Monocausal Decay

Monocausal decay in regards to the Roman Empire is an idea that states that the fall of the Roman Empire can be traced down to one cause.  On Wikipedia, the article has three different theories as to what was this one cause was: epidemics, deforestation, and lead poisoning.  I believe that the epidemic theory is plausible.  The Roman Empire was massive, and we discussed how there were bound to be issues even while the conditions of the empire were optimal.  Now imagine what would happen when half of the population within this empire were killed; there must have been intense paranoia coupled with the fact that people needed to be taxed twice as much to make up for the deaths of half of the population.  McNeill asserts that  "the severe fall in population left the state apparatus and army too large for the population to support, leading to further economic and social decline."

Would a sparser population of people even make a difference if epidemics were so widespread?

It would indeed make a difference.  The barbarians located across the Danube and Rhine River had population increases.  They lived in isolated villages that were not conducting as much trade, and they did not use public facilities.  This changing demographic lead to the fall of the Roman Empire because the Roman Empire got weaker as the barbarians grew stronger.

Environmental issues would affect the empire, but only specific portions of it.  If a certain portion of the empire could not feed themselves, their population would drop, leaving them weakened for others to conquer.  Environmental issues couldn't have plagued the entirety of the Roman Empire.

Lead poisoning also seems a bit far fetched.  Lead poisoning affected the entire empire and caused the decay of it because defrutum "was used to some degree to sweeten wine and food" after being boiled in lead pots.  

The Fall of the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire

The Silk Road Class Activity

From this classroom activity, I learned that the Silk Road was not a straight pathway from Rome to China, rather, it was a lengthy process of transporting goods riddled with deceit, fighting, thievery, and inability to communicate.  Oftentimes, as we experienced, morals were thrown aside in favor of greed.  The Silk Road seemed to be both an asset and detriment to the societies that were involved in it.  On one hand, the Silk Road brought merchants to their settlements were the merchants could buy goods from.  These societies received goods that probably would not have come there had it not been for the strong desire to trade between two large empires.  On the other hand, the Silk Road was a cesspool for deceit and thievery.  The currency converter had money stolen from him.  Also, our group increased the value of our money by telling him that we had less money than what we actually had.  Our translator seemed to be using his talents mainly for his own benefit.  We also had some pests trying to sway us from one source of horses to another.

I think this simulation worked well.  Apparently, we have not changed much from our ancestors of the Classical Era, which is a little disheartening.  Regardless of that, this was a fun and informative activity where we could see the reality behind the Silk Road.  The Silk Road was always regarded as a pinnacle of trade and interaction in years past, but this activity made the flaws of the Silk Road extremely apparent.  The pros of learning this way is that I do not tend to look more to pros of the Silk Roads than the cons.  I would have still thought of the Silk Road as being a great bridge between two different societies with crime sprinkled here and there.  This activity showed me that the Silk Road did allow trade between Rome and China, but it was nowhere near perfect.  We did not have enough time to finish this activity, so I would have liked to seen how military conquest would have come into play, as well as increased thievery.  I think we should do this activity again because it was both fun and informative, but I think that we should include even more circumstances that would affect the interactions between the societies (like trading and war).

Roman City Prompts

c. How does an aqueduct move water? How is this like or unlike the way a qanat worked in Persia?

Aquedeucts were built into mountains so that they could tap into its water supply.  These aqueducts would carry water through its structure for long distances using arches.  Multiple levels of arches were built when crossing a barricade like water.  The aqueducts would be built with a slight slant so that gravity could transport the water to its destination.  The qanats in Persia were similar in that gravity was used to transport water from a source of water located in a mountain.  However, the difference was that the aqueducts were built above ground, and qanats were built underground.

f. Why can’t Marcus Fabricius marry Aiden? How does this compare to attitudes about marriage in Classical Era India?

Fabricius cannot marry Aiden because Fabricius is a citizen of Rome, but Aiden is not.  This is similar to marriage in Classical Era India in that there were certain criteria that needed to be reached.  In India, the two people who wish to be wed needed to be in the same caste and jati, and in Rome both needed to be a Roman citizen.

g. What attitudes toward slavery are displayed by the characters in the film? Are slaves the same in Rome as they were in Classical Greece?

Slaves are treated with more respect than what is accustomed.  The owners were lenient in their behavior towards slaves, and the slaves were allowed to be free.  Slaves were also allowed to be craftsmen.  The slaves were treated similarly in Greece as they were in Rome.  Slaves in Greece were given incentive to work hard because they were provided with shops and a portion of their earnings.  If they were skilled successful enough, they were able to win their freedom.

Roman Republic

Rome was able to change from a republic to empire because the fighting amongst the political higher-ups allowed for an easy takeover.

Greek and Indian Civilization

1. What’s McNeill’s argument?

McNeill is arguing about how India’s caste system and Greece’s territorial sovereignty had completely different effects on the development of society.

2. How does McNeill define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s definition?

McNeill describes a caste as being a group of people who eat with one another and intermarry; this group also excludes people of a different group from doing these tasks with them.  The textbook says that castes are the levels of a social hierarchy marked by inherited social distinctions.  Jati are subcastes that eat with one another and intermarry.  McNeill’s definition of caste aligns with the textbook’s definition of jati. 

3. What three feelings and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste:

            1. Ceremonial Purity: A person of a higher status would contaminate themselves if they came in contact with someone of a lower caste.

            2. Maintaining customs: Within a caste, certain groups were able to maintain their peculiar customs without having to be assimilated.

            3. Reincarnation: The castes that one was placed in were a reward or punishment for deeds done in a past life.

4. Are these convincing?

In these situations, it was convincing.  Brahmans were justified in their wealth, and they had the ability to limit association with lower castes.  In fact, nearly everyone had the ability to look down upon certain lower castes.  The caste system allowed newcomers to practice peculiar traditions.  The caste system also discouraged the paying of taxes (people identified strongly with a caste than the state).

5. Why did caste itself not cause strong political organization to form?

People of a certain caste associated themselves firstly with their caste.  These castes set rules as to avoid contact with other castes.  Kings and other rulers were unable to win loyalty from people who valued the caste more highly than the state.

6. What causes Indian religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself?

The obsession with detail of the Vedas shifted the religion to worship.  Priests believed that mispronounced words during sacrifice would displease gods, so they dedicated themselves to correctness of detail.

7. How did the Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals of Indian society?

The Upanishads changed the goal from being rich and living long to focusing on the end of the reincarnation cycle.  This could be achieved by self-discipline and meditation.  Because this can only be achieved through one’s own body, people began to ignore priests and observance of ceremonies.

8. How does McNeill define “Territorial Sovereignty?”

Territorial sovereignty is the division of land into territorial states that, rather than focusing on religion, explained the world through laws of nature.

9. Why did Greeks turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society?

The Greeks realized that there were multiple theories as to why planets aligned or how the world was created.  Greek philosophers looked into it and found that the explanations were unsupported and conflicting.

10. What was the consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?

Because of the polis and the way it was organized, there was hardly any value in introspection, salvation, or purification.  When Pythagoras found an order that would allow introspection, the Pythagorean Order was persecuted.

11. Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?

I do think that McNeill has a valid argument.  The Caste system encouraged interest in only those that would help you directly, thus leading to weak kings unable to obtain large amounts of power.  Greece adhered to territorial sovereignty, so they were encouraged to aid in the development of their state.  Greek civilization had a rich civilization that came into strife with other cities, but India had a self-interested society that led to less strife.

Alexander the Great or just Alexander?

Does Alexander deserve to be called "Alexander the Great"?  Why or why not?

Alexander fully deserves to have "The Great" as his title despite his few shortcomings.  Alexander managed to stave off the Darius's army despite having an army of about 48,000 at the Battle of Gaugamela.  Darius's forces retreated, and Babylon surrendered.  I would imagine that other leaders would not have the ability to discipline their army so well to fend for themselves against the Persian army.  Alexander the Great was also resourceful.  When his troops ran out of food, they relied on pack animals for their nutrition: raw pack animals.  His army would consume the raw meat, but they also consumed a plant juice (silphium) that would treat the flatulence and stomach pain brought about by the raw meat.  Alexander was also able to manipulate his men to retain their loyalty to him.  When he was brought water, he dumped it out because he wanted everyone to be able to have water instead of just one.

Alexander the Great did have some shortcomings.  He is easily persuaded.  Even though Alexander the Great was under the influence of alcohol, he should not have listened to the idea that Persepolis should be burned; this act of revenge was not necessary.  Alexander was also impulsive; there were bound to be people who bad-mouth him.  Alexander speared Calisthenes when Calisthenes said that Philip III was more successful.  Alexander also let his power get to his head; he declared that he should be worshiped as a god. These shortcomings are not enough to warrant the removal of "The Great".