Latin America 1800s

The revolutions in South America and Mesoamerica did not bring about major political or social changes -- in many ways, the results of the revolutions had little to zero impact on the nation’s policies. For example, Prince Pedro of the Portuguese royal family declared himself King of Brazil -- this political revolution was achieved with minimal bloodshed. This may be credited to the fact that the revolution began from the top of the social hierarchy to the bottom: the traditional casta class structure and remained intact and the Catholic church remained strong in Brazil. Bolivar’s education in Enlightenment theories in Europe highlight the influence of the French revolution and its role in the revolutions in South America and Mesoamerica. Bolivar’s conquests heralded military and border shifts -- however, the continent as a whole did not experience large-scale revolution.The peasant revolt led by Catholic priest Hidalgo in the Mexican War for Independence hardly dented the nation’s domestic policies and government. Another revolt in Mexico led by Father Morelos was much more fruitful -- he declared independence for Mexico; however, upon his death, revolutionary sentiment in Mexico died out, and the nation experienced little change. This makes you think, what defines a revolution? From 1800 to 1900, South America and Mesoamerica experienced a lot of uprisings, legislation for independence, and some political changes. However, can that be considered as revolutionary? In many cases, the social order remained intact; the nations did not experience any major industrial, cultural, religious, or ideological transformation. Thus, I conclude that, despite that political independence was achieved on paper; the Latin American revolutions were not very revolutionary.

The Enlightenment and Declaration of Independence

The declaration of independence was greatly influenced by the idea of Enlightenment. Jefferson’s view on government when he was writing the Declaration came from the enlightenment. In the declaration, it says that the governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The Enlightenment thinkers believed that no one had the power to rule and that governments were only legitimate if the people agreed to be ruled by that government. John Locke thought that the governments only job of was to protect life, liberty and property. This is found in the declaration when it is said that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the idea of obligation. The Enlightenment thinkers thought that all humans have rights and is shown in the declaration of independence when it is said that all men are created equal. John Locke emphasized the importance of individual rights. The declaration of independence had many ideas from the enlightenment period, especially from philosopher John Locke.

How "Great" was Alexander?

I find the article on Alexander the great very interesting as it tells this story from a different point of view. As his name says, Alexander is seen as Great for being the leader of the Greek Empire starting from a young age. However, the article contradicts the idea of him begin great by telling about his actions that led to his Empire. Alexander made many unnecessary steps while conquering land which had a great costs. Many of his men died due to his determination, which can be seen as a good thing but he overdid it. During his mission of Agis III, he kept sacrificing so many men. Soon his soldiers were rebelling as they did not agree with his actions. This shows how Alexander was not so great as he only thinks about himself and not others. When he started to adopt cultures from Persia and combine them with Greek, most people were not happy with his action but he still continued. Alexander had good intentions in mind but never executed them well. This article showed me the different side of Alexander that not many people think of and know about. Now my view on Alexander had changed after reading the article.

10-9-15

The Persians looked down on the greeks because they see them as a lesser society. The Persians had a complex society, under Mesopotamian influence, that they believed to be far superior. The Persians believed in opulence. Darius had a dream of Persia being a vast and resource rich society that flourished. But the idea of Greece and its resource-poor environment was the opposite of what that strived to achieve, and therefore below them.

Persian Empire and Greece

The Greek city-states that were under the Persian Empire were miserable as Cyrus and his successors were cruel leaders. The Persians might think that Greece was a waste of time because of their geography. Greece was located at the edge of the map and was far away from Persian homeland. It was also a poor city state with nothing much to benefit from. Thus, it probably took a long time for the Persians to get to Greece and get minimal out of it. The Persians also never thought that the Greeks were strong enough to come together and rebel against them. Also, the Greeks had many things in common already with the Persians, which meant that there was not many exchanges that occurred.

I believe that the Persians didn't care for the small land of Greece. Greece was poor and small. Invading Greece and maintaining it would probably have cost quite a lot more than what small profit it actually had. I think Xerxes was foolishly trying to set an example of how people who offended his empire would have been treated and failed, obviously.  Also no Persian ever thought that the Greeks would form a threat to the Persian people, or even be united and strong enough to even form a military unit.  

Conclusively, I suggest the Persians failed to take Greece because they did not wish to conquer it. The land was poor and rough, unsuitable for farming. It was far from the capitals and hard to control, should something happen in Greece it would take at least two to four days for a Chapar to reach the king in Susa or Persepolis. Furthermore, the people of the land were easy to revolt and demanding democracy and this was not to the liking of the monarchic Persian empire, although they allowed the Ionians to have their own popular governments, the Ionians were easier to control than the Hellenes in Greece. Thus the Greeks were best left to themselves.

·      The goods and ideas that spread along the Silk Road where spread in some interesting ways.  Caravans traveling the Silk Road took more than four months to trek across the mostly unsettled deserts, mountains, and grasslands of Inner Asia that stood between Sogdiana and China, carrying with them agricultural goods, manufactured products, and ideas.  Musicians and dancing girls traveled, too – as did camel pullers, merchants, monks, and pilgrims.  The Silk Road was not just a means of bringing peoples and parts of the world into; it was also a social system.  With every expansion of territory, the growing wealth of temples, kings, and emperors enticed traders to venture ever farther afield for precious goods.  For, the most part, the customers were wealthy elites.  But the new products, agricultural and industrial processes, and foreign ideas and customs these long-distance traders brought with them sometimes affected an entire society.  I thought that it was interesting to read that Travelers and traders seldom owned much land or wielded political power.  Also considering the travelers were socially isolated and secretive because any talk about markets, products, routes, and travel conditions could help their competitors, they nevertheless though contributed more to drawing the world together than did all but a few kings and emperors, which was interesting.  The Silk Road seemed to be hugely important in the spread of Religion.