Monarch or Democracy- Which is More Effective?

                There are many ways to govern a country. Forms of government vary from monarchies, to democracies, to actually having no government whatsoever. A monarchy is a type of government that consists of all the power being in one individual, or monarch. On the other hand, a democracy is carried out by the people, either directly or by having representatives. Both of these forms of government have their pros and cons; but which is better or more effective? This is not only a matter of different types of government, but also the person that is in power and the people that are being governed. Democracy is a much more effective method of pleasing a larger majority of the people, and Monarchy is great for making quick decisions that need not be argued against, so they both are good forms of government in different ways.

Monarchies have occurred numerous times throughout history, including the reign of Henry VIII of England. He had complete power over England, and when he found that he did not have quite as much power as he wanted, he passed an act to give him even more power. The Act of Supremacy gave him supreme rule over the entire church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy). In the Act, he stated that the king:

shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining. (King Henry VIII).

In a monarchy, the king makes the end all be all decisions. No one can argue, or the king may just decide to have them banished or executed. While this is not human, and can cause many people to dislike or turn against the king, it does provide a fast way of getting things done. Some people may title monarchy as the most effective form of government, but others may argue.

                A democracy is a newer form of government that also has many positives. Unlike monarchy, democracy has a much better chance of satisfying more people in a country. Democracies started a very long time ago and still continue to appear in our world today. One example is the government of the United States. While we do have one president in charge, we have a fair way of choosing them and voting on decisions. The constitution states that when choosing the president, “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President.” These electors are people who have also been elected to represent each state. When more people are represented in the government, more people are happy. But is this type of government really the most effective?

                A democracy may seem nice, but it may not be as effective as a monarchy in some circumstances. It takes time to allow each of the representatives to vote, and it takes even more time to count up the votes. “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” (The United States Constitution). If the decision at and were, for example, whether or not to go to war, then this is not good. In the time it takes to decide, the opposing group may get impatient and simply attack. If a monarchy was also faced with this predicament, the King may decide to go to war at once, but all citizens may not agree and may not back him up in the war. Deciding which government functions better is a tough choice.

                While a form of government is one of the most important parts of a country, it is not an easy thing to decide on. Maybe sometime in the future, a new form of government will develop that combines the good things about the forms of government that we have today. But while we wait, we must stick with what we have, and know that although it may not seem it, each government has its pluses.

Sources:

"Acts of Supremacy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 15 May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy.

"The Act of Supremacy." TudorHistory.org. Web. 15 May 2010. http://tudorhistory.org/primary/supremacy.html.

                "The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net." Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Web. 15 May 2010. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am12.

                Photographs from:

                Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 27 Apr. 2009. Web. 15 May 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Henry_VII.png.

                 Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 09 Dec. 2006. Web. 15 May 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constitution.jpg. 

Is Exploration Good?

Exploration may not be as simple a term as many people think. As defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary, to explore is “to investigate, study, or analyze: look in to, to become familiar with by testing or experimenting,” or “to travel over (new territory) for adventure or discovery.”(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploring). One of these definitions is showing more of an inner form of exploration, and the other shows more of an external form. To answer the question of whether exploration is a “good” thing, one must consider many variables. However, exploration brings change and ultimately goodness, no matter what form it is in.

Throughout all of history people have been exploring constantly. Some periods of time had more exploration or discovery than others, like the renaissance. The renaissance was a time period of great exploration of not only the past, but of new ideas and lands. Filippo Brunelleschi was an artist in the renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi). The rich Medici family, the rulers of Florence, posed a challenge. They needed someone to build a dome on the cathedral in Florence. Brunelleschi rose to the challenge, although it was a feat that many deemed impossible. Many architects had been called to explain their ideas of how the dome could be built, and “Filippo alone declared that he could make a vaulted roof without much wood, without pillars or supports, and with little expense of arches. It seemed to all who heard him that what he had said was foolish, and they mocked him and laughed at him, saying he was speaking like a madman. Then Filippo, being offended, said, ‘Though you laugh at me, you will find out that it can be done in no other manner.’” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vasari/vasari5.htm). He went through many dark times; including being thrown in jail, but still continued to persevere and finally reached his goal. He had completed the impossible task of building a dome without and supports on it. It was beautiful, and people came from all over the world to see this architectural miracle. Other occurrences like this happened all throughout the renaissance. These beginnings of new discoveries have led up to what we know today. If it were not for all of these periods of discovery in the past, we would not be nearly as advanced as we are today.

Architectural and art discoveries were not the only type of discoveries made during the renaissance. There was also exploration of land. Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean in 1492, and writes of his trip:

Your Highnesses…determined to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the above-mentioned countries of India, to see the said princes, people, and territories, and to learn their disposition and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith.

Instead of sailing to India as he had planned, Christopher landed in the America’s, discovering a vast amount of new land. People spread over to the Americas and slowly made maps and discovered how much land was really there. This was yet another discovery that affects everything we do today. If Christopher Columbus had never tried to sail to India, there is a chance that we would not know about the Americas even today.

When thinking about the people that make the biggest discoveries in history, one can see similarities. Both Christopher Columbus and Brunelleschi were thought to be crazy by many other people of their time. Brunelleschi was going to try to accomplish the impossible feat of building an unsupported dome, and Columbus was trying to prove that the world was round by sailing around the world to India. They both had their mind completely set on their goal, and it is said that Brunelleschi went into the task of building the dome “thinking, as was true, that none but he could accomplish it.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vasari/vasari5.htm). This was true for both of these men, because no one else would dare to take such a big risk as they did, especially when not many people believed in them. This determination and perseverance is what it takes to make a good explorer, one that actually discovers new parts of the world and mind.

Exploration is the basis of all life. Without people willing to be bold and explore, the human race would have died out. While exploration can occur on a large scale, like discovering new lands for example, it also occurs on a small scale every day. Each and every person explores something every day; whether it is a new thought in their mind or a new way of doing something, the world is a place of constant discovery. Therefore, each change is brought about by exploration, and it is good, because we would not survive without it.

Sources:

"Filippo Brunelleschi." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 09 May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#References.

Giorgio Vasari. Lives of the Artists. Internet Medieval Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vasari/vasari5.htm.

Christopher Columbus. Christopher Columbus’ Journal. Internet Medieval Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html.

"Exploring - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 09 May 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploring.

Photographs from:

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 09 Sept. 2007. Web. 9 May 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christopher_Columbus.jpg.

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 05 Oct. 2006. Web. 9 May 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cupola_del_Brunelleschi_ariview.JPG.

What do you "think"?

What do people "think"? Do people think differently? Or do all humans basically have the same mind and thoughts? The human mind is a wonderful thing, and extremely complex. A person’s thoughts, however, can be affected by many different variables. The people and environment around them has a huge affect on a person’s thoughts, as do things like social classes. In the medieval times, there were very clearly separated social classes. There were the noble knights, who were the wealthy landowners. These landowners were the masters of numerous serfs and peasants, which was the lower social class. The peasants had a tough life, and they never had much land of their own. The merchants had a little bit of a better life, selling various goods. Lastly, there were nuns and the other religious orders. People in different social classes think completely differently, not just in the middle ages, but all throughout history.

Life experiences were very different for people in different social classes in the middle ages. If one was born a serf, they stayed a serf their whole life. One may think about being jealous of knights, or trying to escape, or even just trying to stay alive. Merchants were a little bit better off because they were able to make and sell their own goods. Although a bit easier, a merchant’s life is not easy, as said in the Canterbury tales by Chaucer: “Of weeping and wailing, care and other sorrow, I know enough, at eventide and morrow.” Life for the lower classes is not easy, and there is little time for pleasurable thoughts and dreams. They need to think about what they need to do daily to keep their family alive and well, but it is not this way for everyone.

The knights and other noblemen are the ones who have the good life. They are very rich, and have very large plots of land. They had a lot of discipline on their minds: “They promised to live in perpetuity as regular canons, without possessions, under vows of chastity and obedience.”(William of Tyre). They had very accommodating lives, but knights had a lot of things that they disciplined themselves to do. They must have strong minds to be able to keep up with all of those hardships. They have to think about that all the time, and know that they need to be strong. There were high and low points of this lifestyle, but overall more people would chose to be knight rather than a merchant or a peasant.

The last different social class was nuns and monks, and all of the religious orders. They had to live their life devoted to god, with small meals, simple clothes, and silence curing the day. They completely loved God, but they went through a lot more to prove it than others did. They thought about their relationship with God, most likely, most of the time. It is said in the nun’s story of the Canterbury Tales: “We should avoid, and by her foe express, that is to say, by lawful business, we ought to live with resolute intent…… He easily the hidden snare will snap.” The nuns and monks had to have had a lot of mind control to be able to accomplish the things they did. Each social class in the Middle Ages thought very differently, and also each has very different lives.

As you can see, a person’s social status affects many aspects of their life, including experiences and thoughts. People in higher classes might never need to think about surviving or getting food every day, whereas that is normal for people in lower social classes. A person can only think about things that they know, and, because there are different social classes, different lives, each person thinks differently. A person’s life choices and environment are the factors that lead them to think differently from everyone else, which makes the world an interesting place.

Sources:

"The Knight's Realm." Web. 01 May 2010. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/knight.html .

"The Nun's Realm." Web. 01 May 2010. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/nun.html.

"The Peasant's Realm." Web. 01 May 2010. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/peasant.html.

"The Merchant's Realm." Web. 01 May 2010. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/merchant.html.

"Chaucer's Canterbury Tales ~ Presented by ELF." Chaucer's Canterbury Tales ~ Presented by The Electronic Literature Foundation. Web. 01 May 2010. http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html.

William of Tyre. The Foundation of the Order of Knights Templar. Internet Medieval Sourcebook.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tyre-templars.html.

Photographs from:

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 31 Jan. 2004. Web. 1 May 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rondel_dagger_merchants.jpg.

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 21 Sept. 2006. Web. 1 May 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nobleman_picnic.jpg.

Can you "read" a building?

What does it mean to “read a building?” Are there words printed all over it? While this could indeed be possible, there are many other ways that one can “read” or interpret buildings. Maybe the building has intricate paintings or carvings on the walls that tell a story. This could certainly be read, and one can learn a lot from simply looking at the building. Another way a building can be interpreted is by its architecture, designs, and features. These things can show where the building may be located, what era or time period it came from, events going on in that place at that time, and much more. Buildings are not simply places for us to live, they are works of art, and each building tells a story.

People and civilizations have been keeping records of events and achievements in many different ways, but in very ancient times, history was recorded differently than it is today. In prehistoric times, people made cave paintings to tell stories. Although their interpretation of life was very different than ours, they still liked to record what happened to their civilization over time. Today, archaeologists study these paintings and carvings so that we can learn about these occurrences. In prehistoric times, these paintings were also used for communication; so obviously, they were read by other people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting). Not only do we read and interpret buildings today, but people even in prehistoric times did also. Designs and paintings are very important in architecture, but the structure of the building can also indicate different stories.

In different eras of time, styles of buildings have changed. Different resources become available for the people to use, and their tastes may also change. Buildings and churches in the medieval period were very different from how any of our homes look today. In the medieval times, Abbott Sugar says of architecture: “Having thus assigned these increases in the revenue, we turned back to the memorable construction of buildings, so that through this activity thanks might be given to almighty God by us and our successors.” Back then not only was architecture beautiful to look at, but it made the people feel like they were able to give better thanks to God. In gothic churches, there were beautiful stained glass windows, flying buttresses, magnificent organs, and many more things that are not necessarily used on churches today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture). One could tell that that building was from the gothic period simply by looking at it. This sort of thing is also true with different areas of the world.

One can tell a lot about the civilization just by looking at some of their buildings. Take the Egyptians, for example. One could see a pyramid, and automatically know that it is from Egypt. If they learn a little bit more about pyramids, they could know that Egyptians were very religious, and needed to build the pyramids for their pharaohs so that they could make it to the afterlife (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html ). Herodotus writes about mummification, which is what the Egyptians did to the body before they put it into the pyramid: “They take first a crooked piece of iron, and with it draw out the brain through the nostrils, thus getting rid of a portion, while the skull is cleared of the rest by rinsing with drugs.” Just one glance at a building and a little background knowledge could tell us all of that.

Buildings have been made for almost as long as people have been on the earth. Whether it is just a little straw hut or a magnificent cathedral, the building teaches so much about the people living in it. Buildings are not just pieces of brick or stone, they are works of art that have had a lot of work and thought put into them.

Sources:

"Cave Painting." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting>.

"On what was done in his Administration." Abbott Sugar. Internet Medieval sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/sugar.html .

"National Geographic: Egypt Pyramids--Facts, Photos, Diagrams." National Geographic - Inspiring People to Care About the Planet Since 1888. Web. 24 Apr. 2010.http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html>.

"Gothic Architecture." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture>.

"Mummification, from The Histories." Herodotus. Ancient History Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-mummies.html .

Photographs from:

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 13 Nov. 2007. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lascaux-aurochs.jpg>.

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 20 Apr. 2007. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:01_khafre_north.jpg>.

The 1066 Magazine!

Could Rome have risen to power without slavery?

Rome was such a powerful civilization back in its day, so why would anyone question it? In truth, there was much more behind Rome than most people think. Most people do not know that many Romans had slaves. There were a lot of things expected of these slaves, which brings people to question of whether or not Rome could have risen to power without slavery. Slaves were so highly depended on by their masters, that it would have taken a much longer time and would have been much more difficult to gain power without the use of slavery.

Slavery was going on throughout all of the Mediterranean countries in antiquity, but not nearly as much as it was going on in Rome. The Romans depended more on their slaves than any other people. For example, the aqueducts were a vital part of Roman civilization, and are an invention that affects how we live today. There were around 700 slaves that worked on the aqueducts alone. In some households there were around 400 slaves. (John Madden- Slavery in the Roman Empire). Another man, Gaius Caecilius left 4116 slaves in his will, and some other people had so many slaves that they had to use a nomenclator to identify them. Although not every rich household had this many slaves, one may wonder why some people needed so many slaves. These slaves did a lot of work for their masters, and the masters highly depended on them.

Slaves had a lot of expectations and guidelines to follow. According to Plautus in Menaechmi, act V, scene four, “this is the proof of a good servant: he must take care of his master's business, look after it, arrange it, think about it; when his master is away, take care of it diligently just as much as if his master were present, or be even more careful.” He makes it sound like slaves did most of their master’s work for them. Slaves are expected to put their master’s needs first, far before his own. With slaves doing all of this work for their masters, it was easier for the masters to be in the military, or become more powerful. The masters were able to contribute to the rise of Rome, with the slaves doing most of the dirty work in the background.

Slaves did not have many rights in Roman society. Besides the fact that they must be completely loyal to their masters, they had many other unfair rules. They were not allowed to marry and they were beaten when they misbehaved, which made many slaves tried to escape. Slaves could be sold like property, and were not thought of as human beings. They made up 25% of Rome’s population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome), which is an outstanding amount. Cato the elder tells of what slaves should have been given from their owners: “As for clothes, give out a tunic of three feet and a half, and a cloak once in two years. When you give a tunic or cloak take back the old ones, to make cassocks out of. Once in two years, good shoes should be given.” (Cato- Agriculture) It is doubtful that their owners ever gave them more than this, which is very sad. If only more citizens of Rome, or even other people, had realized how much the slaves helped them rise to power, maybe these great people would have been more appreciated.

The story of these slaves in Rome shows a great message. Even though these slaves were thought of as nothing, and people did not even have the respect to talk to them, they were probably the only reason Rome became as powerful as it did. It shows that people thought of as unimportant are really the opposite: they may even be the cause of success. Without the use of slavery, Rome would never have been one of the greatest civilizations in history, nor one that we still remember today.

Sources:

"Slavery in Ancient Rome." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome .

Cato the Elder. Agriculture. "Ancient History Sourcebook: Slavery in the Roman Republic." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/slavery-romrep1.html .

Plautus. Pseudolus. “ Ancient History Sourcebook: Slavery in the Roman Republic." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/slavery-romrep1.html .

Madden, John. "Slavery in the Roman Empire: Numbers and Origins." Ancient History Sourcebook. 1996. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20031211005259/www.ucd.ie/classics/96/Madden96.html .

Good guy? Bad guy?

Who’s a good guy? Who’s a bad guy? If only this question was as simple as it sounds. No longer can it be easily determined by whether or not the person in question is helping or hindering the princess in a story, like most children do. It seems so easy for them to decide and call out “That’s the bad guy!” But to truly answer this question one must take many different sides and go through a number of steps. In actuality, being a good guy or a bad guy is all relative; no two people can view someone in exactly the same way.

There are many things one must realize while pondering this question. The first is that people have different opinions of what is good or bad. While many people have basic ideas of what they should and shouldn’t do, sometimes there are some factors that get in the way of their judgment. Judgment is a big part of this question; goodness or badness is just a matter of how a person judges another person, and how that person judges good and bad. For example, one factor that may cloud one’s judgment is power. Take Adolf Hitler for example. He was, in most eyes, a terrible person who killed many and did horrible crimes. But, in the eyes of the Nazis, maybe his intentions were good. Maybe they just wanted power, and therefore convinced themselves that he was the good guy. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html). At any rate, this is a prime example of conflicting views of the same person. One’s past experiences can really shape what they believe in as wrong or right later in life. But what a person classifies as wrong or right is not the only thing affecting the decision.

Goodness or badness depends which side you are on. The “good” side is seen as the enemy to the “bad” side, just as the “bad” side also believes that what they are doing is correct and ultimately “good.” Again, with Hitler as an example, we can see obvious sides. There were many, many Nazi’s that thought that Jews truly were terrible people and that they should be killed. They may think that they are doing the world a favor. The Jewish people, on the other hand, believe they are the “good” ones. Most people agreed with this and sided up against Hitler. Holocaust survivor Charlotte Guthmann Opfermann says “I spent my teenage years as a prisoner of the Nazis.”(http://history1900s.about.com/od/theresienstadt/a/opfermann.htm). She was obviously aon a different side than the Nazis. But just because more people are on one side than the other does not make that side right or wrong, good or bad. The example of Hitler is very extreme; some people may be more neutral than Hitler was. For example, some people tell a few lies here and there, which is not a good habit, but are they considered a “bad guy?” Not usually. There are many poerple that can be described simply as being average. In movies, it is easy to see who is a bad guy because they are powerful, important people. In real life, there are more “average” people than powerful or well known people. These people are never really thought about as good or bad. The goodness or badness of something, as you can see, is very dependent on the level or size of a person’s actions.

As another example of the good/bad scenario, one could look at Vikings(http://www.crystalinks.com/vikings.html). Lots of people, even today, picture Vikings as crazy barbarians who raided villages and killed lots of people. But did the Vikings see their actions as bad? Definitely not. This is what they did to survive. They lived in a place that was hard to prosper in, and it was a tough life. They then developed a “fear-factor”, which gave them power to raid more and more villages. They lived off of the hard work and riches of other villages or civilizations. Obviously, no one wants to have their belongings stolen, so they saw the Vikings as bad guys. This is just simply another example of opposing viewpoints, and could be argued strongly for each side.

The question “who is a good guy and who is a bad guy” is not really a question that has one definite answer. There are infinite possibilities, as being a good guy or a bad guy is completely based on each person’s thoughts and opinions.

Sources:

"Interview with a Survivor -- Charlotte Guthmann Opfermann." 20th Century History. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. http://history1900s.about.com/od/theresienstadt/a/opfermann.htm.

"Adolf Hitler." Jewish Virtual Library - Homepage. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html.

"Vikings - Crystalinks." Crystalinks Metaphysical and Science Website. Web. 25 Mar. 2010

http://www.crystalinks.com/vikings.html .

Photographs from:

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 30 Nov. 2008. Web. 19 Mar. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hitler_as_young_man.jpg.

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 09 Apr. 2005. Web. 19 Mar. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villianc.jpg.

Did Rome Really "Fall"?

Ancient Rome was a remarkable civilization. Though it fell from its glory a very long time ago, it was a very complex civilization; much more complex than many people realize. So many things that we do today were influenced by Ancient Rome, and so many things that we have learned originated there. From things like bridges and architecture to theories and systems, we, even in America, have felt the power of Ancient Rome. In its day, it was one of the greatest civilizations around also. It grew rapidly and set an example for how much power a civilization could earn if they worked hard. When contemplating Ancient Rome, one may wonder why such a large and powerful empire could fall. It seemed to be almost impossible, which raises a question. Did Rome really fall? I, personally, do not believe so, although many professionals may disagree.

Rome changed many times throughout its existence. It started out, believe it or not, as just a small agricultural community. It grew and grew, and has passed through phases of being a monarchy, a republic, and an empire. So, yes, technically the power of Rome in the world did fall, or lower, after these three stages, but I do not think that it was completely lost. Afterwards, it is true that they were not very powerful, but it was just another phase of Rome’s existence. Rome suffered a great defeat while they were weaker, which lead to their downfall. Even after this, however, Rome was still there, if only in the background.

Although Rome was a very powerful country, it had faults. These faults are probably part of what caused their eventual downfall. Some emperors were not very good, while others were wonderful and made excellent accomplishments in bringing Rome up to the top. Caligula, for example, was one of the not-so-good emperors. Suetonius says “Yet even at that time he could not control his natural cruelty and viciousness, but he was a most eager witness of the tortures and executions of those who suffered punishment, reveling at night in gluttony and adultery, disguised in a wig and a long robe, passionately devoted besides to the theatrical arts of dancing and singing…” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-caligula.html). Other emperors, like Augustus, laid down framework for other emperors in the future and made huge breakthroughs for Rome. So the type of ruler that Rome has had a big influence n how much they developed.

Along with the situation of who is leading, many people think that there were also other situations that affected Rome. Rome was so unbelievably powerful, that one must assume that it was hard work. They began to have monetary and military problems. This is understandable because, eventually, they would need a break from being on top. But all of these problems came at once, and caused Rome’s downfall. They had already reached the top, so we know that the civilization had to go down sometime.

It is also said that Rome fell because of many changes. They tried to cope with these changes, but apparently not well enough. (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm). Change can be very hard to deal with, and Rome must have had to go through a lot of it. Being on the top brings a lot of attention, and it is a very difficult situation to hold onto. However, I do not believe that Rome’s downfall was caused by any single thing. As you can see, there are many, many different opinions on why Rome “fell”. One can believe one, combine all, or just take it as a change in Rome, but the truth is still the same. The once all-powerful, top of the ancient world civilization lost its place and became a small civilization again.

Sources:

"Fall of Rome - Why Did Rome Fall." Ancient / Classical History - Ancient Greece & Rome & Classics Research Guide. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm .

"The Fall of Rome." The Roman Empire. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-003.html .

"Ancient Rome." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome .

"Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Main Page." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html .

Photographs from:

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 24 Jan. 2005. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caligula_bust.jpg .

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 26 July 2006. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aug11_01.jpg .

Was Rome Really that Ancient?

When you think of Rome, what comes to mind? An ancient city with crumbling pillars? The modern day city bustling with life? While these thoughts are both very different, they are still similar in some ways and are greatly connected. As most things in history do, ancient Rome greatly affected modern day Rome. Not only did it affect modern Rome, it affected many things we do in our world today. So is Rome really that ancient? Technically, ancient Rome is indeed ancient. However, many of ancient Rome’s thoughts, ideas, systems, arts, architecture, and even more have influenced what people do and live like today, so it is not very ancient.
Ancient Rome had an incredible affect on what we do today, although most people do not even know it. Lots of ideas that Romans created are things that we still do. Take roads for example. Romans created wonderful roads and put lots of effort into building them. Rome traded a lot with the rest of Europe, so the roads made it quick and easy for them to trade, and they in turn got a lot of money. We still even use roads for transportation today, so the Romans were thinking pretty far ahead of their time. The roads and other things they built, like aqueducts, are so sturdy and well built that they can still be used, more than 2000 years later. Also, the Romans were very big on medicine and health. Although they did not have advanced supplies like we do today, healthcare was very important to them. Any improvement in their healthcare system was a great breakthrough for them, no matter how small. Many of the same ideas that they used are still in place today, as we care a lot about healthcare. However, there are more similarities than these.
Besides the on goings and achievements in the city that are similar, basic human feelings are still there in each person. For example, Romans enjoyed entertainment, although the type of entertainment varied from then to now. They watched gladiator fights, and we watch modern sports. An ancient Roman letter states "I turned in to the games one mid-day hoping for a little wit and humor there. I was bitterly disappointed. It was really mere butchery." (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/seneca-letters7.html). Humans are always up for fun, so in the sense of feelings, Rome was not ancient. It is funny to see that Romans used to get upset if the games weren't as good that day, just like we do when our favorite teams don't play as well. Although many things about Rome were very advanced, there still are a lot of ancient characteristics.
Rome was very powerful in the ancient days. They had a good army, and continued to get more and more powerful as the years went along. Although many people think of ancient civilizations as old and crumbling, Rome had many different aspects and was a very detailed city. They were into music, art, sports, entertainment, architecture, healthcare, religion, politics, and more. They obviously were a very strong and thought out city. So why do we think of them as ancient? Many people say that something ancient is just something old. Merriam Webster dictionary says: “1: having had an existence of many years. 2: of or relating to a remote period, to a time early in history, or to those living in such a period or time; especially: of or relating to the historical period beginning with the earliest known civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire in a.d. 476.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ancient)They even relate ancient times to be around the time of the Roman Empire. Well, the Roman Empire eventually did fall, as many ancient cities do. It never came back to be as powerful as it had been. Most people think of the old Roman Empire as the ancient city, and the modern Rome as something completely different. However different they are, they are still connected by their cultures.
Overall, Rome is a very developed city. We would not be where we are today without the help of Rome. So many people cannot even begin to imagine how many things that they are doing are some of the same things that ancient Romans did more than 2000 years ago. So Rome really isn’t that ancient, is it?
Sources:
"A History of Ancient Rome." History Learning Site. Web. 05 Mar. 2010. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/a_history_of_ancient_rome.htm .
"Culture of Ancient Rome." Wikipedia. Web. 5 Mar. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_ancient_Rome .
"How the Ancient Roman Empire Still Influences Our Lives Today by Terry Knouse World Wide Store." SearchWarp Writers' Community for Do It Yourself and Current Events Commentary. Web. 05 Mar. 2010. http://searchwarp.com/swa134118.htm.
"Ancient - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 05 Mar. 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ancient .
"Ancient History Sourcebook: Seneca: Epistles 7: The Gladiatorial Games." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 06 Mar. 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/seneca-letters7.html.
Photographs from:

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 30 Apr. 2007. Web. 6 Mar. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colosseum_in_Rome,_Italy_-_April_2007.jpg>.

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 2009. Web. 6 Mar. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:18446_247582503165_503923165_3168072_5448673_n.jpg>.

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 03 June 2009. Web. 6 Mar. 2010. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cliffe_Roman_Bridge_1.jpg>.

Does Power Corrupt?

Does power corrupt? Well, this can be answered in different ways, but first, let us define power. Merriam Webster dictionary states that power is: “a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others b : one having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c : a controlling group : Establishment —often used in the phrase the powers that be d archaic : a force of armed men echiefly dialect : a large number or quantity.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power). Let’s focus on the first definition. Power is when a person, more than one person, or thing is in a position of authority. The response to our main question can be affected by many different factors. Whether or not power corrupts a person depends solely on that person, their personality, their past experiences, and the type of power. When thinking even deeper, one may realize that power can not only affect one person. It can affect groups, or even whole countries. Systems or organizations can also be affected by power, whether it be because they are powerful, or because a person that has been corrupted by power is destroying it. As you can see, power and corruption together are very complicated topics, so let’s take a deeper look.

As stated above, power is a very complicated topic, so its corrupting of things can vary depending on the situation. A person’s personality before they gain power can determine whether the power will corrupt them. It is easy to let the power get to your head, but if the person is kind, always puts others first, never thought about wanting power, or is concerned about the welfare of all people, then they may not become corrupted if they are given power. People that are nasty, selfish, greedy, or power-thirsty, on the other hand, may easily let the power take over and control their actions. Another factor that affects how much power may corrode a person is their past experiences. For example, say a person suffered underneath a dictator before. If they ever gain power, they may try to be careful not to make other people suffer the way they did, and be careful with what they do with their power. On the other hand, maybe that person them self was corroded by power before, and they realized that they had made a mistake. They may learn from their mistake and not let the power corrode them the next time. As you can see, power can be dangerous, but not every person is affected by it.

In history, power has corrupted many individuals. It has also occurred the other way around. Corrupted individuals have gained power. Take Hitler for example. He was a corrupt person, hungry for power, and when he did gain it, he became even more corrupted. He killed more than eleven million people, and his gaining of power helped that a lot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_). Others were not corrupted by power, like Princess Diana. She used her power and wealth to help out more people, and she was always kind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales). Obviously, power can either greatly corrupt or greatly help people make others lives better, but power does not only affect individuals.

Along with individuals, groups of people can be affected by power. Entire countries, in fact. Every country, some time in its existence, will probably be powerful at some point. They act like individuals many times, and are selfish and let the power corrupt them. However, when entire countries are corrupted, they can have big affects on other countries, or even systems and organizations. Every country has a complicated mix of systems that hold their country together. When a country becomes corrupt, they can destroy the systems that they worked so hard on to put in place. This is something that a country may never recover from, and can be very dangerous.

Our world is built on the rising and falling of nations, groups, and even individual people. Without certain people or groups being powerful, it would be chaos. Even if some people are hurt along the way, it is a way of life. The most that we can hope for is that these corrupted people will learn from their mistakes, and if they get the opportunity, to make better choices in the future.

Sources:

"Diana, Princess of Wales." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .

"Adolf Hitler." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .

"Power - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .

Photographs from:

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 30 Nov. 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .

Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia, 22 May 1987. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .