By the second century CE the Roman Empire, now encompassing the Mediterranean basin and beyond, was in its glory days. With conquest largely completed, the pax Romana (Roman peace) generally prevailed and commerce flourished, as did the arts and literature. The empire enjoyed a century (96-180 CE) of autocratic but generally benevolent rule. In 155 CE a well-known scholar and orator form the city of Smyrna on the west coast of Anatolia (present-day Turkey) arrived for a visit to the imperial capital of Rome. He was Aelius Aristides (ca. 117-181 CE), a widely traveled Greek-speaking member of a wealthy landowning family whose members had been granted Roman citizenship several decades earlier. While in Rome, Aristides delivered to the imperial court and in front of the emperor, Antonius, a formal speech of praise and gratitude, known as a panegyric, celebrating the virtues and achievements of the Roman Empire.
Read the following excerpt The Roman Oration by Aelius Aristides in 155 CE.
Answer the following questions, in paragraph form, following the guidelines on the Forum Instructions and Grading handout (shared with you in Google). You do not have to address each question in order, but you must address all five questions within your answer. Your answer should be multiple paragraphs. Include citations from the article, The Roman Oration (Doc 1) and from textbook Ways of the World chapter three (Strayer 149).
1. What does Aristides identify as the unique features of the Roman Empire? Which of these features in particular may have given the empire a measure of legitimacy in the eyes of its many subject peoples? What other factors, unmentioned by Aristides, may have contributed to the maintenance of Roman authority?
2. What does Aristides mean by referring to the empire as a "common democracy of the world"?
3. Why might Aristides, a Greek-speaking resident of a land well outside the Roman heartland, be so enamored of the empire?
4. To what extent does Aristides' oration provide evidence for the development of a composite Greco-Roman culture and sensibility within the Roman Empire.
5. How does this speech compare, in both style and content, with that of Pericles' Funeral Oration?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAristides identifies that the Roman is very unique because it encircles the Mediterranean sea (Doc 1; E,F,G), it depends on imported foods from weaker places -such as Egypt, Sicily, and Africa (Doc 1;H), it provides travelers with Roman citizenship (Doc 1; k), and overall is a very well-organized and successful empire (Doc 1;L,M,N). The empire helped the maintenance of the Roman authority by creating a system in which plebeians and patricians were involved in the governing of the empire, with this system, everyone in the empire was represented (Strayer;130).
ReplyDeleteBy referring to the empire as a “common democracy of the world”, Aristides means that the empire is a democratic empire but is ruled by everyone because no one is considered a true foreigner (Doc 1;L). Autocratic rule was established to have the empire under control and to prevent civil wars, however, this did not work out so great. A civil war that broke out later on is what caused the collapse of the empire.
Aristides was probably attracted to the empire’s success, economically, and politically as well as the empire’s views and luxurious lifestyles (Doc 1;A,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,M,N). All of these qualities were only possible because of the pax romana that the empire was in. The Roman empire was able to achieve all of these things during this time period. In this speech, Aristides celebrated the biggest accomplishments of the Roman empire (according to the reciter).
Aristides includes insight in their governing, their luxurious cities, and the empire’s geography (Doc 1;D,F,L,N). Both the Greek and the Roman Empires had similar governments since they were both democratic empires and quite luxurious. Also, the empires were opposite in the fact that Rome surrounded a body of water and Greece was surrounded by water.
Both speeches were written in a very formal manner and contained information about why the empire was so great. They also included why that both of the empires were democratic. Also, both speeches were done to represent an empire. The Roman speech was made to admire the empire, and the oration that Thucydides gave was more of a “it’s okay, we’re going to be alright” kind of speech (the purpose of his speech was to honor the Athenians killed in the Great Peloponnesian War).
I really appreciate your way of dividing each question and information into a new paragraph, for it helps me understand it better. I like how you said Aristides was attracted to the Roman Empire because of its success and luxurious lifestyles. Before reading your response I never considered that he was more into the money than admiring the beauty of the empire. This could be true and Aristides may have no mentioned in his oration that he only regarded the empire economic success, but I think his admiration was more focused on its political success, which you also mentioned. Aelius says “The entire civilized world prays with one voice that this empire endure forever…” (Doc 1 F) then continues to talk about how civilized the empire is because of it’s divided yet equal government. (Doc G, I, J, K)
DeleteI agree with your comparisons of Athens and Rome, such as the parts where you said that both cities were luxurious. Both cities had beautiful architecture and temples built for gods, goddesses, and for public gatherings. I like that you included new information like what ended the empire. They both had similar geographic attributes such as being around the sea, so both participated in seafare. I agree that both orations had different reasons but they both had the same sense of pride in their lands.
DeleteI agree with mostly everything you’ve said. And to add on, Aristides and the fact that he was far from Rome matched perfectly with the benefits of being a Roman citizen. It was no wonder why he loved it because the Roman empire, in a way, took him in with open arms, especially because he was a foreigner. But the only thing I don’t agree with is that the organization of the plebeians and the patricians made a positive difference to the power of the empire. If anything it was one of the main reasons why Rome fell. Sure the organization of the social classes into two sole classes did bring the people together just a little more, it also caused even more tension between the higher and the lower classes and brought a massive internal problem within Roman territory, which caused the collapse of half the empire (Strayer 132, 133). It was also a tool in creating the biggest cause of the collapse of the empire, the overexpansion of Rome, which caused the gap between the rich and the poor to widen as the Roman empire grew (Strayer 139).
DeleteI agree with all that you have stated in your response. The set up was also nice and easy to follow, and I was able to follow along easily. Your use of citations was also very well as it showed that you took the time to really understand the material. I also did not recognize that Aristides might have admired Rome for the wealth and success and not for its beauty and vastness.
DeleteSalvador, I liked how you formatted your response, I liked how each paragraph was a response for each of the questions. I agree on how you compared both Athens and Rome to say they were both rich and luxurious. I also agree that both of Athens and Rome had pride in their empires, but both had different ways of explaining it. I also agreed that Greece and Rome were luxurious. Overall all I agree with your whole response. Good job Salvador.
DeleteYou did a great job of bringing forth insights that I had not seen before reading your thoughts. I had not before thought of the fact that maybe Aristides was interested in the luxurious lifestyle, which was one of those "ah" moments for me because after thinking about it that is a great possibility. I also must agree on your reasons for Aristides naming the Roman Empire a unique one because it was a well organized empire and the way they treated those that they conquered was certainly unique. Your insight on the speeches was also great to see because again you brought up points that I had not thought of before. Great work.
DeleteI agree with you 100% with what you have stated in your response. The way you wrote your response was nice , and it was not hard for me to read. I honestly thought that Aristides might have only saw Rome for a successful place that could achieve wealth, one more thing nice job on your citations buddy.
DeleteI agree with everything you said. I would just like to add something to why Aristides, a Greek-speaking resident of a land well outside the Roman heartland, be so enamored of the empire. I agree that he would be amazed with the empire's success and luxurious life style. However, I also believe that he was honored by the fact that he could easily become a citizen under Roman law. He would be considered equal to other Roman citizens. Considering that this was such a powerful empire this would just seem to good to be true. I believe that this may of been the main inspiration behind Aristides speech.
DeleteI think you did a good job on detailing everything. I liked the way you arranged everything because it made everything much easier to read and understand. I agree with you on why both speeches were written and the purpose of it. I think you did a good job on describe everything and using good citations to back up your statements
DeleteAristides oration about the Roman Empire identified several features of the Roman imperial power that contributed to its longevity and success. An example of this was Rome's ability to expand its rule over many lands, which gave them access to resources not found in Rome itself. This land expansion found new farmlands in Egypt, Sicily, abd cultivated Africa, plus endless seafare due to abundant sea access(doc 1 f,g,h). A feature that may have given the empire some legitimacy in the eyes of its people would be its effective government and citizenship policies( doc 1 k,l). Its government having multiple branches really benefited the empire and created a stable structure that helped lengthen the reign. Rome was seen by Aristides as a "common world democracy" because of its unique style of governing that was si effective that true Romans and Romans with multiple citizenships all functioned amongst each other. Rome's leadership was in control of so many places that it could be compared to a new religion that united everyone(doc 1 k,l). Though Aristides was not a Roman, his passion for the Roman Empire was so strong because he'd simply never seen anything like it. There were hints of success in past empires, but they all intertwined beautifully in Rome. This oration provided a look at some Greco-Roman culture describing the mesh of people brought together under Rome's rule and by describing the flourish of its resources and tendencies. Rome's great givernemen ans Greece's arts, literature, and architecture combined to create the Greco-Roman culture. Aristides' oration compared to Pericles' oration in style and content by not only glorifying Rome's government as Pericles glorified Athens democracy, but by also describing the way the governments action's influenced the way Romans carried themselves and interacted with each other.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't agree with your statement of "Rome's ability to expand its rule over many lands" (Dorsey). Although this ability did bring in some cool resources, but ultimately, it "broke the shins" of the Roman empire, causing it to collapse. The overexpansion of Rome, in relation to Rome’s ability to expand, was it’s biggest cause of failure (Strayer 139). It caused the widening of the gap between the plebeians and the patricians and the economy began going out of whack (Strayer 139). Overall, the ability of expansion didn’t really help it, in fact it was a trap that the Romans fell into with its greed. But other than that, I agree with the rest of your statements, especially with the beautiful mixture of the Greek and Roman cultures. Because Greece was so accepting of the mixture of cultures, thus the Hellenistic culture it produced, and Rome was basically an adaptation of Greece, Greece and Rome made a good tag team with its classic and new-aged culture. And Aristides did describe the culture very well, especially when empathizing the view of a common person within the empire living his or her everyday life, such as praying before traveling on a marketing or recreational trip.
DeleteI agree with nearly everything that you said Ambria. The thing that stood out to me the most was that you mentioned “Rome's ability to expand its rule over many lands, which gave them access to resources not found in Rome itself”. Without these extensions, the Roman empire would not have had been able to maintain its growing population, especially not for as long that the empire thrived(Doc 1;H). Also, I very strongly agree with the fact that the Roman empire appealed to the public because of its open citizenship policy and the fact that there was representatives for all classes(Doc 1;K). I had never thought about Aristides viewpoint being based on the empire being new to him. I personally think that people are attracted to other people because they interpret their new characteristics as beauty. I find this relatable because maybe Rome appeared to be full of new “modern” activities, ruling, and housing and this just came across his mind as new/pretty/shiny. :)
DeleteI Agree with you Ambria, your answer was obviously well thought out and you took some time to think about what to put together. I really liked the way you compared Aristides speech with pericles the way you talked about their differences and similarities in some sort. I agree with you when you said “A feature that may have given the empire some legitimacy in the eyes of its people would be its effective government and citizenship policies” I really understood where you were going with this. I definitely agree with you on most of your other thoughts, your response was one of the best i have read so far.
DeleteI Agree with you Ambria, your answer was obviously well thought out and you took some time to think about what to put together. I really liked the way you compared Aristides speech with pericles the way you talked about their differences and similarities in some sort. I agree with you when you said “A feature that may have given the empire some legitimacy in the eyes of its people would be its effective government and citizenship policies” I really understood where you were going with this. I definitely agree with you on most of your other thoughts, your response was one of the best i have read so far.
DeleteI Agree with you Ambria, your answer was obviously well thought out and you took some time to think about what to put together. I really liked the way you compared Aristides speech with pericles the way you talked about their differences and similarities in some sort. I agree with you when you said “A feature that may have given the empire some legitimacy in the eyes of its people would be its effective government and citizenship policies” I really understood where you were going with this. I definitely agree with you on most of your other thoughts, your response was one of the best i have read so far.
DeleteI Agree with you Ambria, your answer was obviously well thought out and you took some time to think about what to put together. I really liked the way you compared Aristides speech with pericles the way you talked about their differences and similarities in some sort. I agree with you when you said “A feature that may have given the empire some legitimacy in the eyes of its people would be its effective government and citizenship policies” I really understood where you were going with this. I definitely agree with you on most of your other thoughts, your response was one of the best i have read so far.
DeleteAristides identifies multiple things that he finds unique about the Roman Empire. He says that the city takes on a sort of common market for the world, that there farmlands are Egypt, Sicily, and all of cultivated Africa, he has men divided into two parts, there is a "world democracy", and how he controls his empire(doc 1 f,g,n.o,r). Out of all of those I think that the "world democracy" would have given the empire its legitimacy, because it was the Roman Empire's way of saying it was a political system everyone had to follow even if they weren't citizens of Rome. When Aristides is referring to the empire as a "Common democratic world" he is also referring to the people who are Romans and non-Romans and how the empire is able to govern everyone(doc 1 O). Although Aristides was not from the Roman heartland he felt the need to go to the empire and speak highly of all the work that they had done, especially on the glories of the Pax Romania. Aristides's oration gives evidence that people who were not apart of the empire or were from other parts of that area were granted citizenship and allowed them to interact with the others who were apart of the empire. Aristides' oration compares to Pericles because they both talked highly of two place. Aristides' glorified the Roman Empire and the vastness of it, and Pericles talked highly of the democracy in Athens.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHello Vivica :) All that you’ve stated is true, but I would like to add a little bit more on how much Aristides talked about the equality between the citizens. You said the empire was able to govern those who were Romans and those who were non-Romans, and this was one of the reasons Aelius was so impressed by the empire. “You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind..” (Doc 1 K) A government was present and able to serve for the rich and poor and gave them equal rights, making it an all-embracing union. (Doc 1 J) At the time empires still relied on hierarchies to determine where people stood and how they should be treated. Roman on the other hand took a different approach to it and said “Nope let’s be nice to everyone. But still be strict.” Ya knaw sayin’ Vivica?
DeleteI got you Erica :)
DeleteI agree with the idea that the two articles spoke highly of the empire's and that it was like a market place. They would get imports of good from places like India and even southern Arabia, and if anyone needed an item from them they were expected to beg with what they produced from their own country. I also agree that the empire was split into two parts but something special about the government was that all nationalities were welcome.
DeleteHey vivica (: I liked how you explained your whole response and I totally agree with it. I agree with you when you say that Aristides thought that Rome "takes on a sort of common market for the world". I also agree with you when you say Aristides glorified the Roman Empire and Pericles talked greatly and highly of the Athenians democracy. I also liked how you added that even though people were non-Romanian they still got citizenship. Awesome job Viv! (:
DeleteI agree with the fact that Both Pericles and Aristides were representing a democratic government. They both had speeches on this and were really successful in their speech. It did bring a lot of people together and that's what made the really successful.
DeleteThis is all very agreeable Vivica. I also agree with the "world democracy" being the empire's legitimacy, but for a different reason than what you have stated. I must disagree with the fact that you said it was their way of saying that everyone must follow what they say, Roman or not. I feel it was just more of a way of them saying that they were a huge power in the world at that time and that the people that they did control could still have control of their own government, like how Aristides says "One could say that the people of today are ruled by governors sent out to them only to the degree that they wish to be ruled" (doc 1; M).
DeleteThis Is really good Vivica. I'd just like to add to how Rome was a common market for the world. This would make Rome a very culturally diverse Empire. Being culturally diverse would attract foreigners from other lands to become part of this great empire. Thanks to Roman democracy everyone whether they are Roman or non-Roman would be given equal citizenship. I believe that this could of given Rome its legitimacy.
DeleteI agree with you on most of it. You had a lot of great fact and you used them in a great way. I agree with you about how Aristides was referring to the empire as a "Common democratic world". You used well detailed and used great citations to back up your facts.
DeleteAelius Aristides, a popular Greek orator, identifies the Roman Empire as a universal and cosmopolitan society. (Doc 1 G, H, B) He praises the Pax Ramona (Literally meaning Roman Peace) for its long period of peace and expansion by military force, allowing there to be more extensive public works projects, more agricultural land. (Doc 1 B, C) But even though the Roman Empire was large, Aristides chose to not represent it for its size but for its internal organization and stability. The citizens and the government within the empire were those that focused on peace and equality throughout their people, making sure their union felt as harmonious and all-embracing as possible. (Doc 1 F, G, H, I) They enjoyed their freedom greater than any of their neighbors. The Romans also had, without a blueprint, created something completely new, an empire that surrounded the entire Mediterranean basin and beyond. (Strayer 130) Aristides refers to the empire as a “common democracy of the world” for Romans and non-Romans, though divided, still share the same citizenship and equality. The government will serve everybody, whether they are rich are poor. (Doc 1 G, H, I) Aelius’ tone in the oration sounds admirable, as in he admires what Augustus had accomplished as controller of Roman forces. “As vast and comprehensive as its size, your empire is much greater for its perfection than for the area its borders encircle… The entire civilized world prays with one voice that this empire endue forever..” (Doc 1 F) Greeks and Romans weren’t completely separate from each other. They interacted at a common channel to trade and ship tools and crops. Greeks weren’t looked down upon or were considered less powerful because they were non-Romans. It was said that anybody in the empire, Hellene or non-Hellene was to travel at ease to whichever homeland one wishes to. (Doc 1 F, K) In comparison to Pericles’ Funeral Oration, both praised and exaggerated the peace and harmony within the society, almost making it seem like no harm or disagreement could ever occur.
ReplyDeleteErica! Let me get straight to the point, I agree with most of what you said but I also disagree with some details. One thing that I disagree with is that “he praised the pax romana”, he did in fact praise the Roman empire during the pax romana, however, praised the empire and all the progress that the empire underwent in this time period not the time period itself. Aristides would not have bothered reciting a speech to some weak stone-aged empire just because it was in a peaceful time period. Now for the things that I do agree with is that they enjoyed their freedom more than their surrounding people(Doc 1;A,C,D,I), the empire was divided and yet everyone shared the same equality (both rich and poor alike)(Doc 1;L), the speech he delivered was very admiring towards the empire, and the Greeks and the Romans weren’t completely separate from each other. Here’s the thing, even though they weren’t completely separated, I would like to add that they were connected by more than just a channel. I would say that the Romans were very “Greeky”. After you look past my amazing word choice, I’m sure you have to agree with me. Rome was similar to Greece in more than just one aspect. Their cities were full of architectural successes, and the two empires also shared being democratic(Doc 1;L). To conclude my response, I would like to say that both reciters praised peace, but neither of them ever mentioned or hinted that the empire was safe from any kind of harm (either internal or external).
DeleteErica, you continue to make me always want to erase my responses. I like how right at the beginning you star off with how Aristides praised them for the pax Romania and I like how you elaborated on how they kept peace but still managed to expand their empire. I also like how you put the tone of the oration and also saying that he admired what Agustus had done. To tell you the truth I completely forgot about him. But good job man, keep up the great work :)
DeleteErica I really agree with how you state that the world democracy was to join all the citizens together. It really shows how they wanted to have everyone under their rule combined together as a union and work together to be proud of their empire. I really enjoy how you word it altogether, great job! :)
DeleteI like your comparison of Pericles and Aristides orations because you saw it the same way that I did. I went back and looked at Pericles oration and refreshed my memory on how he spoke about Athens and they both had the same tone of pride, even though Aristides wasn't originally from Rome like Pericles was from Athens. I also liked your explanation of Aristides meaning of "common world democracy." I think the oration helped us see what it meant to be a citizen during the Pax Romana and how the empire was so strong that it was seen as the government of its ages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Ambria wit how Pericles was proud in how he was going to unify Athens and make it a better place. Also, I agree with their how they had a powerful tone to show that they were leaders and want to help their people thrive. Both of these leaders had a huge impact on their people because they looked up to them and would follow them at all times.
DeleteI agree with you Ambria with how Pericles did take pride in how he was going to make Athens a better place by unifying it. Also Both of these leaders did have a big impact on their people because they looked up to them. I also agree the oration did help because it did give us insight on what it meant to be a citizen.
DeleteAristides identifies Rome’s uniformity, its citizens’ freedoms, its vast connections, and its overall wide acceptance of all cultures (doc1, g, h, i, k, l). The many freedoms of the citizens, if not everybody’s, surely and absolutely gave a measure of legitimacy through the people (doc 1, i, l). Although there were many problems between the peoples themselves, this kept the people very pleased. Other factors that contributed to the maintenance of the Roman empire are the great sum of rulers, not just Augustus, Greek and Roman, that brought Rome these amazing tools of maintenance, such as Pericles’ (Greek) direct democracy and Caesar’s (Roman) major social and political successes and dominations. One more thing that he did not mention that really brought the empire together is the engagement of politics of the citizens, which helped them to settle disputes through words, not bloodshed, which was ironically one of the causes of downfall of Rome.
ReplyDeleteAristides called the Roman empire a “common democracy of the world” referring to the facts that 1.) the empire was mostly republic but democratic by nature and by the rulers trying to appease the people, and 2.) because everyone, slaves, women, foreigners, and probably even literal aliens, could be a citizen of Rome, even if you don’t even live anywhere close to Rome (doc1, e, i, k, l).
Aristides would be enamored of the Roman empire because it welcomed him with open arms- citizenship, democratic freedom, political freedom- even though he was foreign (doc 1, e, i, l). He would also be attracted to the Roman empire because of all the opportunity of said freedoms and the riches of trade, culture, and Rome’s vast empire (doc1. g, h, i, k).
Although the bad things may not be as favored in this discussion, Aristides only describes the greatness and the success of the developing melting pot of Greco-Roman culture. He was on point though, even though he was very biased and very optimistic of the empire. Not only did the people mix well and were very willing to join a free and democratic empire but they also had a nasty “aftertaste” of human greed and selfishness, despite their culture. The people were split into rich and poor and the gap between them widened as the empire grew. So yeah, Aristides described all the good and the “prettiness” of the empire, but he failed to go to much detail about the bad, scratch the fact that this was to praise the Roman empire.
I think both, the funeral oration and “In Praise of the Roman Empire”, speeches could’ve been written by the same person, although that’s quite unrealistic. Both authors only describe the good of their empire, and they were meant to do so for that matter- one for the dead of the Peloponnesian War and the other to praise his empire. Both authors have a passion for his empire, despite the imperfect idiosyncrasies of the empire. A very observational, and very obvious difference, is that “In Praise of the Roman Empire” is longer than the funeral oration. Another difference is that Aristides goes much more into a “first-person view” of the details of the people in the empire. Also, Aristides is not afraid to add his flare of sarcasm and sense of being straightforward, or “black and white”. about things, like when he talked about the controlled land of the Persian empire.
Aristides identifies the unique features of Rome with how it surrounds the Mediterranean sea, depends on imported goods from overseas and expects that if someone needs something they come begging to them, and provided travelers citizenship ( Doc. 1 A, B, F). The Roman Empire also had a system that allowed patricians and plebeians to be involved with governing(Strayer, 130)The Roman Empire was successful in many ways, one of which was a "common democracy of the world." Artisides used a democracy that welcomed all nationalities winning over the foreigners and welcoming them to the empire as a citizen and was ruled by all(Doc.1 H). Artisides was a Greek-speaking resident outside of the Roman heartland and might have been captivated by the empire because of the amount of success it would have, the political system and also the lavish lifestyle( Doc 1 B, C, D, F, G, H, J). Aristides provides evidence such as governing, the geography of the empire, and the success for the development of a composite Greco-Roman culture and sensibility (Doc.1 A,H). The two orations shared a similarity in a way showing that they were both formal and were both to represent the empires in a proud manner. The oration of Pericles was a speech for feeling sorrow for the lives lost and also to show they were going to be fine and carry on, where Aristides oration was made to show off or admire the empire.
ReplyDeleteLauren good job on your response. I like how you included how the patricians and plebians took part in the governing of Rome. I also like how you included things that Aristides talks about that provides evidence, such as the geography of Rome such is something I would not have thought of. But for the comparison of Aristides and Pericles, I think that you could have included that pericles also talked about the admiration of the democracy in Athens and Aristides had admiration for the empire.
ReplyDeleteThere were many unique features about the Roman Empire, in Aristides opinion he thought Rome was unique because it was surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea, there was a mixture of cultures and they gave citizenship to foreigners (doc 1 F, G, M) Aristides thought that the size of the empire was a legitimacy sense because the empire was getting larger which meant that the empire was in good government rule. When Aristides refers the Roman Empire as a "common democracy of the world" he meant that the Roman Empire was the best because you didn't have to be a roman native to become a citizen. (Doc1 M, N ). In my opinion I think Aristides was enamored with the Roman Empire because it was a enormous powerful empire that accepted multiple cultures, it's laws were not cruel and everyone obeyed the government. Aristides oration gave evidence that Rome and Greece similar governments because they were both democratic and had an acceptance of culture (Doc1 O, P). Both Aristides and Pericles orations were written similar in the way they were both talking about their how fantastic they thought their governments were. Aristides' speech was made to glorify how great the Roman Empire was, while Pericles' speech was to honor the deaths of the Athenian soldiers during the Peloponnesian War and also glorify Athens democracy.
ReplyDeleteIn his speech Aristides gives the idea that he believes the Roman Empire’s government is a unique one. He does this by explaining that only they offer citizenship to those that are not originally from the Roman Empire, and allowing them to keep their “native-born identities” (doc 1; N). Aristides also talks about the government and laws. He says that the governors are “sent out to them only to the degree that they wish to be ruled….” Aristide also praises how the class of a person does not affect his vulnerability to law; any person that broke the law and was caught was punished (doc 1; M, S). When Aristides refers to the Roman Empire as a “common democracy of the world,” he means that the Roman Empire uses democracy and that they split the world into two parts, one is Roman and the other is non-Roman (doc 1; O). Aristides might have been captivated by the Roman Empire because of how it united such a large portion of the world and how the government was ran, also during this time the Roman Empire was a very strong power in the world and very prosperous. Aristides oration proves that the Roman Empire used democracy like the Greeks had used before them, he also gave the speech in Greek and most people understood it implying Greek was the main language in use; another thing is that in the text it said that his oration used much of the Hellenistic oration traditions (doc 1; O, T, U). The content of the orations were different and they served different purposes but held the same kind of pride. Pericles’ Funeral Oration talked about how they could move on, they can still be prosperous, and that they were strong enough to be okay and keep going. On the other hand, Aristides oration for the Roman Empire was to praise them and urge them forward his oration told of every great thing about the empire.
ReplyDeleteThe unique features that Aristides identifies are how the Romans have a “world democracy.” In which you have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans. With this type of government Romans share their citizenship with you and you should do as well. Another feature is how Aristides talks about how much land a man can hold. Here is a quote that states that theory “that one man ruled as much territory as the sun passed over.” Later that statement becomes false in the aspect of how Africa and Europe shows that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides was referring to “common democracy of the world” he meant that the Romans were under the rule of one man or the best ruler, dictator. The Roman people have been divided up into “Romans” and “non-Romans” and which either one you are, you need to share your citizenship with everyone.
Aristides was in love with the Roman culture and was fascinated of all the different features it had. For example its government was a “world democracy” and loved to learn new things about a new culture. He also would take control and command his fellow people how much land they can have and if they can have the highest amount of citizenship. Aristides was always fascinated when it came to anything relating to the Roman Empire.
The Greco-Romans were for many generations subjected to the government of the Greeks and then the Romans and thus accepted or at length were forced to embrace them as their masters and teachers. Both the Romans and the Greeks spoke in Latin and shared many similar features with each other.
Both Pericles and Aristides had a goal to change. Pericles goal was to unify Athens and form a democracy for the Athenians. They did want this form of government making Pericles very famous. Along with Aristides in how he wanted to make a change by speaking to his people and informing them about how much of something they can have. Both were great leaders and speakers to their own people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAristides identified the unique features of the Roman Empire such as its mixture of cultures inside markets, it’s sea trade with countries like Egypt, Sicily, and Africa, and how Rome offered citizenship to foreigners. (Doc 1 G, H, M). Allowing foreigners to become citizens of the empire created more cultural diversity and gave a measure of legitimacy in the eyes of its many subject peoples. However, Aristides did not mention the system where the patricians and plebeians were given a role in the governing of the empire. (Stayer 130) .This system made sure that the people of Rome were represented by elected officials. When Aristides referred the empire as a "common democracy of the world” he means that Romans and foreigners are equal and may share the same citizenship with one another. (Doc 1 K, L, M). Aristides, a Greek-speaking resident of a land well outside the Roman heartland, was so enamored of the empire because of it’s success in expansion and it’s values of equality.
ReplyDelete(Doc 1 E, M) Rome at the time was a very powerful Empire that was on the move. During the Pax Romana Rome had grown exponentially and continued to grow in power. (Doc 1 D) The idea that Aristides could easily be apart of this great Empire amazed him and led him to publicly praise Rome for it’s success. Aristides (a Greek speaking man) praising the Roman Empire is evidence of the development of a composite Greco-Roman culture. Him choosing to publicly speak on the power of Rome shows how much respect he has for the Empire. Because of Roman laws Greeks and other foreigners could easily become citizens. This would create a Greco-Roman culture. Both Aristides and Pericles speech were written in a very formal manner. They both had the same message, “Why their empire was so superior.” However, in Pericles speech it is also meant to honor the deaths of soldiers in the Peloponnesian war.
Aristides oration about the Roman Empire identified many unique features. For example Rome was unique to Aristides because it was surrounded by the sea, another way it was unique was by its acceptance of many cultures(Doc1 B,C). When Aristides uses the term "common democracy of the world"(Doc1), he refers to it as all the people of Rome, Roman or not, all the people can govern(Doc 1 J), which could also be another unique feature of Rome. Aristides was amazed by the success and wealth of Rome, as well as the lives of luxury that they live, Aristides also celebrated big achievements in Rome(Doc1 E). Aristides orations provides evidence with the fact that Roman laws caused Greeks and foreigners to easily become citizens and interact and be apart of Rome. Aristides and Pericles orations were closely similar, both talk about having a democracy and successful kingdom, but they contrasted when Pericles talked about having philosophers who understand harmony govern instead of the people of the kingdom.
ReplyDeleteAristides identify as the Roman Empire having unique features because it surrounds the Mediterranean sea (Doc 1; E,F,G), in the end it all depends on the imports that they received from places -such as Egypt, Sicily, and Africa (Doc 1;H), it provides travelers with Roman citizenship (Doc 1; k), and overall is a very well-organized and successful empire (Doc 1;L,M,N). The many freedoms of the citizens, if not everybody’s, surely and absolutely gave a measure of legitimacy through the people (doc 1, I, L). The empire helped the maintenance of the Roman authority by creating a system in which plebeians and patricians were involved in the governing of the empire.(Strayer;130).
ReplyDeletereferring to the empire as a "common democracy of the world" in Aristides means that the empire was for the most part republic but truly democratic and by the rulers trying to appease the people, and because literally anyone and everyone could be a citizen of Rome(doc1, e, i, k, l).
Aristides was probably attracted to the empire’s success, economically, and politically as well as the empire’s views and luxurious lifestyles, all of these qualities were only possible because of the pax romana that the empire was in(Doc 1;A,C,E,F,G,I,J,M,N).
Aristides includes insight in their governing, their luxurious cities, and the empire’s geography. Both the Greek and the Roman Empires had similar governments since they were both democratic empires and quite fancy(Doc 1;D,F,L,N).
Both speeches were written in a very formal type of way and contained information about why the empire was so great. They also included why that both of the empires were democratic.
Aelius Artistides identified the unique features of the Roman empire because he divided men into two parts throughout the empire, his government of good laws, and how he used a single source of the great ocean for trade, agriculture, and shipping. (Doc 1 J,K,L) What helped them legitimacy in the eyes of its many subject people, is the good government of good laws. He used equality for everyone in the empire, everyone should be treated equal and no one should be any different. (Doc1 N) Aristides refers to the empire as a “common democracy of the world” because he is attributing Romans and non-Romans and how every man is divided into two parts of the empire. (Doc 1 P)Artistide was so enamored of the empire outside the Roman heartland because he wanted to expose the spirits and the immortality of the Roman Peace “Pax Romana”. (Doc1 A) The extent of oration provided evidence for the development within the Roman Empire with the communication it had with people from all over that traded with them and let them have fair rules with equal rights with everyone. The speech compares that both speeches were to inform people about their well unified empires and how they were successful due to their control and power.
ReplyDeleteThe unique qualities Aristides identified was Rome's 'world democracy'. They had their people the Romans and then their were others the non-romans. They had a vast empire that was firm but kind rule. This seems unusual because all empire have seemed to be more cruel than the Roman Empire. "you have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire... everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, etc." (Doc1). He states that they've unified together and even give people an option to better themselves and become citizens of the empire. The unification of the citizens in the empire would keep it strong as long as they remain loyal to their empire.
ReplyDeleteThe Empire's 'common world democracy', the rule of the emperor and how he spreads out the citizen ship and how many of the citizens have never seen Rome's capital yet they are still citizens and they are defended and benefited just as the romans who were born and live in the capital.
Because of the Roman Empire's size and its peaceful existence Aristides is deeply fascinated by how the Empire functions and still maintains it firm rule over its territories.
From what Aristides speaks about, the impact of the Roman Empire reaches lands far beyond its borders(Doc1). It effect many culture by blending with them through trade shipping and other things. As a world super power at the time it spread knowledge and information to other societies.
Between the style of the Pericles' Funeral Oration and Aristides' speech, they are similar in format and how they speak. The matters they speak on, however, are not very close. They do however speak about how good men are need to help a reign prosper. It is very similar indeed but it still differ with content. They do cover mainly how the rulers effect the kingdom.
Aristides identifies that the Roman empire has unique features such as how it encircles the Mediterranean sea (Doc 1 C, D). Aristides also notices other key or interesting features about the Roman Empire was their Religion Christianity. These Features helped the people of the Roman Empire see who they were and what they stood for, they also could agree on how Aristides mentioned the success of imperial power (Doc 1, G). Some other factors that may have contributed to the Maintenance or well-being of the Roman Empire could be a systematic government where the people of the Empire were part of it. Aristides mentions the empire as being a common democracy which basically means an ordinary government with not too much power to any one man or group. Aristides was so enamored of the empire because he sort of took the empires success for granted Doc 1( C, D). Aristides speech described more of how governments worked and they way the Empire was set-up basically giving a hand of applause to the Roman empire while Pericles speech impacted the people of the Roman empire and how they came together to make Rome such a successful empire.
ReplyDelete