What lies ahead? Brb checking crystal ball.

From what I understood from the reading, the Post-Classical Era will consist of restoration, from a social & political standpoint, anyways. All the destruction caused by internal struggles is what causes the need for this restoration, and I guess I would be wrong to not include that external pressures played and equal role in destruction. Populations increase everywhere in relation to agriculture and its advances; people devote their time and effort into agriculture as it is booming. This causes manufacturing and trade to boom as well, leading (slowly) to great technological advances. Religions, along with all the material exchanges, start to go spread around rapidly. Islam and Christianity, specifically become the bases for empires. Centralized control loses a lot of popularity; it never returns to India and it is only in Western Europe for a short period of time.

What Da &?! (Qin)

If I were the Han emperor, I don't believe I would see the Roman empire as a threat. The Romans were a very rich empire, both in wealth and culture. If anything they would be an ally to the Han empire, but alas, the distance between China and Rome is too great for any really good/useful alliance. However the few of us that travel there bring back much to learn; but large amounts of the population going there would not be the best thing in the world. I think the only time either of the empires would pose any sort of threat towards each other is if they somehow started effecting each others trade/economies. But in reality, the distance at which the two empires are pretty much eliminates that problem. So overall, I would have to say its a neutral "relationship" if you must, because again, the length at which they would have to travel to collide is kind of a lot.

The Roman Empire: Positive or Negative Image?

Personally, I have a negative image of the Roman Empire as a whole. Although I admit they have some pretty amazing feats and positives, the positives are outweighed by the negatives if you ask me. The rulers in ancient Rome did not rule with compassion at all, they were quite cruel as a matter of fact; and this is a very huge downside in my opinion. I feel as though a positive feeling towards an empire or government or whatever requires some good rulers, but in Rome the corruption was so great that it wouldn't even matter what the public had to say. The emperor especially, I think should be a kind an generous leader, not a self-concerned man who only cares about the power he has over a population. Marriages too, were a large factor in my decision to have a negative image of ancient Rome. Marriages became more of a business, a decision made with some sort of financial or social standing benefit in mind. And at the very end was slaves; although I would not mind a giant group of unskilled(or even skilled) lower class, I'm against the slavery and the cruelty that generally comes with it. I believe many people of the Roman empire must have felt the same way, and this as a whole would have lead to weakening of the empire, thus giving me a negative view of it overall.

#republictoempire

Rome's transition from a republic to an empire was through a series of steps. In the first step, we have a few elite's who determine the rules and live breaking the rules if they wish. Next came a set of rules known as the Twelve Tables which discouraged doing "bad" things among other things. After this step, things started to become more aristocratic, and the higher classes could corrupted the government completely if they pleased. With all this corruption, voting never really mattered anymore because the few in charge would rig it. Soon a singular leader emerged as an emperor who would always be "voted" back every year, bringing Rome to an empire.

Alexander the Great as the President of the US?

Honestly, I don't think he'd make it today, though I do believe that there would be select groups of people who would just about worship him. He was a great leader indeed, with an impressive drive. I'm sure people in the US would love someone with drive like that. I think what really makes him un-electable is that hes very VERY expansionist. As a US president in these times, his attitude of expansion would never fly; arrogance however, would indeed "fly". He is a conqueror indeed, and would probably go around trying to destroy other place if he couldn't go what he wanted out of them, typical of someone who grew up like he did.

Democracy in the Middle East?

King Abdullah of Jordan seems to know what he's doing. I like his idea of bringing democracy to Jordan, which is currently ruled by a monarchy. Weird though... Basically, a monarch ruler is trying to change his country to a democratic government. As Abdullah said, each country is effected differently, and obviously the same would apply to Jordan. Their constitution is even in reform, and although that's a huge step towards his goal, it will take plenty to time to get to where he wants to be. He admits that it will take a long time, 5, 10, or 15 years he said it might take. Personally, I believe that Abdullah is on the right track and can reach success; but in order for him to get there he'll have to take it easy and make sure he doesn't anger the people. The most important thing I think, is that Abdullah has experience in seeing other countries not do so well (fail.), and from there he can avoid the downfalls of other countries and better his own.

Democracy?

Democracy is defined as a system in which each citizen has their own say in the government. Now while this may be effective in small societies, with much smaller populations, I do not believe that a large population could pull this off. There's really no good, or effective way, rather, for everyone's opinions to be treated equally and without bias. This would only work in smaller populations because while there are opinions of a full society to be dealt with, it would not be so overwhelming that a rule could not be held with democracy. As discussed in class, we in America live in a republic, which is much easier for larger populations; elected representatives can be much smaller in number and still (sort of ) represent a smaller section of a whole population.