Techniques of Imperial Administration Essay

Techniques of Imperial Administration Essay.

Most societies that developed in ancient civilizations were centered around some form of imperial administration and Imperial Rome (31 B.C.E.-476 C.E.) and Han China (206 B.C.E.-220 C.E.) were no different in this sense. Both civilizations had a network of cities and roads, with similar technologies that catalyzed cultural amalgamation and upgraded the standard of living, along with comparable organizational structures. Additionally, both civilizations had problems managing their borders and used similar tactics for defense. However, the Chinese Emperor was interpreted as a God while the Roman Emperor was a lugal, or big man, who had to fight not only to gain power, but to push through his initiatives.

The similarities and differences of the control and management of both regions may be attributed to the philosophical ideas and belief systems that existed at the time, influencing political structure in similar ways with only a few minor differences that set the two cultures apart.

Han China and Imperial Rome both had well developed cities and roadways that made life easier for their citizens as well as provided cultural unity.

The Roman and Han roads allowed for the easy movement of troops to respond to outside threats and facilitated trade and commerce. This system of roadways not only connected the empires but promoted the spread of ideas, like Christianity in the Roman Empire and Buddhism in China. Both empires were further linked by a network of cities that acted as a nerve system that helped to tie the empire together. The cities were centers of administration and customs emanated into the surrounding area fostering cultural diffusion even though only around twenty percent of the population lived in cities.

The cities were managed by local officials from the middle class, the equites in Rome and the gentry in Han China, who were delegated a great deal of autonomy. Their duties were to make the government more effective and alert, and included tax collection, managing city projects, providing protection, and handling disputes. Finally, the cities in Rome and China were modeled after their respective capital cities, giving a sense of uniformity in both regions and providing comparable goods and services. The infrastructure of cities and roadways and the resultant cultural diffusion was an intricate part of both civilizations.

On a broader scale, however, Han China and Imperial Rome had much difficulty managing their empires and protecting their borders from attack. Some causes of problems for both civilizations arose from very long borders that were far away from the capital and slow communication, which meant that notice of attacks on the borders could take days or weeks to reach the capital before help could be deployed. To address this, both civilizations built walls to protect their borders, such as Hadrian’s Wall in central England and the Great Wall of China in Western China, and they also stationed small garrisons at outposts to protect against wandering marauders. However, this action led to an economic depression in both empires because of the high cost of maintaining the outposts and barriers. Both Rome and China had an effective way of managing their growing empires initially, but as they continued to expand it eventually contributed to their downfall.

With a strong centralized government, both civilizations greatly honored their leaders but the Chinese perceived them differently from the Romans, which is one of the major factors that sets these two civilizations apart. The Chinese leaders were the Sons of Heaven which went back to the Zhou philosophy of the mandate of heaven in which the leaders were placed into power by the gods and were supported by the gods. However, once the emperor lost favor of the gods, misfortunes started to happen that upset the people and they called for a new leader that would please the gods. Because the leaders were gods, they were “waited on hand and foot,”living in the Forbidden City and being helped by their plethora of servants, leaving them free to make the important decisions that involved their empire, which received widespread support.

Conversely, the Roman emperors were lugals, or big men, who often seized control by obtaining the backing of the Senate or army. This may be attributed to the gladiator fights when the stronger man overcame the weaker man and killed him. They had to resort to bribes, threats, and promises to gain their way into power, such as Claudius who was saved after his uncle, the tyrannical Caligula, was murdered by the Pretorian Guard.

Claudius was not considered a threat and was able to convince the Pretorian Guard to declare him emperor. Roman leaders also had to fight to get their ideas passed. There was a cult of the emperor but it had little spiritual validity and was more a tradition than a belief. With peaceful transitions in the Chinese culture contrasted with often violent changes in power in Rome, the ways the emperors were chosen and validated their power were significantly different in both cultures.

Both the Roman and Han China civilizations had a great deal of imperial organization. They both had well developed cities and roads, which helped spread culture and made the lives of their citizens easier. Furthermore, both civilizations had immense empires that were difficult and costly to protect. In contrast, the Han had a Zhou philosophy that the emperor was related to the gods while the Romans had a lugal philosophy where the stronger individual rose to power. While the heart of both political organizations was mainly about power, its validation was based on the worldviews of the culture. Despite minor differences, it is remarkable that both civilizations had similar political organization even though they were thousands of miles apart with very little contact.

Techniques of Imperial Administration Essay

Wine differ in ancient Greece and Rome Essay

Wine differ in ancient Greece and Rome Essay.

1.) How did the use of wine differ from that of beer in ancient Greece and Rome?

A.)Beer was for common folk and wine for the ‘important’ people. Beer was used as a source of barter for tradesmen and was considered an important food source. But beer was a much more different drink then tan it is today and is another answer for another question.

2.) How was wine used by the Greeks?

A.) It was their drink of choice when the water quality couldn’t be guaranteed, a social lubricant, used in games at parties (like kottabos, where the contestants threw the dregs from their wine cups into the wine-mixing bowl from a distance), and for making vinegar.

3.) How and why did wine develop into a form of a status symbol in Greece?

A.) In Greece, beer was considered to be the drink of the “common” folk. Wine became the fancier, more sought after drink that eventually led it to become a sort of status symbol for those who could afford to drink it.

4.) How was wine consumed? What does this tell us about the ancient Greek culture? A.) It was the main beverage in Ancient Greece as the water was often unsafe to drink on its own so the addition of wine, (“drink a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” St Paul to Timothy) helped to kill bacteria. Brewing beer had similar advantages, but grain was scarce in Greece and not to be wasted while grapes, like almonds and olives grow on otherwise useless land. The ancient tales of the coming of wine to Greece with Dionysus are full of warnings of its power, especially as women were associated with the cult. To read between the lines the message seems to be that if you let wine be your master you will be destroyed by women.

The wife will give you hell. Descriptions of Greek drinking parties or “symposiums” tell us that someone was appointed Master of Ceremonies with the task of regulating the ratio of wine to water so that everyone got merry early on and no one got obnoxiously drunk as the party continued. A special mixing dish was used for this purpose.

That this did not always work can be seen by the descriptions the drunken riots of Alcibiades and his aristocratic chums. Even at their best these gatherings were an opportunity to grope attractive young slaves and entertainers, Greek drinking vessels were sealed with pine resin which gave the wine a distinctive taste found today in Retsina. Once flavored with this it is hard to see how one distinguished between good and bad vintages, but like the iodine flavored island whiskies it is an acquired taste.

5.) How did the use of wine differ from that of beer in ancient Greece and Rome? A.)As Rome entered its golden age of winemaking and era of expansion, the “democratic” view of wine started to emerge in Roman culture with wine being viewed as a necessity for everyday life and not just a luxury meant to be enjoyed by a few as the Greeks believed. Romans believed that even slaves should have a weekly ration of over a gallon (5 liters) of wine a week.

However the reasons was more for the dietary health of the slaves and maintenance of their strength rather their personal enjoyment. Should a slave become sick and unavailable to work, doctors would advise cutting his rations in half to conserve wine for the workforce. It was this view that led to widespread planting in order to serve the need of all classes. Part of this was due to the changing Roman diet. In the 2nd century BC, Romans started moving away from a diet that consisted of the moist porridge and gruel to more bread-based meals. Wine became a necessity to help in eating the drier bread.

6.)What is the relationship between wine and empire, wine and culture, and wine and religion.

Wine differ in ancient Greece and Rome Essay

Comparing Empires (Persia vs Rome) Essay

Comparing Empires (Persia vs Rome) Essay.

The foundations of an ancient empire are shaped by many characteristics originating in a civilization’s social, philosophical, and theological values. Collectively these will bring about an empire that has aspects which will classify them in distinctive ways. The aspects that will be compared between Persia and Rome are the motives for expansion, methods of expansion, the administration, the impact on those conquered and the original empire, and the reasons for the decline of each empire. When combined, these aspects predispose the individual overall shape of ancient Rome and Persia.

Both empires began with conquering larger rulers and creating vast empires which had never been seen before, but as they grew, their ideologies on diversification differed because of the characteristics of their empires. The Persians mainly decided to let those which they conquered remain culturally unaltered allowing for more acceptance and acknowledgement of their ruling entity. On the other hand, the Romans aggressively attempted to Romanize the conquered, creating unease and tension.

Ancient Persia started by taking over weakening rulers in their territories. The Persians were originally based in what is current day Iran as organized peoples under the control of early Mesopotamian rulers. The Medes were an early civilization that ruled the area where the Persians lived with a strong hand. During the sixth center B.C.E. the Babylonian and Assyrian empires weakened through small time wars and disagreements which allowed for an already restless new man to lead the first revolt. This man overthrew the ruling empire and became the new ruler; this man was known as Cyrus (Stearns, Herodotus and the Persian Empire, 40). Cyrus was a man of humble beginnings; he came from a mountain village and was known as “Cyrus the Sheppard” (Bentley and Ziegler, 161). Once the Persians overthrew their Mede rulers they mounted a massive expansionary campaign. In what was one of the fastest expansions in ancient times, Cyrus went from being King of the tribes to King of the empire in all of twenty years (Bentley and Ziegler, 161).

The Persians relished and perfected an offensive approach to expansion. Cyrus instigated the wars that the Persians were part of in order to gain more power and wealth. The Persians method of expansion was war. Persia was effective in this strategy because they came out of nowhere fast. Before Cyrus there had not been a leader who had the guts to stand up to the Medes. Even though Harpagus was behind the entire plan, he saw that Cyrus has what it would take to overthrow the Mede ruler Astyges and successfully punish him for his harsh ruling (Stearns, Herodotus and the Persian Empire, 38-39). The Persians ruled only a small portion of land and were mainly tribesman before they removed the Medes from power. Within twenty years of overthrowing their conquerors, the Persians ruled from Egypt to Central Asia (Bentley and Ziegler and Ziegler, 161). Why this worked so well was because before anyone really realized what was happening, the Persians had already attacked and were moving on to the next victim. Loose alliances and slow communication also aided Cyrus in his venture of expansion as many smaller empires did not have the resources or man power to slow the Persian powerhouse.

Upon conquering the Medes Cyrus established himself as King of the Persians (Bentley and Ziegler, 161). He established this ideology of rule for the rest of the empire, along with the idea of hereditary rule. There was a centralized power in the King and his capital, but in order to run all the regions of the empire easier, the King appointed governors which were called satraps. These governors ran day-to-day tax collection and dealt with the people within their domain making sure that everything ran smoothly in a cog and wheel fashion. In addition to the satraps the King appointed local people to most of the administrative positions below the satraps, this way the Persians were not pushing rule solely by Persians (Bentley and Ziegler, 163). Having the satraps lessened the attempt of independence as well as having an administration made up of locals helped keep revolts down. The impact of expansion on the core Persian Empire was generally looked at and received in a positive manner. Increasing populations created more cities and more job opportunities allowed many Persians the luxury of making more money as the empire grew.

The bulk of the empire was still mostly farmers, however. One of the largest influences on the core empire was Zoroastrianism. This was advocated by both Cyrus and Darius, Darius used it in order to claim divine right to kingship. This new religion spread very quickly through high-ranking Persians (Bentley and Ziegler, 174). Zoroastrianism preached for people to enjoy this life but to live well for the afterlife (Stearns, Zoroastrianism: The Major Persian Religion, 43-45). This allowed people to have fun in this life and still be able to have eternal bliss; when people are having fun and happy they are less likely to challenge their rulers. Cyrus and Darius both tolerated ethnic and theological diversity. They did not try to force Persian culture on the conquered people. It seemed as though the Persians just wanted to have the right to tax and have control of the land and its riches. The Seleucids, Parthians, and Sasanids also advocated this policy. Although this policy worked quite well in allowing for fluid execution of ruling, when Xerxes came to rule he abolished it.

Furthermore he belligerently promoted the Persian way of life and tried to make his values the standard in conquered lands (Bentley and Ziegler, 164). In return for his valiant efforts, Xerxes sparked the end of the Persian Empire. With the new rulers intolerability towards others culture ways many people in the conquered empire began to revolt, one being the Greeks. Eventually the Greeks were united by Alexander the Great and took over the Persian Empire. Shortly after Greece gained independence from Persia the Seleucids, Parthians, and Sasanids became rulers. By this point in time the great Persian Empire was relatively weak and continued to decline as time went on. Islam also played a key role in the destruction of Persia as its popularity increased dramatically at the end. Nomadic Arab warriors invaded during the last weakened days of Persia and brought with them the influential religion of Islam.

When the last King was killed by Arab warriors it brought to an end the physical empire of Persia (Bentley and Ziegler, 168). Much like the beginning of Persia, the Romans came from simple beginnings. Early Romans were mostly small farmers and sheepherders that occupied much of the Italian peninsula. The Etruscans were the original rulers of the peninsula and ruled the vast majority of Romans. When the Romans dethroned the last of the Etruscan rulers the beginning of the Roman Empire was in full movement (Bentley and Ziegler, 262). While the Romans may have come from humble beginnings, once they took over they let everyone know what being Roman was all about. Once the city-state of Rome was formed it faced threats from disgruntled Etruscans as well as people in the surrounding areas along their borders. Rome became the empire it was because of the threats they faced upon which they went out and conquered all those that portrayed a threat to the way of Roman life (Bentley and Ziegler, 263).

When Hannibal attacked Rome the Roman armies attacked him and took over Carthage. This pattern of defensive expansion: defend, attack the attacker, Romanize, and build, became the regular for the Romans. Although the Romans did not fully instigate any of their battles, they most definitely responded to external threats, whenever they say one or thought that they saw one they would go after it and squish it like a bug. In return for this “everyone is coming for us” ideology the Romans expanded, but it would also play a role in the downfall later on. Similar to Persia, the Romans expansion caught on like a wild fire which eventually brought Rome to an immensely power and true force to be reckoned with. Like Persia, the Romans used war to expand their empire. They were successful using the same overall method but the reason it was so successful for them was because of their army.

Unlike most countries, the Romans had professional soldiers. What this meant was that instead of employing farmers and others who’s first job was of always working on a farm, soldiers were paid to be soldiers. They lived, ate and breathed military, in camps and everyday life; they would run drills, exercise and study. Being around each other and their weapons helped them become more familiarized with each of them which better prepared them for what they might experience in war (Stearns, The Roman Military and the Empire, 136). Metallurgy was another advantage to the Roman war machine as they were outfitted with iron weapons which could easily destroy any army with bronze weapons and leather armor. With the advantages in military technology and battle field tactics the Romans had the upper hand in almost any conflict which also allowed for great expansion.

The Roman government was originally a Republic with a senate making major decisions and not just one central king. There were two elected consuls who were the executive branch but they were not much different than the people who worked in the civilization (Stearns, Leadership in the Roman Republic, 129). This type of government worked well for Rome when they were smaller but as Rome grew and controlled more and more land it also became less and less republican morphing into more of an oligarchy.

With an ever expanding empire there were many strains on the different classes. When an attempt to lessen the strains was made by the Gracchi brothers they were murdered. While it was beginning to look bleak, it only got worse when Julius Caesar names himself King of the empire. From that point on Rome was run as a monarchy that was cloaked behind a Republic so that the people of Rome would not take notice to the devious diabolic works going on behind the scenes (Bentley and Ziegler, 267).

Dissimilar to the Persians, the Romans pressed their ideology of the Rome way upon all those who they conquered. They wanted to Romanize everyone. Conquered lands had to provide land to Roman citizens and soldiers. Like getting an immunization shot, by injecting Romans into conquered cultures they were more easily infused with Roman ideals. This was the way the Romans decided to try and suppress revolts, if everyone was the same they wouldn’t want to be different and a part of something else.

In Rome men had the majority of rights, including the right to vote while women had very little rights. Some conquered people were granted Roman citizenship in an attempt to quiet a revolt by allowing more lower class people the ability to vote on items. Roman law had very strict laws depicting how women could act when married and what would happen if they divorced their husbands (Stearns, Women and the Law in Rome: Legal Codes, 143). Just through some of the Romans legal codes it can easily be seen how they attempted to control much of one’s life and how much being Roman meant to some.

The impact of the empires expansion and growth was not what ultimately led to its demise but chipped away continuously until the end. The fall of Rome can also be attributed to economic depression, civil wars, disease, nomadic invaders, and the rise of Christianity. All of the wars left Rome in ruins and threw it into an economic depression. The war with Carthage alone destroyed the Roman farmer. The empire of Rome had gotten to a point where the outskirts of it were not fully under their control so were more subject to revolt and corruption. Also with the end of the Republic came downfall too; it was too difficult to run that much land without centralizing power and with one man at the wheel the vision at the end of the rainbow can become skewed.

This further allowed the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer which sparked many civil wars throughout the rest of Rome’s rule (Bentley and Ziegler, 264 and 266). Vast trading and less than adequate sanitation and hygiene lead to the spread of many diseases which took an immense toll on the empires civilization. Invading vandals and Visigoths from the North continued to drain resources: men, money, and time (Stearns, The Fall of Rome, 146). Christianity led to civil unrest as the government attempted to subdue it and outspoken missionaries stirred the ever more unsettling population. Ultimately when everything was finally in full motion it pushed the Roman Empire over the edge of extinction.

Although the ways of expansion in ancient Rome and Persia were similar in their military expansion, the motives and methods led to different toleration of conquered people. In Persia they did not try to change anyone culturally but instead allowed them to live as they were under the Persian protective and governing body. Not until Xerxes attempted to press Persian culture did the empire begin to crumble due to civil unrest. On the other hand, when Rome conquered people they immediately tried to enforce Roman ways upon them.

Ultimately it is when rulers attempt to force people to become who they are not that led to revolts and made the empires weak from the inside out which allowed for more problems to exist and amplify leading to the fall of each one. These actions can be seen throughout history from the wars between Indians and British, to Americas Revolution, and what is currently happening in Iraq now. They history never repeats itself but it seems as though there is a similarity between much of it.

Comparing Empires (Persia vs Rome) Essay

How Did Rome Become an Empire Essay

How Did Rome Become an Empire Essay.

How did Rome become an empire? In what ways did ancient Rome transform the classical legacy of the Greeks? The start of the Rome Empire began with Julius Caesar and expanded with Octavian. In 46 B.C Julius Caesar established a dictatorship. He took strong and extreme measure to stabilize Rome. “He codified the laws, regulated taxation, reduced debts, sent large numbers of the unemployed proletariat to overseas colonies, and inaugurated public works projects Caesar also granted citizenship to non-Italians and reformed the Western calendar to comprise 365 days and twelve months” (Fiero, Landmarks In Humanities Second Edition, 2009, p.

68). These steps help build the Roman Empire. After the assassination of Julius Caesar, a battle between Octavian against Mark Anthony and Cleopatra took place for new leadership.

Actium in 31 B.C, Octavian defeated Mark Anthony and Cleopatra and became Emperor in 43 B.C. Octavian’s’ (Augustus) reign began an era of peace and stability known as Pax Romana. “Under the Pax Romana, Rome had active commercial contact with all parts of the civilized world, including India and China” (Fiero, Landmarks In Humanities Second Edition, 2009, p. 68).Octavian initiated many new public works such as a police force and a fire department (Fiero, Landmarks In Humanities Second Edition, 2009, p. 69).

During his reign, Rome also developed Christianity, which spread throughout the world. Under the leadership of Julius Caesar and Octavian (Augustus), Rome became an Empire. Rome borrowed many ideas and elements from the Greeks. “They absorbed the fundamentals of urban planning, chariot racing, the toga, bronze and gold crafting and the arch” (Fiero, Landmarks In Humanities Second Edition, 2009). They borrowed gods and goddesses, linguistic and literary principles. The Romans adopted and modified many of the Greeks ways, ideas, and elements. As Rome became stronger and expanded, so did everything they borrowed from the Greeks, which helped transform the Greeks classical legacy.


Fiero, G. K. (2009). Landmarks In Humanities Second Edition.

How Did Rome Become an Empire Essay

The Greek and Roman Influence over Modern America Essay

The Greek and Roman Influence over Modern America Essay.

The Greeks and the Romans were among the most influential societies in the history of the world. Evidence of Greek or Roman influence can be found in almost every culture or country that has ever existed. Though both cultures were different in practice and incredibly competitive with one another, their politics and their beliefs set the stage for future civilizations, including those of the modern world. In particular, the values and practices of Greek and Roman citizenship and politics, more than any other cultures, influences American policies today in terms of values, government, and self-image.

The Greek civilization was one of the first organized and well-structured societies in history. The Greeks viewed themselves as great and superior to all those that were not of their culture. They thought that most of the outside world consisted of barbarians and, although under the law of Xenia, they were kind and generous to outsiders, they thought of themselves as the more intelligent individuals. Thus, the title and status of being Greek was exceedingly important and those who defied the ways of the Greeks were not considered to be loyal and were often rejected in society.

The Athenians, especially, encouraged the involvement of their citizens in political life.

In fact, those who refused to participate in political life were labeled as Idiotes, which simply means someone who only pursues one’s own interest and does not contribute to society. These Idiotes were ostracized for their unpatriotic practices, because Greeks wanted their citizens to display a love to their country above all others. Greeks also valued reason and rationality and enjoyed philosophical views, they sought after a definition of everything and believed in the apollonian concept based upon reason, brightness, and intelligence. They even held large assemblies where they held discussions which led to decision making and the passage of laws. The Greeks gained respect and remembrance through these traditions.

Any individual who studies Greek culture can see a clear similarity between the ways the Greeks ran their civilization and the way Americans run their country today. Greeks, as mentioned before, thought they were far superior and intelligent than other cultures. In Pericles’ Funeral Oration, Thucydides states: “In short, I say that as a city we are the school of Hellas, while I doubt if the world can produce a man who, where he has only himself to depend upon, is equal to so many emergencies, and graced by so happy a versatility, as the Athenian.”(Pericles’ Funeral Oration) This quote displays their superior view and also reminds the reader of the American mentality as well: Americans, unconsciously, see themselves as smarter and far more superior than the rest of the world, especially to countries who are not as advanced as America.

Though, like the Greeks, Americans are accepting and generous to outsiders, they are still looked down upon. Another concept that is both American and Greek is the idea of Patriotism and loving ones country. Since September 11th Americans have had an immense burst of love for their country and often display flags and memorials to show their loyalty. Those who reject this patriotism are essentially rejected from normal society and often do not receive the same respect as loyal citizens. One can see this reflected in Greek practices as well as in almost an identical degree. In the Greek play, Antigone, the central conflict deals with the leader, Creon, who decides not to recognize a citizen who has failed to hold loyalties to his country. This causes controversy with the character Antigone and the whole story deals with conflicts of loyalty to one’s country versus doing what one feels is right. This theme of loving ones country is not only important in present day America but is also a key element in the Greek way of life.

Another common theme of Americans and Greeks is the idea of enlightenment. Americans place a great deal of importance upon education and citizens are at a fight against illiteracy and ignorance. In Greece we see a similar emphasis in moving away from the human rejection of intelligence. In Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave, he tells a story focused around the view that most people live in a world of ignorance and need to go against the norm and to seek intelligence. This Greek philosopher dictated these ideas that are still used in theory in modern America. Although Americans and Greeks are not exactly alike, they share many similar traits, reflecting the Greek influence on America.

Romans were a civilization that originated after the Greek culture. They, like Greeks, saw an extreme significance in the idea of a love for one’s country and loyalty. The Romans, however, were more concerned with public affairs such as education, sanitation, and health. They held a strong connection with their ancestors and wished to imitate what the ancient Romans did. Although Romans rejected the idea of a Rex, or king, they favored the common hero. They wanted a leader who a “regular Joe”, someone who was average and could still led an average life after doing extraordinary things. The Romans also had a very defined government that was broken into consuls, senate, and assembly. There were two consuls who served in place of the king as the leaders of the Roman Empire. Next in succession was the senate, comprised only of patricians who debated and passed legislation. Finally, there was the assembly made for the plebeians to approve laws. These characterizations of Rome helped them become one of the most powerful empires and paved the way for future empires.

The Romans, like the Greeks, appear to have strong ties in American policies. Today, Americans have many laws and practices concerning public affairs, which are highly important in this society. In The Rape of Lucretia by Livy, Lucretia is raped and her husband and father avenge her rapist and then ban kings in Rome. This story displays the importance of public affairs such as family to the Romans, Although Antigone is a Greek play, it contains the same Roman ideas of the importance of family: the main idea of the play deals with Antigone seeking to do what she feels right, and that is to honor her brother. Both stories deal with the idea of honor and virtue in citizenship. These values hold true in America today with the idea that public affairs are important. Americans also support a common hero much like the Romans did. In the Roman Story The Story of Cincinnatus by Livy, Cincinnatus is called upon by the Romans to defend them in their time of need.

Cincinnatus is a common man who does extraordinary things in battle and then is able to give up his title and return to an ordinary life. Just like Cinncinatus, the character Antigone in the Greek play Antigone, is an uncommon hero; she is brave and follows her own beliefs, but she has hardship in her life just like that of everyone else such as death and scandal in her family. These stories are much like American stories, especially that of George Washington, who at the time of the American Revolution served as America’s common hero. Perhaps the biggest similarity seen in American and Roman culture is that of government. America has a clear distinction of checks and balances, a practice that gives different power to three different government groups in order to keep one person or group from becoming too powerful.

This was also a common concern of the Romans; they rejected the idea of one powerful ruler or Rex. Polybius clearly defined Roman government in An Analysis of the Roman Government. He explained the different roles of the consul, senate, and assembly of the Roman government. One who reads this is immediately reminded of American government: the consul is similar to the American President, The Roman senate is similar to the American Senate, and the assembly is similar to the house of representatives. In many different ways the Romans and the Americans share citizen traits and qualities.

Whether one looks back to the developing ancient times of Greece and Rome, or to modern day society, the citizenship and political practices are extremely similar. Though America has been compared to many different nationalities, they have the strongest ties with Greece and Rome in terms of government, self-image, and values. This proves that looking to the past can help one look toward the future as well.

The Greek and Roman Influence over Modern America Essay

Mosaics in Pompeii Essay

Mosaics in Pompeii Essay.

Mosaic decoration was commonly used in the beautification of both private and public buildings in Pompeii and has been found in all different shapes, sizes locations and with all different purposes. Mosaics were often used as flooring in Pompeii were largely used to decorate floors and entrance walls to houses and other buildings, some representing importance, others advertisement and even propaganda. The panel depicting “The Battle of Alexander” housed in the Archaeological Museum in Naples and originating from the House of the Faun, is, though, one of the most important and magnificent examples.

The Alexander Mosaic was found during the excavation of Pompeii in 1831 in the “Casa del Fauno” (House of the Faun), one of Pompeii’s grandest residences. Today it is one of the most famous Roman mosaics.

The work itse;f measures to 5.82 x 3.13 metres in size and there is debate as to what the mosaic represents, whether it was to depict the Battle of Issus between Alexander the Great and the Persian king Darius III in the year 333 BC or the battle of Gaugamela in the year 331 BC, where Alexander the Great and Darius clashed once again.

There is also a belief that a Hellenistic painting was used as the model. The mosaic shows the magnificence of Greek monumental painting and four-colour painting. There is no debate however on its beauty, detail, the skill woven into each detailed plate of mosaic tiles and the time it would have taken to put such a delicate and intricate piece together. The piece is made of roughly 4 million white, yellow, red, and black tesserae. The picture shows Alexander galloping into battle with a mass of troops behind him on the left hand side, pursuing Darius into a battle.

The picture also shows towards the right hand side of the mosaic, the Persians turning to flee, with a fearful loom from Darius as the only thing facing alexander and his men. Today, the original Alexander Mosaic is on display in the National Museum of Archaeology in Naples. An exact copy – identical in shape, size, colour and materials used – was created after several years of work by the Scuola Bottega del Mosaico di Ravenna and is now installed in Pompeii. The painting is described by Pliny the Elder as representing “the battle of Alexander with Darius.” Certain inconsistencies in the mosaic point to its derivation from another source. “The patches basically show us the mosaic through the Romans eyes, and tell us what interested the ancient viewer. Although Darius is the most prominent figure in the mosaic, the Romans were much more interested in Alexander,” he said. The portrait of Alexander corresponds to the so-called Lysippean type, which includes for example the Pergamon Head.

Alexander is not idealised here in the otherwise frequent form: with long curls and full, soft features as the incarnation of Zeus, the sun-god Helios or Apollo […]. His head appears rather more gaunt, with tautly shaped cheeks, marked by suggested or deeply-carved wrinkles and with short hair barely covering his ear. Both types, the realistic and the idealising, do admittedly show the parting of the forelock characteristic of Alexander – here as short, unmanageable strands, in the deifying variation as upwardly radiating pairs of locks. A later, but unmistakeable echo of this hairstyle can be found in the consciously stylised, characteristic forelock of Augustus. Conclusuions we can draw about the spciteies of Pompeii and Herculaneum through looking at this mosaic are It is thought that this house was built shortly after the Roman conquest of Pompeii, and is likely to have been the residence of one of Pompeii’s new, Roman, ruling class.

The mosaic highlights the wealth and power of the occupier of the house. “What is less know is the mosaic’s role as a floor surface in an Italian house. In this role, it has the potential to provide evidence of the tastes, interests and desires of the wealthy Romans during the late Republic,” “There is clear evidence of multiple ancient repairs in these damaged areas. The most recent restorations filled the gaps with mortar, while more ancient repairs used tesserae,” show a keen interest in the arts and that they hold great importance to a fmailies household perhaps sudgesting status in society by their beauty and expence.

Mosaics in Pompeii Essay

Brutus Campaign Speech Essay

Brutus Campaign Speech Essay.

My fellow Romans, it is I, Marcus Junius Brutus. And I am here running for the position of leader of Rome. I unlike my predecessor will not be a king, or emperor, I will simply rule as one of you, the common people of this great city. But why do you ask, should you vote for me? Because I am selfless. I do not act out of envy, rivalry, or power. I only want what is best for Romans and the people of Rome.

While others like Mark Antony, will simply follow in the footsteps of Caesar, and do we really need another Caesar? Do we need another tyrant to simply squash us all into submission? I say we need a leader, someone who will take charge and change our fine city for the better, and I will do whatever it takes to make this city better, in the past I killed one of my best friends in this world for the betterment of Rome.

I cannot stand tyrants and I vow not to become one. But Antony will become a tyrant I fear, for he was Caesar’s puppet. Antony is nothing but a twister of words, Antony talks well but he doesn’t know how to really rule, Antony would only make the mistakes of his predecessors letting the throne corrupt him into something bad. Antony knows nothing of what it takes to lead such a great city. But why should I be leader? Well while Caesar was on a campaign he put me in charge of a city. This city was un-happy with Caesar for taking over, but I convinced them our leader Caesar, was good and that they should be thanking him, while Caesar toured the cities all the others were angry with him for taking over, but in my city we held celebrations. Julius Caesar was very surprised, and happy at this. Another example of my credibility is that I am a prestige general.

I have had the honor of fighting many battles, including against Julius Caesar himself. I lost against Caesar that battle teaching me an important lesson in my strategies and ethics. So not only will I be a fair and just leader, but I will be able to protect the great city of Rome. This is a valuable skill to this great city because without the protection of a grand army we will soon fall prey to the small countries surrounding us. But why should you vote for me as a whole? Because I Marcus Junius Brutus will protect, serve, and preach my allegiance to you, the common people of Rome, the ones that I live to serve. Thank you.

Brutus Campaign Speech Essay

Why Did Henry Break with Rome Essay

Why Did Henry Break with Rome Essay.

In this essay, I’m going to explain why henry broke with Rome. This means that Henry made himself head of England. In the first few years, Henry didn’t mind the pope being the head of the church and Henry was even praised by the Pope for defending him from the criticism given to him by a protestant called Martin Luther. But this all changed when him and the pope had a fight about the divorce over Henry VIII and Catherine Of Aragon who failed to give him the son that he wanted to please his dead father with.

The pope refused to accept the divorcement with Henry because the holy roman emperor was related to Catherine and refused to let the pope let him divorce her as Charles controlled the pope. Henry had had enough and had an idea that he could make himself the head of the church and then he can divorce himself. Henry had many reason of doing this and here are all the reasons.

After getting a divorce with Catherine of Aragon, Henry was desperately in need of a son to make his father happy and so he could take on his power when he died so got attracted to Anne Boleyn who also failed to give him a son. He wanted to be the head of the church so badly so then he could get a divorce with Catherine of Aragon and do whatever he likes to the women.

Henry had only just fought in a war against France. He used all his money to get the new weapons and swords. Henry used all the money on this and really needed money. At this time the church was rich because they took money off people for taxes. To Henry it looked easy to become the head of church to get this money but he was wrong, so he got parliament to help him and they did and he closed all the monasteries and took their money. He also became the head of the church. Moreover the monks were becoming greedy and un-religious .They were stealing money from the church. He would get a bad reputation if he opened all the monasteries. He could not get involved with the monasteries because the churches protected them he wanted to break with Rome so then he would be able to sort this problem out.

The pope was also breaking the church rules. He was caught running off with women and doing nepotism But Henry also wanted to have power all his life and the church was very powerful in the Tudor time. It would control the whole of England .Henry VIII really wanted the churches power so if he took control of the church he could have that power. In conclusion, the main points that Henry wanted to break with Rome was for the love, power, money and faithfulness. Overall I think the main point was love because then he could have the son to carry on his position of authority and carry on the power. I think the least important point was faith because all Henry wanted was to be rich and a son and he didn’t really mind about the churches at the time as long as he got the money from it.

Why Did Henry Break with Rome Essay

Roman Sculpture Essay

Roman Sculpture Essay.

Roman sculpture effects life and plays an important role in Ancient Rome, Julius Caesar, and modern-day society. Statues were an important and influential part of art and architecture in roman culture. Although, most of roman art and architecture came from Greek culture and habits, most people today think of the statues and sculptural techniques as roman.

Ancient Rome used statues as ceremonial pieces, public gathering places, frivolous beautifying accessories in public areas, and honorable tributes to the rich or important people of the time.

The Romans particularly like statues of gods, leaders, and heroes in action. (All About Ancient) Most sculptures roles in society were to be public meeting places for important events. They were used as central areas for passing information and communicating new rules and guidelines for an area. A whole category of battle and heroic sculpture filled the citizenry’s need for information on conquests made by Roman armies. (All Bout Ancient) Although most statues were used for the public, some statues were intended for private viewing only because the subject matter would not be acceptable with commoners seeing as it was offensive or sexually explicit.

(All About Ancient)

Roman statue effected and played a role in literature as well such as Julius Caesar. In Shakespeare’s play, roman sculpture is used as a ceremonial image and also used to foreshadow the terrible events that unfolded later. In Act 1 of the play, a statue is described as decked with ceremonies for a parade. (Shakespeare) This would be a festival-type event celebrating an important figure returning home, that of which being Caesar. Later on in the play, the very same statue came into importance in Calpurnia’s dream. “She dreamt tonight she saw my (Caesar’s) statue which, like a fountain with a hundred spouts, did run pure blood, and many lusty romans came smiling and did bathe their hands in it.” This was an important foreshadowed event and without the statue, it would not have been portrayed the same.

For as old as roman sculpting techniques are and for as long as statues have been around, they still have an impact on modern-day society. When people think of classic beauty, they think of the statues of gods and goddesses, heroes and leaders created by the ancient Romans. (All About Ancient) The Roman style of sculpture is influenced strongly by Greek style. The Romans saw what the Greeks were doing, like it and imitated it, although most of the statues that have remained and are still here today are roman. (Art) In addition to statues, Roman Emperors were also portrayed on coins, which is where modern-day society got the idea of putting out presidents on coins. (All About Ancient) Many of architectural buildings today are based off of old roman art such as the United States very own capital building.

Roman sculptures are very important as the vast majority of them tell us a story about Gods, Heroes, Events, and act as public meeting areas. These statues played important roles in Julius Caesar, Ancient Rome, and modern-day society. Many sculptures were used to represent important events and people, and that cultural idea to represent significant events through art has transferred through into present-day society. Many of the statues that have survived are actually of Roman origin. Like many people today the Romans had a deep respect for Greek sculptures and many were copied. If the Romans had not made these copies, many of the Greek Legends and stories that we know today would have been lost to antiquity.

Roman Sculpture Essay

Engineering Marvels of the Roman Empire Essay

Engineering Marvels of the Roman Empire Essay.

At the height of their civilization the Roman Empire controlled over 2,300,000 square miles of territory that spanned through the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. At the heart of the empire was the great city of Rome. A modern day New York, Rome boasted many incredible landmarks. Here was located the great Coliseum where many gladiatorial games were held for the entertainment of the roman citizens. Here also was the Circus Maximus.

This remarkable stadium held chariot races that could rival modern day NASCAR.

All over the Roman Empire one could find the many remarkable engineering feats of the Romans. Whether it is the ingenuity of the Aqueducts or the remarkable stadium designed to seat 70,000 people comfortably, the Romans were by far the top engineers of their times. Since the Roman Empire was so incredibly large, they needed some creative ways to solve the problems that can face any empire or city. Their citizens needed food, water, transportation, money, housing, and entertainment.

The Romans methods of solving these problems were absolutely brilliant. The first and most basic need that needed to be solved was water, and the Romans resolved that problem with ease. The solution they found was the Aqueduct. The Roman Aqueducts were astounding pieces of engineering. The Aqueducts frequently used the arch in their construction. The arches made them capable of spanning large gaps in the landscape as well as give them added support. These systems were capable of transporting water from over 50 miles away into a city.

At the height of the Roman Empire, there were over 200 cities that had their water supplied by aqueducts. Rome itself had 11 separate Aqueducts leading into the city. The longest one, the Aqua Novus, stretched from 59 miles away into the city. At the climax of the Roman Empire, the city of Rome had approximately 1,000,000 citizens. With such a large populace the demand for water was extremely high. Even with those large demands the Aqueduct system was still able to perform. It delivered a stunning 1 cubic meter of water per person.

This amount is more than is available in most modern day cities. This water was used for daily life and Rome was even equipped with its own working plumbing system. Another great feat of accomplishment for the Romans was the public baths. These baths were fed water by the Aqueducts and were available to all roman citizens. The greatest of these baths were the Baths of Diocletian. This complex could contain 3,000 bathers at one time. They were built in such a fashion that the sun would heat the baths and keep the water warm throughout the day.

The baths were only able to exist because of the Aqueduct system (UNRV History of Aqueducts). The engineering marvels did not end there. The empire needed resources such as gold and silver. Their unique and creative mining techniques and tools were truly engineering marvels. Throughout the Roman Empire there was plenty of land with abundant mineral resources. The Romans knew this and so they needed to find a way to excavate that material. To do this they developed certain systems of mining and unique tools to accomplish the job.

For surface mining, that is mining with the exposed veins on the surface of a rock face, the Romans would use their aqueduct system in a unique way. The would run the water from a nearby stream using the aqueducts and flush away all the loose soil and rocks thus leaving the veins exposed and ready for mining. They would then dig small tunnels at the surface and strip mine the rocks. The Romans also implemented the Archimedes Screw into their mining projects. They would use the screw to remove excess water that was in the tunnels. Another technique that the Romans used was call strip mining.

This was an extremely dangerous and risky endeavor and was only used for extremely precious metals such as silver or gold. The way this was done was to dig a large shaft straight down from the top of the mountain. When any veins were found, horizontal shafts were then dug. You can guess the problems that the Romans faced while doing this. There was poor lighting in the tunnels and also there was water in the tunnels (Lynne Cohen Duncan). Even in spite of these obstacles the Romans prevailed and there empire was rich in precious metals. But what good is money if it had no use?

The people of Rome needed entertainment and the roman engineers were up to the challenge and had the riches of an empire at their disposal. Because of the many ingenious techniques and solutions the Romans created, their empire left a lasting legacy on the world. Although the Romans may not have invented all new materials, they found extremely unique and brilliant ways. Their systems and accomplishments made their empire a long lasting one. Their marvels still can be seen today and it is unknown how long the future will hold them for many more to see.

Engineering Marvels of the Roman Empire Essay