Post-Classical map of India

Chinese Impact

Harun al-Rashid

This is a bad source, because the article is disorganized and disorderly.  For example, the article was talking about his life, and randomly adds a paragraph about his death and the events following it. Then, the article abruptly returns to talking about his life and his relationship with Charlemagne.  The article is also very disorganized.  Having all the points of his life thrown under a single section makes the article hard to read and takes away the reader's ability to focus.  It would have been better if there were individual sections discussing the different aspects of his life.  That way, the readers will be able to focus on small increments of information at a time.  I think this is an objective source as most of the information is fairly straight forward and factual.  For example, It shows Harun as being gruesome when he executed Ja' far, cut his body in two, and placed it on either side of a bridge for three years.  However, the article clarifies that this story was probably not true, and that the actual story was more realistic.

I have a couple of questions about the article. First off, did the Barmakids ever regain their prominent positions as administrators? And second, how was Harun as a ruler? was he benevolent, like Benjamin of Tudela describes him, or was he a tyrant? This Wikipedia page does answer most of my questions, as it is very specific and detailed.  I would go to a trusted site, such as an online database or a public library to find out more about him, rather than use Wikipedia.  If I Google searched his name, I would filter it by including specific words in my searches that will yield more specific results.  Furthermore, I would only look at the first 2 or 3 pages, because after that the results seem to become increasingly irrelevant.

I think Harun is so prevalent, because He is the caliph, which is a position higher than the king.  Because of this high position and power, I think it is natural for people to associate him with ridiculous and exaggerated stories that emphasize his power more.  I also think Wikipedia tempers his fame/notoriety, because the article denounces the exaggerated stories in the Thousand and One Nights tales as being fiction and states that he was much less legendary in real life.

Benjamin of Tudela

I don't think Benjamin of Tudela is biased toward either city, but I don't think that his view point can be taken seriously, because, I think that he looked only at the life of the wealthy/upper class when writing these descriptions and overlooked the lives of the majority, who were most likely not as prosperous. He went to both cities during a period of decline, but there is no evidence of decline in his description. In Constantinople, he described the enormous size of the city, its prosperity in trade, its magnificent churches such as the Hagia Sophia, and the wealth of the emperor. Similarly in Baghdad, he describes the magnificent palace of the caliph in which there are great riches, as well as the caliph's kindness and benevolence. He claims that the caliph built a hospital for the sick and poor on the banks of the Euphrates, as well as a mental institute called the Dar-al-Maristan where they kept charge of demented/insane people. Finally, he describes the enormous size of the city, being twenty miles in circumference. In both descriptions, he does not look into the lives of the poor or the general population, but focuses mostly on the wealthy merchants and rulers, and how prosperous they are. I believe that Benjamin of Tudela is is unbiased in terms of both cities as a whole, but I think his description only sheds light on the lives of the wealthy minority in each city and ignores the poorer majority. Therefore, I do not think that his description can be trusted completely.

The expansion of Islam map

Sources from the Past p.350

Compare the Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings with the views of Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians discussed in earlier chapters.

The Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings share similarities and differences with the Zoroastrian teachings on the relationship between Ahura Mazda and his believers. Like Allah, Ahura Mazda, the supreme Zoroastrian deity is taught to be an all-powerful god who shows benevolence to believers. However, the Quran requires followers to be modest, to observe fasting, and to "guard their private parts", while Zoroastrian teachings allow followers to enjoy the material world, which is considered a blessing. The Torah's teachings on Yahweh and his relationship with his followers is very similar to the teachings of the Quran on Allah's relationship with human beings. Like Allah, the Torah portrays Yahweh as a supreme deity who expects his followers to worship him alone.  He also demands his followers to observe high moral and ethical standards, just as Allah requires of his followers. The Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings shares similarities and differences with the teachings of the relationship between the Christian God and his followers. Like Allah, the Christian God required followers to follow a strict moral code and judged their lives upon the day of judgement.  But, the Quran taught that Allah was the only god and was to be worshiped alone, while the Christians taught that salvation came through the son of God, Jesus Christ and that he is the savior who would bring individuals into the kingdom of God.

The Islamization of the Silk Road

Foltz's explanation for the spread of Islam does support Bentley's argument that conversions are brought about by voluntary association, pressure or force, and assimilation.  Voluntary conversion to Islam is seen when non-Muslims wished to convert to Islam even when Arab Muslims did not want them to join the faith.  This even goes to the extent that "by the early eighth century non-Arab converts were probably beginning to outnumber Arab Muslims." Conversion by force is also seen in the conversion of the Arabian tribes to Islam. A big part of the Muslim income came from raiding caravans, although "one couldn't raid clan members or groups with whom one had made a nonaggression pact." Because of this, the various tribes of the Arabian peninsula faced pressure to "sent emissaries to Muhammad in order to seek such pacts." Lastly, assimilation is also seen in the conversion of Central Asians to Islam.  Initially, Islamization took place mostly in the urban areas of Central Asia, where trade thrived along the silk roads.  The "Sufi shayks" spread Islam to the countrysides of Central Asia according to their own personal interpretations of the faith.  These personal interpretations "were accommodating towards pre-existing local beliefs and practices", leading to new expressions of Islam which differed from the original faith.

Liudprand of Cremona's view on Constantinople

Liudprand clearly has a very negative view on Constantinople.  He describes the poor way in which he was treated by the emperor upon his arrival to the city, "On the fourth of June, as I said above, we arrived at Constantinople and waited with our horses in heavy rain outside the Carian gate until five o'clock in the afternoon." He also describes the emperor as being disgusting. He is shown to be hideous in appearance and as treating his subjects with inferiority while exalting himself, "No one except Nicephorus wore any jewels or golden ornaments, and the emperor looked more disgusting than ever in the regalia that had been designed to suit the persons of his ancestors….".

I don't think I can trust this description as being accurate. Liuprand was from Rome and the Romans do not generally like the people of Constantinople. That could have been a big reason for him to hate Constantinople and express it in such a negative way. Therefore, this is most likely extremely biased and cannot be trusted.

Benjamin of Tuleda

Benjamin of Tuleda had a very positive view on Constantinople.  He describes the city as, "It is a busy city and merchants come to it from every country by sea or land, and there is none like it in the world except Baghdad, the great city of Islam." Constantinople is shown to be largely influential on a worldwide scale, and merchants come from every country by sea or land. This shows his view of Constantinople as a thriving center of trade and commerce. Benjamin also describes Constantinople as being very wealthy, "And in this church {Hagia Sophia} there are pillars of gold and silver, and lamps of silver and gold more than a man can count." His description shows that Constantinople had much wealth from its enormous prosperity in trade and commerce. This wealth is clearly reflected in the Hagia Sophia and its pillars and lamps of silver and gold. This also shows the importance of the church and the influence of Christianity on the citizens of Constantinople.

I think this description cannot be trusted, because that Benjamin describes everything in a positive way. Benjamin arrived in Constantinople during a period of political decline. Therefore, I assume that the city would have had many negative things going on during that time period, and it is hard to believe that the city would be as perfect as described by Benjamin. Therefore, I cannot trust this description.

Ibn Battuta's perspective of Constantinople

Ibn Battuta's has a generally neutral view on Constantinople.  He describes the trade and commerce of Constantinople in a positive light, "They are all men of commerce and their harbour is one of the largest in the world; I saw there about a hundred galleys and other large ships, and the small ships were too many to be counted." His view clearly shows Constantinople as a thriving center of commerce as their harbour is one of the largest in the world and there are more ships than he could count. Meanwhile, his description of the bazaars and the churches are negative, "The bazaars in this part of the town are good but filthy, and a small and very dirty river runs through them. Their churches too are filthy and mean." His description of the bazaars and the churches as being filthy show the uncleanliness and pollution that comes with a large population. He also describes the churches as being mean, showing that they are not the hospitable places he expected them to be.


I think this is the most trustworthy description out of all three.  Ibn Battuta describes the city in both positive and negative light.  It makes sense that as a result of the massive amount of trade and the huge population size of Constantinople, the city would be filthy.  His views seem the least biased out of all three, and therefore, I trust this description of Constantinople the most.

The Postclassical Era

I expect that the Postclassical Era is mainly going to be about the restoration of political and social order.  The newly found Islamic faith will overcome the Sasanid empire. The Sui and Tang dynasties will restore centralized government in China. Regional kingdoms will  take authority in India, and western Europe will rule with a decentralized government.  Long distance trade and cross cultural communication will also be restored.  Increased agricultural production will lead to an increase in human population.  The increasing human population will devote their efforts in trade and manufacturing, such as the prominent production sites in China, India, and the eastern Mediterranean.  Increase in trade and manufacturing will inspire development of new technology, such as gunpowder, the magnetic compass, and printing technologies.  New faiths will arise, such as the Islamic faith, and already existing faiths will expand.  Buddhism expands beyond India and central Asia into China and other east and southeast Asian lands.  Christianity also prospers in the Mediterranean basin, especially the Byzantine empire, and spreads to eastern, western, and northern Europe as well as Russia.

Rome's our friend!

If I were the Han emperor, I would regard Rome as a friend.  They have interest in communicating with my kingdom, but the Anxi hold them back from doing so.  They seem to be a very prosperous kingdom, just like my own, and I am excited to trade with them as they produce very unique and interesting products, such as myrrh, divine tortoises, and kingfisher feathers.  I also hear that the people are tall and virtuous like the people of my kingdom, and that they originally came from my kingdom.  I am excited to bring them back to China and to reunite them with our culture and traditions.  Maybe we can even arrange marriages between our women and the Roman men.  And then, China and Rome can be allies in war and conquer Asia and Europe together.

Marriage in the Roman Empire

My image of the Roman empire is negative.  The sole purpose of marriage in Rome was for two citizens to produce sons who would inherit their father's property.  The "legitimate" marriages were exclusive to citizens, and marriages that were not legitimate was considered inferior to the legitimate marriages.  The children born out of a marriage that was not legitimate were also considered inferior to those who were born out of a legitimate marriage.  In the case of marriages, or contuberniums between slaves, there was no guarantee that the husband and wife would stay together afterwards, because the owner still had the right to sell them.  Any children they bore would also be born into slavery.  The exclusiveness of legitimate marriage was unfair to everyone who wasn't a citizen, as they weren't allowed to show their commitment to another person in a legitimate way.  Also, the limitations imposed on girls and women in marriage were unfair.  Girls were betrothed at an age as early as seven years old, when they wouldn't even know what a marriage was.  Their fathers usually arranged their marriages, and they weren't allowed to choose whom they wanted to marry.  Women also faced injustice in divorce, because the children would automatically belong to the father.  Laws passed by Constantine also gave women more penalties for divorce, such as being deported to an island, while men simply had to return the dowry to the ex-wife.  Marriage in Rome was overall unjust in that it was exclusive to citizens and gave limited options to women.

Rome's transition from republic to empire

Rome's transition from a republic to an empire was one characterized by social tensions between the wealthy patricians and the poorer plebeians. The twelve tables served as the first set of laws governing the Roman city-state, but it was more favored towards the patricians. As social tensions arose, a man named Tiberius, who proposed equal land distribution for the poor classes was brutally murdered by the senate. The expansion of the Roman empire led to an increase in social tensions. Eventually, a massive civil war broke out between two generals, Marius and Sulla, bringing never before seen bloodshed to the Roman empire. Following the turmoil, a man named Julius Caesar attempted to bring about order and justice for the poor as he named himself dictator and transformed the republic into a monarchy under his rule. His assasination led to the rule of his son, Augustus, who followed in the footsteps of Caesar and ruled in a monarchy as well, bringing an end to the republic. The transition from a republic to an empire was not an easy one for Rome, as the wealthy patricians wanted to stay in power, while the poorer plebeians wanted reform and equality in society.

Alexander the Great as POTUS

Alexander the Great would not be electable if he were running for the president of the United States.  Alexander the Great is, well, great and all, but a lot has changed between what it means to be a ruler back then in his time and what it means to be one in the present time.  Alexander the great was known to be a conqueror, leading his army into new regions and bringing them under his control.  This is hardly comparable to the role of the president in the US.  While Alexander was a conqueror who constantly sought to expand his empire, the president assumes more of a governing role, governing his nation through a shared role which doesn't place sole power in one individual, but instead spreads it out across various governmental positions.  His lack of political knowledge makes Alexander the Great incapable of assuming the position and responsibilities which come with being the president of the United States.  Also, the negative aspects of his personal life (heavy drinker, uncontrollable anger) make him unqualified to be the president of the United States, who has to have self control to make wise judgements and who should set an example for others to follow by.

King Abdullah's plan for Democracy

I don't think king Abdullah II has a good chance of succeeding with his plan of transforming Jordan into a democratic government.  As we discussed in class and as most people have posted on their blogs, democracy is an impractical form of government to be used in a large society.  The primary reason for the outbreaks in the Middle Eastern countries is that they want political reform, and changing the constitution to satisfy the needs of the people will temporarily bring peace in his country, as the majority of the people agree on what issues their government has and how to resolve those issues.  But, over the long term, as issues arise  on which the people have a wide range of opinions, their ideas will clash and cause tensions within the government.

Democracy

Democracy is a form of government which rules by social equality and through the opinions of all the people who are a part of it. This kind of government assumes that the people it governs will act as a whole and promote common interests; it trusts the people it governs. This is possible within a small society where people are familiar with each other and most likely share common interests, because their familiarity with each other and common interests will make it easy for them to collaborate with each other in the maintenance of a government and in the implementation of new policies. However, if this kind of government is introduced into a large society where peoples of many social classes, races, etc. live together, there will be a clash of different ideas; each of which intend to promote the interests of the group of people who introduced it, since there are so many different groups of people in the society, all wanting what is the best for themselves without concern for others.

Ashokavadana

In what ways and for what reasons might this story from the Ashokavandana have appeals to various groups of early Buddhists?
This story from the Ashokavadana could have appealed to various groups of early Buddhists, because it  reflects one of the main characteristics of Buddhism, which is equality.  In the story, king Ashoka bows down at the feet of monks whenever he saw one, regardless of their caste.  His equal respect for monks of all four castes demonstrates his belief that it is not the caste, but it is the inherent quality of the people which makes them worthy of respect and honor.  This would attract many people of the lower castes to convert to Buddhism, since the religion does not discriminate based on social inequality.  The story also shows king Ashoka's support of the religion, which would encourage people to follow it, since they are in no danger of persecution for their beliefs.

Chinese Dynasties Map

Differences between Indian and Chinese Dynasties

One of the main differences between the political systems of Chinese Dynasties and Indian Dynasties was that centralized imperial rule was an essential quality of Chinese government, while it largely failed in India.  The rulers of the Qin and Han dynasties of China ruled through a centralized bureaucratic administrative system which enabled them to implement their policies and decrees throughout their kingdom.  Meanwhile in India, this kind of centralized government only lasted for a short period of time with the Mauryan and Gupta dynasties.  Afterwards, large regional kingdoms dominated political life in India until the arrival of the Mughal empire.  Another major political difference between India and China was that in India, guilds developed among people of the society who shared similar occupations.  The people within each guild cared and provided for each other, while also maintaining social order within the guild.  Essentially, they took on the role of a centralized government and provided stability within the Indian society.  This kind of social structure was not present in China, where the centralized government kept the social order within the kingdom.

Response to selections

What does Mencius believe about human nature?

Mencius believes that all human beings possess kindness and care about each other.  He also believes that all men (human beings) are born with four principles; benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and knowledge.  Additionally, He believes that if these principles are allowed to develop within them, they "...will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas.", but if they are not allowed to develop, "...they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with."

What does Xun Zi believe about human nature?

Xun Zi believes that all humans are born bad and that their nature is bad.  He believes that good is a product of human study and effort, and that it can be only acquired through good teaching and good friends to associate with.  He also believes that laws and limitations, along with rituals and moral principles shape people's feelings and transform their emotional nature, while guiding them.

Who do you line up with? Why?

I agree with Xun Zi on his view of human nature.  Human beings, like all other animals are wild in nature. Its the laws, limitations, and moral principles that are imposed upon us which transform us from our wild nature to a more civilized nature.  Therefore, I agree with Xun Zi on his view of humans; that they are born with a bad nature, but can be corrected and made good through study and effort.

History Head comments

To Joe:

Hey Joe, I really like what you did for the personal connection inside the head. It’s really cool how all the pictures fit in to the shape of the head. The only thing I see which you could improve on is to number the pictures that are inside the head. The society I did, Mesoamerica, was similar to India in that both societies were patriarchal. There is not much evidence of Mesoamerican society, but this can be assumed from the fact that the ball game was restricted to men only. I think they are different in that the main form of transportation in Mesoamerican society was by foot, while the main transportation in Indian society was either by horse or cattle, which facilitated transportation and trade. I was just wondering what the third picture from the top was? It looks pretty cool.
Good Job! – Lynn

To Cecelia:

Hey Cecelia, I like the fact that you drew all your images and they’re really good. The one thing that I think is missing is the key for the images and the fact that the images aren’t numbered, but other other than that, everythings great. For my poster, I did the Mesoamerican society, which is similar to the Egyptian society in that they both built pyramids in their cities (or ceremonial centers). The two societies were also different in that Egyptian pharaohs were associated with their gods, while Mesoamerican rulers and kings did not possess any divinity. The only thing I don’t understand is the African map, which shows Bantu migrations? Did you do just Egypt or the whole of Africa?

Good Job! – Lynn

Confucian Analects: questions

1. Is this a religion or not? Why do you think so?
This is not a religion.  These are the rules of propriety and proper social conduct.  I think so, because it is not  so much about heaven or hell, but more about the way people should be brought up in their families, and how they should treat others around them, such as elders and princes.

2.Does this reading support the idea that people are born good /bad/neutral? Cite three examples that support your point of view.
This does not support the idea that people are born good/bad/evil.  Instead, it states the rules of propriety and how one should behave in order to be good.

Example 1: "Filial piety and fraternal submission!-- are they not the root of all benevolent actions?" - Book I. Chapter II. 2. - This basically says that Filial piety and fraternal submission are the root of all good things.  This backs up my idea, because it states that one can choose to be good by having filial piety and fraternal submission.

Example 2: "...but they are not equal to him, who though, is poor, is yet cheerful, and to him, who though rich, loves the rules of propriety." - Book I. Chapter XV. 1. - This quote also supports my idea, because it says that the poor and the rich can both be good.  It does not differentiate between social classes and gives everybody a chance to choose how they want to be. 

Example 3: "The Master said of the Shao that it was perfectly beautiful and also perfectly good.  He said of the Wu that it was perfectly beautiful but not perfectly good." - Book III. Chapter XXV. - This quote also proves my idea, because it states that just because something is beautiful does not mean that it is always good, and that beauty comes from being good.  This gives everyone a chance to show their beauty through their goodness.

Map activity pictures

Zarathustra on good and evil

Zarathustra assumes that humans have the capacity to make morally good or evil choices from their own free will. The wise will choose the good path and will be rewarded, while evil doers will be punished.

Human head project

Human head project pics

My opinion on the test and essay

I think the test for chapters 1-6 went pretty okay.  There were a few questions to which I did not remember the answers, but overall, it was pretty good and the difficulty was reasonable for an AP level class.  Although the test was fine, I had a little trouble with the essay.  I think the time given to complete the essay was not long enough, because the essay asked to go in depth into a comparison between two different societies.  I was prepared for the test a lot, because I read the chapters and took notes, which I used to review for the test.  But for the essay, I was completely unprepared.  I looked at the rubric on the day right before the essay.  On the next test/essay, I think I'll be much more prepared than I was this time, because I now have a general idea of how the tests and essays are going to be.