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.