Please post here. Post only your two most thoughtful questions. Your question log will contain more questions and you should research a few of the more straightforward questions for a few minutes each.
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
1) What, if there is, is the connection between Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. The Senate and Assembly (from the Republic) sounds similar to that of Greece. 2) Why were there so many rulers, so much instability through the Roman Empire? Or is this how many empires were?
Does a number of different rulers necessarily mean instability? After FDR was president (1932-1945), the Constitution was amended to limit presidents to two full terms. Should we get rid of term limits so that our presidents and other elected officials can serve for a long time if they are effective?
I don't think that a number of different rulers means instability, but in this particular example of the Roman Empire, I think that they seem to be related. There was the Republic for a while, that didn't really work out, there was the East and West divisions, that didn't work, then it did, then it didn't. There were the soldier-emperors, who didn't prove very effective. So, what I'm saying is I think there is a connection between the two. Does anyone else agree?
1. Was there a certain group of people who assassinated the Roman emperors?
2. Were their different honorary titles that the Senate awarded? And were their certain things you had to do in order to get these awards?
Also along with Miriam's question and statement. I don't really agree. I think some of Rome's instability could have been from the rulers themselves not from the fact that there were so many of them. I can see how instability could be from 1 certain ruler who did not do a good job ruling, but I don't think that instability is from having a lot of rulers.
• What specifically drove Nero to commit suicide? Why did he give up on his empire and kill himself rather than keep trying to work it out. Did he know of a planned assassination and want to make it quicker and take it into his own hands? • It says that a "vicious round of executions" lead to Domitian's assassination. Who did he execute, and what reason did he give for doing so?
In response to previous posts: Mr. G: I don't think having a lot of different rulers automatically creates instability, but in the case of the soldier-emperors, the changing every few years (on average) and violent death of whatever soldier-emperor was ruling at the time probably did cause the Empire to become rather unstable (understandably).
Lauren: I think I know the answer to your second question; purple was considered a symbol of royalty. When it says he was "elevated to the purple", it probably means he was chosen to succeed Nerva as emperor.
1.) What were the main items that were traded between Rome and there neighbors?
2.) It shows that within 50 years, 20 Roman Emperor's were killed. What was the reason for this? (If one emperor has made a mistake and was killed for it, wouldn't the others be sure not to make the same mistake?)
1. (sorry Sabrina) I am also interested if there was a particular group of people that carried out the assainations of the Roman emperors, like a mafia or something? If so, did they have a group name?
2. I agree with Miriam about her 2nd question. It seemed that so many rulers caused chaos, perhaps not, but so many emperors and so much land, thats one big problemo right there. Maybe not, someone back me up on this.
1. Why was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus given the title of Augustus? Does this name mean anything or was it chosen for no reason? And why did he decide to change his name (if he even made the decision at all)?
2. The reading says that Rome administered territories such as Africa and Asia… is this even possible? Does this mean that only parts of these continents were ruled, or did the Romans actually take over almost the whole continent?
As a short answer to Mr. Goldberg's question, I think the system we have in place now is good because Presidents can basically "try out" the job for four years and then they can be elected for another four, if they are good enough, so they can continue. But I think if we got rid of the terms then it would cause many problems because after a while, people who really opposed the President would possibly begin to revolt or start a revolution because they cannot just wait another four years and then get another one.
1. In both Greece and Italy, there are city-states. Is there a connection between Italty and Greece? If so, What is it? (I think Miriam already brought that up) 2. Did the Barbarian attack trigger the fall of Rome?
"Europe and the world owe a huge cultural debt to Rome in so many fields of human endeavor, such as art, architecture, engineering, language, literature, law, and religion. In this course you see how a small village of shepherds and farmers rose to tower over the civilized world of its day and left an indelible mark on history."
To just say a little note about the connection between Greece and Rome (there must be one)...we know for sure that their religions were different. Greece had all those gods we're reading about in the Odyssey and Rome was Catholic/Christian right? So what made them decide they wanted to have completely different religions if they were so connected in so many ways?
1) What were the debts that Rome had that "prompted the poorer Roman citizens, known as the plebians, to withdraw from the city-state and form their own assembly, elect their own officers, and set up their own cults"?
2) Why was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus "awarded the honorific title of Augustus"? What value did that name have?
Why was Augustus such a honorific name? were the provinces of Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, Africa, Macedonia… owned by the Romans or were they just allied with them?
23 comments:
1) What, if there is, is the connection between Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. The Senate and Assembly (from the Republic) sounds similar to that of Greece.
2) Why were there so many rulers, so much instability through the Roman Empire? Or is this how many empires were?
Does a number of different rulers necessarily mean instability? After FDR was president (1932-1945), the Constitution was
amended to limit presidents to two full terms. Should we get rid of term limits so that our presidents and other elected officials can serve for a long time if they are effective?
I don't think that a number of different rulers means instability, but in this particular example of the Roman Empire, I think that they seem to be related. There was the Republic for a while, that didn't really work out, there was the East and West divisions, that didn't work, then it did, then it didn't. There were the soldier-emperors, who didn't prove very effective. So, what I'm saying is I think there is a connection between the two. Does anyone else agree?
1. Was there a certain group of people who assassinated the Roman emperors?
2. Were their different honorary titles that the Senate awarded? And were their certain things you had to do in order to get these awards?
Also along with Miriam's question and statement. I don't really agree. I think some of Rome's instability could have been from the rulers themselves not from the fact that there were so many of them. I can see how instability could be from 1 certain ruler who did not do a good job ruling, but I don't think that instability is from having a lot of rulers.
well all through out the article they would mention trade flourished.
So did the trade ever diminish?
If so why?
1) The reading seems to put every emperor in some form of a good light and doesn't talk about any of the bad stuff. What did they do?
2) In a question to respond to Mr. G's comment, What if they weren't effective but wouldn't leave office. Wouldn't that become a dictatorship?
Why did the first people move into Rome?
What were the duties of the first rulers?
1. Antoninus Pius adopted two sons. Was that common back then or was it just because he couldn’t have a son, so there wasn’t an heir to his throne?
2. What does it mean in the article when it said that Trajan was 'elevated to the purple by Nerva'
• What specifically drove Nero to commit suicide? Why did he give up on his empire and kill himself rather than keep trying to work it out. Did he know of a planned assassination and want to make it quicker and take it into his own hands?
• It says that a "vicious round of executions" lead to Domitian's assassination. Who did he execute, and what reason did he give for doing so?
In response to previous posts:
Mr. G: I don't think having a lot of different rulers automatically creates instability, but in the case of the soldier-emperors, the changing every few years (on average) and violent death of whatever soldier-emperor was ruling at the time probably did cause the Empire to become rather unstable (understandably).
Lauren: I think I know the answer to your second question; purple was considered a symbol of royalty. When it says he was "elevated to the purple", it probably means he was chosen to succeed Nerva as emperor.
1.) What were the main items that were traded between Rome and there neighbors?
2.) It shows that within 50 years, 20 Roman Emperor's were killed. What was the reason for this? (If one emperor has made a mistake and was killed for it, wouldn't the others be sure not to make the same mistake?)
1. (sorry Sabrina) I am also interested if there was a particular group of people that carried out the assainations of the Roman emperors, like a mafia or something? If so, did they have a group name?
2. I agree with Miriam about her 2nd question. It seemed that so many rulers caused chaos, perhaps not, but so many emperors and so much land, thats one big problemo right there. Maybe not, someone back me up on this.
1. Why was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus given the title of Augustus? Does this name mean anything or was it chosen for no reason? And why did he decide to change his name (if he even made the decision at all)?
2. The reading says that Rome administered territories such as Africa and Asia… is this even possible? Does this mean that only parts of these continents were ruled, or did the Romans actually take over almost the whole continent?
As a short answer to Mr. Goldberg's question, I think the system we have in place now is good because Presidents can basically "try out" the job for four years and then they can be elected for another four, if they are good enough, so they can continue. But I think if we got rid of the terms then it would cause many problems because after a while, people who really opposed the President would possibly begin to revolt or start a revolution because they cannot just wait another four years and then get another one.
1. Why did the germans attack rome if it had already been sacked?
2. Could the romans have beaten the huns in a direct fight?
• Did Rome call their city-states polis also?
• Why did so many people have titles that were just new names? Did they not like their old ones?
• Did the Roman Republic turn into the Roman Empire?
• Why did so many people have titles that were just new names? Did they not like their old ones?
What influences did Rome on other civilizations during their height of power?
Why did Rome overstretch themselves? Its seems to me, that because of them being so overstretched that they eventually declined..
1. How did Rome become a republic?
2. Who assassinated Caesar?
1. In both Greece and Italy, there are city-states. Is there a connection between Italty and Greece? If so, What is it?
(I think Miriam already brought that up)
2. Did the Barbarian attack trigger the fall of Rome?
To answer Paul's Question
"Europe and the world owe a huge cultural debt to Rome in so many fields of human endeavor, such as art, architecture, engineering, language, literature, law, and religion. In this course you see how a small village of shepherds and farmers rose to tower over the civilized world of its day and left an indelible mark on history."
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=340&pc=History%20-%20Ancient%20and%20Medieval
To just say a little note about the connection between Greece and Rome (there must be one)...we know for sure that their religions were different. Greece had all those gods we're reading about in the Odyssey and Rome was Catholic/Christian right? So what made them decide they wanted to have completely different religions if they were so connected in so many ways?
1) What were the debts that Rome had that "prompted the poorer Roman citizens, known as the plebians, to withdraw from the city-state and form their own assembly, elect their own officers, and set up their own cults"?
2) Why was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus "awarded the honorific title of Augustus"? What value did that name have?
Why was Augustus such a honorific name?
were the provinces of Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, Africa, Macedonia… owned by the Romans or were they just allied with them?
What were the social classes in Rome? Could you move up or down on the social ladder?
Who as assassinated Caesar?
Post a Comment