The Political and Social Structure of the Roman Republic - Assignment Example

Chapter 4 - What made Alexander such an outstanding general? Give examples from his military campaigns. Alexander of Macedonia became such a great and victorious general that he and his army “entered into legend.” (Knox). What was it that allowed him to be so successful in his military ambitions? There was no single source of Alexander’s power, but instead several things which combined to make him unstoppable on the battlefield and off it. One of the most obvious of these things was the style of fighting Alexander used in his armies. Most other armies fought in traditional battle lines, but Alexander used a Macedonian Phalanx, which was “a flexible unit well drilled and able to take on a variety of formations.” (Knox) Interestingly, the Phalanx was created by Alexander’s father, although Alexander himself did expand upon its uses. Because other armies were not as flexible, Alexander was able to out-maneuver them and win every battle he fought. Alexander also had a strong number of heavy cavalry, the “traditional strength of Macedonia,” (Knox) as well as back-up from the various powerful navies of Greece. Outside of the powers of his military, however, Alexander was a great general for other reasons, such as how he “was always at the front and always in the thick of battle,” and was very brave. (Knox) Because of this he was wounded many times in battle, including in the “neck and head at the Granicus River, in the thigh at Issus, the shoulder at Gaza.” (Knox) He also “knew and loved his men” and would often refer to them by name, thus earning their trust. (Knox) Because of all these things, Alexander was a great general. Works Cited Knox, E.L. Skip. “Alexander the Great.” History of Western Civilization. Boise State University. n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2009. Chapter 5. - Analyze the political and social structure of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was a complicated political ruling system. It got its start around 509 B.C. after the Tarquin monarchy was overthrown. Despite this, the Republics unwritten constitution, which was “a series of unwritten traditions and laws,” actually reflected many of the powers of the monarchy. (Hooker) Because of this, the consuls who were in charge basically acted like the monarchs had acted, and even “dressed as monarchs” and sat “on the seat traditionally reserved for the monarch.” (Hooker) The power of the consul was limited by two things. First of all, there were two consuls and each could “prevent any action or decision by the other consul by simply vetoing him.” (Hooker) This made sure that both consuls had to be in agreement before passing a law. Their terms of office was also only one year, and they had to serve on the Senate, so they did not go to the same excesses as the Roman kings had done. Despite this, the social structure was set up to make sure that the upper class kept its power. The upper class was the “patrician” class, and to begin with the Consuls and Senate and other people in power were all from this class. (Hooker) However, the lower class plebeians eventually took some control for themselves. They started an Assembly to rival the Senate and eventually forced the Senate to allow plebeian Senators and Consuls. Because the upper classes needed the plebeians for food and military might, these rights were interestingly won “without any civil war or internal bloodshed.” (Hooker) Works Cited Hooker, Richard. “The Roman Republic.” World Civilizations. Washington State University. 1999. Web. 2 Dec. 2009. Chapter 6 - Describe the cultural, religious, and socio-economic changes that transformed Roman society between the accession of Octavian/Augustus Caesar and the early third century C.E. As soon as Octavian was crowned as Augustus, there were many changes that affected Roman society. There was more social stratification, as the senatorial, equestrian, and lower classes became more separated. In the Republic, the lower classes still had some input on how things were done, but that changed now as the Assemblies lost power. On the other hand, Augustus attempted to return the “respectability to the upper classes and reverse the declining birthrate,” which he thought was brought about by a similar decline in morals that had “undermined traditional Roman frugality.” (Spielvogel 99) This did not last long though, as Augustus immediate successors took more power for themselves and became more corrupt and extravagant as best shown in the case of Nero. The “Five Good Emperors” still took more power, but “were known for their tolerance and diplomacy.” (Spielvogel 100) However, in the third century Rome began to collapse between natural disasters, and things like “invasions, civil wars, and plague.” (Spielvogel 108) One of the things that gave Rome a second wind was a great religious change in the rise of Christianity. The official Roman religion was popular because of Augustus, but “Romans were extremely tolerant of other religions.” (Spielvogel 109) There were several cults, one of which was Christianity. The Romans, who had initially been accepting, became frightened of its power and appeal and tried to shut it down by force, but did not succeed. Diocletian in the fourth century tried one last time, but had to admit that it “had become to strong to be eradicated by force.” (Spielvogel 112) Works Cited Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization To 1500. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2008. Print. Chapter 7 - . What role did monks and nuns play in early medieval society? What does the author mean when he says that "monks became the heroes of Christian civilization"? After Constantine and Theodosius, Christianity became very widespread throughout Europe. The Catholic Church organized itself more, and that also helped it to spread. The Pope was established “as the recognized leader of the western Christian church.” (Spielvogel 122) All of these things meant that Christianity was everywhere, and that there were lots of monks and nuns in monasteries around the continent. These men and women played an important role in transmitting knowledge throughout the ages. This was because monks and nuns were supposed to live solitary lives, like hermits, and “forsake all civilized society to pursue spirituality.” (Spielvogel 123) However, due to the popularity of this pursuit, monasteries were set up as communities instead. These communities tried to be ideal Christian communities, living well and also trying to help spread Christianity by converting pagans in countries like Ireland and the Germanic kingdoms. When the author of the book says that monks were “the heroes of Christian civilization,” he is talking about the way that they were role models to all who considered themselves Christian. Because the monks “died to the world and achieved spiritual life through denial, asceticism, and mystical experience of God” (Spielvogel 123) they were viewed as larger-than-life figures, much like what we would today consider a “hero.” Additionally, their spreading the religion and translating holy books into various languages means that they basically created Christian civilization, making them heroes in that regard as well. Works Cited Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization To 1500. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2008. Print. Chapter 8 – Describe Manorialism. What was its relationship to Feudalism? Manorialism was one of the two important social relationships during the feudal period of Western Civilization. It referred to the relationship that existed between “the land owner (whether a lord or vassal) and those who lived on and worked the land - the peasants and serfs.” (Smith) The reason it was called Manorialism is because of the importance of the Manor system of land ownership and farming during this period. The way Manorialism worked was that the peasants, afraid of “bandits, marauding invaders, or aggressive military lords,” (Smith) would turn to someone who was powerful enough to protect them. In return for that protection, the lower classes basically gave up their rights to be human beings and sometimes could not even leave the manor grounds on punishment of death. (Smith) Manorialism, although it didn’t necessarily involve someone who was a lord, was strongly tied to Feudalism. The Feudal system worked by a relationship between the lord and his vassals, who were often powerful men in their own rights. The way these men could afford their power and to feed their armies was because of the sacrifices of the serfs or peasants who farmed their manors. Feudalism and Manorialism have some similarities because both are systems where someone is more powerful than their subordinates, however while the feudal vassals were subordinate to their lords, the peasants and serfs suffered most in their relationship because they “remained in a situation of extreme poverty and almost complete lack of freedom.” (Smith) Works Cited Smith, Cynthia. “The Central Middle Ages: A Reciprocal Society.” History 151 - World Civilizations. University of Hawaii Honolulu Community College. 2001. Web. 2 Dec. 2009. Read More