Reasons for the collapse of the roman empire

I agree with the theory that Disease was a cause of the fall of Rome. I don't believe it is the only cause but I believe it played a significant role. The epidemics that spread throughout the Roman Empire wiped out nearly half the population. This meant their were less people to tax and a large army to support some it caused some economic problems. Also with out any money the army wouldn't be able to be funded and therefor would have a hard time keeping everything in control. Also because barbarians lived outside the empire or in isolated towns they weren't as affected by the epidemics as the Romans were. This meant the population of the barbarians grew while the roman population decreased. The barbarians then had an easier time attacking the Roman Empire and integrating themselves into the Roman Empire causing more strain on the people and the roman culture. All in all disease was a major reason for the decline of the Roman Empire.

collapse of Han Dynasty and Roman Empire Venn Diagram

Sim Silk Road

I found out that the Silk Road was a very confusing process. There were many regions with many different languages and currency.this caused problems when people began to trade because we could only communicate with a certain amount of people. This complicated things when we needed goods from other people. Not only that but because humans are humans greed took over. This was evident in this activity even though it was just a simulation. People tried to swindle each other some stole and others lied in order to get what they want. This was reinforced even more when we introduced a banker and translator. People stole money from the banker and the translators acted on their own trying to make a profit for themselves. So the Silk Road was a crazy in short.

I enjoy these kinds of activities. It beats sitting in a chair taking notes. Although it is very easy to get out of control and lose the meaning of the activity, it is also very easy to rember the meaning. So I think as long as those involved have a little self control and look at the bigger picture it is a great and effective way of teaching. Of course it needs some background information, places and people but in order to understand the main concept it worked very well. I would love to do something like this again.

Roman city prompts

C.  An aqueduct moves wage by using gravity. Once architects have found a source of water in the mountains they determine what angle is needed to bring the water to the city. By having the water move down a gradual slope they rely on gravity to do all the work for them. Beside building the actual aqueduct, which was constructed out of stone. Large pillars supported the slope and Romans made use of arches to span large rivers and support the weight. Aqueducts are similar to the Persian water system called the qanat. Qanat also relied on gravity to transport water. The major difference between the two was that Aqueducts were

F. Marcus Fabricius can't marry Aiden because she is not a Roman. This is similar to the Indian society and their caste systems. People of India could only marry people within their castes.

G. Slaves were not treated with as much disrespect as seen in other parts of the world. Marcus Fabricius does not abuse his slave and instead he has a level of respect. Marcus also gave his slave freedom. Greece and Rome's attitude toward slavery was very similar. Both societies showed more respects towards their slaves than many parts of the world. They also gave their slaves freedom after a long time of loyal service. They could also be granted freedom if they were skilled enough craftsman.

#Reptoemp

The roman republic made a transition to the Roman Empire because of its system of roads and the transition to a dictator/emperor instead of a republic.

I would like to know how to roads began and how much they actually effected the development of the empire and how the transition to a emperor occured

1. William McNeil's argument is that caste and territorial sovereignty had enormously different effects on the development of Indian and European societies.

McNeil defines a caste as a group of people that will eat together and intermarry. He also explains it as new people shoe come along are defined as there own caste. Also castes can be centered around occupations.
The book defines a caste as a social class of hereditary and usually unchangeable status. The distinct social groups and the term used to define Indian social order.

The three feelings and thoughts that helped maintain the idea of the caste were
Ceremonial purity, the idea that you are always above somebody unless your the lowest of the low and reincarnation.

I think these tag convincing because each one gives severybody something to look forward too or at least hold on to and in the days when life was a lot of work and very little reward that was important

Because people in one caste usually only interacted with those people there was no strong movement to unite everybody under one political government

This was because of the rise of priests and there idea that they could sway the gods through prayer

The Upanishads brought the idea of reincarnation and the belief in breaking out of that cycle. Also that in order to break out of the cycle they had to live good life's and preform rituals.

McNeil defines a teritorial sovernty as a state or unit with supreme power.

Because the Greeks could not find proof of gods they strayed away from that and began looking into things they could prove such as natural laws.

The Flowering of the Greek civilization was because of the adherence to the polis also the limitation of activities were not compatible with the polis. Each achievement surrender other alternatives.

I buy his argument. With anything just a little change even if it came from the same place cause people or things to go in many different directions. Because of the difference in these two societies structures they became very different cultures with different beliefs and political systems.

Alexander the great

I believe Alexander desereaves to be called Great. He was extremely intellegent and a skilled warrior. He was able to lead an army over mountains and through rough terrains and was able to create one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. And not to mention he was 20- 30 years old when he did it. Although Alexander was an alcoholic and had a temper it is still remarkable that he could do what he did when everybody including himself was drunk. That in mind plus the fact that he did kill thousands of people and was generally not a nice person I think his overall actions are what define him as great. His capability of creating a empire as big as he did as young as he was is fascinating. Thus I beleive he does deserve to be called great.