What's going on in the Postclassical Era?

The postclassical era featured the restoration of political and social order. Islamic faith overcame the Sassanid empire. The Sui and Tang Dynasty overcame the regional kingdoms. But in India, central rule did not return. In Western Europe, centralized control returned briefly. The restoration allowed societies to engage in long-distance trade and exchange. Agriculture also improved as well. Increased trade and manufacturing led to new innovation.. Also, Islam and Christianity became religious foundations for empire.

Romans are Friends, not Food

I would regard Rome as a friend. They produce many products we can take advantage of and use our silk. They look and behave like us based on their "tall and virtuous" descriptions. Also, they originally came from China so they are one of us. In addition, they want to communicate with us although Anxi will not let them. They show no signs of hostility. They have a postal service with relay sheds and postal stations like the Middle Kingdom in China. 

My awesome map of the Silk Road

The activity was tiresome and tedious. Switching between Notability and "Lightspeed" was annoying. It was very difficult to map out cities based on the wording of the text without looking them up online. There were also ambiguities such as the path through Tashkent on which shore of the Caspian Sea does it go to. It is also difficult to read my own "handwriting". It would have been easier to have made the map with pen and paper. Also, it was difficult to look up places because usually there will not be a map that simply shows where that city or mountain pass is.

Marriage and Divorce in Ancient Rome

My image of the Roman Empire is negative. In Rome, love had nothing to do with marriage. Children were produced solely to be heirs to the father's property. For example, fourteen was the normal age for a women to marry but can be engaged at a low age of seven which makes people less likely to commit to a relationship. It seems that marriages and concubines were abused by both men and women during the time. Also, terms for divorce were not uniform throughout the empire. In the western empire, it was nearly impossible for women to get out of an unhappy marriage unless the husband agreed or was a murderer. In addition, Constantine's legislation imposed greater penalties on women than men. Discrimination against those born outside a legitimate marriage also reinforces the negative image on the Roman Empire because it really isn't one's fault that they were born outside a legitimate marriage. Also, while a concubine between slaves was possible with the permission of the slave owner, the only motive for a slave owner to allow "marriage" is to add the slaves's offspring into the workforce. Overall, marriage in the Roman Empire did not forge strong bonds between people and may have undermined the empire as well.

Republic to Empire Narrative

Rome's transition from a republic to an empire was of slow progression. To begin, the Twelve Tables laid out the foundation for laws and propriety. It reduced crime and created order in society through strict punishments. However, tensions arise between the patricians and plebeians. A tribune named Tiberius, who proposed land distributions was murdered by other members of the senate while attempting to initiate reforms for the lower class. The Roman Empire expanded along with the construction of roads which would facilitate the transportation of people, arms, and trade. Conflict between the patricians and plebeians increase further leading to Civil War of Marius and Sulla. Julius Caesar was assassinated by the Senate while Augustus comes to power effectively as a monarch. At this point, the transition from republic to empire was complete and the monarchy remained in power from then on. 

President Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great would not be electable. One reason is his motive for war is to avenge humility from hundreds of years ago. Today, no citizen would want their country to engage in a war with no clear objective or purpose because war is costly and people today want the president to focus more on fixing domestic issues rather than trying to police the world. Although such an example may parallel Bush's motive in starting a war in the Middle East. Considering his frequent drunken behavior, most Americans would deem his behavior as inapropriate. Also, Alexander the Great appears to be too fanatical with his belief of religion which might be too radical for some. Although some leaders are more big on religion than others in which religious beliefs influence legislation on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Overall, he would not be electable.

(i don't know what happened with the right margin)

King Abdullah II of Jordan and Democracy

After pursuing my classmates' posts, I conclude that most of them agree that democracy would function the most effectively in smaller societies. King Abdullah II runs a constitutional monarchy in Jordan in the midst of a democratic Arab uprising. In Jordan, they have elections at the end of each year but they change the constitution before then. In Egypt, Libya and Tunis, they have new governments in power but are mandated to change the constitution within a year and then go to elections again but there has been a delay in changing the constitution in which it is not a managed transition. I believe King Abdullah II can succeed because he is doing things different from other countries who have faced revolution. The outbreaks in the Middle East are caused by people desiring political reform. Instead of waiting around to be ousted by his people, King Abdullah II is willing to peacefully transition towards democracy unlike other countries that have effectively failed. 

Democracy: Small vs Large Societies

     In class, we defined Democracy as a ruling style in which each citizen has a stay in the laws. In a small society, it would be a disadvantage because the small population could be swayed easier by a single person than a large society. Small societies will usually have similiar interests and roles in which it's citizens may be able to work together more when it comes down to voting yet could also be negative because a single person could sway the society in a negative direction. However, in large, complex socities, there are many different people with different jobs or beliefs than a smaller society. Therefore, it may be harder for such a democracy to get things done because more people would disagree. Large societies are also at a disadvantage because in order to give the citezens a say in laws, they would need to be educated. Funding education on a large scale would be cumbersome back in that time whereas a smaller society could support the education of its citizens easily. 
     A democracy would function best in small societies because it would be easier to educate the population and because a smaller group of people are more likely to agree on a subject rather than thousands or millions. Such a system would fail in a large society because most of the people would probably not recieve education and therefore would not be able to make proper decisions.