate why the romans were so successful for so long and what finally caused their downfall. Compare this to any more modern culture to see if there are any reasons why the more modern civilizations are not able to LAST. Use specifics when making your arguement.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: topic 3 -- Nicole Sawyer, 13:10:49 03/07/02 Thu


The Romans were so successful for so many years because throughout their years, they kept progressing their society and making changes for the better. They were always improving the way their government was run and their army to make everyone happy. That way, no one would want to overrule the government so their culture was more successful. The downfall of the Romans came about when their power got to be too much that they couldnt control it. They couldnt control all their land so it got split up into many different sections. Their sections didnt always get along causing wars among them. Therefore they wipped out their own culture.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- jamie falzone, 14:06:27 03/07/02 Thu

>Every civilization to come down the pike has visions
>of lasting for a thousand years. This is especially
>true of the Romans. Investigate why the romans were
>so successful for so long and what finally caused
>their downfall. Compare this to any more modern
>culture to see if there are any reasons why the more
>modern civilizations are not able to LAST. Use
>specifics when making your arguement.

Rome was obviously a very powerful empire at its height in power. However, as most of the other empires we will learn about, it had its problems and ultimately fell.
The Romans were so successful for so long because they were able to conquer their enemies and create a peaceful, stable society. The Etruscans became the leaders of Rome and made it the richest and most prominent city-state. I think that some good elements in the success of Rome were the customs, skills, and cultural aspects of life that the people developed. The Romans developed the idea of governmental practices, helping to set order and rule in the community. Rome fought many battles and won. Part of what made Rome successful in the military aspects was that the Romans would get revenge on anyone and everyone so they would easily rid of enemies.
The economy began to fail as well as the relations citizens had with one another and the governmental bodies. Because of the different social statuses, the people argued over power, causing civil war. This tore up parts of Rome and was a factor in bringing the society down the drain. The Romans are known for loving life and living it to its fullest and I think that while they were relaxing and enjoying life, their society fell apart infront of their eyes. Rome did have leaders that did their duties well however, not all of the emperors were wonderful and this brought the society down even further. I think that it is important for the leaders of societies to be strong and sure and some of the Roman emperors were not this way and so people rebelled against the government and other governmental issues arose. Ultimately, Rome fell and other cultures and societies took over control.
In 581, China reunited under the Sui dynasty. The government became more powerful and the Great Wall was rebuilt thus helping rebuild the spirits of the Chinese peoples. As the T'ang dunasty gained power, the armies in China began to protect from nomadic people and China was safe from invaders. The emperor was the person in charge in the Chinese society and the people were divided into parts with different color apparel, each group loyal to the king. Some peasants, however, rebelled because of land shares and the rulers did their best to keep the bureaucrats from being too powerful. The population grew and China was becoming very powerful. Rulers understood and accepted the peolple's religious choices and treated different religions equally. However, the T'ang dynasty began to fall as attacks were being focused on China. The government declined, dynasties struggled, and the T'ang dynasty fell in 906.
All cultures and societies have a beginning and an end and many different elements influence how these happen. Mostly, the problems that brought both Rome and China down were economic problems, emperors/rulers were too powerful or caused people to rebel, and fighting was happening both inside and outside of the cities. When one society falls, another is at its height, every society has its ups and downs.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Marie Grunbeck, 15:17:32 03/07/02 Thu

I believe that there are many aspects of the Roman Empire that contribute to the reasons why they lasted so long. Some of these reasons include the way they setup their government, how they conquered other people, and the levels of social status in their society. The Roman government began with the Etruscan rule, however the Romans soon got sick of the Etruscans ruling them, so they got rid of them. Once the Etruscans were gone, the Romans formed two social classes, the Plebians and Patricians. I believe that the formation of these two groups helped make Rome stronger. This is because with the Patricians taking over the government, the rest of the Romans had someone to guide them to living civilized lives in an organized society. Even though this unbalanced power between the Patricians and Plebians later led to civil wars, it helped Rome at first by getting its government functioning well. Another thing that helped Rome become an imperial power is the way that they conquered other civilizations. Rome's army was very strong and was led by people who knew what they were doing. This enabled Rome to seize and take over almost the entire Mediterranean region, which is a major factor, is their empire's success. One more aspect of the Roman Empire that enabled them to be successful is the way that they dealt with problems in society. Although their leaders may seem very cruel because of some of the things they did to those who disobeyed laws, this idea of harsh punishment is essential for a civilization to survive. These are just some of the main things that helped the Romans develop from a small city-state into an imperial power. Although the Roman's success lasted for about a thousand years, it eventually began to downfall. The start of their downfall began with the introduction of slaves into their society. After the Third Punic War, the Romans enslaved many Carthaginians as slaves in Rome. With the new cheap labor, large estates started producing great amounts of the crops that used to be produced only by small farmers. This caused the farmers to "go out of business" and they were forced to move into cities. However, they could not find work in the cities either because slaves were also hired to work in businesses and factories. This left the dismayed farmers poor and not having anything to do with their lives, which eventually caused a great outbreak of boredom in the Roman society. The fact that the majority of Romans did not have anything do to all day long, led to a great changes in their lives. The “traditional values of discipline, self-sacrifice, and devotion to the republic were lost”, and this began to lead Rome into its decline. As the Roman civilization began to spiral down to its end, many people tried to help bring it back. However these attempts all eventually failed and only helped to further weaken the Roman Empire. Finally, in the 400's A.D., the Germans took advantage of the falling Empire and succeeded in taking over Rome's civilization to finally end its existence.
I believe that more modern cultures are not able to last as long as the Romans because no one has the patience or will to do so anymore. After watching how much time and effort the Romans put into keeping its civilization from falling, other cultures did not think it was worth the effort to keep their own civilizations alive for such a long time. As time has gone on, people no longer use as much intelligence with political matters and are afraid to take as many harsh measures as the Romans did, in fear of rebellion. However it is easy for one to see that in the case of the Romans, harsh measures were the way to go. Although Rome eventually fell, it is the only civilization ever to last a thousand years, so matter what the reasons are for its decline, the reasons for its survival are much more important.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Kristen Berard, 15:40:03 03/07/02 Thu

Romans were so successful for a long time. The legendary date of the founding of Rome was 753 BC. The accounts of this period have come down covered with such a mass of myth and legend that few things from this period can be proved true. Following this period, when a republic was established, Rome became a world power and emerged as an empire with extensive boundaries. Rome was said to have been founded by Latin colonists from a nearby city in ancient Latium. The legendary date of the founding was 753 BC; it was credited to Romulus and Remus, the twin sons of Rhea Silvia, a vestal virgin. Later legend carried the ancestry of the Romans back to the Trojans and their leader Aeneas, whose son Ascanius, or Iulus, was the founder and the first king of Alba Longa.
The Romans were successful for so long because they were a smart people. They had a strong government and had armies that were so strong that it didn't matter who were leading the army it was still strong.
Rome had come to a downfall after about 1250 years. The downfall started when Rome received to many cheap slaves and a lot people no longer had work. Rome reached the end of its downfall when the last Western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was overthrown by the mercenary Herulian leader Odoacer in about 493 AD.

The Middle Ages was another civilization that didn't survive. It was period in Europe dating from the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, around the fifth century, to the 15th century. No one definitive event marks the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Although during this period the loose confederation of tribes began to unite into kingdoms, virtually no trace of government existed, and political and economic development was local in nature. Regular commerce had ceased almost entirely, although the money economy never entirely vanished.

The only universal European institution was the church, and even there, a division of authority was the rule; all power within the church chain of command was in the hands of local bishops. Cultural activity during the early Middle Ages consisted primarily in appropriating and systematizing the knowledge of the past. By the year 1050, Europe stood on the verge of an exceptional period of development. The era of migrations had ended, and Europe experienced the continuity and active growth of a settled population. Town life, and with it regular and large-scale trade and commerce, was revived.
The downfall of the Middle Ages was in the late Middle Age. Conflict and dissolution characterized the late Middle Ages. The struggle for domination between church and state became a fixture of European history for the next several centuries. Towns and cities, continuing to grow in size and prosperity, began to strive for political self-control, and the urban conflict became internal as well, as various classes and interests vied for control.
There is a similarity between the downfall of the Romans and the Middle Ages. Both ended over control of power. In Rome, it was that there was so many different groups fighting for power. In the Middle Ages, it was that the towns and cities wanted their own power. That is what I think causes a lot of downfalls of past civilizations. It seems to be obvious that this pattern of being a large empire then beginning to downfall after trouble with division of power will continue in centuries to come.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Brad Nock, 16:30:51 03/07/02 Thu

There are a lot of things that contributed to the downfall of the Roman empire. These can be compared to events and actions that led to the downfall of more modern civilizations. The main reason for Rome’s downfall was its inability to defeat the Teutonic tribes that lived on the boundaries of Rome’s territory. There were also more minor reasons such as slavery, heavy taxes and the feebleness of some of the emperors. When the Huns came into Europe from Asia they pushed the Teutonic tribes into Roman territory and the Romans struggled to keep them from taking over Rome. The Huns were defeated but the Teutonics still threatened the Romans and in 476 A.D. Rome fell to the Teutonics.
This can be compared to the fall of the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R. fell due to the governments lack of ability to keep order in the territory. The government failed to fulfill its promises for a perfect life and didn’t properly deal with social problems. There were also economic problems and failure of the government to communicate with the citizens. These things led to the downfall of the U.S.S.R. and similar problems with governments have led to the downfalls of other civilizations.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Kelly Sargente, 17:13:53 03/07/02 Thu

I believe that the Romans were so sucessful for such a long period of time because of their government, and I believe this is the same thing that also caused their downfall.
The Romans had set up a government in which laws that were made by them were written down. These laws were written on what was called the 12 Tablets. By doing this their was no way there could be a misunderstanding of the laws and people couldn't make up what the law said. Their government also had consuls who were elected each year. The Roman government was the beginning of a Republic.
I also consider this to be their downfall because everyone at the time became so obssesed with getting power that they'd kill one another for it. At one point in Roman history they had 28 emporers in a period of 23 years. Everyone became greedy. This caused there to be a confusion amongst people. There became absolutely no control. Constantly there were wars breaking out for power and control of the Roman civilzation.
I found that during the Middle Ages also there was a high amount of people struggling to gain power and control.
There were wars also were people had fought for power.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Ryan Maclachlan, 17:57:09 03/07/02 Thu

The Romans were the most powerful civilization of the western world and in its day, probably of the world (I have no information on Chinese or Mongolian civilizations' flourishing dates). The Romans were rarely in danger of being attacked with serious dangers to their society because their army was tremendously powerful and well-organized. However, these are the external workings of the empire which did not prevent the people from breaking apart. The governmental part of this was initially the early republic. When the plebians ended up rebelling in 471 B.C. by not joining the army, Roman patricians quenched their thirst for participation by adding the tribunes to the republic. Their only duty was to prevent laws from being passed that would hurt the plebians by use of the veto. Therefore, the plebians really had no basis for complaint as far as not being involved in government because, they were. This is a good lesson which the British Empire should have taken note to with regards to the famous American complaint. Back with Rome though, the plebians also had the Assembly of Tribes which was an assembly of themselves, thirty-five plebians groups. The Twelve Tables further finalized the fact that the patricians did not always get their way. This lack of supreme power all in one location allows for a happier people, which is more likely to stick together. When Rome ran into trouble where the plebians were starting to rebel at a local level and the security of the nation staying as one was threatened, a new leader always seemed to step up to the plate, ready to take on the problem. In this situation, Marius did and passed laws for the common people. Due to the fact that there had been vast numbers of slaves from Carthage many people were out of jobs, but entertainment existed. The development of organized entertainment allowed the poor Roman citizens to have something to look foward to, this something also kept them quiet about problems like slavery. Had the people nothing to do or eat, the slavery may have been deleted or possibly the government overthrown due to the lack of available jobs. The first welfare system was also devised to allow the Romans to avoid a governmentally dangerous effect of angry, starving citizens. Skipping much time, we arrive in the existence of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. He modified the officials selection system, by basing it on ability rather than relation. This leads to mentally stronger officials who can accomplish their jobs efficiently and effectively. However, as advanced as Rome was, they had not yet devised a more advanced military system which would maintain their stronghold. In addition, the Germanic tribes had been consistently gaining power which leads to a more difficult defense. This defense was weakened consistently in addition to political instability with no order to how the leader should be determined. The economy also started a decline ending Rome's great wealth. The near constant attacks from the Germanic peoples kept the army very busy. The political instability lead to the division of Rome into two seperate empires, this weakened the empire far more. Finally, the Germanic general Odoacer took over Rome and was able to overthrow the emperor without establishing a replacement leading to the recognized end of the Romans as 476A.D.

The more modern civilization of the Inca had not been able to last as soon as the Spanish invaders arrived on their soil. The Incans were very well organized and dealt with groups of problem conquered nations people well, by sending them to long controlled Incan territories. The problem with the Incan civilization was that they depended too much on their one leader (depositism government) which in turn caused their demise. The Spanish came in and took over their leader Atahulpa by surprise in 1532. Although there is contoversy as to whether Atahulpa knew of this surprise and why his defense was not better planned because he knew the noisy Spanish were in the area. Nonetheless, when Atahulpa was taken captive, the rebellions was small and unorganized. The Spanish would have had no chance if the entire nation had rebelled as one because there were only 177 Spanish men and well over 2 million Incas. However, the rebellions were small and surpressed by the Spanish due to their superior weaponry. Until 1569, the Spanish had been fighting the Incan rebellions, until they were all surpressed. Due to the lack of education, when the Spanish taxed the world out of the Incas, they did not rebel.

As far as similarities go, both empires fell due to an outside force. However, the Romans fell to a larger groups of forces attacking frequently. In addition, they suffered from internal problems leading to their downfall. On the other hand, the Incans were fairly strong when it came to leaders, although Atahulpa had just beaten his brother to take control of the Incan Empire. The Incan Empire was still strong, they were defeated due to some good outside tactics and curious internal failings within their own government -- much different from what the Romans had. The Romans were losing the respect of the people, where the Incans just didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of the far outnumbered enemy. The Romans and the Incas were quite different systems, but the Roman decline was inevitable, while the Incan downfall should not have occured as suddenly as it did.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Jean Ritucci, 07:52:55 03/08/02 Fri

>Every civilization to come down the pike has visions
>of lasting for a thousand years. This is especially
>true of the Romans. Investigate why the romans were
>so successful for so long and what finally caused
>their downfall. Compare this to any more modern
>culture to see if there are any reasons why the more
>modern civilizations are not able to LAST. Use
>specifics when making your arguement.

I beleive that the reason that the Roman civilization lasted for so long was becuase they had a very strong government and they had rulers that ruled for long periods of time, so the emperors were able to "break-in" the government....(just testing...not my real answer)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Jean Ritucci, 07:53:58 03/08/02 Fri

>Every civilization to come down the pike has visions
>of lasting for a thousand years. This is especially
>true of the Romans. Investigate why the romans were
>so successful for so long and what finally caused
>their downfall. Compare this to any more modern
>culture to see if there are any reasons why the more
>modern civilizations are not able to LAST. Use
>specifics when making your arguement.

I beleive that the reason that the Roman civilization lasted for so long was becuase they had a very strong government and they had rulers that ruled for long periods of time, so the emperors were able to "break-in" the government....(just testing...not my real answer)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Colin Roux, 09:21:30 03/08/02 Fri

The Romans led one of the longest lasting successful civilizations known to man. Many don't give the Romans credit for their own civilization because they were known to copy other aspects of other civilizations. Although this does hold true, that can't possibly be the main reason why they survived for so long at the power and control they did, otherwise the civilizations they copied would have also lasted just as long.

The Romans did copy other civilizations; such as the structure of their buildings which they obtained from the Greeks. They used other civilization's inventions and made them better. But one of the bigger reasons why the Romans were successful for such a long period of time was their significant form of organization.

Unlike other civilizations of its time, Rome worked with a base 10 number system. They used this number system to help set up their military. The unique way that the Romans used to set up their army enabled them to send a message quickly from one officer to the next. Their military grew and became more powerful enabling Rome to take over many territories. They may have been led to do so by their nature. The Romans always wanted to get even, and they did.

At the time, the popular form of government was a monarchy. One person, a king, ruled over his people. Rome did use this form of government, but they did change it when they realized it wouldn't work out as well. They became a Republic so that more people were involved and one single person didn't make all the decisions for the empire.

Another major factor that helped Rome survive as long as it did was how they disciplined those for breaking the law. Although some may argue that the punishments were harsh, it was needed so that others wouldn’t follow the same execution ending path. Their form of punishment probably wouldn’t work out as well today, but for its time it was essential in order to keep a civilization from falling.

The Roman Empire didn't fall for one specific reason. Like most failures, many different lapses led to its eventual downfall. First of all, there was much political instability. In a short period of 28 years there were 23 emperors. The Romans economy was also severely affected. The same soil and minerals had been being used for the same farming for years and eventually turned to no good. Because they also spent most of the money on the military, they had to raise taxes. Those who couldn’t pay the higher taxes just up and left. This caused prices of goods to rise and this was simply too much for the Romans to handle. They eventually fell completely when they suffered from invasions from the Germans.

The United States can be compared to the Romans because of their status in the world. Although we are one of the most advanced countries, any other country could easily take over the world like the Romans did because we all share pretty much the same technology. Hopefully the U.S. will last as long as the Romans and be as prosperous and by the way we’re headed I believe it is entirely possible.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Adam Shifrin, 12:15:25 03/08/02 Fri

The Romans had a great and powerful empire. They had a dream that they would last for a thousand years. They were started by thieves but became the unltimate power. Their downfall was started by one group of people, slaves. Their slaves made them lazy. They had nothng to do but go and watch the games at the colloseum. the Romans had no income and they were bored out of thier minds. The reason they lasted for so long was their organization. Thier government and thier army were so well organized that they could have total morons on top and the system would still run. But the system finally broke down after a series of horrible emperors starting with Caligula. most of these emperors were murdered because they were envied by others. This allowed a chance for the barbarians to attack and kill off the romans.
More modern civilizations didn't have the organization that the romans had. You can compare the United States to the Romans. We are the most powerful nation in the world. Th one problem with the US is that we make people angry which I believe in the end will cause our downfall.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- THE Tim Carson, 12:39:10 03/08/02 Fri

Rome lasted for so long because it was unchallenged by any other civilization. It was unchallenged, it had the strongest military, culture, and government. At Rome's peak which was a great one, it might have been assumed that they would rule as the most influential civilization forever, however, they didn't. Rome eventually fell for many reasons. Since Rome was the strongest country, its leader must have been very strong and important. The power the emperor had was infinite. So many people wanted to be in that position, they cheated, killed, lied, and were forced to be evil and competitive to get what they wanted, which was the most powerful position in the world. The key word is "power". Rome gained so much power, it slowly destroyed itself because its citizens became dishonest and power-hungry. People would break laws to get what they wanted, and if laws are broken, the government becomes essentially powerless. Rome's destruction came from within itself, not from another culture conquering it. This is the very reason that eutopian societies do not function well for a long time. People are ambitious and want to excel in life. Modern dictatorships, like Iraq and Cuba, who appoint one person in charge of both the government and military, are sure for eventual disaster because that is too much power to keep balanced. Thankfully, they do not issue the dictator of those countries religious power as well. However, political and military influence are plenty to desroy a nation. This allows the dictator to justify military violence with polotics, and to pass laws because people are scared of the military and are afraid to object. Today, these countries are ignored as far as trade, and although they seem to be functioning well, in maybe ten or twenty years, they will eventually fall, because, after all, power corrupts...:)

Love,

Tim

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Tom O'Brien, 12:40:55 03/08/02 Fri

>Every civilization to come down the pike has visions
>of lasting for a thousand years. This is especially
>true of the Romans. Investigate why the romans were
>so successful for so long and what finally caused
>their downfall. Compare this to any more modern
>culture to see if there are any reasons why the more
>modern civilizations are not able to LAST. Use
>specifics when making your arguement.

The Roman Empire was one of the most powerful, respected and long lasting civilizations to ever exists. I believe there were many reasons that enabled the Romans to last for such a long time. Several of theses reasons included their powerful yet disciplined army, their extremely well organized government and the people of the empire. Several reasons that led to the downfall of Rome were its inability to stop the Teutonics from invading Rome, slavery and heavy taxes. A modern day society that can be compared to the Romans is the French.
The first reason why the Romans lasted as long as they did is because of their extremely powerful army. This army enabled them to conquer practically whoever they wanted. Not only would they conquer a civilization they would destroy it so that there was no possible way for the civilization to rebuild. One example of this is the Punic Wars in which the Romans destroyed Carthage. After the first two Punic Wars the Romans had sufficiently beaten their opponents. However that was not enough for them. They started the Third Punic War in order to completely destroy Carthage. This enabled the Romans to take control of the entire Mediterranean area. Also since the Romans made it impossible for civilizations to rebuild they were forced to join the Romans, which added more civilians, which lead to a bigger army. If the Romans had not have had such a powerful army I do not believe they would have lasted as long as they could. Another thing that helped Rome last was its extremely well organized government. At first their were two social classes in Rome, Patricians and Plebians. The Patricians were the richer of the two. The Patricians ran the government while the Plebians performed other essentials. Even though more groups were added and the system was changed I believe that having these two groups with their own separate jobs helped Rome tremendously. Even though later others were aloud to govern the Patricians created a government for Rome that was extremely well thought out and efficient. If Rome had not of had this type of government I do not believe that there is any chance of it surviving one thousand years. One more thing that helped the Romans last for so long was the citizens of the empire. These citizens did not have the same principles that we have now, this helped them last for so long. For example is the Romans did not like someone or saw someone as a threat they would kill them before they had a chance to act. Nowadays this type of action would be frowned upon. However killing someone before they have a chance to act against definitely helped the Romans survive as long as they did. If the people back then had seen this as incorrect then it would not have continued and Roman would have fell sooner.
One cause of the Roman downfall was their inability to stop foreign armies from invading their empire. If the Roman army had been able to stop foreign armies near the end of their civilization then the Roman Empire would not have been taken over. This would definitely have prolonged their civilization. Another thing that caused the downfall of the Romans was slavery. When slaves arrived in the Roman Empire big farms and factories were created. Thus putting the individually owned business out of business. The civilians who were formally hard at work during the day were now board out of their minds. Now that everyone was board all day long they lost all their morals about what is right and what is wrong. Thus leading Rome to its decline.
A modern day civilization that can be compared to Rome is the French. Back in the time of the Revolutionary war the French owned much of America. However the lost most of it to the Britains and the United States during the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War. If the French army had been able to fend of either of these two countries then there would have been a better chance of the French controlling more of America. Since this did not happen the French were only given a piece of America and finally they were completely kicked out of America.
In conclusion, several things that enabled the Roman Empire to last so long was its army, its government and the morals of its people. Also several things that led to the downfall of Rome was its inability to keep foreign invaders out of Rome, slavery and high taxes. Also a modern day civilization that Rome can be compared to is France.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Skyler Chick, 12:42:31 03/08/02 Fri

During the time of the Romans, they were the most powerful civilization around the Mediterranean region. Like all civilizations, the Romans had a vision of lasting for a thousand years, and succeeded. The Romans were able to last for a thousand years because of their government, social classes, revengefulness, and their thirst to conquer all surrounding lands.
For the first five hundred years of their existence, Rome started as a Republic and later reformed its government into an empire. The government supplied a strong and well-trained army. Because of Rome’s thirst to conquer surrounding lands, they often succeeded. The Punic wars were mainly in the favor of the Romans. Although the first and second Punic wars were started by the Carthaginians, The third and final Punic war began due to the Romans. This last war was started out of revenge. The Romans crossed the Mediterranean and over to Carthage in northern Africa. There the killed the men and took the women and children back to Rome as slaves. In addition, the Romans salted the fields of Carthage so that it would be impossible to grow anything for many years.
Because people were now afraid of the gruesome war tactics of the Romans, many regions sided with Rome. One example was Greece. This was a good thing on their part because the people of Greece had little worry of Rome attacking them. This also gave Rome more land to add to its empire.
Another factor that helped contribute to Rome’s success is the social classes consisting of the Patricians and the Plebians. Although the differences between these two groups led to civil war, it helped Rome set up a government to keep them on their feet. Government was a very important thing to lead to the success of a civilization. When Rome became an empire it succeeded because of its limitations and laws on people. Many of the Emperors seemed cruel but because people were limited to the things they could do, there was a lower risk of rivalry and revolts. In addition, the government was well organized with the first five emperors of Rome but the next twenty-three years after the death of the last of the first five emperors, Rome had twenty-eight different emperors during that twenty-three year period. Sometimes there were more than one emperor at a time. This caused great disorganization in the government and later led to the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Many of the more modern civilizations were not able to succeed in lasting for a thousand years. I think that disorganization in the government is a cause of this. Also, I think that because many laws in modern civilization are in small favor of the citizens, there is more room for disagreement. I also think that many kings and emperors of modern civilizations have too much power and should have allowed some to the public, while still keeping it limited.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Colin Martin, 14:29:33 03/08/02 Fri

The Romans were so successful and actualy did succeed in lasting for 1000 years. They had their up and their downs but mainly they were able to keep standing. When they ran into a situation were the Emperor would be in trouble or in some way hurt or slow down the progress of rome, such as when Ciliqula was in power and he started ot go crazy. He would stage public assasinations of people just for the entertainment. Yet the government kept on moving because it was set up so well. Rome would enter a political problem or struggle and would continue to keep the empire going. One of the first things that I think led to the downfall of Rome was slavery. Every now and then a group of slaves would try to revolt. This is always a threat and can not be good. Sparticus led one of the greatest. He gathered slaves arevolted. This lasted for about 3 years or so. In America's earlier days there were slave revolts that were luckey to have lasted 3 days let alone 3 whole years. But unlike America, Rome never stoped slavery and it continued untill Rome's end. One key thing that led to their downfall more towards the end of their rein was the Teutonic tribes who were positioned outside of Rome and became more and more powerful untill Rome could no longer hold them off. Another thing is, back then there were very few areas of the world that cometitive contries were even civilized. Therefore there were very little competitive powers that would want to take over Rome, especaily once Rome reached its full size and completly surounded the meditaranian. Compared to today when the entire planet is full of countries that would love to be known as the most powerful civilization of its time. A modern culture that rose up and fell would be England. England before America was even around was the most powerful country in the world. People will argue that France was, but I'm sure that it wasn't. England had an Anarchy with a King's and Queens. England came over and took over most of the eastern shore of North America. They called the land America. In time over a coarse of about 150 years the American colonies of Britan rose in power and population. Eventualy the colonies were sick of England so they tried to leave. This spart the Revolutionary War. The colonies won over the greatest power in the world. This showed that England would not last forever. They slowly went down hill but never quite fell, they just slowly became less powerful than the countries around them.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Dave, 14:48:05 03/08/02 Fri

The Romans were thinkers. Their government plan was almost flawless. That is the main reason they sustained their power for so long. This downfall cannot be blamed on one event. There were plenty of minor faults in the Roman society that eventually led to their downfall. Although this process was very gradual, there were a few events that eventually ruined the Romans. Such as slavery and poor leadership by some of the emperors.
In the beginning of their reign, the Romans seemed like they would rule forever. It seemed as though they were invincible. The Romans knew they were an intimidating force so they conquered every little weakling civilisation they could find. This worked for quite some time. And then came the slaves and then went the Romans flawless society. A few cases of bad leadership tossed them in the trash. They were much like the French, who seemed to have a good empire going until bad leadership killed their reign as well. The Romans would not have lasted as long if it wasn't for their government which provided other leaders besides the emperors. The government protected the empire from one man ruining it. It took many men over many years to finally force the Romans to throw in the towel.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Justin Neel, 20:54:12 03/08/02 Fri

The Romans lasted for so long for several reasons, and if you bear with me, I will list those reasons. One, their government was well liked during it's time, they gave people food and money when they ran out of food and money, they gave people entertainment when they all were bored, and they maintained the military as well. The surrounding civilizations were so incredibly scared because "Romans like to get revenge." No matter who attacked them, the Romans would want to get revenge, and revenge is what they got. And by law, everything that goes up, must come back down, and down they came. They attacked Zama, took the men, women, and children as slaves. They sold the slaves, and by this time, there were so many slaves in the great and amazing Rome that the price of them started to drop drastically, and with the price of slaves dropping, the economy drops. When the economy drops, people get fed up with the government, lose money, lose houses, go bankrupt, government is no longer liked, etc. So then come the emperors, and emperors they were, good old Octavian, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Some of the emperors were bad, and not liked, but the one liked the worst was Caligula, a bad kid that one. He just completely lost it and started executing people like it was "going out of style." Even his royal guards didn't like him, and nature took its place, and he woke up dead. So the five emperors go by, and more and more, a bunch of them executed, and economy drops, and Rome just comes to a screeching halt, and is no longer on the top. Another reason they stayed on the top for so long was, they would just copy ideas from other civilizations, and make them better, so they kept their city well maintained, and their people entertained, therefore keeping the government liked, and they stayed on top.

Of course this all can be related to several modern cultures, so lets just stick with one, The United States of America perhaps, the great and amazing number one. So we beat the British in a Revolutionary War and gain our independence, big deal, so we defeat Germany twice in two of the two world wars, big deal, we are on top for a while. At this very point, the United State's economy is dropping, it's obvious just by looking at the stock market, and pretty soon, or maybe even now, the government will start to be disliked, people get un happy, nature takes place, people lose homes, people dislike government, government can not deal with people, and the great and amazing's pole position is lost, and civilizations that are rising right now, like Russia, will soon be in power, that is why the Romans stayed on top for so long, and that is exactly what's going to happen to The United States of America.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: topic 3 -- Justin Neel, 06:32:57 03/10/02 Sun

( i dont know if its too late, the first was a quick colloquial draft)

The Romans lasted for so long for several reasons, one of which is that their government was well liked during it's time, they gave people food and money, however when they ran out of food and money, they gave people entertainment. And when the citezens were bored, they maintained the military as well.

The surrounding civilizations were scared because of the roman phylosophy of getting revenge. No matter who attacked them, the Romans would want to get revenge, that is exactly what they got. When the Romans attacked Zama, took the men, women, and children as slaves, and sold the slaves back in Rome. In Rome, at this time, there were so many slaves in Rome, that the price of slaves started dropping. When the price of slaves dropped, the economy dropped, because it was cheaper to employ slaves that didn't as for pay, then pay many roman citezens to work for you. Roman Citezens got fed up with the government, because of lost money, and lost houses. These are not good things, and subsequently, the government is no longer in the people's favor. So then the government changed to a monarchy type structure. They had emperors, and some were, Octavian, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Some of these emperors were bad, but the one disliked the most was Caligula. He was mentally unstable, and bored, and in a desperate attempt to find humor and entertainment, started executing people left and right. Even and especially his royal guards disliked him. As any polite Roman does unto one they dislike, the guards did to Caligula (they killed him). So the five emperors come and go, and many of them die unnatural deaths. The economy is still dropping, and Rome's culture and society come to a screeching halt. In short, they are no longer on top.

Another reason they stayed on the top for so long was, they would just copy ideas from other civilizations, and make them better, so they kept their city well maintained, and their people entertained, therefore keeping the government liked, and they stayed on top.

These behaviours can be related to several modern cultures, for example: The United States of America. The USA beat the British and gain our independence. The USA survives a vicious civil war, and comes out as one country, proving its strength. They move on to defeat Germany and Japan twice in both of the world wars. The USA is on the top of the world for a while. At this very point, the United State's economy is dropping. It's obvious by the stock market's drops, and soon enough, the government will start to be disliked. Then people will become unhappy, lose homes...ect. Eventually, the great USA's pole position is lost, and civilizations that are rising right now, like Russia, will soon be in power. This is why the Romans stayed on top for so long, and this is exactly what could happen to The United States of America.-Justin

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Brad Reed, 02:20:46 03/09/02 Sat

The Romans were the only civilization to reach the "ideal" length of time, 1000 years, this happened for many reasons. Some of the reasons are: the Romans were able to "control" what went on in the Senate by electing tribunes. This gave them limited power and it lasted a limited amount of time, until the first triumvirate. Once Caesar took over people were afraid that he would become a supreme ruler or Emperor, so the Senators assassinated him. The second Triumvirate happened and the same thing happened, with Octavian forcing Marc Antony to his death. This created the first Emperor: Caesar Agustus (Caesar the Majestic One, a.k.a. Octavian). The transformation from Republic to Empire was not such a bad thing because the people liked their Emperor along with the protection and services he created. After Agustus' death the Emperors' quality took a nosedive. Particularly, with Caligula, who was not sane and had one of the shortest rules in history. He lasted less than four years before his personal guards killed him. After Caligula's death the Roman citizens realized that if they had another Emperor this bad they would kill him. Another reason the Roman Empire lasted so long was because of their Army: " never loose to a Roman, for thou shalt loose thine head". Romans always served comeuppance to people that dared challenge the Empire. The downfall of Rome, I think, is directly related to the slave rebellion that was lead by Spartacus. I think this because seeing a line of slaves on the Appian Way, being crucified, would anger people and cause another rebellion. While the Roman Army was busy, the Huns came in right under the Romans' noses. They started to take over before moving in to take over the T'ang, but they failed, and had to move back toward Germany and Italy.
Another long lasting civilization was the Aztecs. They lasted over 500 years and had an average of 60,000 people a day in its capital city, Tenoctitlan. Th Aztecs lasted for a while (more than the 300 year average) because they never tried to start a war to gain land, just defend their land, and acquired more land through business deals. This does not mean that the people were peaceful. They gave regular human sacrifice to keep the good gods strong. The Aztecs also had marvelous architecture, most of which was destroyed long ago, when the Spanish rebuilt Tenoctitlan as Mexico City, in "Espana Nueva" or New Spain. If the Spanish Missionaries and Conquistadors had not come to Mexico, the Aztecs would still have their Empire destroyed, because modern society is not an accepting place and their ways would be considered cruel and savage. Therefore, the downfall of the Aztec Empire was inevitable. The scattered descendants are now a minority in the country they could have ruled.
Mr. Curboy, I am doing this so early in the morning because last night AOL kept disconnecting me and destroying my homework. Also it would not let me access the site
-Brad

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Jimmy McCumber, 07:27:00 03/09/02 Sat

-----All civilizations on the rise aim to stay on for a thousand years, maybe even longer. Yet so far, the only people able to stay in power for that long have been the Romans. What made them so successful? Why could no one defeat them for so long? And why hasn’t any other culture been able to copy the great empire which grew out of Romulus and Remus’ swampy city, the size of my backyard? Rome used intelligence in spreading their rule, allowed foreign life to go on without great interruption, and had very well organized armies and governments.
-----All of Rome’s small early triumphs were well-thought out and executed. First, to ensure the ongoing life of Rome, the Romans abducted the Sabine woman and married them. They caught the Sabine men without their weapons, and when the angry men returned, the newlywed woman begged them not to start war and cause them to lose their fathers and husbands in one bloody battle. After breaking out of Etruscan rule, Rome slowly conquered the entire Italian peninsula, bit by bit. When several Greek city-states in southern Italy were infighting, Rome helped turn them against each other, let them do the fighting, then conquered the weakened cities.
-----While Rome gained control over a good part of Europe and Asia, life still went on as normal in areas far away from Rome. This was because Rome’s conquests were not always bloody. If the country submitted to Roman rule, it became more of a forced treaty. While areas such as Palestine and Egypt had to pay taxes and fight in the army, they were ordinarily allowed to keep their customs and the general public was not greatly affected. This made the people much less likely to revolt because they were not angry in the Romans’ treatment of them.
-----Octavian became the first Roman emperor and named himself Augustus. He ruled for many years, one of the few emperors to be so fortunate. To ensure that the empire would remain stable under the tumultuous reign of future emperors, he set up a much better government for Rome that
would last longer than he. He regulated taxes. He chose officials not by birth, but by their talents. This led to a much stronger and better organized government. The Roman army was also extremely well organized. It worked like a pyramid. A general could pass on orders to his tribunes, who would pass it on to members of their cohort, or group. Centurions would pass it one to their ten decurions, and the decurions would finally instruct their ten soldiers or
legionaries. This order allowed for much more organized fighting, and to better discipline. Few soldiers abandoned a Roman army camp. Their fellow soldiers wouldn’t let them. For it would be the other soldiers who would have to suffer the consequences of your misdeed. Therefore, the soldiers would police each other while the generals handled more important business, such as war.
-----Why did other cultures fail to accomplish what the Romans did? Let us take a look at the empire of Uzbekistan. Though never a world superpower, they lasted about three hundred years before being conquered. The area of Uzbekistan was taken first by the Persians, then by Alexander the Great, then by Genghis Khan. In the 16th century, it was finally taken over by the Uzbek people, who retained control until they were defeated by Russia in the late-1800s.
-----Uzbekistan just wasn’t ready to confront the superpower forming above them in Russia. They had never set out to conquer many other areas, and didn’t have the people or weapons of the Soviet Union. When faced with such a large empire trying to conquer them, they fought well, but
never had a chance. One by one their big cities were taken and the Uzbek people were submitted to Soviet rule for what would last a century.
-----One thing that Uzbekistan was and is good at is the ability to be opportunistic. Right after the Russian revolution, with the Soviet Union weakened, Uzbekistan attempted to break free. However, in 1917, they were crushed and remained part of the USSR. They were forced to keep waiting and looking for their next chance. That chance came in 1990. With the United States and the cold war again weakening the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan became the first central Asian country to break away from the USSR, starting the destruction of the Soviet Empire. Now nearly twelve
years into their new life as a nation, Uzbekistan has the full support and aid of their former oppressors in Russia. Who knows what excitement the next three hundred or maybe even thousand years hold for this nation, and others aiming for the top, or struggling to hold on. Will they learn from the Romans, or meet the same fate every ancient empire has met? We shall see.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: topic 3 -- Chris Zegel, 08:10:32 03/09/02 Sat

The Romans were the strongest civilization in the world for a few reasons. For one, they had an incredibly strong and organized army. With an army that was as effective as it was large, the Romans were able to conquer numerous lands, thus adding to their empire one people at a time. After a while, the enemies of Rome would grow more hatred for the civilization, but while Rome was so strong, these other peoples could not act on their desires to conquer the great empire. In addition to a strong military force, Rome had an extremely efficient government. Through forming the Triumvirate, the Romans were able to spread power evenly, avoiding a tyrannical rule. However, the government of the Romans was ultimately corrupted, and contributed greatly to the downfall of the empire. The corruption began with the formation of the Triumvirate, where power was basically distributed to opposite forces, with the much weaker tie breaking vote in the middle of the two. This eventually led to dissention among the leaders, and so an Emperor was finally declared as the sole ruler of Rome. Having a leader with absolute power works well if the leader is just and kind, but the Romans possessed rulers with cruel and bizarre streaks. There were enormous amounts of underhand schemes plotted to tip the balance of power in favor of a favorite son or nephew, and this led to paranoia and distrust among the Roman nobles. Incest seemed to be a lingering problem, and the family tree of the Ceasers seems to be a little bit off, probably contributing to the insanity of some of Rome's rulers. Finally, the office of the Emperor collapsed completely, and chaos ensued.

While the Romans managed to actually stick around for one thousand years, civilizations in the Middle Ages weren't as lucky. Perhaps one of the major differences in Rome and more recent societies was its unity. Rome was one empire, and under that empire it thrived and prospered. The different peoples in the Middle Ages were unrelated, with individual people, leaders, and customs. The Romans managed to unite under one power to achieve a greater good, while during the Middle Ages every individual kingdom was competing individually with the others for power. This way of going about things seems to have hindered the complete evolution of a civilization.

Note: My first attempt at posting, at like 2 AM last night, didn't succeed. I'm lucky that I had my writing saved!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

topic 3 -- Mike Lesnaik, 08:11:25 03/09/02 Sat

The reason that the Romans were so successful was that they had such a good government, they were good fighters, and they were intelligent. The Romans were also good in making statues. They performed many comedy shows for the poor and landless people. They also designed very good swords so that it would leave a wound that would not be easy to make stop bleeding. Romans even had pools. There was the Calarium which was a pool that was hot. The pool was heated by having fire under it. The fire heated up sand which was directly under the pool. Then there was the trepidation which was a warm pool and then there was the frigidarium which was cold.
Rome lasted about 1200 years form the time Rome was founded until the time Romulus Augustus, last western emperor was defeated.
The Roman government was very well organized. It was organized so well that it barely even matter who the ruler was. The government would practically run by itself. It was always being adjusted so that everyone was happy because if everyone was happy then nobody would rebel against the government.
The Roman’s were great fighters because they were disciplined and trained very hard. The way the Roman soldeirs were disciplined was very effective. One out of every ten people were killed. This was called decimation. Children were raised by being taught that their city comes first and themselves after. Another very good thing about their government was that they kept track of all their laws by writing all of them down. The Romans got revenge on anyone that messed with them. The Romans won many battles and conquered many places. Rome had one of the most powerful militaries in the world.
The Romans were very intelligent. They always would make adjustments for anything that made people unhappy. They even had comedy shows for the people that were poor or landless. This made everyone happy. But since there was so much poor people that needed food, and since Hannibal destroyed all the crop fields, many people were starving to death. Rome also lost power over some city-states. One of the main reasons that Rome had its downfall was that Rome got so powerful that they began to take things for granted and not pay attention to their flaws. Many people began to argue over power which caused a civil war to break out. The civil war helped very much in bringing Rome to its downfall. Then in 476 A.D. came the fall of Western Empire's last emperor, Romulus Augustulus. After the fall of Rome other cultures took over.
This relates to modern civilization because if you compare this to the united states it is very similar. The united states is very in danger of a downfall because we are always helping other countries in war and never thinking about ourselves. I also think that since we have been declared the toughest country to beat in a war, we have taken for granted how powerful we are. For example when the tragedy of September 11th happened, nobody was ready and everyone panicked. If we had thought more about ourselves and paid more attention to what our enemies were doing we might have had a chance to prevent the tragedy from happening.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic 3 -- Jean Ritucci, 06:05:27 03/09/02 Sat

The reason that I beleive that the Romans had a strong civilization for such a long period of time is becuase of the fact that they had rulers that reigned for long amounts of time. Becuase they had rulers that ruled for such greats amounts of time, it also created the "Julio-Claudians" period which created peace in Rome and a strong civilization for the Roman government. The reason that I beleive that the fact that rulers that reigned for longer periods of time created a stronger civilization for Rome was because each emperor had a chance to "break-in" to the government, like "breaking-in" new shoes. All of the people of Rome were able to have their Rulers for enough period of time that they would get used to how the emperor was ruling and how their government was run. I think that when rulers reign for a shorter amount of time, there is not enough room for the people to get used to how their ruler is running the government. People like Agustus reigned from 27-14 B.C. and all of the people of his land enjoyed the fact that he was ruler and were able to cope with the way that he thought that the government should be run. In turn this created the fact that most all of the people in the government liked the way that their government was run and enjoyed the government and agreed with all of the economical or political ideas on their government. The "Julio Claudians" period meant a time of peace for the Romans. In every government or civilization peace among the people is one of the most important things. This is why I beleive that since the "Julio-Claudians" period lasted for such a long time, so did the Roman government.

The reason why I beleive that now-a-days civilizations arenot lasting as long as the Roman civilization did is becuase of the fact that people do not all beleive in the same government that should be run and the fact that the Rulers are not "reigning" for long periods of time. For example, in the U.S. our people do not all agree on the politcal and economical ways that government should be run, in fact our population is almost split in half of beleifs of Democrats or Republics (proof shown in the election of Gore and Bush). If our country could all agree on the way that the government should be run, it would be a lot easier to get a long, and A LOT easier to maintain a stron civilizaition for such a long time. Like in the Roman times, our civilization does not have any peace between the nations, we are in war about every generation, where in the Roman empire, they had all of that peace with no wars for the whole "Julio-Claudians" period. Peace between everyone is a majorly big thing for a strong civilization also, and the fact that wars are getting in the way of other civilizations, makes them less strong, or strong for a shorter amount of time for that matter.

The reason that I beleive that the downfall fo Rome finally happened is the fact that near the end of the "Julio-Claudians" period, the emperors were reigning for very shorts periods of time. In fact, after Nero and Aurelius died after 180 A.D. the Roman empire had a series of 28 emperors in 23 years. This was a time where now new emperors were coming in very quickly, and the goverment and the people could not get used to all of the changes in the way that the government was run. I think that all of these quick reignes eventually lead to the final days of the "Julio-Claudian" period. When this period ended, it meant that the days of peace between Rome were over. When peace is over between a civilization, it eventually makes the civilization weaker. I believe that when the rulers reigned for such short amounts of time and when the "Julio-Claudians" period ended the Roman empire weakend. This eventually let Rome to perish.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Topic 3 -- Anoush Essajanian, 16:59:11 03/07/02 Thu

The Roman's success and downfall is a result of different aspects of their army,
government, and people.
At first, the Romans were vicious. Anything and anyone that stood in their way was no
obstacle for them. They knew what they wanted and they didn't hesitate in any way to
reach all of their goals of controlling the Mediterranean. For example, all of the Punic
wars were, overall, in the favor of the Romans. This was because of their extremely
strong and ruthless army. Their soldiers were so disciplined and trained that fighting and,
ultimately winning, just came naturally to them. The Roman government also played a
major role in their beginning success. For example, when the plebeians wanted to have as
much power as the patricians, Rome granted them this power to avoid violence and
revolution. This was a very smart move by the government to keep the people of Rome
united and feel like equals. Another reason why Rome was very successful in their
beginnings was because of their leaders. Julius Caesar ended the bitter fighting among
Rome's political groups and he also gave jobs and provided political land for the poor.
After Caesar's death, however, things started to go bad for the Romans.
It wasn't just Caesar's execution that caused their downward spiral, it was a number of
things, of course. First of all, their emperors kept getting worse and worse. How can
Rome keep being successful and controlling lands if their emperors (their leaders) don't
do a good job of guiding them through crisises? From 180-476 A.D the empire spun out
of control and perished.
The causes of the fall of the Empire are many. In the late 200s to the mid 300s new
emperors took over Rome and divided the army into border and mobile troops. The
border troops declined in efficiency and the emperors made the mistake of allowing
“barbarians” into the army which decreased their efficiency even more. This called for an
expansion of the army so the emperors recruited more and more of these barbarians who
knew nothing about the Roman army. The army turned very weak-cause number one.
Another cause was that these barbarians banded together to revolt against the Empire and
formed powerful confederations. Once one tribe of barbarians had entered the Empire,
the Romans could not militarily keep them out, since their army had dwindled.
A third cause of the fall was that, the Empire faced financial difficulties. In the late 300s
and mid 400s, the west received less of the wealthy provinces which decreased the taxes
collected by the Romans. Paying for troops to fight against invaders could have been the
problem.
The last reason that the Empire may have fallen was because of poor leadership. The
support of the emperors that were supposed to hold Rome together was lacking, having a
major effect on the citizens of Rome and of course on the government.
The Mayans also experienced a crumbling in their society, however theirs was much
different from the Romans. From about 790-889 B.C, the Mayan civilization collapsed.
Unlike Rome, the Mayans didn’t have a strong and united army, even in their beginnings.
They were very small and warfare was not conducted on a large scale. They had small
raids and city-states tried to conquer each other, but this fighting was not a common
occurrence. The warriors were also not trained or disciplined like the Romans were.
There were only a small number of warriors and most were nobles. Whenever there was
fighting, it was more religious than about gaining control of land. Mayan rulers, would
try to sacrifice one another for ritual purposes and most destruction was aimed toward
temples.
Kings ruled Mayans and they were both political leaders as well as religious leaders. I
think that these rulers were probably more effective than Rome’s emperors because since
they had two positions to live up to, the kings were probably more disciplined and
reserved. Since they themselves were religious, they had to follow rules and teach their
people morals and values and keep the Mayans in line.
The fall of the Mayans could be explained by natural disaster, disease, agricultural
problems, peasant revolts, internal warfare and foreign invasions. Only a few of these
resembled what happened to the Romans. For example, the peasant revolts can be
compared to the barbarian tribes entering the Roman Empire. Also, the Mayans suffered
from foreign invasions that their army could not control because they were weak and so
was the Roman’s army.
Survival of any civilization depends on how united their army is. If they are not
disciplined well or not trained well, then how will they be able to keep out foreign
invasions? In the case of the Mayans, the future of your civilization can just depend on
how nice mother nature wants to be to you. If natural disasters occur and drive away all
of your people, then your civilization may not exist. For any civilization to succeed, good
leadership is the most important. If the culture has somebody trustworthy, honest and
intelligent then that culture has a better chance of survival!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Topic 3 -- Denise Stone, 14:09:40 03/07/02 Thu

Rome was so succesful for so long because of their well oraganized government and the many reformers who directly contributed to Rome's uprising. For example, at the insistance of the plebians they wrote down all their laws on something we call the "Twelve Tables". This helped bring order to their republic and temporary peace between the patricians and the plebians. Also, they had one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Phalanxes didn't work so they tried legions and brought up children by teaching them that their city comes fist and only themselves after. Their downfall was a variety of reasons- Rome lost power over some city-states, too many people and not enough food (Hannibal destroyed many of the fields as he ravaged throughout the land), nobles gained power which meant the assembly of tribunes and administration had less power, and no one took care of the fields because there was too many men off to protect the expanding Republic. Also,the Romans possibly didn't even realize just how powerful they had become and after a while they were so at ease with their life style they kind of took it for granted and didn't see any of their flaws. This directly relates to Modern civilizations because take for example the United States. We are in our own "Golden Age" right now but it seems to me we are so busy helping war or ill stricken countries that we are not bothering to help ourselves. Romans were gentle rulers over the city-states they conquered but they always put themselves first in times of peril. That is what we need to do or we will experience our own downfall. We cannot get too full of ourselves as the Romans did.They didn't even realize all that they had until they lost it.The United States I hope is smart enough to avoid a similar fate.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic II -- Anoush Essajanian, 18:12:49 02/24/02 Sun

I think that Pericles had the right idea about feeling the pride that he obviously felt about Athens, but he went a little overboard with all of the different aspects the he praised. There is always room for improvement and he shouldn't think too highly of Athens and have the mindset that they are the best and have an ethnocentric attitude.
For example, one thing that they weren't the best in was their army. Sparta had a better army than Athens. They were more resiliant and trained better. This was obvious because of the different techniques that the Spartans and Athenians used to train their soldiers. Pericles should have recognized that the Spartans had the better army and learned from them. Instead of wallowing in his pride, he should have taken aspects of Sparta's army the he liked and brought them to his own.
Pericles claimed that the law to all alike secures equal justice, but this is not true. First of all, the laws were not even written down so how would anyone know and prove what they were? Nobles who imposed hardships on peasants and artisans controlled the government. This is not equal justice. This is favoritism of those who had money and were of upper class. In this instance, Pericles was completey wrong about his perfect view of Athens.
However, I think that his confidence in Athens is very reassuring to his people. If I was an Athenian, I would feel really good about my government, school and army. His pride would rub off on me and motivate me to believe in my city-state, ultimately making Athens stronger and more united. He was a good motivator who didn't tell the whole truth all of the time. Kind of like a modern day politician...

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Topic II -- Marie Grunbeck, 08:54:17 02/26/02 Tue

I believe that Pericles did have the right to feel proud of Athens because it is his country. I also think that what Pericles says about Athens is partially true, but some parts of his oration are embellished. The fact that he made Athens sound better than it really was is a result of him being a citizen of Athens.
One aspect of Athens that I think Pericles stretched the truth about is when he says that "...our [Athens] military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries". It may be true that the Athenians had a very strict system of military training. However although they were good fighters, they were not the best. For example, the Persians destroyed Athens in 480 B.C. because Athens couldn't match the Persian's army. Therefore proving that they had a better army than Athens.
Another example of Pericle's embellishment of the truth can be found in this line: "It is true we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few." Although Pericles says that this is true, the real truth is the complete opposite of this statement. The reality is that nobles, which only made up a very small percentage of the total population, mainly controlled the Athenian government. Since Pericles says that the government "is in the hands of the many and not the few", he is trying to convince his readers that there are more people who belong to the upper class than the lower. However, the truth is really that the majority of people in Athens were peasants and artisans, who belonged to the lower class. This situation caused a great in balance in Athenian society. Consequently, Pericles oration said the exact opposite of what was really true. He probably did this on purpose, in an attempt to relieve himself of his own guilty conscience because he, himself, was a wealthy noble in Athens.
Finally, although Pericles exaggerated some parts of the life in Athens, other parts are true. I believe that Pericles and other Athenians do have the right to believe the truths about their country. However I don't believe that they have the right to stretch the truth to make their country sound better than it actually is.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Topic 2 -- Denise Stone, 15:29:44 02/25/02 Mon

I believe that Pericles and the people of Athens certainly had a right to be proud of their city-state but they were so proud they kind of overlooked the things that they didnt have. There is a difference between pride and simply being snobby. Perhaps if they took the time to look at Sparta's great military for example they could have improved themselves even more instead of thinking that everything they have is better than everyonelses.Pericles exaggerated in some aspects but in many others showed that Athens truly was a great place to live. I admit they had wonderful schools and advanced knowledge in their architecture and culture they didn't have it all..... there is always room for improvement

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Topic 2 -- Mr. Curboy, 06:57:46 02/13/02 Wed

Read Pericles "Funeral Oration". Do and did the Athenians have the right to feel as proud of themselves as Pericles leads us to believe. Support your arguement with facts..... not only opiniion.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Colin Martin, 08:57:57 02/15/02 Fri

Yes I think that they do have the right to feel as proud as they are about Athens. Since there were few cities back then, they had little competition to be the best. Pericles probably did not spend too much time in the other cities. He most likely grew up in Athens makeing it seem the best to him. If you think about the place where you spent most of your life, you are probably attached to it and think that it is better than most other places that you visit.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Brad Nock, 08:59:47 02/15/02 Fri

The Athenians had the right to be proud about some things, but they weren't the best, like they thought they were. They had certain accomplishments that contributed to their "greatness" such as The Acropolis and their expertise in performing drama (literature). Even with their accomplishments, the Athenians were most definately not the best. They didn't write down their laws, so the people were depended upon to remember them and could make up new ones and ignore others. Women, slaves, and metics weren't allowed to participate in politics even though they accounted for the majority of the population. Also, the government was mainly made up of aristocrats who had biased opinions and corrupted it. In conclusion, the Atheninas were great in some ways, but they weren't the city that Pericles spoke of in his speech.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Kelly Sargente, 09:00:17 02/15/02 Fri

I believe that the Athenians did have the right to be proud of their civilization. In that period of time their intellectual intelligence was superior for their time. The Athenian architecture was beautiful. It had been well thought out in order to last long. The Acropolis is one of the most famous pieces of architecture in the world and it is still around today for people to see.Their philosophies are still around today, still causing many to seek and answer and better understanding of such matters. Even the Athenian government was progressing. The officials were being paid and given more responsibility of the people.
Their soliders were trained hard, and were incredibly advanced also. They fought tough wars. Therefore, in conclusion, Athenians did have the right to be proud of their civilization.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- george, 09:01:08 02/15/02 Fri

Pericles and the Athenians community had the right to feel so proud about ahtens because The athenian government was truly a democracy it was not just one man making all the rules. Pericles was just a spokesman for the athenians.Athens is one of the most refined and respected city-states. Some city-states force there citzens into a specific profession while athen's citizens had a large choice. Although Pericles clames that athenian military training was superior I belive that sparta had a far superior military training system. Athens is a place that loves art and that is somewhat modern. He claims that Athens is the school of the hellas and this is mostly true in that they were one of the most modern city-states of its time. To sum it up i say that athenian citizens had every right to feel so proud considering how advanced the civilization they lived in was.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Nicole Sawyer, 09:12:07 02/15/02 Fri

Yes, i feel that the Athenians at that point had the right to feel as proud as Pericles led us to believe. I feel that they took what was given to them and used it to the fullest. They began with almost nothing, and made it into a whole city of wealth and prosperity. The Athenians were wealthy, hard working, people who also knew how to have fun. They tried to prevent poverty among their people. From what it seems, they worked as a community. They had a stable govenment, and a strong militia. The Athenians had a lot of things going for them, and they worked hard to maintain them. That is something to be proud of.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Nicole Sawyer, 09:12:49 02/15/02 Fri

Yes, i feel that the Athenians at that point had the right to feel as proud as Pericles led us to believe. I feel that they took what was given to them and used it to the fullest. They began with almost nothing, and made it into a whole city of wealth and prosperity. The Athenians were wealthy, hard working, people who also knew how to have fun. They tried to prevent poverty among their people. From what it seems, they worked as a community. They had a stable govenment, and a strong militia. The Athenians had a lot of things going for them, and they worked hard to maintain them. That is something to be proud of.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- THE Tim Carson, 09:14:14 02/15/02 Fri

At the time of Pericles'(Dave said that posessive was right) "Funeral Oration", The two major cities in Greece were Sparta, and Athens. If by chance, the Spartans aquired a man such as Pericles, capable of thought, the same type of boasting would have been possible for the Spartans. Although the Spartan society is not known for their asstuteness and great intellectual discoveries, they had plenty to be proud of in the area of war.

Athens on the other hand, was not such a beligerent millitarily based community. Athens was cented more around different trades, arts, and ways of thinking. It was the launch-pad of Greek philosophy. Pericles had reason to brag about Athens, because it was the most artisticly and mentally advanced society known to exist at that time. Pericles had the right to brag within the areas of Athenian prowress. However, The comment Pericles made about the Athenian army, was less than true, because Sparta had the best army for sure. I wonder if Pericles would take that comment back if the Spartan army marched on Athens...heh heh heh... what a day that would have been......

Love,




Tim

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Dave Gately, 09:14:24 02/15/02 Fri

Pericles had every right to be proud of Athens. The Athenian government in itself was something to be proud of. The Athenian cvilisation was almost flawless, for instance: "But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized. When a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit," said Pericles in "The Funeral Oration for National Heroes." Pericles listed numerous reasons as to why Athens' government epitomizes Democracy. This city-state was extremely advanced. Obviously this government plan was well thought out and took many great minds to configure. Of course one would boast about their government if everything were to run smoothly. This city-state's stability and discipline was unmeasurable. "We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands," said Pericles in "The Funeral Oration for National Heroes." This quote summarizes the foundation of the Athenian government; they were not worried about what everyone else was doing, they did things their own way and it worked.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Colin Martin, 09:15:21 02/15/02 Fri

Yes I think that they do have the right to feel as proud as they are about Athens. Since there were few cities back then, they had little competition to be the best. Pericles probably did not spend too much time in the other cities. He most likely grew up in Athens makeing it seem the best to him. If you think about the place where you spent most of your life, you are probably attached to it and think that it is better than most other places that you visit. He had pride in where he was from and where he lives. He has every right to think that Athens is the best. If I want to say that the town that i live in is the besty, I would be allowed to aswell.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Brad Reed, 05:06:09 02/21/02 Thu

I beleive that Pericles had every right to "brag" about his wonderfull city of Athens because the Athinians had an "Ideal" way of life. I say tihs because in the handout, it says that the democracy that Athens had in the Antient times, was a peacefull city-state and should have been an example to others as how to act. Also I beleive that another reason that the Athinians desearved to brag is they were advanced, mentaly, compared to the other City-States. i say this because many of our mthmatical operations, formulas, and scientific modles/theorms came from Pilosiphers living in Athens. I would like to add that the Athinians, as smart and peacefull as they are, were not a peolpe to anger because the had a large and powerfull malitia, and were freindly with the Spartains. Lastly the Athinians were a hard working peoples, always learning and making the best out of the land that the had, no mater how roky and hilly.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Ryan Maclachlan, 17:36:00 02/23/02 Sat

As with most everyone else here I agree that Pericles was correct in some aspects of the Athenian greatness, but a bit to enthusiastic about other topics.
First of all as many others have mentioned, the military of Athens was not as magnificent as that of Sparta. Sparta devoted the entire life of any worthy (not killed babies or slaves) citizen to a life in their military. Athens' military was not the focal point of male Athenians. This is both good and bad because this gave Athens a better chance to advance as they did. However, the Athenian army didn't have the same Spartan might. The Athenians had a navy though, which was superior to that of the Spartans, which does allow Pericles partial credit in Athens military system. The reason that their navy was better than Sparta's was because Sparta didn't really have much focus on a navy, just a strong army. The Spartans eventually became fed up with the snotty Athenians, both sides made unanswered demands and war broke out. In 404B.C. the Athens went under Spartan rule.
As far as education is concerned, Athens held a far more superior postion over every other city-state. In Sparta, boys would learn the Iliad, but the reason for this was for war purposes. Everything in Sparta revolved around the military. The Athenians did not have such knowledge of war related topics, but they did learn elementrary reading, comprehensive physical training, and a great deal of music. Writing and learning about the works of Homer were also included. However, these were only for the wealthy boys. Teachers were rather lowlifes of this society though -- most being slaves due to being to old or weak to be a normal citizen. However, their contributions to the youth made them respected people. The studies of geometry and philosophy were for later in life as adults, not children.
As derogatory as I may sound about the Athenians, there is no doubt that intellectually they were far more advanced than any other city-state in Greece. All the famous mathematicians (Euclid), philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates), and scientists (Hippocrates) were from Athens. The Athenians had developed their own beautiful form of architecture, drama, literature, and sculpture. Even more impressive is the origins of Democracy which were started from both their government and Plato's "The Republic". Even after their conquer, they were still the intellectual superpower of Greece, and they were also favored by the Romans for their smarts, which were foolishly not used for fighting technology.
The Athenians have every right to be proud of their city-state and think that their military is superior to everyone esle's but just keep in mind that they were later conquered by the Spartans.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Chris Zegel, 13:11:58 02/24/02 Sun

The Athenians had the right to be proud of their civilization. Just as any other nation or racial group might have, the Athenians possessed a certain level of ethnocentrism, and this led to some pride among Athenians in general. The Athenians were in fact a great people, developing a higher level of government, as well as accomplishing many other tasks to make a civilization great. However, they were not alone in being a great civilization. Sparta was another area that held much power in ancient times, and although it had very different strengths and weakenesses, its power was equal, if not greater, than Athens' control. The denziens of Athens, while being proud of their homeland, should have recognized other city-states as wonderful places as well. Places such as Sparta may have resented the fact that Athens considered it above all other city-states, and this is probably the case, considering Sparta eventually conquered Athens. Pericles and other Athenians had the right to be proud of their home, but should have recognized the power and slpendor of other city-states as well, and perhaps kept some of their pride to themselves, to "keep the peace", so to speak.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Jimmy McCumber, 14:52:45 02/24/02 Sun

----------While Pericles may have exaggerated in some of his claims, I believe he has a right to be proud of Athens. In examining his boasts, he usually gives sufficient evidence to support each one, and while his view is of course biased, it seems accurate. He also does not pretend Athens is perfect, just a really great place.
----------Pericles says that Athens is an example to its neighbors, not a copycat of them. He praises the Athenian form of government, but admits that the rich receive more benefits than the poor. Pericles calls Athens a relaxing place, which is certainly justified. Athens was the beginning of many modern sports and even led the formation of the first Olympics.
----------Many people object to Pericles claim that Athens has the best army, instead awarding that to Sparta. But Pericles does not exactly call his army the best. He says that the Athenian military training is: “In many respects superior to that of our adversaries. They from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, while we live at ease and yet are equally ready to face the perils which they face.” The “They” clearly means the Spartans. Pericles is not necessarily saying that his army is better, but that a well-rounded and happy life is superior to the full military life of Sparta. I have to agree with him.
----------To sum up his speech, Pericles claims that Athens is the school of Hellas, which seems correct. Athens became by far the most famous and respected of the early Greek cities, and is now the capital of modern-day Greece.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic 2 -- joshua tartakoff, 18:53:27 02/13/02 Wed

I think that this is a very hard subject to say one way, or, the other to. On one hand, i could say that the Athenians had every right to toot their own horn, and on the other, i could say that they are vain and self-righteous. That is exactly what i am going to say.
As far as beauty goes, Athens takes the prize...why else do you think that all the other nations looking for a city to conquer hit at Athens. The Romans stole their buildings, gods, stories, and who knows what else. it may just be my opinion, but i do think that the Romans had a good sense appreciation for the finer things in life. also, Athens was the major trade center on the aegean sea. every culture wanted something from them...trade in particular. they had every right to say that they were superior...from my point of view.
Now, on the other hand, something that Pericles says is that they have a far superior army. this is just something that i have to take with a pinch of salt. the Spartans were the soldiers of the "greek world", and they had no trouble deciding to attack somebody else, to prove just that. here comes Athens..."we have the best army"...i really honestly bet that the Athenians were hated by the Spartans for saying that. if the Spartans were around today, and they got angry at me, i would have to join the Hollow Earth Society, and find a Hobbit hole to hide in. forget the Athenian army, Athenians were worried about public affairs, and who would contribute to the next intellectual fair. sorry to say this, but the Spartans steal the show for military prowess...duh,.
Overall, i think that this Pericles guy should not have been so assured when he said that Athens was the best because he said so. i think that that was probably one of the factors that contributed to the demise of the Athenians. however, i think that Pericles saying that Athens was the prettiest was the best way to draw attention...especially from those Romans and company.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Jimmy McCumber, 08:48:25 02/15/02 Fri

Hey Josh,

How can you take something "with a pinch of salt"? Did you have a salt shaker with you when you wrote your response? Wouldn't that ruin your keyboard? Or would it make it taste better?

-J.M.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Tom O'Brien, 09:17:53 02/15/02 Fri

I believe that Pericles has some right to be bragging about Athens but he does not have the right to assume that Athens is the best in every aspect. Pericles says that their military is superior to that of their adversaries. This however is not true. Athens, however, does have the best art, architecture and forms of beauty.

The army of Sparta is by far better than the army of Athens. All Spartan men are forced to be part of the army until they are sixty and then the must teach the army. The young soldiers are toughened up, forced to steal to eat, whipped until they dont cry anymore and forced to become talented sneaks. There army was far better than the army of Athens. Pericles was a bit full of himself with this coment about the armies.

The comments about how Athens has the best art, architecture and is the most beautiful city. For example why would the Romans, who are believed to have great architecture, come and steal buildings from the Greeks if the buildings were not magnificiant and beautiful. Athenian art is also known for its beauty and style.

In conclusion, Pericles had the right to brag about Athens when he was talking about art, architecture and beauty since Athens excelled in all of these categories. However, Pericles was not being entirely truthful when he said that the Athenian army was superior to that of others.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 2 -- Skyler Chick, 09:19:29 02/15/02 Fri

I think that the Athenians had the right to feel proud of themselves for some things, but not everything that Pericles gives them credit for. The Athenians certainly deserved to be credited for the beauty of there land and for their architecture. The Athenians also had some very skilled artisans and traders to be proud of and for their advancements in art. Because of the water surrounding Greece, trade by sea was a very available occupation and brought much art to their homeland.

In Pericles "Funeral Oration" he shows pride in the Athenian army and expresses its superiority over other armies of Greece. This however is incorrect. The Spartans had a much stronger army that spent much time conquering others. Pericles also says that the Athenians should be proud of their well-rounded government. In the "Funeral Oration" he says how the government was a democracy and was held in the hands of the public. The government was actually controlled by aristocrats which were nobles who owned land. The majority of the citizens of Athens were not of nobility but mostly consisted of merchants. These merchants later expressed discontentment with the government and requested reform.

Pericles also includes in his "Funeral Oration" that the school in Athens is the School of Greece, implying their superiority. If the school in Athens was truly the School of Greece, then people from all over Greece must go to this school. This also is an exxageration because only people from the city-state of Athens went to that school. Because of the rough terrain in Greece, people did not have the ability to travel by land.

Therefore, several comments that Pericles said were not all that true yet some of them were.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

re:topic1 -- Adam Shifrin, 08:49:26 02/11/02 Mon

The events that could have been altered were the death of many more civilizations. If the semarians had not become fat and lazy, and had countinued to defend their nation then the Babylonians,Assyrians, Chaldeans,and, Persians would not have fought wars filled with death and dying.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: re:topic1 -- Kelly, 09:03:56 02/11/02 Mon

Adam,I think that it wasn't that the Sumarians were fat and lazy, it was that the Chaldeans were a stronger civilization.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: re:topic1 -- jamie falzone, 09:16:17 02/11/02 Mon

>Adam,I think that it wasn't that the Sumarians were
>fat and lazy, it was that the Chaldeans were a
>stronger civilization.

o i dont know about that kelly! u never know! they could have been fat and lazy (although i do think that i agree with u that the chaldeans were a stronger civilization!!)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: re:topic1 -- Cindy Foster, 06:42:08 02/13/02 Wed

This is a test. When does this post?


>>Adam,I think that it wasn't that the Sumarians were
>>fat and lazy, it was that the Chaldeans were a
>>stronger civilization.
>
>o i dont know about that kelly! u never know! they
>could have been fat and lazy (although i do think that
>i agree with u that the chaldeans were a stronger
>civilization!!)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: re:topic1 -- Cindy Foster, 06:42:21 02/13/02 Wed

This is a test. When does this post?


>>Adam,I think that it wasn't that the Sumarians were
>>fat and lazy, it was that the Chaldeans were a
>>stronger civilization.
>
>o i dont know about that kelly! u never know! they
>could have been fat and lazy (although i do think that
>i agree with u that the chaldeans were a stronger
>civilization!!)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: re:topic1 -- Kelly, 09:08:50 02/11/02 Mon

Adam,I think that it wasn't that the Sumarians were fat and lazy, it was that the Chaldeans were a stronger civilization.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: re:topic1 -- Mike Shilalie, 09:10:11 02/11/02 Mon

There is no question that history repeats itself. After seeing some of the events that happened over the past year it is clear that history repeats itself. I beleive this happens because people are to stubborn to notice what it is happening and learn from it.
some of the things that are happening last happened one thousand years ago. This means that leaders of the world and other important people of the world are probably not taking the time to research the history of the world. If they did esearch the history of the world the would find that Many of the events that have happensed in the past hundred years happened thousands of years ago. If they knew this Some of these tragic wars and events could have been prevented.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: re:topic1 -- Colin, 14:19:12 02/11/02 Mon

Well put, i will have to agree with you (for once) and I think that you are a great writer, with the events like 9/11 it is obvious that things like terrorism have still been used as a weapon.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Topic 1 -- jack curboy, 07:19:10 02/08/02 Fri

If history repeats itself because nobody pays attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the events in mesopotamian history that we would have been better off if we HAD paid attention. What events could we have altered by attending the "first time"?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Cindy Foster, 07:20:59 02/08/02 Fri

This is a test...


>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- julie, 08:41:02 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
hey!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Meaghan Giangregorio, 08:45:04 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- julie, 09:22:15 02/11/02 Mon

>>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
way to put it meaghan

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Meaghan Giangregorio, 08:45:59 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
One event that we should pay attention to is

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Kristen Berard, 08:47:32 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Meaghan Giangregorio, 08:50:54 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
One event that we should have paid attention was when the Assyrians captured about 6,000 hebrews and put them into to slavery. If we had taken that into concideration then we could have prevented the slavery issues that errupted with the African Americans taken from their native home of Africa.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Colin Martin, 08:51:11 02/11/02 Mon

The Assyerians used terror as a politicle weapon, If we had paid more attention to what they would do, perhaps that we would have been more aware for the 9/11 tragedy. We had no idea at all that we would be attacked. If we were ready than perhaps the tragedy could have been avoided.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Dave, 09:17:02 02/11/02 Mon

Hello Colin my son, good to chat with you once again. It seems as though our opinions are very similar. Although I am not one to accuse, the similarities between our opinions are uncanny.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- jean, 09:20:12 02/11/02 Mon

>The Assyerians used terror as a politicle weapon, If
>we had paid more attention to what they would do,
>perhaps that we would have been more aware for the
>9/11 tragedy. We had no idea at all that we would be
>attacked. If we were ready than perhaps the tragedy
>could have been avoided.

way to go col! way to bring current events into the classroom. i also beleieve that even though the events of the assyrians happened at such a long time ago it also could have infulenced terrorism that happened currently! i very much agree with you thought, very inteligent way of thinking it through!
good job! great addition to the the classes ideas!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Marie Grunbeck, 08:51:54 02/11/02 Mon

I think that if each civilzation had paid attention to the one before it, then they would not have been conquered. They would have realized that because each empire before them was conquered, they would also be conquered. If they had realized that they were going to be conquered then they would have been prepared for it to happen, and probably could have prevented it.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Dave, 08:53:20 02/11/02 Mon

One event in Mesopotamian history that we should have payed attention to was the way in which the Assyrians used terror as a political weapon. Terror is used this way in modern society. This usage of terror foreshadowed a terrible future for our society. The September 11th tragedy is an example of terror being used as a political weapon.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- george francis, 09:13:39 02/11/02 Mon

wow david good thinking. your right. you sure are quite intelligent to think of that on your own

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- george francis, 09:15:45 02/11/02 Mon

wow david good thinking. your right. you sure are quite intelligent to think of that on your own

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Jean, 08:53:27 02/11/02 Mon

If we had paid attention to the fact that people had different religions but were aloud to practice them however they wanted, then we would not need a second or third time to realize that it does not matter what religion practice and we would not get into so many political fights about religion.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Marie Grunbeck, 09:05:32 02/11/02 Mon

I think this is a very good point. I also believe that the fights that have to do with religion, today, could have been prevented if they were stopped long ago.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Nicole, 09:07:27 02/11/02 Mon

Jean, this is a very good point. A lot of people do not agree on religion, but if we had accepted it earlier on, then it would not be as big of a deal today. Foe example, the pilgrims were forced to move out of their country just because of a disagreement about religion.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Colin, 14:09:00 02/11/02 Mon

Good point, I think that people should be allowed to express and beleive in whatever religion they want to and if people did let that happen way back when then maybe the rest of the world would belive in it today aswell.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Nicole, 08:53:34 02/11/02 Mon

If we had paid attention to the creation of the bible the first time, we wouldn't have had to keep recreating it everytime we lost it.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Jean, 09:09:49 02/11/02 Mon

>If we had paid attention to the creation of the bible
>the first time, we wouldn't have had to keep
>recreating it everytime we lost it.


This brings up a very good point nicole, i completely agree with the fact that if we had paid attention to the creation of the bible, we would not have to worry about the people that lost it and then re-found it again. Our thoughts that were bottled up inside of us would probably not have been lost for the numerous amount of years that have been lost if we had just taken the time to practice religion and keep it sacred to us and not have to re-create it over and over again!
I believe that your point has been well taken nicole, great addition to the rest of the answers! :) <3

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Dave, 09:12:28 02/11/02 Mon

WOW, you dug so deep for that one. I feel smarter after reading your written opinion. Thank You

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Kelly Sargente, 08:56:15 02/11/02 Mon

I think that if the ancient civilizations realized the mistakes they had made the first time they could have improved on them the second time around. I think the Assyrians were able to conquer so many civilizations because they learned from their mistakes. They knew how to cause fear.When and if these civilizations had realized their mistakes instead of improving upon them for a while they should've continually been aware of such mistakes.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Kelly Sargente, 08:56:57 02/11/02 Mon

I think that if the ancient civilizations realized the mistakes they had made the first time they could have improved on them the second time around. I think the Assyrians were able to conquer so many civilizations because they learned from their mistakes. They knew how to cause fear.When and if these civilizations had realized their mistakes instead of improving upon them for a while they should've continually been aware of such mistakes.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Denise Stone, 09:14:59 02/11/02 Mon

Kelly, you made a great point saying that the Assyrians learned to cause fear. That is exactly what they did. I think that is the best example to talk about. I also included that in what I wrote. Being aware of your mistakes is a good way to fix them!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Denise Stone, 09:15:47 02/11/02 Mon

Kelly, you made a great point saying that the Assyrians learned to cause fear. That is exactly what they did. I think that is the best example to talk about. I also included that in what I wrote. Being aware of your mistakes is a good way to fix them!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Kristen Berard, 09:16:50 02/11/02 Mon

Kelly, I think that you are right about the fact that if people learned from their mistakes then they wouldn't do that agian. But what i don't understand is when you said, "I think the Assyrians were able to conquer so many civilizations because they learned from their mistakes." but what mistakes did they make. Was it that they used terror as a weapon, but i don't think they learned because they didn't stop until they were conquered. Other then that I agree with you. Good Job!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Kristen Berard, 09:18:25 02/11/02 Mon

Kelly, I think that you are right about the fact that if people learned from their mistakes then they wouldn't do that agian. But what i don't understand is when you said, "I think the Assyrians were able to conquer so many civilizations because they learned from their mistakes." but what mistakes did they make. Was it that they used terror as a weapon, but i don't think they learned because they didn't stop until they were conquered. Other then that I agree with you. Good Job!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Ryan Maclachlan, 08:57:11 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
If we had paid attention the first time, we would have developed a better method of dealing with the Arab-Israel conflict. This conflict had originally occured between the Babylonians and obviously the Jews, where the Jews were deported to Babylon.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Mike Lesniak, 08:57:13 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
One event in mesopotaminian history that we would of been better off if we had paid attention was when the Babylonians were attacked by the Assyrians. If we had paid attention to that and we knew that history repeats itself, we would of known to alwys to be prepared for an attack. We would of had troops ready for war at any time. But we didnt pay attention so when we were attacked by Japan we wernt ready and many people were killed.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- george, 08:57:20 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
one event that we should have paid attention to the first time is when the assyrians forced thwe jews intto slavery which happened again in the 1800s with the africans being forced i nto slavery by americans

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Tom O'Brien, 09:09:05 02/11/02 Mon

>>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
>one event that we should have paid attention to the
>first time is when the assyrians forced thwe jews
>intto slavery which happened again in the 1800s with
>the africans being forced i nto slavery by americans
That is what I said.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- george, 08:58:00 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
one event that we should have paid attention to the first time is when the assyrians forced thwe jews intto slavery which happened again in the 1800s with the africans being forced i nto slavery by americans

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Dave, 09:04:08 02/11/02 Mon

George, how are you? Your opinion is valued sincerely. You are a genius. Keep up the good work friend.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Colin, 09:05:43 02/11/02 Mon

Wow, george your my hero. Your thought process in the topic developmental stage is quite devine. I beleive that yout intelectual thinking is on the right course of progession. I hope to do some compatable thinking with you some time soon.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- julie anne harrington I, 09:11:48 02/11/02 Mon

that is an awesome way to put it george, i agree entirely. it would have saved the lives of so many poor innocent jews that had their lives taken for no reason. excellent job george.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Tom O'Brien, 08:58:27 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
One example is how the Assyrians enslaved many people. If they had been stopped perhaps slavery would not have been used in america. Another example is how the Assyrians used terror. If they had been stopped before terror was made public perhaps terrror would not be part of our modern day society.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Mike Lesniak, 09:04:28 02/11/02 Mon

>>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
>One example is how the Assyrians enslaved many people.
> If they had been stopped perhaps slavery would not
>have been used in america. Another example is how the
>Assyrians used terror. If they had been stopped
>before terror was made public perhaps terrror would
>not be part of our modern day society.
I think so to tom!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Topic 1 -- Mike Lesniak, 09:06:50 02/11/02 Mon

>>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?
>One example is how the Assyrians enslaved many people.
> If they had been stopped perhaps slavery would not
>have been used in america. Another example is how the
>Assyrians used terror. If they had been stopped
>before terror was made public perhaps terrror would
>not be part of our modern day society.
I think so to tom!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Denise Stone, 09:02:18 02/11/02 Mon

If we paid attention to many events in Mesopotamia a lot of things would not have happened.For instance, Hammurabi was able to come up with a code of laws that was the foundation for a government's rules. If we had followed his laws here in the United States then we wouldnt have had so much trouble with crime. Though it may seem horrible that if someone's son is killed by someone in your family then your son must die, it is fair. A life for a life. Now, we are more civilized than that but Hammurabi could have gotten us on the right path instead of having so much trouble coming up with our own rules. Another example could include Assyria's way of simply knocking on your door and saying "Hi, we would like to conquer you." It's a lot easier to do that than to be bombing a country and having innocent people die. If you do it once and do it right then you wont have to do it again. It's not only a faster method,it's also a smarter one! Many wars could have been avoided. This includes world war 1 and 2, September 11th...... if you think about it were talking about thousands of lives that would not be lost.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- julie, 09:02:20 02/11/02 Mon

if we had paid attention to the way the assyrians used terror to conquer people, and realized how it came back to haunt them, then maybe today we would be in a world with less terror in it.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Denise Stone, 09:02:40 02/11/02 Mon

If we paid attention to many events in Mesopotamia a lot of things would not have happened.For instance, Hammurabi was able to come up with a code of laws that was the foundation for a government's rules. If we had followed his laws here in the United States then we wouldnt have had so much trouble with crime. Though it may seem horrible that if someone's son is killed by someone in your family then your son must die, it is fair. A life for a life. Now, we are more civilized than that but Hammurabi could have gotten us on the right path instead of having so much trouble coming up with our own rules. Another example could include Assyria's way of simply knocking on your door and saying "Hi, we would like to conquer you." It's a lot easier to do that than to be bombing a country and having innocent people die. If you do it once and do it right then you wont have to do it again. It's not only a faster method,it's also a smarter one! Many wars could have been avoided. This includes world war 1 and 2, September 11th...... if you think about it were talking about thousands of lives that would not be lost.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Kristen Berard, 09:04:28 02/11/02 Mon

If history repeats itself because nobody pays attention the first time then alot of things would be different. For example the people of accient mesopotamia took better care of the first scriptures of the bible then now we would easliy be able to prove the bible true, because we would have written proof. If we paid attention to history then we would know to save important documents. Also we would be able to learned more about past cultures. Another instance is how the Assyrians used terror as a weapon. This is still true today, which we know is true from September 11th. If we learned about terror from the Assyrians then we wouldn't have september 11. The assyrians used terror but after a while they we unliked and lost their power. I think that it will happen agian.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Brad Nock, 09:09:49 02/11/02 Mon

If we had payed attention to how the Assyrians had used terrorism to scare the opposing empires when they were trying to take over Mesopotamia, then maybe terrorism wouldn't be so strong today. We could have foreseen problems with terrorism and tried to eliminate it before it became a real problem. Then maybe the attack on September 11th might have been prevented and we wouldn't be having a war with terrorism right now.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Chris Zegel, 09:11:02 02/11/02 Mon

In Mesopotamia, as in all other civilizations that we know of, wars occurred. The ones without the power envied the ones with the power, and as a result different peoples overthrew each other violently. The Sumerians were conquered by the Babylonians, who were conquered by the Assyrians, and so forth. This has continued through to today, right up until in WWII when Japan attacked Hawaii. The weak envy the strong, and those without desire for what they do not have. We need to discover a way for different peoples to live in harmony and coexist, and become stronger together. If different powers each try to expand and compete with each other, conflict and strife are natural results. Even in modern times, we are still faced with the threat of war, because there are many rogue nations, less developed than most, that are jealous of the strength that the world powers possess. Our world as a community cannot seem to find a way to exist peacefully, and until it does, history will find a way ot repeat itself.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Skyler Chick, 09:11:38 02/11/02 Mon

>If history repeats itself because nobody pays
>attention the first time,,,,,,,,,,,,,comment on the
>events in mesopotamian history that we would have been
>better off if we HAD paid attention. What events
>could we have altered by attending the "first time"?

By paying attention to events in mesopotamian history, we could have altered the course of history by taking a closer note to how arguments between different groups were settled. People would fight wars in order to acquire more land, killing many people. The Assyrians would brutally kill their enemies.
In today's society, when people tend to get into arguments, they settle them with violence. Many wars, such as what is going on between Israel and Palestine, are fought because of differences in opinion. The wars of the ancient world have seemed to have set a precedent for countries of today.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Derek Ricciuto, 09:14:58 02/11/02 Mon

If history repeats itself, it means that people such as the Assyrians, who were once the major warlords of their era, but probably fell to their own arrogance, will be duplicated by later nations. An example of their predicament could very well be us, the United States, who, unless very carefull and aware of other nations, could fall into a difficult position. An example of a civilization that could have benefited from this knowledge are the Persians, who, having gained a great deal of territory, decided to so far as to invade Athens in 490 BC, and lost against the Athenian army led by Miltiades. If the Persians had paid attention to the fate of the Assyrians and waited longer to prepare and reconsider their plans, they may have won this battle. If this had happened, the Persians would have gained control of Greece, and all cultures influenced by the Greeks would have been Persian influence.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Justin Neel, 09:18:08 02/11/02 Mon

I think that if we would have paid attention to the Assyrians political weapon of terrorism and also the Persians attacks on the Greeks we could somewhat predict attacks of terrorism and ambushes on other nations.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Colin Roux, 09:18:55 02/11/02 Mon

Throughout history, history has often repeated itself. If our country was as intelligent as we are assumed to be, we should have been able to of had some better way of dealing with the terrors of 9/11. If we had considered the events of the past few months along with those of the ancient world, it is apparent that history repeats itself. The Assyrians attacked their unexpected enemies without notice as did the terrorists to us. For some reason we are too caught up in ourselves that we have no time to protect ourselves.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

More Response... -- Anoush Essajanian, 09:17:54 02/11/02 Mon

In regard to Hammurabi's code-
I think that all of the other civilizations should have followed his precedent of writing things down such as laws. This would have helped in future research of Mesopotamia and given us more insight on the kinds of people that they were.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic 1 -- THE Tim Carson, 09:05:38 02/11/02 Mon

Although it is lacking relevance to Mesopotania, I remember, the Romans had a sea battle in the Mediterranean Sea, the roman fleet lead their opposition into a part of the Sea with rough waters. The trap worked, and the opposing fleet surrendered. In WWII, the same thing happened. A fleet of ships were lured into that same section of water, and tricked, and ended up losing the battle. I do believe the Romans are semi-relevant to our studies of Mesopotania, however, it is a good example of history repeating itself. My 6th grade social studies teacher, Mr.Morini, taught me this. I thank him heartily.


Sincerely,


Tim Carson

Tada!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Timothé Felipe Raoul Carson -- Jimmy McCumber, 09:13:51 02/11/02 Mon

Hey tim,

How are the romans semi-related to the Mesopotamians, besides coming from the same earth, and possibly wearing similar hats? Do you also thank your teacher of last year, Mr. Zack, for his lessons on social structure (who can kick who)

-Jaimi Stephanopoulos

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Response to Topic 1 -- Anoush Essajanian, 08:48:21 02/11/02 Mon

In Mesopotamia, a frequent issue was, of course, the different civilizations fighting for land and power. This is probably the basis of all of our wars in history, not only in Mesopotamia. The big question is, however, how can we as humans with different opinions, ideas and thoughts learn to compromise without violence. The civilizations in Mesopotamia had this same dilema. Is there even a solution to this or is this too much of an idealistic point of view?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> Re: Response to Topic 1 -- Marie Grunbeck, 09:13:35 02/11/02 Mon

I believe that it is almost impossible for two different civiilizations to compromise because they have such different views. It becomes even harder to compromise when the people fighting are stubborn. For these reasons, I think that the only way different people will be able to compromise is if they are willing to adapt different views in addition with their own, and this will probably never happen.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Re: Topic 1 jean ritucci -- joshua tartakoff, 09:08:43 02/11/02 Mon

Jean........you do not spell that type of aloud "aloud"... you spell it allowed. that's all...

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

re:topic 1 -- Adam Shifrin, 09:08:28 02/11/02 Mon

Kelly, Kelly, Kellee. This is pretty good. But did you know that you have brown hair? Well I noticed cause I sit behind you but anyways...I agree with you.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

More Response... -- Anoush Essajanian, 09:07:22 02/11/02 Mon

In regard to Hammurabi's code-
I think that all of the other civilizations should have followed his precedent of writing things down such as laws. This would have helped in future research of Mesopotamia and given us more insight on the kinds of people that they were.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

More Response... -- Anoush Essajanian, 09:06:22 02/11/02 Mon

In regard to Hammurabi's code-
I think that all of the other civilizations should have followed his precedent of writing things down such as laws. This probably would have changed a lot of things for the future.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

More Response... -- Anoush Essajanian, 09:05:57 02/11/02 Mon

In regard to Hammurabi's code-
I think that all of the other civilizations should have followed his precedent of writing things down such as laws. This probably would have changed a lot of things for the future.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic 1 -- Jimmy McCumber, 08:59:03 02/11/02 Mon

History sometimes repeats itself. Failure to observe and learn from mistakes made in the past could come back to haunt you. Or something like that. For example, it would be stupid of me to use "Armorial Bearings" in a sentence without knowing the meaning, having already learned that such misusage could perturb the teacher.
Another example, more relevant to Mesopotamia, is the conquering of the Persians. Though we have not yet studied it, we know that Persia had a huge empire, yet was still beaten. They failed to make allies, and spread their tyrannical reach too far, making far too many enemies. These enemies eventually got together and revolted. We know the result, because if we glance at a current map, we see the words "Afghanistan", "Iraq", "Iran", etc. in place of a giant "Persia". It gives the effect that a giant tyrannical controlling force would be a much better option to independence, as proved by what the aforementioned countries have done with their independence. But we're getting a little off topic here. I could go further off topic by discussing the upcoming baseball season, but in the interest of a higher grade, I will now make my connection.
The Romans should have learned from the Persians. Instead, they too branched out to far, and made too many ennemies. They were also conquered, in large part by Attila the Hun (if the spelling is wrong, then it's a typo).
Many other smaller empires have also suffered for angering their colonies. The United States revolted after England forced them to pay ridiculously high taxes, and gained their independence. (We now have the IRS, which again asks whether a tyrannical rule would be prefered.)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: Topic 1 -- joshua tartakoff, 08:56:53 02/11/02 Mon

i think that if people thought to pay any attention to what is happening, when it happens, the difficulties that lie in the event, can be avoided when the event reappears. For example, government of nations: most monarchs succumb to greed and power struggles, when they have no need for anything new. If those that receive the power, the monarchs, are concertedly trying to stay away from greed, then they won't be tempted to embezle funds or something like that.
in the mesopotamian struggles, i think that the repetition that could have been avoided was the rise and fall of undirected nations. Not to imply unimportance, but rather to show that the nations, if they had a better direction, other than simply domination, could have lasted. For example, if one of the nations had said "let's try to touch on dedication in our populace, and establish a system that allows them to interact and be imporant in the government." if a nation had risen that did not play favorites, and allowed an equal chance for all, then others might not be as driven to try and destroy them. The sumerians came close to this, in that they were the most liked of all (pretty much any way), and they had the most friendly atmosphere throughout their small nation.
i think that if people simply though about what was wrong with the nation that they just decimated, then they might try and fix those problems. as it seems, the motto of the old world was,"If it doesn't work the first time, try on a larger scale." overall, it looks like people conquered others just so that they could say that they had been on top at all...even if they crashed down hard.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Welcome To Mr. Curboy's World History Forum -- Mr. Curboy, 07:32:11 02/07/02 Thu

Hello Class,
In the weeks to come we will be using this forum to discuss important themes in World History. Generally, you will post your thoughts AND reply to the postings of at least two classmates. This can be done from school or at home

The forum address is:
www.voy.com/70496/ (the final slash is needed)
Include your full name in all postings
DO NOT include your email address.

Good Luck

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Replies:

[> World History -- Colin Roux, 08:50:32 02/11/02 Mon

if someone gets this can you come over here and show me and mike how to do it

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Topic 1 -- Mike Shilalie, 08:53:29 02/11/02 Mon

Hello?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[ Archives: 1 ]