Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Daily 6- Week 5
Was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?
I think that Rome was better off as a republic. With Rome only having ONE leader, seemed as if it caused some problems. People were always fighting for power, and most of the time the rulers of Rome weren't even sane. If Rome were to stay a republic, then the citizens of Rome would be able to choose who they wanted in charge and who they didn't. That would have helped Rome and kept Rome an even stronger and better Empire. Also, many citizens of Rome wouldn't have to be careful of what they did in their everyday life, just in case they made the emperor mad. Some of the rulers would imprison people or even kill people just because of something they said or the kind of shoes they were wearing. That's not a healthy emperor for an Empire as large as the Roman one. That is why I believe Rome was better off as a republic.
I think that Rome was better off as a republic. With Rome only having ONE leader, seemed as if it caused some problems. People were always fighting for power, and most of the time the rulers of Rome weren't even sane. If Rome were to stay a republic, then the citizens of Rome would be able to choose who they wanted in charge and who they didn't. That would have helped Rome and kept Rome an even stronger and better Empire. Also, many citizens of Rome wouldn't have to be careful of what they did in their everyday life, just in case they made the emperor mad. Some of the rulers would imprison people or even kill people just because of something they said or the kind of shoes they were wearing. That's not a healthy emperor for an Empire as large as the Roman one. That is why I believe Rome was better off as a republic.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Daily 5- Week 5
Why do many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor"?
Many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor" for many reasons. He made many buildings that helped the Roman Empire. He built the Pantheon and the Temple of Venus and Roma. Also, he built Hadrian’s Wall. Besides the building. Hadrian was the only one that seemed to be sane. All of the other Roman rulers were insane and crazy and did stupid things. Hadrian seemed to know what he was doing, and knew how to rule an Empire. Hadrian mostly had a love for the Roman Empire. He completely cared about everything in the empire and wanted to do his best to keep it protected and beautiful. He cared about his people and he cared about his empire. That is why many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor."
Many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor" for many reasons. He made many buildings that helped the Roman Empire. He built the Pantheon and the Temple of Venus and Roma. Also, he built Hadrian’s Wall. Besides the building. Hadrian was the only one that seemed to be sane. All of the other Roman rulers were insane and crazy and did stupid things. Hadrian seemed to know what he was doing, and knew how to rule an Empire. Hadrian mostly had a love for the Roman Empire. He completely cared about everything in the empire and wanted to do his best to keep it protected and beautiful. He cared about his people and he cared about his empire. That is why many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor."
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Daily 4- Week 5
Were the Julio-Claudians really as bad as they seem?
I think that some of the Julio-Claudians were extremely horrible. Some of them were okay. But, many of the Julio-Claudians were insane. They wanted a horse to be apart of the Senate, they had a special cliff they pushed people off of when they were upset, and they even imprisoned people for no reasons. Other Julio-Claudians were fair enough and had some good ideas and ran the Empire well.
I think that some of the Julio-Claudians were extremely horrible. Some of them were okay. But, many of the Julio-Claudians were insane. They wanted a horse to be apart of the Senate, they had a special cliff they pushed people off of when they were upset, and they even imprisoned people for no reasons. Other Julio-Claudians were fair enough and had some good ideas and ran the Empire well.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Daily 3- Week 5
Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?
I think that Caesar's killers had no right to do what they did. Everyone in the Senate already hated Caesar because he went to the common people when he wanted votes. Everyone believed that this was completely ridiculous and that he should have the wealthy patricians on his side. Once Caesar became apart of the Senate, he was sent to deal with the Celtics. The Celtics were believed to be complete barbarians. Caesar even defeated the Celtics and took their land. Once this happened everyone in the Senate automatically wanted to get rid of him because they were afraid that he'd gain too much power and take over. But, all Caesar was doing was gaining the Roman Empire more land. Why would you kill a man because of that? He's outstanding for doing what he did, and he never gave up. So, therefore, I believe Caesar's killers weren't justified in their actions.
I think that Caesar's killers had no right to do what they did. Everyone in the Senate already hated Caesar because he went to the common people when he wanted votes. Everyone believed that this was completely ridiculous and that he should have the wealthy patricians on his side. Once Caesar became apart of the Senate, he was sent to deal with the Celtics. The Celtics were believed to be complete barbarians. Caesar even defeated the Celtics and took their land. Once this happened everyone in the Senate automatically wanted to get rid of him because they were afraid that he'd gain too much power and take over. But, all Caesar was doing was gaining the Roman Empire more land. Why would you kill a man because of that? He's outstanding for doing what he did, and he never gave up. So, therefore, I believe Caesar's killers weren't justified in their actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)