Rome Test part D. Essay 2.

Throughout Roman history it seems the only thing keeping great individuals from achieving there potential was the senate. While the rest of the Rome was celebrating the individual the Senate was bringing it down. Julius Caesar is the ultimate example for this. A truly great person who the Senate felt was becoming to powerful according to the senate. The idea of a new Roman Emperor terrified the senate, so they abolished the concept of so-called “democracy” and murdered Julius Caesar. That night outrage light the streets of Rome. The senate frantically tried to restore order, however the moment the first knife was plunged into Caesars back the Roman Republic started to die.

Rome was born upon a bed of glory. From its conception of Romulus defeating Remus, Rome’s fate largely depended on the individual striving above the rest. The Rape of the Sabine displays this with the most eloquence.  When the young roman men rose above the old and fragile Sabine to rape their women the Romans didn’t view it as a terrible act of lust and disgust. Their brutish violence was essential; anybody with potential should rise above the weak to take their place as a hero.

The people needed heroes in Rome. Similarly to our celebrity culture Romans would live vicariously through their lives. To many of the Plebeians Caesar was a great hero so when the senate killed him the balance of power was also destroyed. This lead to a huge confusion of the masses that then sparked extreme hatred for the senate. All of this chaos is create the Roman civil war.  Realizing that the people needed leader the two leaders of the conflict, Antony and Octavian fought it out in many physical and verbal conflicts. This split of power left the people hungry for more and Augustus ultimately realized that a Republic could no longer satisfy Rome’s desire for the individual and Rome became an empire again.

The intent of the murder of Julius Caesar was to prevent the fall of the republic. However Rome could never keep thee republic. It is simply unrealistic to expect a civilization based on the individual to be based on the decisions of many. A Roman Empire was inevitable, but the trust between the people and state crumbled when Julius Caesar’s body hit the floor.

Comp civ

A.

1. Pantheon
2. Constantine
3. Rape of the Sabine women.
4.Colseum
5.Constatinople
6a.Constantine
6b.Constantine
7. Jesus
8a. Constantine
9a. Crassus
10. Stoicism

The coliseum is significant in understanding roman culture. The lavish entertainment such as gladiator battles which took place inside of it reflect how open they were to blood sports and violence in general. The coliseum was absolutely colossal, holding up to 50,000 people, which shows how populated Rome was. It is also a testament to roman work ethic showing us how committed they could be to a task

Stoicism was important to Rome because it provided an alternative to Roman philosophic values. Similar to Taoism in China Stoicism provides an counterpoint to the rigid and rule based religion that surrounds them. These spiritual or philosophic values begin to develop or emerge when the people want them to, showing us that there was dissatisfaction in the roman empire. However stoicism never became a major philosophy because it was tailored primarily for the patrician class. The plebeians often never had the time to think about changing their values, and if they did they would want to hold philosophic values which stated that there is an upside to being poor.

The Statue portraying the rape of the Sabine women is key to understand early roman values. On the surface its beautiful dissonance shows us the value of art in roman society. The sculpture also shows us that women were often objectified in roman society, and played little part other than being trophies or baby makers. It reflects the roman values of the strong should overtaking the weak when they get the chance, "Carpe Diem". 

a.Hannibal
b.Crassus
c.Livia
d.Pompey
e.Vercingetorix
f.Alaric

C.
a. The Punic wars could have completely changed Rome as we know it. Hannibal had the chance to conquer more but for some reason didn't. The massive battles between Carthage and Rome showed us how devoted Rome was to its military. The Punic Wars also act as an incredible canvas for works of fiction.


b. Antony and Cleopatra were significant in understanding the fall of Rome. Historically Antony's attempts to follow Ceaser footsteps ultimately lead to the downfall of Rome. Antony's worship of Cleopatra was looked down upon by the patricians which lead to dissatisfaction with the people. Antony and Cleopatra has also provided a base of many works as fiction which is ofter interpreted as fact by the viewers, skewing our view of Rome.

c. The roman political system was comprised of three primary bodies of government. The Consuls are generally though of at the top of roman politics. There were two of them, and they often attempted to change Rome in one way or another, however they were often stop by the other consul.The senate was a large body of people which represented patrician values. They also often tried to pass bills and legislature but often were stopped internally or by the consuls or the Tribune. The Tribune was a body of people who represented the plebeians, they could veto decisions made by the consul or senate. Not much happened in Roman politics because there was to many layers of government to get through. The only time a significant bill or legislature would pass if corruption occurred, which occurred frequently.

Test Essay. Question 3

Does the history of world civilizations suggest slavery and oppression coexist with the greatest achievements of humankind through the ages, and can we escape this paradigm today?

     Most would say that slaves were vital throughout history, that it is simply unrealistic to think that the Great Wall, the Great Pyramids of Giza, or the Taj Mahal could have been built if they were without the use of slave labor. We often worship these architectural wonders, but we don't usually think about their origin. The few times when we do, we justify it with our lack of slave labor today. However, the fact is that slave labor is still a part of society, and as long as humankind wants to advance at a significant rate, we have to stick to methods of slavery and oppression.

      When I think of Egypt, my mind immediately jumps to the pyramids. These incredible tombs stretched as high as 146 feet, took up to 80 years to build, and used between 20,000-30,000 slaves. In contrast, the Aztecs and the Mayans built similar structures without the use of slave labor. How can we justify our society's preference for the pyramids? Because the pyramids were constructed 3000 years prior. While geographical position also played a part in Egypt’s rapid development, it is undeniable that the slaves were also significant.

      Slaves throughout history did not just increase architectural development. The use of slaves, especially from a foreign civilization, allows more of the population to fill key roles in society. As seen in the Neolithic revolution, the more freedom a civilization's population has over their roles, the faster it advances. China wouldn’t have its great philosophers, Rome wouldn’t have its great engineers, Islam wouldn’t have its scientists, and Greece wouldn’t have its artists without slaves. Slaves are the catalyst in the progress of society. Without them, we would recognize great civilizations that are completely different.

       Today we are still dependent on some kind of slave labor; almost everything we use today was made by slave or other extremely low-paying labor in third-world countries. From our computers to our clothes, from pyramids to bridges, everything requires labor. No one can escape the temptation of having something made for next to nothing. Morally, this is completely wrong, but who needs morals when we have cheap stuff?

      We don't need cheap stuff. Slavery has never been essential to a society. Great achievements might have taken longer, but as seen from the Aztecs and the Mayans it is absolutely unessential. We are at a turning pointing in history. We can continue a path of rapid development for humanity, or we can easily escape from slave labor in favor of human rights.

Art and war is what made Greece what it was. The two constantly influenced each other, as scene in Polycleitus’s statues and the beautiful and ornate armor that the hoplite wore. This combination of culture is what made Greece such an interesting civilization. Sparta and Athens really exemplifies this. At the surface they seem like complete opposites, but as we dig deeper we see how similar they really are.

What values do we think of Sparta having? Conformity, heroism, and scarifies comes to my mind. Athens often thought of being above these things, but the death of Socrates disproves this. Socrates, a great thinker spreading non-conformist ideas, a hero in many peoples mind, is sacrificed for the greater good to keep the conformity.

The structure of the government is often brought up while discussing Sparta and Athens. Sparta was an oligarchy, the two kings and five ephors leading an entire people. Athens was a democratic, but it also had nobles, aristocrats and appointed generals in their political system. Both systems also opposed a singular ruler, always having multiple people keeping each other in check.

Art is a form of war and war is a form of art. The parallels between them are everywhere and increase as time progressed.  We often view Athens and Sparta as polar opposites, rarely remembering that they are from the same civilization.

First test

Art is the reflection of the society that surrounds it. Ancient Greece and Roman art shows the embellishment of humanity, moving passed the tribal, created huge cities, and sought to pursue life to its fullest. God was man and man was god. Trades people were abundant, skillful, and excelled at creating goods for the wealthy. However a more advanced civilization isn’t necessarily a better one.

Until very recently, the worth of art has always been measured by the technical skill of the artist. Although a creative pursuit, the artist with the more fine brush strokes or detailed sculptured has been more valued (at least in western civilization). While the mask may represent a much deeper and spiritual idea it can be created by anyone with common things in a short period of time. Au contraire the Apollo is made from fine marble, and has take hundreds, if not thousands of man-house to create. We value hard work over creativity as an aspect in a society, and the appreciation of the statue over the mask is the perfect example of this.

Through the history of art each step towards realism is a step away from the rough, raw, and permittivity that the Paleolithic age had. The Lascaux caves gave a sense of permanence to an otherwise nomadic people, showing us that art played a part in there lives. The Neolithic revolutions progressed, and as people became more aware of where they were living, people became less satisfied. This dissatisfaction leads to the first great architectural developments like Stonehenge and the temples of Malta, with spirituality still in the forefront. Cities emerge, and the permanence of them allows art to be a full time career. The pursuit of beauty was everywhere to be seen in these cities. Incredible temples and architecture was abundant. But this wasn’t enough for humanity, and people wanted beauty for themselves. 

We live in a country obsessed with aesthetically pleasing things. Materialism is what fuels the majority of us everyday, knowing that if we work hard enough we can get new a pair of new shoes, or car, or house. The reason that the majority of us like the Apollo better is because the statue conceptually represents our society as a whole. The bright marble is rarer than common wood therefore better. It is more refined than the mask, showing us what we believe to be the perfect male form. The Apollo is achieving what almost every man wants in this society, to be looked at, admired, and wanted.  He has made it through the masses, and has become the fittest of those who have survived.

Civilization is a fickle term. When we define it we often risk the judgment of having an ethnocentric view of our world, like Clark or Carnegie. Art (among many other things) has made it obvious that Greek and Roman society is at a higher state of civilization than one from Native peoples. The statue is showing the human form with nothing to hide, whereas the intension of the mask is to hide the human form. However Greek and Roman civilization was not more civilized.