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?
Aristides identifies Rome's vastness, prosperity, power, and way of living as unique (Doc 1 E,H,I). Aristides mentions these multiple times in his speech and seems amazed just by Rome itself. Rome was a great empire, one of the biggest of its time, so Aristides adoring the empire isn't shocking. Rome did an outstanding job from being a small weak city-state, to one of the greatest empires of all time. I'm sure many people well outside the Roman heartland loved the Roman empire. It was vast and wealthy, and becoming a citizen was not impossible (Doc 1, F,G).
ReplyDeleteAristides said in his oration that, "You have divided humanity into Romans and no n-Romans..."(Doc 1 J). Because of this, I would assume the Romans had lots of pride in their empire, and were proud of what it had become. I also believe this quote ties in with "No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust.", Aristides mentions its rather a common world democracy(Doc 1,K). What I believe he means by common world democracy, is that that government is quite common in empires or civilizations, thus making it a common world democracy.
When Rome conquered Greece, and Egypt, its culture became Greco-Roman based. Rome got great farmland, and inventions from Egypt, and a great government and culture from Greece(Doc 1 C,D,E).
Pericles' funeral oration was explaining how great Athens was, Just how Aristides was saying how great the Roman empire was. Although, Pericles did compare Sparta and Athens to further explain how great Athens was, Aristide just kind of new Rome was awesome and didn't compare it to any other empire.
Rome was an incredible empire for its time. With what it started out as, I don’t think anyone believed it would achieve as much as it did. They set the standard of living for the whole world, and I’m sure everyone wanted to be as successful as Rome was. I also believe Rome was a very prideful nation. Aristides stated in his oration that Rome had “superiority… relative to cities that presently exist” (Doc 1T, J). If someone from another city-state was able to see Rome’s pride, it makes it extremely evident just how much they really had.
DeleteRome set the standards of an Empire at it's time. Since it started weak, it was defiantly not supposed to last and achieve what it did. They set the way of the new age for an empire at the time. Rome was big in nationalism with the citizens in Rome take full pride in Rome. Also I really liked the comparison that you did with Pericles to Aristides because the two rulers did show a lot of similarities.
DeleteI agree with the part where you said that democracy is quite common with other places. Because it is true and it was common back then in some civilization. Aristides and Pericles civilization was very similar in a lot of ways. I like your blog.
DeleteI like what you said about Rome itself, and the reasons Aristides loved it so much. It did come a long way and was able to expand and maintain power for many years. I also like how you related the two quotes about citizenship to each other. When you were talking about common democracy, you mentioned that you thought it meant that democracy was common among nations. I think this is good, but could it also have a deeper meaning? I also liked how you compared Pericles to him, because although Aristides didn't compare Rome to any other nation, the two documents were similar.
DeleteAristides’ oration about Rome is reminiscent of Pericles’ Funeral Oration about Greece. Both orations greatly over exaggerated the greatness of Rome and Greece, respectively. Aristides says, “You do not reign within fixed boundaries, and another state does not dictate the limits of the land you control” (doc 1, c), which greatly overstates the physical size of Rome, while Pericles did something similar when he discusses the benefits of Athenian democracy. Both orations try to praise and laud the governments, but Aristides says specifically says that the Roman government is greater than any other in the world, because it gives citizenship to any conquered people within its borders without erasing their original identity, and the method of governing is unique (doc 1, i, j, l, m). Rome governed completely, yet it governed as a city-state would, not as a hated, dictatorship; its rule was, “firm but not unkind” (doc 1, m; Strayer 137). Something that Aristides did not mention, but also probably played a large role, was the power of the Roman military. He commends the method of government and prosperity of Rome (doc 1, d, h, p), but makes little note of the domineering military that allowed them to conquer, and then to maintain power.
ReplyDeleteAristides was fascinated by the Roman Empire, probably because he knew first-hand of the power they held, but also how benign they were (for example, he was allowed to keep his citizenship in Smyrna) (doc 1, i, j). He called Rome the “common democracy,” meaning that once Rome conquered, they established their democracy without forcing it upon the people so it would be accepted (doc 1, h, j, l, m, o; Strayer 137).
The Romans conquered a great deal of land, from Egypt to the edges of the foreign Persian Empire (doc 1, c, f), among which was Greece. Aristides oration shows how Rome used and modified Greek ideas and sensibilities when he describes how the Roman Empire has made a radiant, beautiful, sacred state using modified Greek ideas, forming the Greco-Roman culture (doc 1, p). He does not go into great detail, though, choosing to praise Rome’s power and prosperity.
I agree that Aristides and Pericles' oration over exaggerate the greatness of Rome and Greece and, that both try to praise the government. I also agree that Aristides was definitely fascinated by Rome. I also find your meaning of "common democracy" interesting. Why do you think it means that Rome didn't force its government on people so it would be accepted?
DeleteI'm sure you remember how the Assyrians were, brutal, vicious, and basically tyrannical rulers when they conquered another group of people. I think that Rome wasn't like that, and the Roman "common democracy of the world" was something that the people had in common, possibly the only thing the Romans had in common, with all the conquering Rome did (doc 1, i, j). The only way Rome could get that common government to be accepted was the way they did it--by allowing the people to be a part of the so-called "common democracy" and giving them the choice to be a part of the Roman world--without having a revolt that may or may not have overthrown the Roman government.
Delete(I did word that rather badly, I hope that clarifies.)
I agree with Lily on that point, the Romans might have adopted the ways of the Persians by being tolerant and diplomatic in their ruling. This led the Persians to be very well liked by the people they conquered since they allowed them to continue their different ways of life. This is similar to that of the Romans since they let them continue on with their lives and even granted them citizenship which was a great aspect of living under the Roman rule.
DeleteI agree with Jordan because I always agree with her. Just kidding. But I thought the Romans adopted most of the Greeks ways? I don't remember reading about them adopting Persian ways. Man I suck at reading.
Deletei agree with jordan because romans did adopt the ways of peope and their habbits over development that it allowed them ways of life. but i also agree with lani because it wasnt just to anylife but specificly the greek life and ways not persians nor do i recall.
DeleteI agree with lani, I thought the Romans adapted most of the Greek ways too.
DeleteAristides explain lots of unique feature of the Roman Empire. In the description of the land of Rome, how vast, "All of Africa and Europe outside of the are where the sun rises in the east and sets in the west(Doc 1 d)". With saying this, the Rome Empire "expanded its borders significantly, reaching the apex of its expansion and prosperity in the age of the Antonies(Doc 1 b, c)". During the Antonies age, Rome had expanded its borders to their max and had then "was the major power in the Mediterranean(Doc 1 a)". Now wining battles and wars did not get Rome were it was in the day. "Greek and Roman geographers believed that the three continents were surrounded by a single great ocean(Doc 1 f, g, h)". This was the Mediterranean that tied everything together and this was known as a conman channel. "A common channel to Rome and all meets here: trade, shipping, agriculture, metallurgy, and arts(Doc 1 g)". I think that Aristides is trying to describe(which he does), is that Rome was the center for all trading and meets. Rome was a "single source and destination, so that there is a common channel(Doc 1 g)".
ReplyDeleteFarmlands were the back bone to Romes success which were located in most of "Egypt, Sicily, and all of cultivated Africa(Doc 1 f)". They were the "main producers of grain and other agricultural products(Doc 1 e, f)". This is what enhanced Rome in being a "common channel of the Mediterranean.
The Roman Empire had broken up the citizens into two groups, "The Hellene, or a non-Hellene(Doc 1 k, l)". "Non-Helene, were either someone from outside the empire or some of the empire's uneducated masses, with or without property, to travel(Doc k, l)". I say that the Romans very much had pride with there empire and were proud to be called Romans. Aelius Aristides did succeed "to capture the spirit of prosperity, cosmopolitans, and universal mission that characterized the attitude of so many of the Roman Empire's ruling elite during the second century(Doc 1 c-d)". And characterizing the attitude of the Roman Empire he sure did do.
You mention a lot about the economy, agriculture, trade, and basically commercial center that Rome was. I agree with your idea that Rome's economy was very crucial to their empirical infrastructure; after all, as you said, the original city-state of Rome was the center of commerce on the Mediterranean, due in part to its convenient location (doc 1, e, f), but how much of a factor do you think the Roman government (emperor, mostly) and military factored into Rome's power?
DeleteI agree with what Lily stated in her comment above. Agriculture was very important in the Roman society, but I feel the military was a much bigger source of success for them. If the military was weak and easily overpowered by other city-states, Romans would’ve lost their sources of grain from their “farmlands [in] Egypt, Sicily, and all of cultivated Africa” (Doc 1T, E). If they didn’t take charge of these city states, they wouldn’t have had that land available for their use in the first place. You also stated that “Rome was the center for all trading and meets.” If the Romans hadn’t gained practically full control of the Mediterranean Sea, they wouldn’t have been the center of trading or any other economy boosting activities.
DeleteYour explanation of the first paragraph of Aristides' oration was detailed, and allowed me to understand better what Aristides was trying to convey in that. However, you seem to have missed out on a major aspect of Rome's success - its government. What are your thoughts about government.
DeleteYes, I do realize that some information I had left out or was very vege, but I did got into much depth on the fact that Rome was mainly based on the commercial center. I do agree with you Lily that this was not the only subject that brought Rome to its glory days. Their army did contribute a lot and along with many other areas.
DeleteI do not exactly think that the agriculture was as much of a factor in the empire's success as you made it sound, although it was still very important. With that, I agree with what Christine said, that the military was a larger factor in the empire's success. Also, going off of what Alex stated, the government played a major role in the success, although not necessarily as much as the military (at least, in my eyes).
Deletei agree with alex your paragraph of Aristides oration was very detailed but like Alex I have to understand more and there's one important aspect that you forgot about their empire, you forgot to mention about their government. Their government had a huge part to do with their empire.
DeleteI agree mostly with you about your explanation. There is the factor that Orlando mentioned though. The factor about having the agriculture not be a major part in Rome's success. I agree with Christine as well when she explained that Rome's military was a greater aspect of Rome's success. I also agree with Alex when he talked about Rome's government. You seemed to have left a bit of their government out of your explanation.
DeleteWhat Aristides meant by referring to the empire as a "common democracy of the world" is that democracy is a very common type if government in other empires and civilization (Doc 1 G).
ReplyDeleteThis speech compares both in style and content to "Pericles' Funeral Oration", by me still barely understanding what I'm reading, the stories both talking about their views and beliefs. They both had to do with politics/government in a way. I think they both had the same heading format.
The unique features of the Roman Empire as Aristides explained is "vast comprehensive as its size is, your empire is much greater for its perfection than the area its borders encircles" (Doc 1 E). He talks about its features and his admiration of it.
Aristides' oration provide evidence for the development of a composite Greco-Roman culture by putting citizens in two categories "Hellene and non-Hellene". Hellene did not refer simply to an ethnic Greek (Doc 1 L). Non-Hellene, or barbarian, was either someone from the empire or one of the empire's uneducated masses (Doc 1 M).
I think Aristides liked the Roman Empire because they had adopted a lot of Greeks norms and they weren't a tyrant, or a monarchy. They didn't let just one person have a say. They were a democracy, where everyone had a say.
I agree partially with what you say, i agree with the unique features of vastness and Aristides admiration of the empire, but the speeches differ more when comparing. They do discuss their point of view and where they stand but in 'The Roman Oration' their is more information that they provide to compare the two.
DeleteI agree that they both talk about their views and beliefs. But what I thought of the most while I was reading the article was how the people of Rome were equal and the government wasn't really harsh on foreigners. Also, he mentioned that there wasn't really any separation. I also agree that Aristides like the Roman Empire. In the article, it seems as if he was bragging about the empire and sorta showing it off.
DeleteAristides mentions the tradition they had (Doc1 c) and I think that is important because without tradition, they basically wouldn't have anything to follow and most of the citizens would turn against each other and cause conflict and the empire would most likely separate. He also says "You do not reign within fixed boundaries, and another state does not dictate the limits of the land you control;rather, the sea..." and I also think that is important. He also mentions agriculture, trade and some technology (Doc1 d, e,f).
ReplyDeleteI agree that tradition was something that caught Aristides attention. It seemed to give people something to look forward too.
DeleteI do agree with you about the tradition Aristides had mentioned, but that was not the only thing that was of importance; there is military, laws, social jobs, and many other mentions in the "The Roman Oration". I do disagree when you said that "without tradition, they would turn against each other". Tradition is only a stepping stone. There are many laws that keep everything and everyone intact and under the Roman Rule. Freedom of culture and other rights keep the people from turning against each other.
DeleteThere are several characteristic of the Roman Empire, identified by Aristides, that make it distinct. The first of them being the firm, yet kind government of the Romans, which was based off of “good law” (Doc 1, A, F). One way they managed to maintain such a large empire was through this kind government. The Romans granted citizenship to anyone who was “powerful, noble, or well-accomplished” (Doc 1, D). In general, Rome offered many right to citizens and based their government off of laws and moral behavior (Strayer 130). A factor unmentioned by Aristides that allowed the Roman Empire to maintain power was probably their ability to conquer and expand rather easily. They conquered Italy, Carthage, and Spain, then Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia (Strayer 130).
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides referred to Rome as the “common democracy of the world”, he meant that Rome was open to the world, accepting all people. Anyone could be part of the Roman culture, and therefore take part in Roman government as a citizen. “No one is a foreigner” (Doc 1, G), Aristides stated in his oration. Aristides’ oration provides evidence for Greco-Roman culture within the Roman Empire because the characteristics he describes are similar to the characteristics of Greeks, described in Pericles’ funeral oration. They had similar concepts for democracy, and similar concepts for citizenship and social rankings, where abilities and accomplishments come before superficial attributes.
Aristides is so enamored of the Roman Empire because that is basically their goal in all of the kindness of their government - to make citizens happy, and not cause conflicts and revolts within the Empire. Specifically, Aristides is amazed by the Roman Empire because of their acceptance of all cultures.
The stability their government had did seem to be a huge factor in creating such a huge empire. That is what brought the people in which brought the diversity and liveliness.
DeleteI personally agree on what you had described about the Government because i strongly feel that their Government is the biggest reason why they remained powerful for so long. If it was not for the acceptance of many people and cultures and the way there democracy worked then Rome would have fallen easily. Rome defiantly set the standards for how an empire should be built and last for years; Rome is a prime example of an outstanding Empire.
DeleteThe way you describe their government is very concise and clear, kudos to you for that.
DeleteDo you think Aristides was so impressed by the Roman empire simply due to their government, or was that just the main attraction that stood out to him? To me, Aristides also seems to linger on the sheer size and volume of the Roman economy, as well as the imposing government, but I'm wondering about your take on that.
Although we differed in what Aristides meant by Rome being the common democracy of the world, I can still agree with what you said considering how you justified it. I never would have thought it could have also referred to it accepting everybody. Also, I agree with what you said about the government being firm but kind, as the kind government probably would help shut down possible thought of rebellion, whereas the firmness aspect of the government may have stopped the thought in a different way.
DeleteRome was a very successful empire. It had a powerful military, well-developed industry, structured government, and impressive architecture (Doc 1T, A, H, P, S). Their military was especially impressive because the officials took it very seriously and wanted to be the superior to everyone else across the world (Strayer 117). Through this desire, they gained loyalty of the citizens allowing the Roman authority to last as long as it did. Without civilian trust, the whole empire would’ve fallen apart with the first problem that arose. Everyone across the world wanted to be as the Roman Empire was including Greece. In fact, they desired it enough to combine their culture with Rome into one Greco-Roman culture. This allowed them to take part in resources such as iron and agriculture that they didn’t have available to them before (Strayer 124). If the Roman Empire wasn’t as efficient in military tactics, trade, and other aspects as Aristides explained, this united culture wouldn’t have come about (Doc 1T, A, D).
ReplyDeleteIt is agreeable that the Romans were the most influential society from history. This is one reason why Aristides states the Roman Empire as the “common democracy of the world.” Even our society today has traits comparable to this great society: How we elect officials by vote is the same method used by those of old (Strayer 130). A lot of the religions back in the early days spread across the world like Christianity, Judaism, and Jewish belief. With common religions and forms of government, Aristides was correct in his statement that Rome contained the “common democracy of the world” (Doc 1T, N). With the Roman ways spreading so fast, it was evident in Aristide’s oration that he was fascinated by this empire and its styles of government, artwork, culture, and different technologies (Doc 1T, N, I, D). Although he wasn’t a resident of Rome, he wished to take part in their trade routes, agricultural profits, and being close to metal deposits, technology, stable settlements, and creativity through arts and religion (Doc 1T, E, D, H, L). I’m sure he wanted to take the ways of success Rome had built up back to his nation so they too could be accomplished in their living like the Romans were.
Aristide’s oration is very similar to Pericles’ funeral oration. Although they were in different settings of Athens and Rome, the speakers are both praising the city-state/empire’s democracy, military, and culture in several different aspects; some examples of this include “the empire expanded its borders significantly”, “the Roman Republic was the major power in the Mediterranean and an empire in fact”, and “Because your government is both universal and like that of a single city-state…” (Doc 1T, B, A, P). These speeches also demonstrate the pride of both societies; they believed themselves to be the greatest in the world. Rome truly was one of the greatest empires ever to come on the Earth.
This sentence caught my attention: “I’m sure he wanted to take the ways of success Rome had built up back to his nation so they too could be accomplished in their living like the Romans were.” Do you think that Aristides didn’t quite consider himself a citizen of Rome? He was technically a Roman, and they tended to be in awe of and proud of their Roman citizenship. Of course, they were glad they would be able to keep their native citizenship (doc 1 i, j) and would be overjoyed to be able to participate in Roman affairs, but the way this was worded makes me wonder if they considered themselves not truly Roman, just Roman conquests.
DeleteI’m probably being pedantic, but it’s something to think about.
I can see where my wording may be misleading and bring you to that conclusion. I think Aristides was very proud of his Roman citizenship, and wanted his native country of Smyrna to experience the same pride he did for Rome. Because Aristides’ family had to be granted citizenship several decades earlier, I believe the Romans were very particular in who could attain citizenship in their country. I’ve come to the conclusion that one of the reasons Aristides went to give his speech was to praise Rome and to take part in Roman living for the short time he was there. If he really wanted Roman qualities in his society back home, he needed to actually live there for some time and see how the culture he heard about was applied into the lives of the Roman residents. Rome was very successful in almost every aspect of their empire, so it makes sense to me that Aristides would want to apply some of their culture into Smyrna.
DeleteI hope that clears some things up. If it made everything more confusing, I apologize:).
The Roman Empire was the greatest of its time. It had the unique features of the “perfect” government by having a form of aristocracy and democracy in its government. The feature that gave the empire the measure of legitimacy in the eyes of many of the citizens was the fact that the empire was so big and majority of them were granted citizenship( Doc 1 H1). So no matter where they went they were still considered Roman citizens even if they were far from Rome. Some other factors that may have contributed to the maintenance of Roman authority was the combination of the cultures amongst the territory of the empire. It contained the Hellenistic culture along with others that were included in the boundaries.
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides refers to the empire as a “common democracy of the world” I believe that he is referring to how the entire empire is connected under one government and so that gives it the same democracy all over the world(Doc 1 B1, C1). He was very enamored by the empire because Aristides himself was not from Rome, he was from Anatolia, so he much greatly appreciated the benefits of gaining Roman citizenship and also having the citizenship of his homeland as well( Doc 1 I1). His oration provides evidence of the composite Greco-Roman culture by pointing out the things he is most grateful about that are existent among the empire. He mentions how the empire trades amongst the people, its much more superior than the previous empires, the empire is very controlled, it has traits of the Hellenistic period and it has a universal form of government( Doc 1 D1, F1, G1, H1, K1).
The speech Pericles gave was showing the glory of Athens where this speech by Aristides was talking about the entire Roman empire in a different time period as well. Pericles was also the leader at the time so it was from his point of view as a ruler where Aristides was just a citizen but they both gave glory to their homeland.
I agree with just about everything you said Jordan :) you included the sentence within your answer, you gave an answer and broke it down to what it really meant. I like that you included that Aristides was a citizen but he gave his viewpoint on the Roman Empire, etc. Good Job.
DeleteAbout the "common democracy of the world" - you have an interesting depiction of what it means, but I would also like to inform you of other ways to look at the quote, since it can be taken so many ways. You say how the Roman Empire as a whole follows a single government; others say that the Roman democracy is the root of modern government, or how the Roman democracy allowed citizens to have a choice in their citizenship.
DeleteI agree that the amount of land that the Roman Empire occupied added to the legitimacy but what about the Trade aspect to the empire? I believe that when Aristides said trade was ceaseless that it would prove the legitimacy of the empire as well because it shows that everyone wants to get things from us and share new ideas with us as well. It seems to me that in the aspect of trade Rome was the real deal.
DeleteI agree on that Thomas, the trade did add to the legitimacy of the empire. Since it was the capitol and heartland of the empire it attracted majority of the trade. Also several states within the empire chose to route there for their trade since it was such a large unit of culturally diverse units of trade.
DeleteI like how you rephrased the question in all of your answers, and the factthat you had all of your facts cited. it is very clear that you spent time and effort in your response. i like the fact that you went so into depth with the fact that Aristides was not a born Roman citizen, it didn't even cross my mind to go that personal and into depth.
DeleteTrade was an important part of the roman economy, and you mentioned it. it was not only controlled but all of the imports were so surplus that he mentions, "from southern Arabia in such numbers that one must conclude that the trees in those lands have been stripped bare." Great job
The Roman Empire is glorified by Aristides throughout the excerpt. He describes the unique feature of the empire, including their size, tradition, granting of citizenship,law, government and liveliness (Doc 1,a, c, d, e, g) . As he says, “ What one does not see here does not exist” ( Doc 1, i). I believe the allowance of citizenship to most people was a factor that gave Rome legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides says “a common world democracy” I believe it ties in with the quote “you have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans” (Doc 1, e). The granting of citizenship made it so that people all around lived under it. Most of the world, according to Aristides was under the Roman government making it “a common world democracy.
Aristides enamoration for Rome possibly derived from the stability and flourishing lifestyle it had. Rome was able to have a large civilized empire even starting as a flimsy city-state. The empire proves that gaining and reigning do not have to clash.
Anyone that did not live with the Greco-Roman culture was described by Aristides as a “barbarian” (doc 1, j). He explained it as a high cultured society . Like Pericles, he praised the Roman empire and also backed up why it deserved such appraisal.
I do agree with most things you have said in your comment, but on when descending the "common world", Aristides goes into more depth. Citizens did evolve around this, but I think that he was getting at is that the sea ports did Rome the most good. Rome was mainly the center of trading along the Mediterranean and items, people, culture, technology was traded here expanding the empire and bringing along more people.
DeleteI agree that Aristides praised the Roman Empire. I think that he talks the empire is the most important and unique empire. And I would say the same thing if I were him, because of the way that they grant citizenship to a lot of other people and everyone is equal. I think the religion is a big thing with it because most of Rome were Christians, and a lot of people were of that religion because if offered equality and I think that they had more equality than most empires.
DeleteAristides identifies organization, vastness, power, fairness, and high expectations as unique qualities (Doc 1, J, K, L, M, Q). For example, power was a unique quality because they felt that if one man could rule and possess power then they would maintain the best ruler/ best dictator trade, shipping agriculture and metallurgy had significantly increased the size and population within the empire due to things being shipped and naturally produced. Because of naturally produced products and shipped products, this outlined the empire to be "Much greater for its perfection.” (Doc 1, D, H)
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides referred to the empire as a “Common democracy of the world”. Overall I think he meant one man should be strong enough to be the ruler/dictator. Based off of his knowledge of the empire he knew that the empire was powerful, therefore with “firm but not unkind ruling” the democracy would not only be up to the emperor but to the citizens as well. (Doc 1, L, Q)
I believe Aristides was so enamored with the empire because it was such a successful empire, it stood with pride and power that he wanted to be a part of the empire. Although he was not from the Roman heartland he felt as though their achievements should be recognized. I also believe that he liked the empire because Aristides received citizenship along with his family, which resulted in him giving a public speech of the glories and significance of the Pax Romana (Doc 1 E, F).
Well, Aristides speech provided evidence for the development of a composite Greek/Roman culture within the Roman Empire because “He managed nonetheless to capture the spirit of prosperity.” Aristides had a mission to characterize the attitude of so many. So, with what he was saying he wanted people to believe him, he was a smooth talker and he chose his words wisely. Also he came from a wealthy family so even though he was not from the Roman heartland he knew much about it (Doc 1, E, F)
The small excerpt just gave a synopsis of Aristides background, the increase of commerce, art and literature, and the Pax Romana. Comparing ‘The Roman Oration’ to the small excerpt the empire broke up into two sections, the Hellene and the non-Hellene. The non-Hellene, “was either someone from the outside of the empire or one of the empires educated masses with or without poverty”. With that being said the emperor took pride in his citizens because he did not just look for the rich or the poor, he looked to be fair and sustain his citizens; equality. In comparison to Pericles’ Funeral Oration, both praised and exaggerated the peace and h within the society, almost making it seem like no harm or disagreement could ever occur (Doc 1, S, Q, O, M, J).
There are several characteristic of the Roman Empire, identified by Aristides, that make it distinct. The first of them being the firm, but lenient government of the Romans, which was based off of “good law”. One of the ways Rome maintain such a large empire was through the government they had built. The Romans allowed citizenship to anyone who was “powerful, noble, or well-accomplished”. Rome offered many right to citizens and their Government relied on moral laws and their Empire laws. One factor by Aristides that allowed the Roman Empire to maintain power was their ability to conquer and expand easily. They conquered Italy, Carthage, and Spain, then Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. (Strayer 130)(Doc 1, A,F,D)
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides referred to Rome as the “common democracy of the world”, he meant that Rome was that Rome accepted all people. Anyone could be part of the Roman culture, and could also take part in Roman government as a citizen. Aristides stated in his oration that. “No one is a foreigner” Aristides oration shows evidence of Greco-Roman culture within the Roman Empire because the characteristics he describes are similar to the characteristics of Greeks, described in Pericles’ funeral oration. They had similar ideals for democracy, and similar ideals for citizenship and social rankings. Aristides is so enamored of the Roman Empire because that is basically their goal in all of the kindness of their government - to make citizens happy, and not cause conflicts and revolts within the Empire. Aristides is proud by the Roman Empire because of their acceptance of all cultures.(Doc1,G)
What about the immense amount of trading the Romans did? That would surely add to the legitimacy of the empire because if everyone wants things you have to offer it seems show how legitimate Rome's trading was. I agree with your depiction of Democracy of the world because Rome accepted all people even if they were non-natives. This shows that the democracy is worldly because it is so culturally diverse.
DeleteAristides was interested the Roman Empire because he was able to keep his Smyrna citizenship as well as have Roman citizenship (Doc 1 I, J). I also think he was intrigued by the fact that the Roman Empire was so culturally diverse which made it seem that no matter where you lived you were under the “Umbrella” of the Roman Empire and enjoyed the benefits that came along with it (Doc 1 K). I’m sure that the power the Roman Empire possessed also caught Aristides eye. Aristides oration and Pericles’ oration both seem to exaggerate the empires. For example Aristides says “That the Roman Empire ruled as much land as the sun passed over” which shows a great deal of exaggeration, since the sun passes the entire surface of the earth (Doc 1 F). Both orations show a great sense of pride for their respective empires. I could see that Aristides had a great sense of pride for the Roman Empire because he says “let this city flourish forever and never cease until stones float on water…” This proves that he really like his empire and wishes for it to continue for eternity (Doc 1 Q). Aristides refers to the Roman Empire as being a “common democracy of the world.” I believe he uses this term because everyone in the Roman Empire had citizenship even if they were non-natives (Doc 1 M). This term seems to show that many people were part of the empire which makes it a “World Democracy”. Aristides believes a unique features of the empire are the spread of multiple cultures and the ceaseless trade. The ceaseless trade seems to add the most legitimacy to the empire because it makes Rome seem like it’s a trade center of the world and that everyone from all over is trading with them (Doc 1 G, H). The allowance of being able to keep your beliefs and still be a part of the empire probably helped keep control of the people. Aristides oration shows that the Roman Empire encompassed a large area, which included Greece. The oration describes how they took ideas of design and structure and implemented it into the Roman Empire when they made the empire beautiful (Doc 1 N, O, P).
ReplyDeleteGreat job! I didn’t quite think of the same meaning of the “common democracy of the world” the same way. I took it as being the melting pot of the world, well at least the civilized portion, so i guess i came from the same general direction, but i went with the fact that Rome had such relax requirements when it came to citizenship. Not everyone was a citizen but everyone could apply.
Deletei also didn’t think of the fact that Aristides and Pericles both exaggerated, but now that you point it out, they did! I do think that the quotes you used were amazing and proved your point but the could’ve been cited.
I don't mean to harp, but if you separated your response into paragraphs it may have been a bit easier to read, but overall great job!
On multiple occasions throughout the text, Aristides mentions the vastness of both the Roman empire’s borders, and its cultural diversity (Doc 1: A,C,D, G, H). Rome was a cultural melting pot for the ancient world. Egypt, Sicily, and Northern Africa were the fertile parts of the empire, but needed some way to disperse the harvest to the rest of Rome, so - this is where Greece came in- sea trade was needed. Aristides describes the ocean as being “like a belt, situated in the middle of the civilized world and in the middle of the land over which you rule (Doc 1:B).” Aristides also admires Rome for their overall unity, in all definitions: equality for citizens(Doc 1 O,P,Q), its involved government (Doc 1: N,Q, R) and its cultural acception (Doc 1 K).
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides refers to the Roman empire as a “common democracy of the world,” he is describing Rome’s lax stipulations when it came to citizenship. Anyone (just about everyone) could apply for citizenship even if they were already a citizen of somewhere else. Aristides was both a multi-citizen himself. He had citizenship in both Rome and Smyrna (Doc 1 K). it seems he was also awestruck by the imperial unity and equality inside its borders (Doc 1 F, G, M, P, Q, R).
The fact he kept comparing Rome’s local government to a city-state (Doc 1 H). Aristides also mentioned the Hellenes and the non-Hellenes were equal in terms of travel and migration (Doc 1 S). The text explained that Hellenes no longer referred to ethnic Greeks but to any and all Roman citizens (Doc 1 S), which means that the Romans were so influenced by Greece that their citizens took the same identity of the Greeks
The content of Aristides speech is full of infatuation and praise for Rome. Aristides was not a born citizen of Rome, yet he still was taken by its beauty, and unity, just like Pericles. Though Pericles was coming from a sense of vanity, and a place of conceit . Pericles was giving a eulogy for Greece’s fallen soldiers,yet he mentioned very little of them, which i found inappropriate. Aristides, on the other hand, was appropriate in giving this speech of praise.
i agree with you rebekah i too see how it can be somewhat inappropriate that he mentioned very little of greeces fall soldiers. your understanding was relatable and i can understand your concepts of different views and how the article came to you in mind.
DeleteI agree with you about many of the reasons Aristides praised Rome. I like what you said about how anyone in Rome could apply for citizenship, and Aristides was a multi-citizen himself.I think you make a very good point in demonstrating what the common democracy meant for him. However, when you were comparing the Oration to the article Aristdes wrote,you mentioned that Pericles didn't give praise or gave very little praise when really, he was talking about Greece and taking pride in the soldiers.
DeleteAristides identifies the unique features of the Roman Empire as the fact that they encompass a large portion of land while also being well-governed, having a highly traversed trade system, giving citizenship to those who are “worthy” so to speak, and making the world a beautiful place (Doc 1 d, e, f, h, i, j). In the eyes of the empire’s subjects, the empire was seen as legitimate probably due to the fact that it was a well governed population despite covering such a large portion of land (Doc 1 d, f). This is part of why Aristides may have referred to the Roman Empire as the common democracy of the world, as the empire was ruled under one man that divided the world into those who are Roman and those who aren’t (Doc 1 k). Unmentioned by Aristides, contributions to the maintenance of the Roman authority include its military. The Roman military was a powerful one, one that likely struck fear to whoever crossed its path considering how much land it had helped conquer, helping the Empire stay under control.
ReplyDeleteAristides was enamored significantly with the Roman Empire. This is probably because he is aware of how well constructed the empire is as a whole. For example, the government was run as though if it were one city-state, a very strict form of government in the sense that it is precise and has its rules set in stone and is not often tampered with (Doc 1 h). He also may be enamored because he knows of the Roman Empire’s size and glory. He even calls it perfect and that the “cities glisten with radiance and charm” and that “...the entire earth has been made beautiful like a garden”, in reference to the empire in its entirety (Doc 1 g, j). The oration provides evidence of a composite Greco-Roman as it shows that Greeks have the Roman Empire in high regard, otherwise he probably wouldn’t speak of them in such a way as seen in his oration.
Overall, the speech can be compared to Pericles’ Funeral Oration. Both of the orations deal with the government of the places being written about. The orations also strive to exaggerate the excellence of Athens and Rome, that there can’t possibly be a better place with the way they were described in their respective oration.
Rome developed to be a very well built democracy. the military was significant along with empire its self.When referring to the empire as a relocatable common democracy of the world. Aristides was directed to the Roman Empire therefore also keeping the Smyrna citizenship though to include the Roman citizenship (Doc 1 k, l,m). I also think he was enjoyed by the benefits that was given within the Roman Empire. ( doc 1 o) the roman empires power possessed to attracted Aristides. Aristides oration and Pericles’ oration seem to be over exaggerated within relating the empires. placing the most analyze on these descriptive aspects in his speech. The world democracy lead legitimacy in the thought of each subjects., Aristides insisted that Rome was a great empire, an significant empire, an empire that's one of a kind. It gave the people options of choice and opportunity. In addition, Aristides Oration of Pericles gives detail referring to its culture. It had power in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people (Doc 1, h, i , j).The divergent speech The Funeral Oration of Pericles are figuratively related on aspects of the Roman proportion and tone. Aristides gave detail on how power, laws, and expansion under can intertwine within governments and or dynasty. (Doc 1 E,f, g,H ). The roman empire grew over time to build into its own peaceful and simple divine power ruling.including the over view of the Five good Emperors Antoninus was admired which is briefly similar to the whole concept of Aristides admire Rome. Rome and its accomplishments of its time period from then to now has changed drastically and it though shall continue to keep its power as long lasting
ReplyDeleteAristides identifies their great expansion, successful trading, and their "world democracy" as the unique features of the Roman Empire (Doc 1,A,D,F). He places the most trust on these aspects in his speech. I think their world democracy gave them a measure of lawfulness in the eyes of their subjects. When referring to the empire as a "common democracy of the world", Aristides meant that Rome was a great empire. It gave the people options. You didn't have to get rid of your native citizenship to be a Roman citizen. You could be both. Aristides was probably so enamored by the Roman Empire because it was so incredibly powerful and huge and it faced minimal threats. It was not a cruel empire. It had laws, but its citizens were still treated fairly. Aristides Oration of Pericles provides evidence that its culture became Greco-based. The citizens had power as a whole. It wasn't just the people in the government. This speech and The Funeral Oration of Pericles compare to each other in that they both admire the good parts of two different empiresThe roman empire grew over time to build into its own peaceful and simple power ruling. Including the over looking of the i think it was three good Emperors Antoninus was admired which is briefly the same to the whole concept of Aristides admire Rome. Rome and its accomplishments of its time period from then to now has changed quickly and it though continue to keep its power for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteAristides identifies mostly vastness,agriculture, and government as unique features of the Roman empire.(doc1,b,d,h). Aristides talks about the vastness of Rome, like when he says "During that two-hundred year period the empire expanded its borders significantly". This leads me to believe that Aristides valued the borders, which within them created a valuable system of democracy and great agriculture. I think the complex systems of Rome (such as the trade system and government system) were what the people of Rome saw as a measure of legitimacy in their eyes. (doc 1,e,h). Some other major factors that may have contributed to the maintenance of authority were "its governors that rightly rule not as foreigners, but as it were, their own people", which means they shared one government that was made for the people (doc 1, f,h).
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides refers to the empire as a "common democracy to the world" I think he means that all the people shared in the form of government, whether it be Romans or foreigners who were living in Rome. I also think that he knew that the democracy was an effective system that would later be shared with other nations and empires and carried throughout history. Aristides had a love for the Roman empire, and I think it's because he admired the fact that they stuck around for so long. They had a great ruler who "created and presided over the first generation of Pax Romana"(doc 1, a). Aristides could have admired the fact that the Romans led a great government, and the citizens were kept happy while the empire continued to expand.
The passage provides a little bit of evidence to the Greco-Roman empire. It was mostly evidence to say that they had some of the same practices and ran at the same time. They were both also successful. This speech compares with Pericles in many ways. They both talk about the pride the men wrote about for both empires. They also wrote about the government in both empires and are bragging about the greatness of them in a way.
Aristides identifies many unique features of the Roman Empire such as the vast and comprehensive empire, goods, government, and a political structure (Doc 1 k, d, o). The feature that gave the empire the measure of legitimacy in the eyes of many of the citizens was the fact that the empire was so big and majority of them were granted citizenship (Doc 1 E1, H1).
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristides is referring to the empire as a “common democracy of the world" he is describing the citizenship, because anyone and just about everyone could apply for citizenship. Although they were a citizen somewhere else they could apply, in fact Aristides was a multi-citizen himself; It's all ruled under one. (Doc 1 b1,c1,d1,e1). Aristides was so enamored of the Roman empire because they were successful and he loved it because they possessed so many different qualities.
the extent of Aristides’ provided evidence for the development of a composite Greco-Roman culture and sensibility within the Roman Empire by stating that “it is now possible for Hellene and non-Hellene” and it meant that every Roman citizen and who shared Greco-Roman high culture. Which means roman citizens who valued Greek culture at the time were Hellene (doc 1 K1).
Aristides identifies the area where Rome reigns as a unique feature of the Roman Empire. He explains this by saying that “You do not reign within fixed boundaries, and another state does not dictate the land you control;” This may have given the empire a measure of legitimacy in the eyes of many people because it shows that Rome had conquered many different countries and possibly continents (doc 1 b).
ReplyDeleteAristides meant that Rome was ruled in multiple areas by an emperor when he explained that the empire ruled as a “common democracy of the world” (doc 1 i).
Aristides might be so enamored of the empire because Rome ruled well and is very stubborn when it comes to guarding. Aristides explains this when he says that “There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high points of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their native lands for you” (doc 1 k).
Aristides’ oration proves evidence for a composite Greco-Roman culture because he explains that Rome controls many lands nicely but firmly and also had a strong trading system. Aristides obviously wanted to have the same characteristics for Greece that Rome has (Doc 1 d,e,g,m).
This speech compares with Pericles’ Funeral Oration when Pericles explained all the fine aspects of their own empire and Aristides is basically doing the same thing except with Rome. Aristides does this by explaining that Rome basically has everything that is good and are still given things from other countries and continents (Doc 1 a,c,h).
Aristides identifies their great expansion, successful trading, and power as the unique features of the Roman Empire (Doc 1, B, E, and G). When referring to the empire as a "common democracy of the world", Aristides meant that Rome was a great empire. It gave the people options. You didn't have to get rid of your native citizenship to be a Roman citizen you could keep it while also following the way of Rome. (Doc 1, H)Aristides was probably so enamored by the Roman Empire because it was so incredibly powerful and huge and how there were many cultures within it (Doc 1, B, G). Aristides oration provides evidence of composite Greco-Roman culture within the Roman Empire by saying no one was ruled by one minority The citizens had power as a whole. It wasn't just the people in the government or a minority. (Doc 1, I)This speech and The Funeral Oration of Pericles compare to each other in that they both admire and glorified there empires.
ReplyDelete