How did the Romans manage to effectively combine their whole empire into one unit?

The Roman empire was the greatest power in the Mediterranean in its respective time period, controlling trade through out the region and had the most powerful currency in the area. when Rome took over a territory, they allowed it to keep its religion and its own principles. Rome instead demanded a tax and in exchange the territory would become a part of the Roman empire. And as a part of the empire the territory would get to use the most widely accepted coin in the area. in modern relation it is what the dollar was about 2 years ago, the unquestioned currency that everyone in the area would take. it was of advantage to the territory to be part of the empire. Also if the incentives of membership and the right to keep their practices did not "do it" for the said territory, the legions of Rome that first took over it can always convince them to stay.

Blog 6: How would an Athenian of the 5th Century BCE criticize our present-day representative democracy? (or.... how would they approve of it?)

An Athenian from the classical Greek era would see many faults within our Representative democracy, however he would see advantages as well. he would not tat not every one's opinion is expressed by the Representative, if there was a 51-49 majority the all but half would be thrown out the window and their opinions would not count. In the Athenian Democracy everyone that cared, and was eligible could go and have their opinion expressed by a colored pebblle. Still the Representative method has the advantage of allowing a much more vast opinion to be heard, through one or two people that each count as all the people they rep. The Representatives are a variable that can be good or bad, they can fair and just, and represent the full 100% of their people, instead of just the majority's at their best face, and their worst is where they dis-regard the people and go after a more personal agenda, and still only their voice will be heard. the Athenian democracy is a much more direct method, useful with a small group of people. the modern democracy, in theory, should be better no matter what since we see theirs and yet we prefer our method of representation. both methods work, each better in their respective playing Field.

How do we see Mayan values exemplified in modern society?

We see the Mayans values in something we unwittingly use every single day of our lives. Our calendar is based on 365 days on the year. The Maya actually pioneered this idea based on thier highly accurate solar calendar. Another thing we see the Maya in is our basic school math. Way back in pre-Maya time no one had ever heard of "zero" the number before we begin counting, today in schools zero is the first thing we learn, and it is all thanks to the pioneering minds of the Maya.

blog 4: Chinese Philosaphys

Legalism Vs Mohism in maintaining order

The disciplines of Legalisim and Mohisim have both, similar and divergent views, however in my opinion Legalisim is the better one when maintaining order. In principle Mohism has the potential to maintain proper order, Mohism wants the greater power not to oppress the weaker (i.e. "Great states at taking the small, strong oppressing the weak, and the cunning deceiving the stupid") The religion states that, "these are harmful to the world". Mohism deffinatly has the basis to keep order, but i think Legalisim take it the next step and executes (the people as well).

Legalism was a strong, central, and simple discipline. The fathers of legalisim, Shang Yang and Hun Fi ZI laid out clearly in their works how to maintain a strong, orderly state. "Gov. based on the assumption that people are essentially good will lead to chaos and dismemberment, Gov. based on assumption that people are especially bad bad will lead to order and strength," this is one point that Legalisim makes, that people are need to be thought of as bad to keep them in check. Legalisim was simple because it stressed two major imperatives to a state, agriculture and war. The religion, which was one of the main two that had direct influence on governments stressed having a strong ruler that kept to himself, and made disitions for the people, leaning to a dictatorship.

They contrast over how to think of people, one going with trust, the second with harsh rules to tell you just don't do it. legalisim wants to press strength and war, while the mohists wants to just stay in defence. Both would like a disciplined authority, the legalist's more harsh and strict. The Mohists are open-minded, while legalisim wants people to be a little ignorant to everything but the state, agriculture, and war. through everything Legalisim is better to maintain order.

post #3- What is the Most Effective way to Maintain order as a ruler.

A ruler has many ways to lead effectively, one has the option to be good or bad, strong or weak. there are defiantly that are effective, to be tyrannical or just. A ruler can lead if a strong dictatorship, with a bulked up army and have his citizens be constantly in fear. on the other hand one can lead with kindness and compation and win the hearts of his people. another concern of the ruler is to stay in power the mean dictator will stay in power using the single party system and not let anyone come up to threaten him. there were many in history that used this, some dies in sleep and some were stabbed in bed by a close adviser or someone like that. the kind ruler, more often then not will not be murdured. so in conclusion a ruler has options, what part of the country to beef up, to go the tyrant rought or the peoples leader.

Jared Dimond's thesis, that the way civiliations advanced, base simply on geographical luck does seem a bit to straight forward, seams like there has to be something more. but when you look at the facts, it is a pretty well based assumption. the Afro-Eurasian land mass is very suitable for life, animals plants ans humans alike. the first civilisations sprung up in Mesopotamia and since the land was on almost the same latitude line, the conditions for the plants and animals were almost the same where ever they went. This luck, when thought through, can explain for why the people in the mesopatamin region at the time farming began to spread were in fact put in a better place. with that first step they were able to get a head and shoulders above the rest of the world, and eventually when adavnced enough to decome the dominant race.

1.Do the Advantages of farming outweigh the Disadvantages of farming.

Yes, the advantagesd do out weigh the negatives of agriculture. Sure it is possible for hunter-gathers to collect food faster than a farmer can tend to his farm. However, the Hunter-Gather life stile can onlys uport that muhc people. As civilazations advance, and localize people become profetionals in a certain thing. Farmers, instead of spending less time and feed a small comunity, spend all their time farming, but now can support the other parts of thier civilazatoins. In this way they are being a citzen, having order to their sociotyl. All in all for a small group the Hunter-Gatherer works well, but if you want to advance your community , agriculture is need to feed a vast number of people. If its any proff all major ancient, and present for that mater, suck as the Romans, Greeks, Hebrews they al used agriculture, and in their respective times and areas, they stoped out competition.