Daily # 13 Week 5

Required Daily: Read Augustus' 'Res Gestae ' paragraphs 19 - 21 and scavenger hunt for as many pictures relating to the places mentioned as you can find and chart them on a Google Map.

Daily # 10 Week 5

Why do many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor"?

Hadrian was born in January 76 A.D to a well off family. He was Roman Emperor from 117 to 138. Many historians consider Hadrian to be the “best” emperor in the time of the Roman Empire. Hadrian accomplished many great achievements in his lifetime. Hadrian is most commonly known for the Hadrian Wall and is most notable for that. The Hadrian wall basically marks the most north part of the Roman Empire. It was built for defensive purposes for Rome’s northern land. In addition he also built the Pantheon and the Temple of Venus and Roma. During his reign, Hadrian traveled through almost every province that was located in the Roman Empire. He also has a great reputation as a military commander even though during his rule there were no significant military conflicts that occurred. He was very interested in things involving art, such as architecture, poetry, and hunting. People believe Hadrian to be the best Roman emperor because of his difference in personality and interests and his love to satisfy the people of the Roman Empire. Hadrian spent a lot of time with his military and wore military clothing most of the time. Hadrian trained his army to be the best and even gave them false alerts to make sure they’re on track. He did not really have natural military skill, but his knowledge of the army and his skill of leadership show his strategic talent. I'd say that he seemed like one of the more successful and well-liked rulers.

Daily # 9 Week 5

         Were the Julio-Claudians really as bad as they seem?

Yes, the Julio-Claudians were really as bad as they seemed.Most of them were great rulers that have been honored throughout history though. The Julio Claudian dynasty refers to the first five emperors who ruled in the Roman Empire. These rulers consisted of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. They held their reign in the time of the second half of the first century, ending when Nero took his own life. Many great leaders came out of the Julio-Claudians, like Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar is known for his great relationship with his subjects, he really knew what his people wanted and how he could get them on his side. Writers didn't write about any of the five emperors in a positive way They made them seem crazy and unsuccessful instead.  Augustus kept on remarrying his only daughter, Julia, so he could possess an heir to the thrown after he died. Tiberius was next who was officially adopted by Emperor Augustus. Tiberius was known for his extreme cruelty, breaking a young boy’s legs when he complained.  Then, Caligula was also a direct descendent of Augustus Caesar. But even with his powerful dynasty, Caligula was still a little insane. He was the first actual emperor of the Julio Claudians. He killed his own cousin, to ensure his right to the throne. Caligula also found amusement in death, money, and sexual intercourse. Last was Claudius. He was Caligula's uncle. Claudius was found hidden behind a curtain when told he was the new ruler of the Roman Emperor. His great nephew, Nero, was next in line to the throne when Claudius died from poison. Nero, his great nephew was next in line to the throne and was another direct descendant from Augustus Caesar. He executed his own mother then framed it as a suicide. All five men were not good leaders and only cared about their power.

Daily #4 Week 5

Please take a picture of something in your own neighborhood or town that appears to have been influenced by Ancient Rome.

This is a picture of my house. It has big columns, which are a Roman design. Many Roman buildings had columns like these. They were and still are used to structural support, not just for decoration.  

Western Civ Roman Emperor Video

Please write a brief biography of Hannibal and explain whether or not you think his reputation (in Roman eyes) as a monster was deserved.

Hannibal was a Carthaginian military commander and obviously grew up in Carthage hating the Romans. He lived in the period of when the Roman Republic established more power over other great cities such as Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms.  Hannibal was born in 247 B.C.E and grew up during a period of tension in the Mediterranean. Hannibal’s father was the commander of the Carthaginian army during the First Punic War. When Hannibal was little, his father taught him to hate and despise the Romans, through this growing hatred, Hannibal wanted to seek revenge.  So in the First Punic War when Carthage was defeated, Hamilcar set out to reclaim Carthage’s fortune. When his father was then killed in battle, Hasdrubal got promoted to his father’s earlier position. Hannibal then served as an officer under him. Then in two hundred twenty one before the Common Era Hannibal’s brother, Hasdrubal, was assassinated. Hannibal then took his place as commander in chief by the army. For the next two years he fought in battle for the conquest of Hispania south of the Ebro. This was how the 2^nd Punic War begins, by Hannibal invading through Spain and going to Italy. Hannibal lost his eye during one of the battles, but is a very strong leader. Hannibal then went through the Alps and finally reached northern Italy with all his troops and elephants. While in Italy he destroyed many towns and didn’t give any mercy. Hannibal came within 50 miles of Rome and shows how fierce of a leader he was. Throughout the rest of his life, Hannibal fought and also led many battles. Some of the most memorable are the defeats and victories against the Roman Empire. Hannibal was the Roman’s biggest enemy at the time. So yes, I do think he deserved the reputation he got.

Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?

Yes, I do think that Caesar’s killers were justified in their actions. They killed Caesar, whom they despised, in front of their whole town, brutally. Before he was assassinated,  Caesar had been on his way to the theater. It is true though, that Caesar's friends had tried to warn him. But, he ignored them, and told them to go away. Caesar believed he was immortal and for that, he was assassinated by Servilius Casca and Tillius Cimber. They were two of his fellow politicians. They murdered him in front of the people that adored him and it was a humiliating way to die. Since he was loved by so many people, Caesar didn't realize that he had made enemies as well. Julius Caesar’s death was executed in a very brutal way; he was stabbed by his killers 23 times. This would have allowed his killers to finally have their revenge on all the things that Julius Caesar did that made him such a great ruler. That fact of the matter was that his killers were just jealous that Caesar had risen to power so quickly and was adored by the people. They wanted the kind of respect that he had but in truth he had managed and worked for everything that he got. His killers had accomplished what they had set out to do and made even got more in the process because Caesar didn’t see it coming. He had became very successful very quickly, and had a lot of supporters. They wanted the respect that he had, but really he had worked hard to gain that. His murderers had a reason to want to kill him, but I don't think it was right for him to be killed Caesar defiantly desired more though, than to be killed by his peers. 

How was the Struggle of the Orders influential on later Roman politics?

The Struggle of the Orders changed the way that Rome could make decisions. It was also when the Patrician class had all the power, and then the Plebeians wanted some power too. Before, the Patricians could and did make laws whenever they wanted to, but the Struggle of the Orders took away some of the power from the Patricians.The Plebeians were the common people, but the Patricians were the aristocrats and were used to being in control. The Plebeians formed an assembly, and their own government, until the Patricians agreed to the establishment of an office that would have ‘sacrosanctity’. The Plebeians demanded to have a magistrate. These magistrate positions were also called Tribunes. The Plebian Tribune had the power to veto any law that the Patricians tried to send threw. This started the whole process of Checks and Balances  After the struggle, the Plebians were able to veto any law that Patricians put forth. This gave them a large amount of power, because the Patricians could no longer do something the Plebians did not approve of. The Republic had been founded only fifteen years before this change, so it obviously did not take long for the Plebians to figure out the injustice happening. However, after the Struggle of the Orders, the Patricians still held a considerable amount of power, so they did not let the Plebians completely take away the power they had. Politics in Rome did not, for the most part, change, except that the Plebians were no longer the sole individuals with any power.

What Elements of the Roman Republican Political and Legal System Appear Present in the Systems of Modern Democracies?

The Roman Republic had many similarities to modern day democracies. In the beginning of the Republic, followed a constitution of unwritten rules, just how today America's democracy follows a constitution. Rome was a city state in Italy and was ruled by a king.  Soon the Romans started making constitutions and then fights started breaking out from the families in power and then the rest of the population. The constitution was centered on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. Today, we also use the process of checks and balances because we have a Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branch, and each checks over each other so one doesn’t become too powerful. Today, the veto system is used by the president, whereas he is one sole person who can decide whether a law is passed or not. This was a system first used by the Romans, in the case of Plebians and Patricians. One Plebian was able to either let a law pass, or veto it. The Romans had a Senate, who handled the public money. The Senate of today has similar responsibilities. The council of the Republic had the most power, being the head of the justice system, military, and chief priest. Council members were reelected each year and voted on by the citizens, just as America's democracy votes on its main leader, the president. However, like the Senate of today, the Senate of Rome had other responsibilities. While our Senate enforces laws for bills that may or may not be passed, the Senate of Ancient Rome adjusted all disputes, determined how ambassadors would be treated, and had many other responsibilities. The people of today and Ancient Rome's tome also played close to the same part. The people of Ancient Rome, because the Senate and other parts of the government held so much power, dispensed all punishments, and condemned citizens to paying fines, and had the right to sentence any one person to die. It was very much their job to enforce the rules and look after the country. The people of today have similar responsibilities. From the small city state of Rome we find the Republic government that established the basis of the huge government of the United States of America.

Alexander the Great Essay

Special Question: Please write a five paragraph essay on the question: Was Alexander's adventure really worth it? In your body paragraphs, you must cite specific examples to back up your thesis -- examples must include one from each of the following: Egypt, Persepolis, Afghanistan, India. Due Friday.

Alexander the Great was a strong, powerful and opinionated person. His adventure towards his success was definitely worth it. He has his ups and down, but in the end, made history for himself and will always be remembered. By the age of thirty, he was the creator of one of the largest empires in ancient history. Many people could argue that he wasn’t a good leader and was too self-absorbed. But in reality, he was Alexander the Great and was destined to rule the world.

Alexander spent several months in Egypt as part of his on-going campaign against the mighty Persian Empire of Darius III. After conquering Persia's naval bases, he marched south into Egypt where he remained for about six months. It was here that Alexander was greeted by the God at the Siwa Oasis. This was how part of his legend begun. People started to think that Alexander had supernatural powers and an even greater tale told about him was that he was the son of god himself. This all helped build up his reputation and also, his ego.

Alexander finally reached Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire. After a few months here, Alexander burned down several buildings of the palace. His motive for this was that he was not sole ruler of the Persian Empire yet. The Greek soldiers in Alexander's company were said to have done this to get their revenge for the destruction of Athens in an earlier time. When Alexander and his troops returned several years later and saw the ruins, they regretted their actions. This is why some people say that he was a crazy, uncontrolled leader, and did things just out of anger.  Maybe burning down the palace in Persepolis wasn’t the most productive act, but at the time, it was good enough for Alexander.

After arriving in Afghanistan, Alexander is continually chasing down Bessus, Darius’ general. He was mostly known for killing his predecessor Darius III, after the Persian army had been defeated by Alexander the Great. This was in the Battle of Gaugamela where the strategy ordered by Darius failed and the Persians lost the battle after hours of fierce fighting. This made Bessus upset and so he turned against his own leader, and killed him. Immediately after,  Bessus proclaimed himself king of Persia. But since most of the Persian Empire had been conquered and Bessus only ruled over a loose alliance of renegade provinces, historians do not generally regard him as an official Persian king. Bessus returned to Bactria, where Alexander and his troops were waiting for him. Bessus’ own people arrested and surrendered him due to fear of the approaching Macedonians. Alexander ordered that Bessus's nose and ears be cut off. This was a Persian custom. He then had Bessus crucified, at around the same place where Darius was killed. Alexander always had to get what he wanted. He wanted to kill Darius,  that was his goal. Just to defeat and conquer his empire wasn’t enough. When he found out that Bessus had already killed him, Alexander was very mad. Killing Bessus was his way of showing that you don’t mess with him and if he doesn’t get what he wants, you will be killed.

Following his marriage to Roxana, Alexander turned his attention to India. It has always been a place of great trade. He personally led a campaign against some Indian clans. The part of India which Alexander invaded is called the Punjab. On one side of a wide river lay the Greeks, on the other side lay the Indians. It seemed impossible for either to cross. But in the darkness of a stormy night Alexander and his men passed over, wading part of the way breast high. A great battle was fought. His troops were surprised at the competition the Indians gave them. But it still wasn’t much of a challenge because Alexander's soldiers were far better drilled and far stronger than the Indians. Alexander once again conquered someone else and their Empire.

Alexander was undefeated in battle and was thought of as one of the most successful commanders of all time. His adventures and journeys were worth it considering his reputation and legends he left behind. He was determined and never gave up. Through all his battles, he never was never injured enough to make him stop living out his dream. Alexander knew what he wanted, and did whatever he could to get it. He never really listened to what other people had to say, but in the end this ended up working out for him. He was so powerful that people thought of him as a god. Through all the bad, good, and painful, Alexander the Great reached his goal, making every action and decision of his, worth it.

Sources: 

• Wikipedia
• http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/asbook08.html#Alexander
• 
  
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/alexander_the_great

Weekly 4b

Question: Does Power Corrupt? How or How Not? Why or Why Not? Do you think Alexander was corrupted? And who influenced whom the most: Did Persia become more Greek or did Alexander becoming more Persian?

Power is having control over another person, thing, or situation. And yes, I do believe that power does corrupt.  Having too much power, can make a person out of control. They might not know what to do with it all and wouldn't know how to handle it and control an empire at the same time. Having experience and being intelligent would not only make you a great leader, but would make you able of controlling all of your authority. A good example of someone like this would be Alexander the Great.

I don't think Alexander became corrupt because he was actually very successful. I truly believe that he was fighting mostly to avenge Persian wrongs. Alexander set goals for himself, and accomplished those goals.  He conquered the entire known world during his life at young age and was even considered a God. He created a myth about himself, and he left behind history that is still talked about a lot today. He was power-hungry, but in a way, that helped him. He was very determined and didn't  give up until he got what he wanted. He always wanted more and more and couldn't let anyone have more power then him. All this power did go to his head though. The main downfall of his reign was that he never listened to anyone else. Their ideas and thoughts just didn't matter to him.

While Greek was influencing Persia, Persia was also influencing Persia. People in Alexander's army said he began to turn Persian, but others say Alexander turned Persia more Greek. Of course Greek influenced Persia because Greek took them over, but Alexander, himself, started wearing Persian robes. This raised many concerns and had people wondering who's side he was really on. I feel like they affected each other because Alexander tried what was new to him and experienced the Persian culture. But, Persia probably became more Greek as they entered into Persia. 

Power is a very big factor leading to how someone rules. It can be hard to distribute out in an efficient, yet fair manor. A good leader has to be able to control their authority. They also should listen to the ideas and opinions from others, but not be too influenced by any one person in a negative way. Even the best leaders need advisors and mentors. I think it’s important for the any ruler/ leader to have all of these characteristics, to help them be the most successful they can be.

Daily # 11 Week 4b

Question:  How did Alexander create his own myth?


Many great rulers, such as Alexander the Great tried to make myths for themselves. Alexander did this by conquering the great Gordian knot because he out-smarted everyone and cut it with a sword. But the real story is that at one point in the time the Phrygians were without a king. So they decided to make the next man who arrived on an ox cart there next king. A peasant farmer named Gordias finally came into the city riding an ox cart, and he was then crowned king by the priests. His son, Midas, then dedicated an ox cart with its shafts tied together with cornel bark to the Phrygian god Sabazios. And whoever could untie the knot, was said to become the king of Asia. In the fourth century before the Common Era, Alexander arrived hoping to untie the knot. However, when he could not find the ends of the ropes he instead sliced it in half with his sword making him the new king of Asia. This meant to Alexander that the Gods were now with him.

Daily # 7 Week 4b

Question: What do you think should have been done after Alexander's death?


When Alexander died, he didn't leave any plans for what to do after he was gone. I think he should have left at least something to help the people know what to do. He didn't leave any heirs to the thrown or a will to instruct his people on who to take over. Alexander only left his wisdom and philosophy for his people to work with. I think this was all part of Alexander's plan. He was so power-hungry that he would hate for anyone to ever get a chance to be as strong of a ruler  as he was, so he left nothing behind when he died. If I worked close with Alexander when he got sick, I would have been prepared just in case he did die. This just caused chaos because no one knew what to do. But it showed that no one could ever control the people and the empire like Alexander the Great could.

Daily # 4 Week 4b

Question:  Describe relations between Egypt and Persia before Alexander came on the scene.




Before Alexander came on the scene, the relationship between Egypt and Persia was very bad. Egypt was under Persian rule for a time period. Persia and Egypt were not two countries that got along considering that Egypt had been trying to invade Persia in earlier times.  But when Alexander the Great came about, Egypt accepted him as a natural leader. He was on Egypt's side. He wanted to be close with Egypt so that they could back up Alexander and his group when they decided to fight the Persians Egypt accepted Alexander because Alexander also greatly despised Persia too. Alexander wanted to retaliate on the  offenses Persia did in Greece, like the burning of their temples and the acropolis. Egypt and Persia were rivals before Alexander became part of the picture, planning on destroying the entire Persian army.

Daily # 9 Week 4b

Question: Could a force like Alexander the Great exist today? Why or why not?


I personally don't think a force like Alexander the Great could exist today for a number of reasons. Too many people today have very strong opinions. It's a lot of effort to get a large group of people to agree on something. Like with the president today, majority rules. You can get many people to vote on someone, but there is still a large group of others who don't want this person or thing. Back in Alexander's day, I think people were too scared to go against a force like him. Most people just listened to his command and didn't stand up for what they believed in. This is completely different today. Also, armies and militaries are advanced enough today to be capable of stopping a force like Alexander. Another reason is that back then, power was abundant and Alexander the Great used it all to create a huge empire. But today, our world has many leaders who have an equal amount of power and authority. All these reasons help explain why I don't think there could be a force like Alexander the Great today.

Daily # 6 Week 4b

Question: Was Alexander the Great a "good leader"? Compare/Contrast with Pericles


I personally think Alexander the Great was a good leader, but not the greatest. He was good because he knew how to give directions and how to control a large group of people. He conquered many people and places. A lot of people looked up to him, and saw him an all-powerful god. This just went straight to his head though. I think Alexander was very powerful and successful, but had a huge ego. You should have confidence, but he thought and knew he was the best. He also always needed more. Nothing was every enough for him. And winning battle after battle, just made him go for more. He ultimately just wanted to rule everything and everyone. He was good at what he did, but never listened to the ideas, help, or strategies of anyone else. If he didn't get what he wanted, or didn't like your opinion, you would be killed. Everyone had to agree with him and follow his commands. This is what i don't like about Alexander the Great because a good leader should be someone that can get along with and work well with others. He didn't care what others had to say. It was his way or the highway. Pericles was another good leader. He differed from Alexander in that it seemed that he led more for the people and not for his own power gain. Pericles was more worried about fixing his city and certain structures and made Athens one of the best cities in all of Greece. Alexander was more worried about the size of his city and Pericles was more worried about the content. They were also different because Alexander's main goal was to conquer the world. Pericles wanted to have the strongest city-state/country, but he also focused on many other things like pleasing the people of Athens, and re-building the acropolis after the Persians had burned it down. All though they were both very strong, powerful rulers, Alexander and Pericles had their differences. But in the end, they both are remember as determined leaders who just wanted to the best for their people, and ultimately, themselves. 

Daily # 3 Week 4b

Question: Based on what you know about Aristotle, do you think Alexander had listened carefully to his tutor?


Aristotle was a very big influence on Alexander the Great’s life. Aristotle was an important Greek philosopher during the Greek Empire and was one of the main teachers of Alexander the Great. He was also a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Since Alexander's fathers wanted the best education for his son, Aristotle began teaching Alexander at age 13. Based on his writings, Aristotle covered many subjects like; physics, poetry, theater, music, logic, linguistics, politics, government, and biology. Alexander learned a lot from Aristotle and began to admire Aristotle as one of his main role models. About three years later, Aristotle was done tutoring Alexander. The young, courageous boy started to gain power in Macedonia and became the ruler after his father had died. 


I believe that Alexander used Aristotle's teachings about logic the most, to help him in war. He won almost all of his battles and outwitted most of his opponents. He was good at solving and creating successful strategies, which was from Aristotle's help. But this just turned Alexander into a power-hungry leader. Win after win just lead him to wanting more. This is what makes me think that he didn't listen to his best, most inspiring teacher, Aristotle, that well. 

Daily # 10 Week 4b

10. Using Google Maps, create an illustration of Alexander's whole journey.

Daily # 1 Week 4b

Question: What compels someone to lead others?


I think the main thing that compels someone to lead others is power. A leader is someone who guides and directs. Power gives someone the confidence and authority to rule over others. Someone may become a leader because they do not like the way that things are being done and wish to change them. Also, some people become leaders because it is natural to them.  It is an instinct to take control and be the person in charge. While others might have the instinct to follow the directions of another.
To be a good and successful leader, you have to have to be brave, intelligent, and a well-rounded person to know what you are doing. You also have to have the ability to control others well, and to give out directions and commands. I personally think that anyone could be that person in charge. But with a little drive and determination, someone can go from a leader, to a great, history-making hero. 

Daily # 5 Week 4

Question:. Explain how the origins of theatre in Athens are tied to both religion and politics. 

The origins of theatre in Athens are tied to both religion and politics. Athenian theatre most likely evolved from festivals celebrating the group of Dionysus, who was the Greek god of fertility and wine. The festival was a very religious ceremony. The theatres and the plays themselves were dedicated to the various gods and goddesses. One of the theatres was called the Theatre of Dionysus.  Many activities in Athens, such as the Olympics and, of course, theatre, evolved from worshiping the gods. The actors themselves also portrayed gods or goddess. The plays in the festival were not used as business enterprises, but were funded by the Athenian people for the religious purposes. Religion was a big part of Athenian culture, and the Greek gods such as Aphrodite, Hera, and Poseidon were worshiped often for their power and, well, godliness. Since the theatre in Athens evolved from a festival celebrating and praising the gods, it ties in with religion. Athenian theatre also has to do with politics because usually only more wealthy people could read and understand the plays. Women were not allowed to participate in the plays, but masks were worn by the men so the audience couldn’t tell the difference anyways.

Daily # 1 Week 4

 Question: Do you think Socrates got what he deserved? Why didn't he accept exile?

Before I decide whether Socrates got what he deserved, I feel it's important to reiterate his life and teachings. As Socrates got older, he felt the need to question the world around him and question why things are the way they are.  Socrates never wrote down his teachings but one of his students named Plato did record his teachings. This is really the only way historians know much about Socrates' teachings.  As we know, there are usually a multitude of answers for a single question. You could ask 100 people the same question and they could come up with many different answers, maybe 100. Socrates thought it was better to include many people in a discussion. This way he could come up with many different angles and opinions on whatever topic the group was discussing. Older people in this time period were not as apt to question things as were the younger people. The young people, mostly men, listened to Socrates' teachings and learned how to think the way Socrates taught them. Socrates never charged these men for this knowledge. He presented his ideas in such a way that some of the leaders in Greece thought he was brainwashing people and was against the democratic ways in Athens. Since Socrates was intelligent and taught people how to think his way, he thought only the smartest people should rule so he probably wasn't in favor of democracy. Socrates questioned piety in one of his discussions. This was one of the factors that ultimately led to his demise. After the Peloponnesian war, the leaders in Greece decided not to punish people for their beliefs unless they questioned the Gods. Since this was how Socrates discussion of piety was interpreted, he was tried and then executed (by drinking a glass of hemlock juice). I don't think Socrates deserved to die. He should have been allowed to teach people and solicit different opinions. Life is not always black and white and people have to have open minds to understand how other people think and understand things. Socrates did not accept exile because he would rather die than not be able to teach his philosophy of life to other people.

Daily #4 Week 4

Question: Was Athens really a 'democracy'?

Athens was said to be a democracy, which is a type of government where the people decide who their leaders are and how to run their country. But I personally don’t think it was. A democracy is where each individual person has a vote about what to do. Whatever the most people vote for wins. There is no king or tyrant, and anybody can propose a new law. Several instances in the Peloponnesian War make this thought particularly questionable. Some examples are how some situations were handled and how the leaders took charge. The earliest democracy in the world began in Athens, in 510 BC. When democracy proved to be successful in Athens, many other city-states chose it for their government too.

Some reasons why I don’t believe that Athens was truly a democracy was that the government of Athens was often changing, especially in the times of the Peloponnesian War. Also, there were plenty of political trials. Many opposition politicians were forced to leave Athens or killed based on very doubtful evidences prepared in politically-dependent courts. There was also no strong, and stable “political parties”, and patricians in Rome but many relatively unstable groups of interests built around alluring leaders. If Athens city-state’s had been really democratic, there would be a second empire like a Roman Empire in an eastern part of Mediterranean Sea. Athens would not have lost the war against Sparta. Real democratic system is too effective.

Weekly 4. Peloponnesian Wars Play

The Peloponnesian War

as told by Demetrios and Augustus

written by Kristen Kohles

Demetrios: Hello. Please allow me a brief introduction. My name is Demetrios and I was the assistant to an Athenian general named Pericles.  I lived in Athens, which wasa great naval power. 

Augustus: Hello. My name is Augustus. I am the younger brother to Demetrios and was the assistant to a Spartan general.  I lived in Sparta, which was known for its strong army.  As a result of the conflicts in Greece preceding the Peloponnesian War and the death of our parents, my brother, sister, and I were separated and forced to live in separate cities. My sister, Athena, ended up living in Sparta as a servant and was impregnated by her master. Since he was a married man from an influential family, he forced her and the baby to live a life of solitude. If she told anyone about the baby, her master threatened to kill the baby. Every few weeks, my brother and I would sneak away, carrying with us, weeks of supplies for Athena and the baby as well as some money. She was very lonely but was always grateful to see us and humbled by our generosity.

Augustus: At one time our countries were allies but in 431 BC, this alliance was broken and the Peloponnesian War began and lasted for 27 years. The leaders of Athens were very greedy and were trying to gain control over all of the city-states within Greece. Sparta had to stop Athens from taking control of the country and had to help themselves and other city-states regain their independence. We formed and alliance with Corinth and tried to penetrate the walls of Athens.

Demetrios: Athens was a rich country and had more power than other cities in Greece. Pericles treated me very poorly and often tested my loyalty to Athens. He was becoming more of a dictator to all of his workers and more damaging, he was threatening other city-states. At one time, Pericles tried to make other city-states use Athens money. He tried to control the flow of money in and out of the cities. This was taking a toll on my family since my sister Athena relied on me for her survival.  

Augustus: Since Athens, was becoming so much stronger than other countries and was forcing the rest of us to adhere to their laws, the other city-states began to rebel. The general for which I worked treated my like an equal. I felt much more fortunate than my brother. This war was hard for me & my brother since we were both trying to remain loyal to our respective cities.  For a while, we were concerned that Athens would win. Their strong navy controlled the Mediterranean Sea. 

Demetrios: As I mentioned earlier, Athens was a powerful and wealthy city. We felt safe within our city. Even though our countryside was attacked, our attackers couldn't get into the city. As a result of our strong navy, we were able to leave Athens in our ships to get food and supplies. Since none of the other city-states had a navy like ours, we appeared to be unstoppable.

Augustus: Sparta really resented Athens and Pericles. We were really concerned that we would lose to this naval superpower. However, after much strategizing, we decided it was in our best interest to make a deal with Persia, a former enemy to Athens. The Persians needed land and Sparta needed money. So we traded and used the money (gold) to build our own powerful navy.

Demetrios: As our foes continued to attack the countryside, our living conditions became deplorable. The farmers in the countryside of Athens were forced out by the Spartans and had to move within the city limits of Athens. There was so much poverty. People who were lucky enough to have shelter, were living in crowded, one room shacks. There was very little food to eat. There was no place for the waste to go so people were getting sick and a plague began to spread through Athens. I still choke up as I recall these horrific times. There were so much death and disease surrounding us everywhere. The terrible stench of waste and decay penetrated the air of our once beautiful and wealthy city. This plague caused hundreds of people to die. One of the most known to perish in this tragedy was General Pericles. I wish I could say I was heartbroken over his death but he was greedy and helped start the war that created this death and destruction for Greece.

Augustus: Eventually, Sparta was able to overcome Athens. We had won the war but could not claim victory. Too many people died and many beautiful acres of fields, orchards, and vineyards were ruined.  Our people no longer believed in democracy and our economic systems were failing. The Peloponnesian War left Greece in a vulnerable position. Our country was now much weaker and poorer.

Demetrios: This war was devastating to Greece and left much destruction. However, after the war, my brother, sister, her child and I were able to live together as a family and begin the rebuilding of our lives and our country.