Geela Margo Ramos Period 5

Socratic Discussion questions/Classical Empires:

1. What common features can you identify in the empires described in this chapter?
All are states in which are political systems that exercise coercive power
o Larger, more aggressive states that conquer, rule, and extract resources from other states
and peoples
Encompass variety of peoples and cultures with a single political system
Foundations included agriculture
Associated with political and cultural oppression
Give political expression to a civilization or culture
All empires described in this chapter took place in the classical era (500 BCE 500 CE)
Each had a set of common problems
o Would and how would they impose the culture of the imperial heartland on their varied
subjects
o How would they extract wealth taxes, tribute, labor but maintain order
o Epidemic disease
o Resistance
o Foreign invasions
o All eventually collapsed
Created looming presences on surrounding regions due to size
Well-maintained military forces + tax collectors
Were founded and sustained at the great cost of human life
Had certain social hierarchies (had slaves) and some form of government
Experienced oppression and exploitation
Experienced economic and artistic development, commercial exchange, and cultural mixing in
which defined them
Brought influence to modern-day nations hold lessons

2. In what ways did these empires differ from one another? What accounts for those differences?
How empires grew to become the empires they were
o More aggressive or more adaptive from a certain civilization from before?
The ways they were governed
o Democratic, republican, monarchy?
Government and Economy Structure
o Which ones were more developed?
Freedoms given to the people
o Where did women have more opportunities?
Religions
o How did religion have an effect in some areas
Locations
o How did it affect how certain settlements spread over regions?
Which empires were able to last longer than others
o What factors played in this?

3. Are you more impressed with the greatness of empires or with their destructive and oppressive
features? Why?
I, on one hand, am more impressed with their destructive and oppressive features of these
empires and how it had even affected other empires. The fact that these empires were still able
to be taken control over compared to how it is now where it is not as easy to do so. The
amount of destructive capability an empire had over another makes us question the stability of
 each empire and why they could not handle the situation the same as we can do now. What had
limited nations in protecting themselves, even with strong military forces (or defenses)?
o Ex. Persian empire vs. Greek empire
Along these lines, the oppressive features of an empire which were inflicted by the government
questions what values were held by these empires. We can connect the certain values in which
were displayed to each empires religion/cultural traditions. From this we can inference that
cultures played an important role in the foundations of empires.
o Ex. Spread of Christianity + Roman government
o Ex. Confucianism and Buddhism + Chinese government (which weve also seen in the
documents we analyzed when working on the essays)

4. How did Persian and Greek empires/civilizations differ in their political organization and values?
Persian Empire/Civilization:
o Ruled by will of the great god Mazda were absolute monarchs willing to kill rebellious
regions/officials effective administrative system of satraps took care to uphold local
religious cults in an effort to gain support very tolerant of other peoples had immense
wealth and power
Greek Empire/Civilization:
o Geography contributed to political state whereas expression was in hundreds of city-
states/small settlements which shared similar language and religion although usually in
conflict the idea of citizenship was big for citizens being able to run affairs of state,
having equality for all citizens only the wealthy and well-born had immediate access to
citizenship but gradually opened up to lower-class men (small scale farmers) who could
join the army and afford the weapons tyrants emerged with support of the poorer class
to challenge the wealthy extreme forms of military discipline had Council of Elders who
were very influential was pushed in a more democratic direction (not including women,
slaves, or foreigners)
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER:
o Greece = Europe + freedom
o Persia = Asia + despotism

5. What changes did Alexanders conquest bring in their wake?

Had unified the fractious Greeks against a common enemy, solidifying their political unification
after the Macedonian takeover
Arrian (Greek historian) His passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable. Noble
indeed was his power of inspiring his men, of filling them with confidence, and in the moment of
danger, of sweeping away their fear by the spectacle of his own fearlessness.
After his death, since his empire extended beyond their region, it was divided into three
kingdoms
Hellenistic era: dissemination of Greek culture
o Example from Textbook:
Complete with Greek monuments and sculptures, Greek theaters and markets,
Greek councils and assemblies, these cities attracted many thousands of Greek
settlers serving as state officials, soldiers, or traders. Alexandria in Egyptthe
largest of these cities, with half a million peoplewas an enormous cosmopolitan
center where Egyptians, Greeks, Jews, Babylonians, Syrians, Persians, and many
others rubbed elbows. A harbor with space for 1,200 ships facilitated long-distance
commerce. Greek learning flourished thanks to a library of some 700,000 volumes
and the Museum, which sponsored scholars and writers of all kinds.
A simplified form of the Greek language was widely spoken from the Mediterranean
to India. The Indian monarch Ashoka published some of his decrees in Greek, while
an independent Greek state was established in Bactria in what is now northern
Afghanistan. The attraction of many young Jews to Greek culture prompted the
 Pharisees to develop their own school system, as this highly conservative Jewish
sect feared for the very survival of Judaism.
o Because of this, there was separation between commoners and elite
Rebellions occurred.
Despite this, a fair amount of cultural interaction and blending occurred.
o Something to Consider:
In the textbook it states, A growing number of native peoples were able to become
Greek citizens by getting a Greek education, speaking the language, dressing
appropriately, and assuming a Greek name. In India, Greeks were assimilated into
the hierarchy of the caste system as members of the Kshatriya (warrior) caste,
while in Bactria a substantial number of Greeks converted to Buddhism, including
one of their kings, Menander. A school of Buddhist art that emerged in the early
centuries of the Common Era depicted the Buddha in human form for the first time,
but in Greek-like garb with a face resembling the god Apollo. Clearly, not all was
conflict between the Greeks and the peoples of the East.:

6. How did Rome grow from a single city to the center of a huge empire?
Beginning as an impoverished single city, it grew to be the center of a huge empire with the start
of Roman aristocrats overthrowing their king (and with that, monarchy) and established a
republic involving patricians and the plebeians. This led to the formation of their government,
which involved participation from both sides to shape public policy. With a political system and
values in place, the Romans began extending control (conquests) through its well-trained, well-
fed, and well-rewarded army in regions surrounding it. They had no plan whatever to actually
drive the overall building of this empire.

7. What were the consequences for both sides of the encounter between the Persians and the
Greeks?
Symbolism became of their names as of consequence pertaining to the Greco-Persian wars,
whereas Persia stood for Asia and despotism and Greece stood for Europe and freedom.

8. How and why did the making of the Chinese empire differ from that of the Roman Empire?
The making of the Chinese empire differ from that of Romes considering how it was not a matter
of making something new but to unite the warring states, which left the people in what they
believed to be were wholly unnatural and unacceptable conditions. Qin Shihuangdi had
developed an effective bureaucracy in which was enforced after the unification of the states once
again.

9. In comparing the Chinese and the Roman empires, which do you find more striking their
similarities or their differences?
Although there are many differences, what is more striking is their similarities considering they
were two huge imperial systems in which were dimly aware of each other and barely had any
direct contact. Both had defined themselves in universal terms, invested heavily in public works,
invoked supernatural sanctions to support their rule, and absorbed a foreign religious tradition.

10. How did the collapse of empire play out differently in the roman world and in China?
Whereas in the roman world, it had only been the western half to fall (the eastern half becoming
the Byzantine empire) but then continuously failed in new attempts of making lasting empires in
this region, China had fallen but was able to reconstruct itself and persist into the early twentieth
century. In both cases, common factors such as rivalry among elite factions and foreign threats
played a part in their collapse, but China had been more able to reconstruct itself with greater
culture homogeneity of the Chinese civilization, a stronger bureaucratic tradition to govern the
people, and a more productive agriculture.

11. Why were centralized empires so much less prominent in India than in China?
 The pattern of development for India, along with its distinctive religious traditions and its unique
social organization, was modeled around the astonishing range of ethnic, cultural,, and linguistic
diversity that characterized this civilization. This what may have led to political fragmentation as
it had begun to emerge as a fragmented collection of towns and cities, some small republics
governed by public assemblies, and a number of regional states ruled by kings.