Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?
I do think that a force like Alexander the Great could exist today, but not as strong or influential on the whole world. For instance, I do not think that a force like Alexander's would happen in the United States or any other big country with a democracy or that is running fine now, but maybe in a small country to a point. In countries like Sudan, there is a leader that will kill innocent people, but it is not big or strong enough to take over a lot of the world like Alexander the Great did. Also, we were talking in class how people today don't usually hold a really strong grudge against people or an event that happened many many years ago. For example, Alexander the Great wanted to fight and defeat the Persians because 150 years earlier, the Persians had fought the Athenians and Alexander wanted to get revenge. Today, there are probably some people that don't even know a major event that happened over 150 years ago. If we took the Civil War as an example for people in the United States, I think that if I was a person that lived in the South, I would not want to get revenge on the North today because we have resolved the conflict and people have forgiven each other. Also, the new generations would not care as much as the people who fought in the Civil War or knew people that did. So, I do not really think that there would be a force like Alexander the Great's existing today unless it was a very, small and noneffective to most of the rest of the world.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Daily Question: 2/24/11
Was Alexander the Great a "good leader"? Compare/Contrast with Pericles.
I do think that Alexander the Great was a good leader because of all of his great conquering skills and his tremendous defeats. If Alexander wasn't a good leader, he would not have ruled so many lands and won so many battles. Alexander showed his great leadership skills when he defeated the Persians in a battle where he was greatly outnumbered. Alexander used his knowledge and had a good strategy. This ended up in him breaking through the Persian lines and the Persians running away. Pericles was also a good leader though because it seemed that he led more for the people and not for his own power gain. One of his greatest achievements was creating the Parthenon. These leaders relate to one another because they both seemed were great leaders and made mostly smart decisions. Also, they both were against the Persians. Also, they both strived to have a very powerful country. They were different because Alexander's main goal was to conquer the world. Pericles wanted to have the strongest city-state/country, but he also focused on many other things like pleasing the people of Athens, and re-building the acropolis after the Persians had burned it down. Another thing is that Alexander killed many people, including innocent people in Persia. Pericles did not do that and he was the leader of a democracy. Finally, one of Pericles's biggest mistakes was when he thought that the Athenian force was better than what it was, and Pericles had fought the Spartans and had brutally lost. Alexander the Great and Pericles had many alike and contradicting assets.
I do think that Alexander the Great was a good leader because of all of his great conquering skills and his tremendous defeats. If Alexander wasn't a good leader, he would not have ruled so many lands and won so many battles. Alexander showed his great leadership skills when he defeated the Persians in a battle where he was greatly outnumbered. Alexander used his knowledge and had a good strategy. This ended up in him breaking through the Persian lines and the Persians running away. Pericles was also a good leader though because it seemed that he led more for the people and not for his own power gain. One of his greatest achievements was creating the Parthenon. These leaders relate to one another because they both seemed were great leaders and made mostly smart decisions. Also, they both were against the Persians. Also, they both strived to have a very powerful country. They were different because Alexander's main goal was to conquer the world. Pericles wanted to have the strongest city-state/country, but he also focused on many other things like pleasing the people of Athens, and re-building the acropolis after the Persians had burned it down. Another thing is that Alexander killed many people, including innocent people in Persia. Pericles did not do that and he was the leader of a democracy. Finally, one of Pericles's biggest mistakes was when he thought that the Athenian force was better than what it was, and Pericles had fought the Spartans and had brutally lost. Alexander the Great and Pericles had many alike and contradicting assets.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Daily Question: 2/23/11
Based on what you know about Aristotle, do you think Alexander had listened carefully to his tutor?
I do think that Alexander listened carefully to his tutor, Aristotle. In Alexander's first attack on the Persians, he was greatly outnumbered. I'm sure people thought that they were going to be brutally destroyed. Even though the Persians had such a large numerical advantage, Alexander the Great had a much better strategy. Alexander had to have been smart to have such a great strategy to defeat a strong force much greater in size. If he really was this smart, it all had to have come from his teacher, Aristotle. Aristotle was a very smart man and he studied many different subjects. He also had many philosophies. Some people describe him as systematic, and if that is true, Alexander the Great most likely learned that from him. Alexander's force broke through the Persian line and the Persians ran away. Alexander the Great had to learn a great deal from Aristotle because Alexander's father, also the king, had hired Aristotle to teach his son. Also, with Aristotle being such a smart man, Alexander must have listened to some of it because his name, Alexander the Great, shows that he was a great figure in history because of his great conquering. The only reason why I would say that Alexander didn't listen to everything that Aristotle said is because Aristotle seemed to be a more peaceful type of person and not the type of person that would want to fight a lot. If that is the case, then Alexander the Great showed an opposite personality in wanting to take over the world and wanting to get revenge on the Persians because of an event that happened 150 years earlier. I still think that Alexander listened carefully to Aristotle though because Alexander was a smart and strategical person in his time.
I do think that Alexander listened carefully to his tutor, Aristotle. In Alexander's first attack on the Persians, he was greatly outnumbered. I'm sure people thought that they were going to be brutally destroyed. Even though the Persians had such a large numerical advantage, Alexander the Great had a much better strategy. Alexander had to have been smart to have such a great strategy to defeat a strong force much greater in size. If he really was this smart, it all had to have come from his teacher, Aristotle. Aristotle was a very smart man and he studied many different subjects. He also had many philosophies. Some people describe him as systematic, and if that is true, Alexander the Great most likely learned that from him. Alexander's force broke through the Persian line and the Persians ran away. Alexander the Great had to learn a great deal from Aristotle because Alexander's father, also the king, had hired Aristotle to teach his son. Also, with Aristotle being such a smart man, Alexander must have listened to some of it because his name, Alexander the Great, shows that he was a great figure in history because of his great conquering. The only reason why I would say that Alexander didn't listen to everything that Aristotle said is because Aristotle seemed to be a more peaceful type of person and not the type of person that would want to fight a lot. If that is the case, then Alexander the Great showed an opposite personality in wanting to take over the world and wanting to get revenge on the Persians because of an event that happened 150 years earlier. I still think that Alexander listened carefully to Aristotle though because Alexander was a smart and strategical person in his time.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Daily Question: 2/22/11
Do you think Alexander honestly felt like he was avenging Persian wrongs? Or was that just propaganda to mask his goal of conquest?
I do think that Alexander honestly felt that he was avenging Persian wrongs because one of his main goals was to defeat them because they attacked Greece and had destroyed them at an earlier time. But I also think that he wanted to attack them to gain power. When he first attacked the Persians, he was greatly outnumbered but he had a better strategy. He broke through the Persian lines and they ran away. This was a great defeat for Alexander, but to him, it wasn't enough. Alexander decided to then attack in Iran, the center of Persian life. So at first, it really shows that Alexander wanted to defeat the Persians because of their immense attack on the Greeks previously. They had starved them, brought the plague, and completely destroyed their military and naval forces. Alexander wanting to get revenge on the Persians attacked them and won, but when he wanted to attack again, this is where I think that Alexander was attacking now because he wanted power for himself. Persia was a huge empire, and if he could defeat them and gain all of that power, he would just be another step bigger. The second attack is what shows that it seems to me to be propaganda to mask his goal of conquest. I could also look at it in a way that the second attack by Alexander was putting an emphasis on the first attack so the Persians wouldn't want to try to fight Alexander. So maybe in the end, Alexander's second attack was a smart decision.
I do think that Alexander honestly felt that he was avenging Persian wrongs because one of his main goals was to defeat them because they attacked Greece and had destroyed them at an earlier time. But I also think that he wanted to attack them to gain power. When he first attacked the Persians, he was greatly outnumbered but he had a better strategy. He broke through the Persian lines and they ran away. This was a great defeat for Alexander, but to him, it wasn't enough. Alexander decided to then attack in Iran, the center of Persian life. So at first, it really shows that Alexander wanted to defeat the Persians because of their immense attack on the Greeks previously. They had starved them, brought the plague, and completely destroyed their military and naval forces. Alexander wanting to get revenge on the Persians attacked them and won, but when he wanted to attack again, this is where I think that Alexander was attacking now because he wanted power for himself. Persia was a huge empire, and if he could defeat them and gain all of that power, he would just be another step bigger. The second attack is what shows that it seems to me to be propaganda to mask his goal of conquest. I could also look at it in a way that the second attack by Alexander was putting an emphasis on the first attack so the Persians wouldn't want to try to fight Alexander. So maybe in the end, Alexander's second attack was a smart decision.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Daily Question: 2/21/11
What compels someone to lead others?
I think there are a few things that would compel someone to lead others. First, some people may want to lead others just to be in power and for no one to be able to deny them or rule over them. Another reason why someone would want to lead others is just because they think that they can bring the most to heir country and be a benefit to the country. For example, in the United States we elect a president as a country, so the people going into presidency don't want to be president for power but they want to be the leader of the country for our country to thrive. Also, people may choose a leader because they feel that they will be best for their country. In ancient Greece, they put Themistocles in power because they thought he would be the most beneficial for them. I do not know if Themistocles was planning on being in power, but he was voted on by the people because of his good plans.
I think there are a few things that would compel someone to lead others. First, some people may want to lead others just to be in power and for no one to be able to deny them or rule over them. Another reason why someone would want to lead others is just because they think that they can bring the most to heir country and be a benefit to the country. For example, in the United States we elect a president as a country, so the people going into presidency don't want to be president for power but they want to be the leader of the country for our country to thrive. Also, people may choose a leader because they feel that they will be best for their country. In ancient Greece, they put Themistocles in power because they thought he would be the most beneficial for them. I do not know if Themistocles was planning on being in power, but he was voted on by the people because of his good plans.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Weekly Project: 1/14-18
My Skit to Answer the question: Is History Created by 'the People' or by Individuals?
Narrator: The story takes place in ancient Athens, Greece in about 465 B.C. At this time, Athens did not have a leader in their democracy because some Athenians turned on Themistocles, but there naval force just came off a great battle with the Persians. Even though Athens was out-numbered, their new boats called triremes and Themistocles's great plan helped defeat the Persians.
The Athenians have gathered at a big meeting spot to make some decisions.
Damien: I feel that we need a new leader because Themistocles has been exiled.
Athenian crowd member: Yeah, we need to continue our democracy to keep our country strong!
Damien: Alright, we need to have a vote.
The Athenians participated in a vote where they would scratch the name of someone on a rock and put it in the big vase or pot. Then the people would read all of them and decide on the new leader with who has the most votes.
Damien: The votes have been all read, and Pericles will be our new leader!
Pericles: Now that i'm the new leader of this democracy, I think we need to turn our focus towards the acropolis because the Persians burned it down before we defeated them in our great naval battle.
Dhaphne: Well what are we going to do?
Demetrius: We need to build more enterprises to make Athens even stronger.
Pericles: We are going to build the most beautiful structure dedicated towards Athena. It will be made of marble limestone, Pentelic marble, and a new material. It is to have many tall columns and the inside will have a 40 foot statue of Athena because this is to be dedicated to her. I will pick certain people to do each job. It will be called the Parthenon.
The Athenian people started immediately and constructed this amazing structure. The total cost was over a billion dollars today. It was completed within 15 years.
Dhaphne: This is the most glorious structure I have ever seen. This will show our wealth, power, and artistic talent to anyone who sees or hears about it.
Demetrius: With Pericles as the leader and this new artistic achievement, our democracy will be even stronger!
Damien: The only city-state that is equal to us right now is Sparta, but they did not build a Parthenon.
Pericles: That is right, but to be the center of Greek culture and more powerful, we must defeat them in a battle. It is 431 B.C. and I think we need to have a meeting with all the people in Athens to make our next decision.
Demetrius: I agree I will gather the people now.
Pericles: (to the Athenians) I have called on this meeting because I think we need to battle the Spartans for Athens to have complete power. It will not be an easy war, but I think we can do it. Cast your votes, and we will have another meeting tomorrow to make the final decision.
The Athenians out a white stone in the vase/pot for yes and they put a black stone in for no.
Damien: Pericles, all of the votes have been made and I think it is time to hold the second meeting.
Pericles: (in the second meeting to the Athenians) All of the votes have been read, and we will fight the Spartans.
Soon enough, the Spartans invade Athens.
Demetrius: Pericles, we are trying to defend the country but the Spartans are just too strong!
Pericles: Just keep fighting we can do this.
Dhaphne: Pericles, from watching this battle, it doesn't look to good for us. The Spartans have cut off our access to the water so we cannot get any food. Also, many people are getting sick!
Pericles: What do you mean? What kind of sickness?
Dhaphne: I do not know, but because we are all crammed in this area without any food, the sickness is spreading like wild fire, and people are starving!
Pericles: We must find a way to get the Spartans out of here!
Demetrius: More than a third of our people have died from this plague!
Pericles: I underestimated the power of the Spartans, and I think I am becoming sick.
Six months after he was infected with the plague, Pericles dies. Now Athens does not have a leader and the Spartans are still fighting them. Many people are fighting to get into power of Athens. They are in complete chaos and were unorganized.
Demetrius: I think we need to get out of here and go and fight the people of Sicily.
Damien: Yes we should, lets go now. We will make new weapons, armor, and prepare for this battle.
The Athenians go to Sicily and fight them there. Then, the Spartans come and attack the Athenians. The Spartans totally annihilated the Athenians. It was one of the most brutal wars in history. About 50,000 men were killed, 2 fleets of triremes completely destroyed, and the Athenian military had been crippled. They return to Athens. Then the Spartan come and are going to block off the Athenian resources again.
Damien: What are we going to do! The Spartans are coming back to Athens to starve us out again!
Dhaphne: We will have to see what happens, but we do not have enough power to fight again.
Damien: Now it is 404 B.C. and the Spartans have defeated us, we need to surrender!
Demetrius: Yes we will surrender to the Spartans.
Spartan Leader: Finally you have surrendered to our great and powerful city-state. You will not get off easy on this though. You are to take down all of your city walls, destroy all of your triremes, and get rid of anything in your navy.
Damien: We will do all of this as quickly as we can.
Dhaphne: At least we are not under attack anymore even though our power is completely done with.
Demetrius: Yes, but there must be someone to blame here!!
Athenians: We want to blame Socrates because he was the one who always disagreed with things in our country and he thought differently.
Socrates was blamed for the defeat of Athens and he was arrested then exiled. Even though he didn't do anything, the people feel that he was the reason for their defeat because they wanted to blame someone. Athens no longer had any power and this was because the Athenians thought they were stronger than they actually were. They underestimated the Spartans military power.
I think that this skit shows that history is created by the individuals and the people. Individuals like Pericles create history because he was the one that had the idea for the Parthenon and wanted to fight the Spartans. Also, Socrates is very well know in history and he is just an individual. History is created by the people because Athens made many decisions together as one group. For instance, the people in Athens decided as one that Socrates was to blame for their defeat and he was exiled. Also, especially because Athens was a democracy, they decided on things together as one by the people's decisions. I think that history is created by both the people and the individuals.
Narrator: The story takes place in ancient Athens, Greece in about 465 B.C. At this time, Athens did not have a leader in their democracy because some Athenians turned on Themistocles, but there naval force just came off a great battle with the Persians. Even though Athens was out-numbered, their new boats called triremes and Themistocles's great plan helped defeat the Persians.
The Athenians have gathered at a big meeting spot to make some decisions.
Damien: I feel that we need a new leader because Themistocles has been exiled.
Athenian crowd member: Yeah, we need to continue our democracy to keep our country strong!
Damien: Alright, we need to have a vote.
The Athenians participated in a vote where they would scratch the name of someone on a rock and put it in the big vase or pot. Then the people would read all of them and decide on the new leader with who has the most votes.
Damien: The votes have been all read, and Pericles will be our new leader!
Pericles: Now that i'm the new leader of this democracy, I think we need to turn our focus towards the acropolis because the Persians burned it down before we defeated them in our great naval battle.
Dhaphne: Well what are we going to do?
Demetrius: We need to build more enterprises to make Athens even stronger.
Pericles: We are going to build the most beautiful structure dedicated towards Athena. It will be made of marble limestone, Pentelic marble, and a new material. It is to have many tall columns and the inside will have a 40 foot statue of Athena because this is to be dedicated to her. I will pick certain people to do each job. It will be called the Parthenon.
The Athenian people started immediately and constructed this amazing structure. The total cost was over a billion dollars today. It was completed within 15 years.
Dhaphne: This is the most glorious structure I have ever seen. This will show our wealth, power, and artistic talent to anyone who sees or hears about it.
Demetrius: With Pericles as the leader and this new artistic achievement, our democracy will be even stronger!
Damien: The only city-state that is equal to us right now is Sparta, but they did not build a Parthenon.
Pericles: That is right, but to be the center of Greek culture and more powerful, we must defeat them in a battle. It is 431 B.C. and I think we need to have a meeting with all the people in Athens to make our next decision.
Demetrius: I agree I will gather the people now.
Pericles: (to the Athenians) I have called on this meeting because I think we need to battle the Spartans for Athens to have complete power. It will not be an easy war, but I think we can do it. Cast your votes, and we will have another meeting tomorrow to make the final decision.
The Athenians out a white stone in the vase/pot for yes and they put a black stone in for no.
Damien: Pericles, all of the votes have been made and I think it is time to hold the second meeting.
Pericles: (in the second meeting to the Athenians) All of the votes have been read, and we will fight the Spartans.
Soon enough, the Spartans invade Athens.
Demetrius: Pericles, we are trying to defend the country but the Spartans are just too strong!
Pericles: Just keep fighting we can do this.
Dhaphne: Pericles, from watching this battle, it doesn't look to good for us. The Spartans have cut off our access to the water so we cannot get any food. Also, many people are getting sick!
Pericles: What do you mean? What kind of sickness?
Dhaphne: I do not know, but because we are all crammed in this area without any food, the sickness is spreading like wild fire, and people are starving!
Pericles: We must find a way to get the Spartans out of here!
Demetrius: More than a third of our people have died from this plague!
Pericles: I underestimated the power of the Spartans, and I think I am becoming sick.
Six months after he was infected with the plague, Pericles dies. Now Athens does not have a leader and the Spartans are still fighting them. Many people are fighting to get into power of Athens. They are in complete chaos and were unorganized.
Demetrius: I think we need to get out of here and go and fight the people of Sicily.
Damien: Yes we should, lets go now. We will make new weapons, armor, and prepare for this battle.
The Athenians go to Sicily and fight them there. Then, the Spartans come and attack the Athenians. The Spartans totally annihilated the Athenians. It was one of the most brutal wars in history. About 50,000 men were killed, 2 fleets of triremes completely destroyed, and the Athenian military had been crippled. They return to Athens. Then the Spartan come and are going to block off the Athenian resources again.
Damien: What are we going to do! The Spartans are coming back to Athens to starve us out again!
Dhaphne: We will have to see what happens, but we do not have enough power to fight again.
Damien: Now it is 404 B.C. and the Spartans have defeated us, we need to surrender!
Demetrius: Yes we will surrender to the Spartans.
Spartan Leader: Finally you have surrendered to our great and powerful city-state. You will not get off easy on this though. You are to take down all of your city walls, destroy all of your triremes, and get rid of anything in your navy.
Damien: We will do all of this as quickly as we can.
Dhaphne: At least we are not under attack anymore even though our power is completely done with.
Demetrius: Yes, but there must be someone to blame here!!
Athenians: We want to blame Socrates because he was the one who always disagreed with things in our country and he thought differently.
Socrates was blamed for the defeat of Athens and he was arrested then exiled. Even though he didn't do anything, the people feel that he was the reason for their defeat because they wanted to blame someone. Athens no longer had any power and this was because the Athenians thought they were stronger than they actually were. They underestimated the Spartans military power.
I think that this skit shows that history is created by the individuals and the people. Individuals like Pericles create history because he was the one that had the idea for the Parthenon and wanted to fight the Spartans. Also, Socrates is very well know in history and he is just an individual. History is created by the people because Athens made many decisions together as one group. For instance, the people in Athens decided as one that Socrates was to blame for their defeat and he was exiled. Also, especially because Athens was a democracy, they decided on things together as one by the people's decisions. I think that history is created by both the people and the individuals.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Daily Question: 2/17/11
Why do people write a record of their past? How does what happened yesterday in your life affect what you choose to do today?...or does it? Do we all see yesterday the same way. Choose a material object--get your digital camera... take at least 25 photos of it all from different angles or vantage points. Team up with a class member and have them photograph the same object -- compare and contrast your photos on a blog post. How do different human beings view the same object? - from Norman Constantine
There are many reasons why people would write a record of their past. First, many people probably recorded their history unknowingly because of contests or something that happened and they have symbols for it. For example, the cave paintings in France that we talked about a couple weeks ago were most likely to show some of their very productive hunts. They recorded it because they wanted to show the animals they caught (almost like a trophy), but they probably didn't know that people today would be looking at and examining them. Also, people probably had stuff written down for their use but were found and used as artifacts today. For example, a student in ancient Greece could have written on a tablet and people today could have found it as an artifact which we examined. What happened yesterday in my life could affect what I choose to do today because something could happen, then another event could happen today as a consequence from the first event. So something could happen from the first event. I do no think that we all see yesterday in the same way because people have different perspectives and point of views. There could be a game or event that one person won and are happy about, but the person or group that lost would probably not be happy. People see yesterday in different points of views because of what they think or feel about the event. Different human beings could view an object differently because of what they see in their perspective. For example, one of my old teachers would hold up this cards with shapes or images on them, but they weren't any specific image. The class would have to come up with as many images as they could see in that one picture. People would see something that I took a a little while to find. I thought it was very interesting seeing so many different pictures in one image.
There are many reasons why people would write a record of their past. First, many people probably recorded their history unknowingly because of contests or something that happened and they have symbols for it. For example, the cave paintings in France that we talked about a couple weeks ago were most likely to show some of their very productive hunts. They recorded it because they wanted to show the animals they caught (almost like a trophy), but they probably didn't know that people today would be looking at and examining them. Also, people probably had stuff written down for their use but were found and used as artifacts today. For example, a student in ancient Greece could have written on a tablet and people today could have found it as an artifact which we examined. What happened yesterday in my life could affect what I choose to do today because something could happen, then another event could happen today as a consequence from the first event. So something could happen from the first event. I do no think that we all see yesterday in the same way because people have different perspectives and point of views. There could be a game or event that one person won and are happy about, but the person or group that lost would probably not be happy. People see yesterday in different points of views because of what they think or feel about the event. Different human beings could view an object differently because of what they see in their perspective. For example, one of my old teachers would hold up this cards with shapes or images on them, but they weren't any specific image. The class would have to come up with as many images as they could see in that one picture. People would see something that I took a a little while to find. I thought it was very interesting seeing so many different pictures in one image.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Daily Question: 2/16
Do you think Socrates got what he deserved? Why didn't he accept exile?
I do not think that Socrates got what he deserved. Socrates just stood up for what he thought because he had a different view on many things. Socrates was a very ugly man. The movie described him as having bulging eyes, a skimpy body, and he his facial features were not proportional. Also, Socrates was very smart, and he studied unusual stuff during the time period. Most people/scientists enjoyed studying the stars or skies, Gods, and heavens. Socrates was interested in studying the people. He wanted to know more about people's thinking and why they think like that. I don't think it was fair for Socrates to be exiled because he was blamed for the Athenian defeat. First, it was Pericles's idea to fight the Spartans because he wanted complete power, and the Athenian people agreed with him. Socrates may not have agreed, but he didn't lead a boycott or something to mess the Athenians up. Once the Athenians had been defeated and they surrendered, they immediately looked for someone to blame because they had lost all their weaponry, triremes, naval force, and much of their population. Socrates was chosen quickly. He didn't accept exile because he probably felt that he didn't do anything. If I was being kicked out of a group because I was accused of something I never did, I wouldn't accept it either. I think Socrates was probably just smarter than the average Athenian and people didn't like him because of that and the way he looked. Also, maybe Socrates tried to philosophize something to the Athenians and they didn't want to believe it, so they didn't like him. Who knows why they didn't appreciate Socrates thoughts, I defiantly don't think that Socrates got what he deserved.
I do not think that Socrates got what he deserved. Socrates just stood up for what he thought because he had a different view on many things. Socrates was a very ugly man. The movie described him as having bulging eyes, a skimpy body, and he his facial features were not proportional. Also, Socrates was very smart, and he studied unusual stuff during the time period. Most people/scientists enjoyed studying the stars or skies, Gods, and heavens. Socrates was interested in studying the people. He wanted to know more about people's thinking and why they think like that. I don't think it was fair for Socrates to be exiled because he was blamed for the Athenian defeat. First, it was Pericles's idea to fight the Spartans because he wanted complete power, and the Athenian people agreed with him. Socrates may not have agreed, but he didn't lead a boycott or something to mess the Athenians up. Once the Athenians had been defeated and they surrendered, they immediately looked for someone to blame because they had lost all their weaponry, triremes, naval force, and much of their population. Socrates was chosen quickly. He didn't accept exile because he probably felt that he didn't do anything. If I was being kicked out of a group because I was accused of something I never did, I wouldn't accept it either. I think Socrates was probably just smarter than the average Athenian and people didn't like him because of that and the way he looked. Also, maybe Socrates tried to philosophize something to the Athenians and they didn't want to believe it, so they didn't like him. Who knows why they didn't appreciate Socrates thoughts, I defiantly don't think that Socrates got what he deserved.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Daily Question: 2/15/11
Explain how the origins of theater in Athens are tied to both religion and politics. Check out this resource.
The origins of theater in Athens are most likely tied to both religion and politics. In the plays that they performed in Athens, there was tragedies and comedies.The classic technology center's website says that "Greek theater grew out of religious festivals." In their plays, they would present ideas showing morals in life. Questions were presented about morals and they talked about their Gods. Also, they would would sing religious songs, do sacrifices, and dance. These were most likely showed in tragedies because they are presenting a more serious matter. I think that both comedies and tragedies were tied to politics in a few ways. First, there is usually high class, medium class, and low class. In Athens, the aristocrats were the highest class. Even though this is not a Greek play, in William Shakespeare's plays, there was a high class and low class. They spoke in different ways too. This shows political because it is presenting the "power" of the people. Athens most likely had a play including their king or leader, or presented an issue that had to do with the government or politics. I think that the origins of theater in Athens were tied to both religion and politics, and many plays today are still based off of them.
The origins of theater in Athens are most likely tied to both religion and politics. In the plays that they performed in Athens, there was tragedies and comedies.The classic technology center's website says that "Greek theater grew out of religious festivals." In their plays, they would present ideas showing morals in life. Questions were presented about morals and they talked about their Gods. Also, they would would sing religious songs, do sacrifices, and dance. These were most likely showed in tragedies because they are presenting a more serious matter. I think that both comedies and tragedies were tied to politics in a few ways. First, there is usually high class, medium class, and low class. In Athens, the aristocrats were the highest class. Even though this is not a Greek play, in William Shakespeare's plays, there was a high class and low class. They spoke in different ways too. This shows political because it is presenting the "power" of the people. Athens most likely had a play including their king or leader, or presented an issue that had to do with the government or politics. I think that the origins of theater in Athens were tied to both religion and politics, and many plays today are still based off of them.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Daily Question: 2/14/10
Was Athens really a 'democracy'?
I think that Athens did not start as a democracy, then it developed into one over time from the view points of many different tyrants such as Clisthenes, Hippias, Isagoras, and Pistidus. For example, Hippias at first took over because his father, Pistidus, had died. Hippias was a good leader for some time, but then someone killed his brother and Hippias was very vengeful. He had tortured the murderer and his wife. He had became a terror throughout Athens, and the people had feared him. Clisthenes knew Hippias needed to be removed. Clisthenes got many people together and make a conspiracy against Hippias. Hippias's rule had been taken over by Clisthenes. In 510 B.C., he was one of the most powerful figures on earth, and many things in Greece were beginning to develop a positive change. The people were pretty happy under his rule. Clisthenes had developed the Olympia games where many people would gather for events where any person could compete. There was chariot races, running, wrestling, boxing, etc. The winner would receive a wreath of honor to wear and they got much glory and fame. As you can see, the people enjoyed this stuff under Clisthenes rule. Then a man named Isagoras came into the scene. This man was an Athenian aristocrat who was very against Clisthenes ways. He was friends with Spartans, and he gathered there military force to fight against Athens and Clisthenes. Isagoras won and Clisthenes was removed from power. Not only that, but he was also exiled from Athens along with many other people. The people under Isagoras's rule were very angry and unsatisfied. The citizens of Athens had a huge uprising against Isagoras and on the third day he was forced to surrender. Now the country had no ruler so they let Clisthenes back in the country. He knew that the people needed a say in their future, so he basically let that happen. He had votes where people would put in a different colored stone for either yes or no. Also, he had many group meetings letting all citizens come to have their say in their future. This is the democracy. In the early 5th century, the Persian Empire had fought Athens and Athens, even though outnumbered 2 to 1, had won. Their democracy had succeeded in their first test. This was only the beginning of the attacks from Persia though. The democracy was much better for Athens because the citizens were happy and they had a say in what happened for them.
I think that Athens did not start as a democracy, then it developed into one over time from the view points of many different tyrants such as Clisthenes, Hippias, Isagoras, and Pistidus. For example, Hippias at first took over because his father, Pistidus, had died. Hippias was a good leader for some time, but then someone killed his brother and Hippias was very vengeful. He had tortured the murderer and his wife. He had became a terror throughout Athens, and the people had feared him. Clisthenes knew Hippias needed to be removed. Clisthenes got many people together and make a conspiracy against Hippias. Hippias's rule had been taken over by Clisthenes. In 510 B.C., he was one of the most powerful figures on earth, and many things in Greece were beginning to develop a positive change. The people were pretty happy under his rule. Clisthenes had developed the Olympia games where many people would gather for events where any person could compete. There was chariot races, running, wrestling, boxing, etc. The winner would receive a wreath of honor to wear and they got much glory and fame. As you can see, the people enjoyed this stuff under Clisthenes rule. Then a man named Isagoras came into the scene. This man was an Athenian aristocrat who was very against Clisthenes ways. He was friends with Spartans, and he gathered there military force to fight against Athens and Clisthenes. Isagoras won and Clisthenes was removed from power. Not only that, but he was also exiled from Athens along with many other people. The people under Isagoras's rule were very angry and unsatisfied. The citizens of Athens had a huge uprising against Isagoras and on the third day he was forced to surrender. Now the country had no ruler so they let Clisthenes back in the country. He knew that the people needed a say in their future, so he basically let that happen. He had votes where people would put in a different colored stone for either yes or no. Also, he had many group meetings letting all citizens come to have their say in their future. This is the democracy. In the early 5th century, the Persian Empire had fought Athens and Athens, even though outnumbered 2 to 1, had won. Their democracy had succeeded in their first test. This was only the beginning of the attacks from Persia though. The democracy was much better for Athens because the citizens were happy and they had a say in what happened for them.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Weekly Project: 2/7-11
The John Carroll Megalith
In the early 1960’s, the Rapa Nui people migrated from Easter Island to Bel Air, Maryland because they had to escape from the ruler of their area. These people were very faithful to their leaders or places they lived. Also, they really liked to worship their living space and the people with them together as one. They liked to have big gatherings where all the local people would gather at their favorite spots, then they would do tons of stuff. They would talk and converse with each other, dance and sing, tell stories, play different games, and worship their Gods. As you can see, the Rapa Nui people loved to be with their friends and locals and unite together as one family. The Rapa Nui people saw a building being constructed, and they thought they should cherish this place because they have escaped safely to the area. They waited till the night and then they constructed a diamond of rocks around the John Carroll sign in the front of the school. The head at the bottom was to scare off anything that was going to harm the school. The Rapa Nui people developed these megalith ideas from there old home on Easter Island. The rocks were all specially picked. All of them were Andesite rocks. This means they were made from volcanic rock. Since it was so important for the Rapa Nui people to make this megalith site, they traveled all the way down to the Caribbean Islands to the closest volcano. Once they got the rock, they shaped the rocks into the same diamond shape of the John Carroll plant arrangement. They did this because it is the same form of the Pope's hat and they thought it would be necessary for the school. They shaped the rocks by chipping them away with hand carved knives. It took each person about 5 hours to shape the whole rock. After they created all the rocks, they placed the smaller rocks on the edges and the big rocks on the corners. The people had to dig out the ground a little bit, and then firmly put the rocks into place so they couldn't be moved. It took the Rapa Nui people 4 days to complete their whole project with a work force of about 15 people. All of the people worked together to complete it, and when it was done they worshiped it greatly! They believed that this area around the sign was sacred and they would watch over it very carefully.
Front View:
Top View:
Back View:
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Daily Question: 2/10/11
"Structures, both social and physical are continually improving." agree or disagree (from @thecorcoran)
I defiantly agree with the statement "structures, both social and physical are continually improving" because I believe there is much evidence to support this. My first example is from something we have talked about this week. The megaliths on Easter Island represented heads of something, and during the time period of which these structures were made, I don't know of many statues built of actual people like today. Today, our structures made out of materials somewhat like the ones used in the megalith time are usually very well sculpted people, buildings, or symbols in general. This shows that the structures have greatly improved. If you look at the picture below, you can see the difference. That is a physical improvement, but a social improvement is our language. We don't have that much evidence, but we think of the barbaric times as people not talking very correctly, and not having a certain written language. Obviously the branch of knowledge about language has improved if we have a diversity of languages with many grammar rules. The improvement in the structure of languages has further increased the social part of our world. If we didn't have these social and physical improvement, we would not be as advanced today. The structure of our language is very important so we can communicate with other people. Being able to communicate with others is important so we can create new things and advance our technology by working with others. I think that structures have improved physically and socially in a great way, and I think it will just keep developing into even better things.
I defiantly agree with the statement "structures, both social and physical are continually improving" because I believe there is much evidence to support this. My first example is from something we have talked about this week. The megaliths on Easter Island represented heads of something, and during the time period of which these structures were made, I don't know of many statues built of actual people like today. Today, our structures made out of materials somewhat like the ones used in the megalith time are usually very well sculpted people, buildings, or symbols in general. This shows that the structures have greatly improved. If you look at the picture below, you can see the difference. That is a physical improvement, but a social improvement is our language. We don't have that much evidence, but we think of the barbaric times as people not talking very correctly, and not having a certain written language. Obviously the branch of knowledge about language has improved if we have a diversity of languages with many grammar rules. The improvement in the structure of languages has further increased the social part of our world. If we didn't have these social and physical improvement, we would not be as advanced today. The structure of our language is very important so we can communicate with other people. Being able to communicate with others is important so we can create new things and advance our technology by working with others. I think that structures have improved physically and socially in a great way, and I think it will just keep developing into even better things.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Daily Question: 2/9/11
. Why do you think so many conspiracy theories surround the pyramids and the megaliths? Give examples of a few and explain where you think they come from?
I think there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding the pyramids and the megaliths because the people from the areas these two structures come from didn't convey the information about them to other people and so now no one really knows a specific reason. For example, on Easter Island, there were so few people during the time the megaliths were thought to be made that people today don't know an exact reason why they built them. Some conspiracy theories about the megaliths on Easter Island are that the people on this island built them as a hobby because the island was so small along with the population. We don't really know this, but people made up that theory. This is similar to the pyramids, people in Egypt wrote with hieroglyphics and many people didn't know how to read them, so the reason for the making of the pyramids didn't really get told. Many people examined the pyramids and figured out a lot about them by seeing there chambers, tombs, passage ways, hieroglyphics, artifacts, etc. If we knew more about these people in ancient Egypt or Easter Island during the 1700's, we would know more about these structures. Not knowing much about these architectural buildings just makes us learn more about the cultures and history when were looking for more evidence. I think the megaliths and pyramids are very interesting structures that need to be learned about more globally.
I think there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding the pyramids and the megaliths because the people from the areas these two structures come from didn't convey the information about them to other people and so now no one really knows a specific reason. For example, on Easter Island, there were so few people during the time the megaliths were thought to be made that people today don't know an exact reason why they built them. Some conspiracy theories about the megaliths on Easter Island are that the people on this island built them as a hobby because the island was so small along with the population. We don't really know this, but people made up that theory. This is similar to the pyramids, people in Egypt wrote with hieroglyphics and many people didn't know how to read them, so the reason for the making of the pyramids didn't really get told. Many people examined the pyramids and figured out a lot about them by seeing there chambers, tombs, passage ways, hieroglyphics, artifacts, etc. If we knew more about these people in ancient Egypt or Easter Island during the 1700's, we would know more about these structures. Not knowing much about these architectural buildings just makes us learn more about the cultures and history when were looking for more evidence. I think the megaliths and pyramids are very interesting structures that need to be learned about more globally.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Daily Question: 2/8/11
Give several examples of monuments in Maryland / DC / PA that might be familiar to folks who live here but which would not be understood by outsiders without an explanation. Please include your own or public domain photos.
There are many monuments in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania that might be familiar to people who live in these areas, but would not be understood by outsiders without an explanation. In Aberdeen, there is Ripken Stadium. I'm sure that people not local to this area will know what it is, but I think that people who live in Harford County appreciate it on a bigger scale because Cal Ripken's mother lives in Aberdeen. I have friends who are really close to their family, and they were very excited when the stadium was built. Monuments in Washington D.C. like the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and the White House are all important to people in the United States because they show our presidents that are important to our country alone. I'm sure there are monuments in other states in the U.S. or in other countries that are really important to the local people, but not to me because I don't live there and I don't understand the effect of the monument. I think it is important for people to have these items because it expresses their view and the things that they appreciate in their culture. Obviously Washington D.C. is important to the United States because its our capital, but important things affect people in a good way, and show what they are like along with their culture. From learning about important monuments in other countries, I can learn some about their country and culture.
There are many monuments in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania that might be familiar to people who live in these areas, but would not be understood by outsiders without an explanation. In Aberdeen, there is Ripken Stadium. I'm sure that people not local to this area will know what it is, but I think that people who live in Harford County appreciate it on a bigger scale because Cal Ripken's mother lives in Aberdeen. I have friends who are really close to their family, and they were very excited when the stadium was built. Monuments in Washington D.C. like the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and the White House are all important to people in the United States because they show our presidents that are important to our country alone. I'm sure there are monuments in other states in the U.S. or in other countries that are really important to the local people, but not to me because I don't live there and I don't understand the effect of the monument. I think it is important for people to have these items because it expresses their view and the things that they appreciate in their culture. Obviously Washington D.C. is important to the United States because its our capital, but important things affect people in a good way, and show what they are like along with their culture. From learning about important monuments in other countries, I can learn some about their country and culture.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Daily Question: 2/7/11
What is the oldest human-created artifact that has mattered to you? Why/how does it matter? (from @butwait on Twitter)
The oldest human-created artifact that has mattered to me is probably the pyramids. First, I don't know of many human-created artifacts besides that. Second, I think it is really interesting why they were made, the designs on/in them, and the shape of them. Many pyramids were used as tombs for important people like the pharaohs. There were many chambers for the different people. There is a kings chamber and below it, a queens chamber. Also, there were many passages so the people could get to and from the chambers. I think that it is really cool how even all the way back in ancient Egypt times, people were building things at such enormous size like we do now, but without nearly any of the special tools and equipment we have now. It shows that the Egyptians must have been pretty smart in the way they built it because they are mostly still standing today. For awhile, obviously not now, there were many pyramids which qualified to be the biggest structures on earth! I think its interesting how the pyramids were made out of a variety of substances like brick, stone, or limestone. One question I have about the pyramids is why did the Egyptians design pyramids in the form they did? Why did they have the four triangular sides coming up to one point? The information about these pyramids is very interesting and I think it would be cool to go to Egypt and see them in person one day! I can't even imagine how big hey are if you just stand and look at them from the ground.
The oldest human-created artifact that has mattered to me is probably the pyramids. First, I don't know of many human-created artifacts besides that. Second, I think it is really interesting why they were made, the designs on/in them, and the shape of them. Many pyramids were used as tombs for important people like the pharaohs. There were many chambers for the different people. There is a kings chamber and below it, a queens chamber. Also, there were many passages so the people could get to and from the chambers. I think that it is really cool how even all the way back in ancient Egypt times, people were building things at such enormous size like we do now, but without nearly any of the special tools and equipment we have now. It shows that the Egyptians must have been pretty smart in the way they built it because they are mostly still standing today. For awhile, obviously not now, there were many pyramids which qualified to be the biggest structures on earth! I think its interesting how the pyramids were made out of a variety of substances like brick, stone, or limestone. One question I have about the pyramids is why did the Egyptians design pyramids in the form they did? Why did they have the four triangular sides coming up to one point? The information about these pyramids is very interesting and I think it would be cool to go to Egypt and see them in person one day! I can't even imagine how big hey are if you just stand and look at them from the ground.
image from: http://library.thinkquest.org/J001533/media/Pyramid.gif
Friday, February 4, 2011
Weekly Project 1/31-2/4
Emma Wall's and Sophie Centi's Language
yes- iss
and- flink
and- flink
no- oni
bathroom- poy
hello- E
goodbye- doog
go- wantrey
go- wantrey
food- fo
water- haki
shelter- lann
I- egona
you- forna
injured- rana
sleep- swant
us- ven
shelter- lann
I- egona
you- forna
injured- rana
sleep- swant
us- ven
Weekly Project: 1/31-2/4
Is 'Change' a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? (Relate to the origins of art, the agricultural revolution, architecture and urban planning in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.
I think change is mainly a good thing. Change is to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of something different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone (dictionary.com). If change never existed, people today would still be like cavemen without any technology, clothes, housing, jobs, or development in general. Over the course of just one-hundred years, the the human race alone has changed tremendously. We have learned much more and cultures have changed. Also, there has been changes in technology which advances our medical, science, and educational fields in a great way. Since the 1900's, people have discovered better cures, medicines, and machinery for medical reason. In science, we have revealed many new concepts of the body, nature, and world around us. Because we have developed much more in those two fields, there is a better education being taught in schools. We need all of these developments to happen in order to change in a beneficial way. In class, we talked about hieroglyphics. They could have changed, but off of the hieroglyphics, we have developed different writing styles and languages. This change is good because we can learn about other cultures and speak to many different people. I think the majority of the time change is a good thing, but a change can also be a bad thing if it effects the world in a negative way. For instance, say a sports team did something to continually win, then they change a play or position and lost, obviously the change was not a positive one. Also, people can change and go down a negative path, so that is bad, but that is their decision and that is their fault for causing or making the negative difference. I believe change is mainly a beneficial thing and the negatives of change can probably be fixed when there is one.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Daily Question: 2/3/11
Describe the importance of water in the ancient world.
Not only is water very important to people now, but it was even more essential to people in the ancient world. Today, we use water for many things such as brushing our teeth, showering, plumbing, its in our food, hydration, cleaning, sewage systems and many more uses. Humans can only go about three days without water or their kidneys will fail, so you can see the importance in having to drink water. In the ancient times, they used water for most of those incidents and more. More people had farms in the ancient times so they needed to supply water to all of their crops if there was a drought. Also, they have to feed and hydrate all of their livestock so they can survive. Some people had to make houses with clay and they needed water to moisten clay. Water is a very important, essential part of our lives now and all the way back to the ancient times.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Daily Question: 2/2/11
Which do you think is a better roadmap of history artifacts of the humanities (art, music, dance, theatre, literature, philosophy, architecture, etc) or political/military conflicts? Why?
In my perspective, a better road-map of history is the political or military conflicts. I still think that artifacts of the humanities are important because they show the developed of cultures, but I feel that political and military events show more events that effected the world and how people, technology, and weaponry have developed. For example, in class we learned about two of the oldest artifacts in history and I have never really heard of either one. I had absolutely never heard of the Venus of Willendorf, and I knew that there were cave paintings, but not on the scale of the ones found in France with only hunts painted in them. Saying that, I do know many historical events such as Word War I and II, the Civil War, Korean War. I feel that the political and historical events have been a base of the world today. On the political standpoint, if you think about all the presidents, each individual president passes stuff on to and shapes how the country will be during his time period for the next man in office. I also think that all these political and military events show the majority of the countries in the world, whereas the artifacts of humanities mainly show the beginning countries of the world. Even though the artifacts of humanities were important, but the political and military events effected the world in a much greater view in my perspective.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Daily Question: 2/1/11
You accidentally discover an invention that can immediately help millions of people; but only if you act immediately. On the other hand, if you just wait three months, you can secure a patent and get rich. Which do you choose and why?
I would like discover an invention that can immediately help millions of people; but it can only work if I act immediately because I feel like I would be helping the world on a bigger scale. The world today could benefit from many inventions. For instance, if someone could find a way to stop global warming and pollution, many countries' problems would be solved. I think I would be happier to help the world than to become rich and not have made a big difference. Also, if I waited and became rich, I really didn't do anything to help anyone but myself. I think it is better to help the world then to just become rich for no reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)