World History Work Packet Checklist: Chapter 10 - Muslim Civilization

Name: ____________________________________ Date Due: ______________ Period: _______

Directions: Organize and put in order the following items to be turned in by the due date above. (One letter grade off each item for every day late.) Staple all items below in order with this packet checklist as a cover sheet before the due date and have it ready to be turned in on the due date at the start of class.Learning Targets Unit 3, Scale C: The student will

SS912.W.2.8, Describe the rise of the Ottoman Turks, the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, and the subsequent growth of the Ottoman empire under the sultanate including Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleyman the Magnificent.

3.1, Discuss significant people and beliefs associated with Islam. 3.4, Describe the expansion of Islam into India and the relationship between Muslims and Hindus. 3.5, Describe the achievements, contributions, and key figures associated with the Islamic Golden Age. 3.6, Describe key economic, political, and social developments in Islamic history

Lesson Plan:Formative Assessment:BR (15%) = Bell Ringer, MN (15%) = Moe Notes, CL (15%) = Closure, HW (10%) = Homework

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday FridayDate: Jan 9

BR: 10-2 Margin & ReviewMN: 16-20PR: Venn Diagram 3 ReligionsCL: Random QuestHW:

Date: Jan 10 BR: 10-3 AnnotateMN: 21-25PR: Venn Diagram 3 ReligionsCL: Random QuestHW: Graphic Organizer 10-3

Date: Jan 11 BR: 10-3 Margin & ReviewPR: Venn Diagram 3 ReligionsCL: Random QuestHW:

Date: Jan 12BR: Test ReviewMN: 31-35Venn Diagram 3 ReligionsCL: Random QuestHW: Study for Quiz

Date: Jan 13 BR: Test StudyQU: Islam Mid E.PR: Finish ALL and Turn In VennCL: Intro next unitHW: None

Date: Jan 16 MLK Holiday

Date: Jan 17 BR: 10-4 Annotate & MarginPR: Reading #1MN: Islam IndiaCL: Random QuesHW: Graphic Organizer 10-4

Date: Jan 18 BR: 10-5 Annotate & MarginPR: Reading #2MN: Islam IndiaCL: Random QuesHW: Graphic Organizer 10-5

Date: Jan 19 BR: Review Major TopicsMN: Islam IndiaPR: Reading #3CL: Random QuesHW: Study for Test

Date: Jan 20 BR: ReviewUT: Islam Mid E. & India CL: Random QuesHW: Paideia Prompts Prepared for Seminar

Date: Jan 23BR: Yesterday ReviewMN: Moe Notes or Project NotesPR: Movie “Gandhi”CL: Random QuestHW: Study All Chapter 10

Date: Jan 24BR: Yesterday ReviewMN: Moe Notes or Project NotesPR: Movie “Gandhi”CL: Random QuestHW: Study All Chapter 10

Date: Jan 25BR: Yesterday ReviewMN: Moe Notes or Project NotesPR: Movie “Gandhi”CL: Random QuestHW: Study All Chapter 10

Date: Jan 26 BR: Yesterday ReviewMN: Moe Notes or Project NotesPR: Movie “Gandhi”CL: Random QuestHW: Study All Chapter 10

Date: Jan 27 BR: 10 Minutes Study TimeUT: Chapter 10 TestPR: Movie “Gandhi”HW: None

Summative Assessment:QU (15%) = Quiz UT (30%) = Unit Test PR (20%) = Project

Assignment Checklist: All items in the checklist need to be stapled to this packet and turned in by due date.Grading Rubric:

Items 1 (0-49 points) 2 (50-99 points) 3 (100 points)Bell Ringers (15%):Section Summaries10-1,2,3,4,5Pages 89,90,93,95,97

Partially annotated, blue margin partially completed, and/or Review Questions partially complete BUT LESS THAN HALF.

Partially annotated, blue margin partially completed, and/or Review Questions partially complete BUT MORE THAN HALF.

Fully annotated, blue margin completed, and both review questions complete.

Homework (10%):Note Taking Study Guides10-1,2,3,4,5Pages 88,90,92,94,96

Graphic Organizer partially completed BUT LESS THAN HALF.

Graphic Organizer partially completed BUT MORE THAN HALF.

Graphic Organizer fully Complete.

Group (20%): Triple Venn Diagram/ Islam 101, Christianity 101, & Judaism 101 Videos: Comparing/Contrasting the three World’s Religions

0-2 Facts identified on Venn correctly

3-6 Facts identified on Venn correctly

7 Facts correctly identified on Venn and Collage Images complete according to rubric.

Paideia Seminar (20%): Unit 12, Scale C Connecting Act of Terror between Fall of Rome and the Modern World.

One to Two prompts completed successfully.

Three (3) prompts completed successfully.

All four (4) prompts completed successfully.

Individual Venn Diagram (20%): Comparing/Contrasting Ancient Rome and Western Civilization

0-9 Facts comparing and contrasting Ancient Rome and Western Civilization or the U.S.

10-14 Facts comparing and contrasting Ancient Rome and Western Civilization or the U.S.

15 Facts comparing and contrasting Ancient Rome and Western Civilization or the U.S.

Moe Notes (15%): Power Point notes from Chapter 10

Partially completed based on a percentage score of completion.

100 % completed in your own words but copied word for word from PPT and did not process notes through deliberate thought processes. (In other words, copied without thinking about them.)

100 % completed in your own words and NOT copied word for word from PPT but has all essential information!!!

Map Studies Project (20%):1. Umayyad’s &

Abbasids2. Two Sultanates3. Ottoman & Saffavid4. Persia/Iran

More than two pieces of information missing.

1 or two pieces of information missing.

All four map studies completed accurately.

Paideia SeminarGoal:The Paideia Seminar is a highly structured student discussion of an assigned text. Students may not express an opinion without first referencing the text and allowing other participants time to locate the reference in the text.Classroom organization:The desks are arranged in a circle with all participants facing inward to each other. If there are more than 10-15 participants or if the text is short, you may want to have an inner and outer circle or multiple circles.General Seminar Rules:

Students may not express an opinion without first referencing the text by page/paragraph/line No reference may be repeated in ANY one round (The teacher will use different color highlighters to keep track of

already used references in each round.) Participants take turns and speak respectfully to each other Participants are open to new ideas and value the opinions of others Participants must come to the seminar prepared for the activity by reading the assigned text in advance and

selecting multiple references to the same prompt in the event they are used by other students in the same round. Ten (25) points will be added to each student’s reference in Rounds #1, 2, 3, & 4 for a possible score of 100/100. Thou shalt NOT interrupt or disrupt another student in the middle of a response or during pauses between

responses while waiting for next response!!! (ONE Chance Penalty = Minus 25/Examples: Speaking while someone is speaking, clowning, head down, non-verbal communications that distract, violations of kindergarten rules like keeping hands to self, disrespectful words like “that’s stupid, you idiot, or that’s ignorant, etc. etc. etc.)

Anytime a student references a portion of the text, they must follow this procedure in the proper order or get no credit. Reference Procedure #1 – Give line 3 loud enough so everyone can hear. Reference Procedure #2 – Cite reference from text EXACTLY word-for-word.

Seminar Organization:The seminar can be arranged into four rounds of discussion. An open-ended question is asked to begin each round.

Round 1- Each student is required to answer the question in order of their position in the circle. First round questions should be simple enough to allow each student to easily locate a different text passage to reference. Each student in turn answers the question but does not respond to anything said by others in the circle. Only one student speaks at one time.

Round 2- Students may now speak in any order. Students volunteer to speak in this round. Not all students must participate. Students may now respectfully respond to opinions or statements made by others. However, all speakers must continue to reference the text.

Round 3-Depending on the length of class periods this round is optional. Round 3 begins with a new question and repeats the Round 2 process.

Round 4- Each student must speak in order of their position in the circle (reverse order from Round 1). The last question is a summative question that requires students to make a judgment or evaluation critical to the main concept of the text. No one may repeat a passage already referenced in this round. As in Round 1, students may not respond to the statements made by other students.

Multiple Circles will be used at a later date, on future topics, once the class has mastered the procedure above-this can only be used after the students have experience with the Paideia Seminar strategy. The teacher divides the class into Paideia circles of approximately the same size and appoints a circle moderator. The student moderator asks the questions, maintains the rules of the seminar, and also participates in the seminar discussion. The teacher circulates among the groups reinforcing student adherence to the rules and providing support for the group moderators.

Prepared by Paul (Tony) MorelloSocial Studies TeacherBell & Trenton High SchoolGilchrist County School District

Paideia Seminar Learning Targets:Analyze and connect Middle Eastern conflicts to causes and long terms effects on the War on Terrorism. 3 4

Explain the impact of religious fundamentalism in the last half of the 20th century 2 3Describe the causes and effects of twentieth century nationalist conflicts 3 3

Unit #12 Scale #C

Reading #1: Terrorism in the Ancient Roman World BY GREGORY G. BOLICH from MHQ (Military History Quarterly)Reading #2: Waiting for the barbarians A once-great empire, Rome fell into catastrophic cultural and economic decline. By Morris Berman on chilling parallels with modern America from the Guardian Online MagazineReading #3: Life Has Changed A Lot in 1,500 Years By Bill Gates.

Quote: “Terrorism has quite a broad definition and people tend to have different views of what actually falls into the category based on their perception of a situation and who they sympathize with.”

Citation: @list25. "25 Worst Acts of Terrorism Ever Committed." List25. N.p., 23 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

Task: This Paideia Seminar is designed to connect the lesson on the Middle Ages and the Fall of the Roman Empire that we just completed with the Rise of Islam in the Middle East and India in the next lesson that we will cover. We will also include a level four (4) learning target from Unit 12 found at the end of the course along with a couple of level three (3) targets above.

• Round #1 Prompt: Using exact words or a phrase from any of the three readings above to select a passage that defines what terrorism is. DO NOT USE THE FBI’S DEFINITION IN THE FIRST READING. FIND OTHER TEXTS OR PHRASES in your definition! (Remember from the quote above that an act of terrorism is a broadly defined concept based on individual “perception.”)

DO NOT USE THIS FBI’S DEFINITION! Today the Federal Bureau of Investigation defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.

• Round #2 Prompt: Use exact words or a phrase from the readings that demonstrate similarities between what historically happened in Rome TO Western Civilization or the United States. (May be about terrorism, politics, economics, society, trends, etc.)

• Round #3 Prompt: Use exact words or a phrase from the readings that demonstrate differences between what historically happened in Rome TO Western Civilization or the United States. (May be about terrorism, politics, economics, society, trends, etc.)

• Round #4 Prompt: Use exact words or a phrase from the readings to explain how we should solve the problem of terrorism in our world today. Questions to ponder: What will future generations say about us and how we handled terrorism? Will they view us similar to the Romans or will history view us differently from the Romans? Why?

Terrorism in the Ancient Roman World

BY GREGORY G. BOLICH 

6/12/2006 • MHQ

In the summer of a.d. 82, three Roman warships were hijacked. The pilots of two were murdered; the third pilot decided to obey his captors. The hijackers sailed along the coast without interference, their crime undetected. They struck port cities unexpectedly and took what they wanted by force. However, local resistance and their own lack of skill eventually brought the hijackers to ruin.

They became so desperately hungry that they turned to cannibalism. They were hunted down, ending the terror they had inspired. Some, sold as slaves, gained notoriety for their incredible tale, recorded a generation later by the famed Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus.

In the late summer of 2001, another incredibly horrific tale of hijacking and terrorism caught the world’s attention. Unfortunately, history is replete with unsettling precedents. Terrorism is probably as old as human society. In the ancient Roman world there were no words for ‘terrorism or terrorists. However, the acts of terrorism inflicted in those days were not unlike those of modern times. Then, as now, there were people willing to employ a calculated use of force and terror to accomplish their ends. Though the ancients may have called them rebels or brigands or tyrants, the motives, the methods, and the outcomes are familiar to people of our era under the collective name of terrorism.

Studying ancient terrorism, though, is hampered by a dilemma that is still with us today: determining exactly what terrorism is. Who decides what constitutes terrorism and who the terrorists are? Is it merely a matter of perspective? Can one group’s terrorist be another group’s freedom fighter? Acts of war also terrify. What differentiates a legitimate act of war from a terrorist attack?

Broadly speaking, those who are terrified decide what qualifies as terrorism. If this is a matter of perspective, it is not just narrow opinion, because most people have a shared sense of what makes for a legitimate use of threats or force. Thus ancient and modern people alike realize that war brings horrific acts, even against civilian populations. Yet people of all eras have a keen sense that as barbaric as war can be, it remains different from mere barbarism.

It may well be that in the Roman world the acceptable limits of warfare were more liberally drawn than today, but even so people sometimes recoiled in shock and horror at acts clearly beyond the pale. War is terror within bounds; terrorism is terror beyond those bounds. Today the Federal Bureau of Investigation defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.

The Roman world certainly knew the kind of horror the FBI described as terrorism. On the one hand, Rome could terrify its own people, as well as foreigners. The use of terror by the state already had an ancient lineage by the time Rome rose to dominance. Aristotle reflected on the matter in his Politics, for example. On the other hand, others frequently targeted Romans, both at home and abroad, in terrible and terrifying acts. State terrorism and revolutionary terrorism often followed one another in a vicious reciprocal cycle: Terror begets terror. In other words, little has changed in the pattern of atrocities.

Ancient Rome, like the United States today, was the sole superpower of its world. Rome exercised immense influence even where it lacked outright control. Roman rulers possessed certain advantages over those who opposed them. In their use of power, they could claim to be the legitimate arm of the body politic. Thus Augustus could proudly note in the official record of his acts, I pacified the sea of pirates. He did not note his feat was accomplished against Sextus Pompeius Magnus, son of the renowned Pompey the Great and heir to the leadership of his father’s followers in a great civic struggle. By the time Augustus was finished with him, Pompeius was officially nothing more than a pirate — a terrorist of the seas.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The populace had to choose how to respond to such power. One route was accommodation and sanction: The state is right. Another was avoidance: Right or wrong, it is best to stay out of the state’s way. A third path was resistance: The state is wrong, justifying coercion and overthrow. All three courses had their advocates.

The notion that the state is inherently legitimate in its use of force found expression in the mid-first-century writing of Saul of Tarsus, better known as the Christian apostle Paul. In a letter addressed to Rome’s Christians, Paul wrote, Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval.

That strategy may have worked well for many people (though not for Paul himself, who was martyred by Rome). But when the ruler’s notion of what was good for him proved bad for his subjects, what then? In such circumstances, the ruled learned to move to the cadences of the ruler, or suffered the consequences. Many sought to do this by remaining sycophants to the state, no matter what. Tacitus criticizes some earlier histories of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, saying their authors wrote falsified accounts to avoid frightful consequences.

Others could not sacrifice conscience so entirely. Yet while they could not sanction evil, neither could they actively resist, so they stepped away. One who advocated this delicate dance was Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger. After years of practicing politics as adviser to the Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar, he concluded in Letters to Lucilius that there were three valid reasons for fear: material want, illness, and the troubles which result from the violence of the stronger. He warned his friend Gaius Lucilius that the wise man will never provoke the anger of those in power; nay, he will even turn his course, precisely as he would turn from a storm if he were steering a ship. Unfortunately, Nero proved to be a hurricane the aged philosopher could not escape; Seneca was forced to take his own life in a.d. 65.

As the deaths of both Paul and Seneca illustrate, neither accommodating the state nor avoiding conflict with it is entirely free of danger. But the third course, resistance, has proven to be the most perilous.

Resistance to a ruling authority in the Roman world took various forms. Most prominent in the minds of Romans themselves were the civil wars whereby all too often one bold group replaced another. A second kind of resistance came in provinces and foreign lands where rapacious Roman governors drove their subjects to desperation. Both sides might resort to acts of terrorism to impose their will.

The Romans themselves were always more distressed by terror at home than by horrors in distant lands. The accounts of the Late Republic and the Early Empire are depressingly full of atrocities committed through naked power but cloaked in the guise of state authority. Rulers used terrifying acts for various objectives, including maintaining their own power, generally at the expense of political opponents. For the masses, civil conflict was a matter of being caught horribly in the middle while powerful men and their allies attacked one another. Picking a side was often tantamount to choosing life or death. Unfortunately, not picking a side could prove just as fatal.

If Rome was no safe haven from terror, neither was any other place. In 88 b.c., Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus, King of Pontus, took advantage of Roman problems at home by sweeping through the Roman province of Asia Minor. So swift and successful was his conquest that many thousands of Roman citizens and their Italian allies were unable to escape. Mithridates solved the problem expeditiously. He ordered that every one of them should die at an appointed hour on a single day, throughout the province.

That Mithridates was successful in having his order carried out is testimony to the hatred that the Roman conquerors had earned during their administration of what is now Turkey. As the slaughter proceeded, it did not matter whether the victims had sought refuge in temples or tried to escape by swimming into the sea; all were ruthlessly murdered. An estimated eighty thousand Romans perished that day.

Roman leaders often suffered for what they had inflicted on others. State terrorism was a controversial tool but hardly an unknown one, used with varying degrees of success in lands Rome either controlled or sought to control. The rapacious nature of many provincial governors was a steady source of scandal, as many were brought to trial after their terms in office expired. Frequently, officials resorted to making threats and setting examples to keep the provincials in line — and quiet.

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

The Greek biographer Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus — Plutarch — makes a telling comment in his study of Marcus Junius Brutus. Plutarch contrasted the good fortune of those who had been under Brutus’ provincial government with that of people in other provinces [who] were in distress with the violence and avarice of their governors, and suffered as much oppression as if they had been slaves and captives of war.

The situation for ordinary people could be even worse in lands not yet fully under the Roman thumb. Notable examples are afforded from both the eastern and western sectors of the Roman world. In the east, the land of Judea was a source of near unending irritation for the Roman authorities. Of course, from the Jewish perspective the situation was far more than irritating. One Roman procurator after another oppressed the people.

The Jewish historian Joseph ben Matthias, more commonly known by his Roman designation, Flavius Josephus, recorded the dismal state of affairs that slowly spiraled downward into a disastrous war in a.d. 66-73. It culminated in ancient history’s most notorious terrorists. Though they were Jews, their conception was from Roman seed, and their birth was nursed along by Roman politics. As Josephus tells it, the situation in the Jewish homeland grew worse and worse continually; for the country was again filled with robbers and imposters, who deluded the multitude. The Roman procurator Claudius Felix, appointed to Judea in a.d. 52, continually labored to quell these troublemakers, putting many of them to death.

Felix also harbored a grudge against the high priest, Jonathan, who freely offered Felix his advice on governing the Jews. Felix resolved to remove Jonathan, but needed to do so discreetly. He bribed one of Jonathan’s friends to arrange for an assassination, but did not reckon on the terror that would be unleashed by brigands brought into the plan.

Certain of those robbers, Josephus writes in Wars of the Jews, went up to the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers under their garments; and, by thus mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew Jonathan; and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time; and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty.

The Sicarii — named after the daggers they concealed — had arrived. In his history of the Jewish War, Josephus further details their method and its effect: [They] slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the High Priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while everybody expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain.

The Sicarii were such a plague that Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple to their foul deeds. He also claimed that as they fled the carnage of the war, they spread trouble abroad. In Alexandria, Egypt, the Sicarii promoted rebellion and assassinated the Jewish leaders who opposed their counsel. Similarly, under the leadership of a man named Jonathan, the Sicarii fomented rebellion in Cyrene. Neither Roman nor Jew could feel completely safe walking a crowded street as long as the Sicarii survived.

At the western end of the Roman world, Britain was a trouble spot as well. Though nominally conquered in the mid-first century, many tribes remained restless. However, the king of the Iceni, Prasutagus, pursued a policy of appeasement toward the Romans, going so far as making the emperor co-heir with his daughters. By this policy, he hoped to retain some measure of independence. It was a vain hope. Tacitus reveals that the Romans reduced his kingdom to provincial status. Romans flogged his wife, Boudicca, and raped his two daughters. Rome then annexed the lands of the Icenian chiefs and treated members of the royal household like slaves.

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

Encouraged by his success, in a.d. 60 the Roman governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, mounted a campaign against the island of Mona, a rebel stronghold. In his absence, many Britons were emboldened to murmur among themselves concerning their situation. As Tacitus frames it, they had plenty to complain about. Whereas once they had had a king to please, now they had to please two masters — the Roman legate and the procurator — and those officials might as easily quarrel as get along, leaving the people caught in the middle. In either instance, the Romans were trouble: Their centurions and slaves alike inflicted insults and violence. The people’s homes were robbed, their children were kidnapped, and their young men were taken and sent far away to serve Rome’s interests. How could war be any worse? As a result, they revolted. Led by Queen Boudicca, the Iceni, Trinobantes, and other tribes roamed the country and destroyed three towns: Camulodunum, Verulamium, and Londinium. Tacitus reports that they targeted the retired Roman military veterans whose settlement at Camulodunum had displaced the Trinobantes. To add insult to injury, the Roman settlers — urged on by the Roman troops — had further outraged the Britons by deriding them as prisoners and slaves. Taxes were imposed on the local economy to support a temple to Emperor Claudius. Humiliated and angry, the Britons not only swept down on the scattered outposts and attacked the forts but also ravaged the colony that had come to represent their oppression. Tacitus writes that in their fury, they were unrestrained in their cruelty, permitting themselves every form of barbarity imaginable.

Suetonius Paulinus returned to restore order. Assessing the situation, he sacrificed Londinium after evacuating those who could keep up with him; the rest, including the elderly and women, he left to be slaughtered. While the Roman governor awaited his opportunity, the victorious Britons continued their campaign, which became ever more wanton. It increasingly took on the character of terrorism rather than traditional war. They avoided Roman strongholds and concentrated on destroying the weak. They took no prisoners. They slaughtered every Roman or Roman sympathizer they encountered, slitting the throats of some, hanging some, burning others, and even resorting to crucifixion in some instances.

The later historian Cassius Dio Coeccianus supplements the historical record with his own account of the horrors. He recounts the Britons’ most bestial atrocity: the practice of hanging up noble women naked, cutting off their breasts and sewing the flesh to their mouths to make it appear as though they were eating their own breasts, and then skewering them on stakes. Tacitus reckons some seventy thousand Romans and provincials were executed in the rampage.

Suetonius Paulinus engaged the enemy at the time and place of his own choosing. The Britons were so confident of victory that they brought their wives to witness their triumph, arranging them about the battlefield in wagons. Though the Romans were outnumbered, Roman discipline prevailed. Thousands of Queen Boudicca’s warriors were slain, and she committed suicide. The rout of the Britons and their consequent slaughter worsened as the Britons had difficulty fleeing a field hemmed in by their own wagons. The triumphant Romans spared neither women nor animals.

The next few years were marked by unrest but not by military action. It was only after the civil wars ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty that Romans could again devote serious attention to their problems in Britain. The new emperor, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, fresh from his successful war against the Jews, sent capable military men to Britain to quiet the province. In a.d. 71, Vespasian designated Quintus Petillius Cerialis Caesius Rufus as the new governor. Petillius Cerialis may have felt he had something to prove; though he had enjoyed some military success in Lower Germany (today’s Rhine Valley, including Belgium and the Netherlands), a decade earlier he had been humbled when Queen Boudicca’s forces had routed his Ninth Legion. He mounted a campaign against the Brigantes, Britain’s largest tribe. This calculated move succeeded, says Tacitus, in striking terror throughout the land.

Sextus Julius Frontinus succeeded Petillius Cerialis in the governorship, and pursued war against the Silures in southern Wales. Despite Roman success in war, there was too little corresponding Roman justice. Unrest remained, Tacitus reports, because of numerous abuses of power. Taxation was unequal, people had to pay inflated prices for corn, and other Roman practices also made life difficult. In sum, wrote Tacitus, the inhabitants of Britain could rightly fear peace as much as war because of either the arrogance or arbitrariness of the Roman administration.

Fortunately for those living in Britain, not all Romans were rapacious tyrants. Tacitus praises his father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, who learned from earlier examples that force of arms cannot quash rebellion if conquest is followed by unjust rule. His leniency did not, however, spare Agricola from troubles. His governance of Britain grew so vexing, in fact, that even Agricola resorted to terror. Grieving over the death of his infant son in the summer of 83 a.d., Agricola began his summer war campaign by sending his fleet ahead of the ground troops for the express purpose of plundering and inspiring terror and uncertainty among the Britons.

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

Britain’s circle of terror was renewed. Responding to Agricola’s provocation, a tribal leader named Calgacus exhorted his fellow Britons to resist Roman oppression. The speech, as Tacitus relates it, presents a perspective many people in the ancient world must have held on their Roman masters. Calling the Romans deadlier than the coastal waves and rocks, Calgacus said they possess an arrogance which no reasonable submission can elude. Brigands of the world, they have exhausted the land by their indiscriminate plunder, and now they ransack the sea. The wealth of an enemy excites their cupidity, his poverty their lust of power. East and West have failed to glut their maw. They are unique in being as violently tempted to attack the poor as the wealthy. Robbery, butchery, rapine, the liars call Empire; they create a desolation and call it peace.

Late in the days of the Republic, Rome faced a daunting dilemma. Two of her greatest leaders, Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, stood pitted against each other. In unprecedented fashion, they brought their political quarrel to Rome’s streets in armed conflict. Sulla marched on Rome and prevailed at first. Marius later succeeded in seizing a seventh term as consul, where he introduced a reign of terror. He put political opponents to death, placed their heads on public display, and plundered their belongings. The historian Appian of Alexandria believed he did these deeds to inspire fear or horror. The breathtaking acts of terror inflicted on the city’s residents appalled later writers. Plutarch observed how the people considered the evils of wartime a golden age in comparison. Velleius Paterculus depicted Marius’ return as being as destructive as a pestilence and commented that no victory would have exceeded his in its inhumanity had it not been followed by Sulla’s.

For Sulla marched again on Rome. His second triumph was punctuated by his seizure of power as dictator. He issued proscriptions against his opponents, posting rewards both for informers and those who murdered his enemies. After publicly killing Quintus Lucretius Ofella, an accomplished and ambitious man, in the open Forum, Sulla justified himself simply on the grounds that Ofella would not obey him. Sulla then told the assembled people this story: Lice troubled a farmer plowing his field. Twice he stopped work to shake them out of his tunic. However, when the biting continued, he burned his tunic to not lose any further time. With this anecdote, Sulla warned a people he had already defeated twice not to try his patience further. Few dared.

Then things got worse. Armed with the lessons of the recent past, Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and won for himself the position of dictator for life. It proved a short life, as people who feared living under a despot assassinated Caesar. Heedless of the warnings of his own day, Caesar would have done well to attend the warning of Aristotle: Those to be watched and feared most among potential assassins are they who are heedless of their own life in their desire to take life.

These exemplars of terrorism during the Late Republic were often faithfully followed in the Empire. Perhaps the one thing these various figures shared in common was the belief that their objectives justified the use of terror. Where a ruler was simply brutal or capricious by nature, the idea of divine right became a pretext to do whatever he could get away with. Roman historians tended to find a common thread in their studies: Power illuminates character but can also corrupt it. The most ferocious emperors invariably started out far less evil than they became after years of absolute rule. They learned what they could get away with, and then their own characters determined the limits and uses to which they put their power.

The speech Tacitus attributes to Calgacus climaxes in an insight any entity, whether sovereign state or disaffected terrorist cell, ignores at its peril: Apprehension and terror are weak bonds of affection; once break them, and, where fear ends, hatred will begin. The choice to embrace terrorist acts as an instrument of rule has always been costly. Terror inevitably engenders more terror — and hatred. Not even the might of Rome could protect the republic or the empire from paying that price. Whenever Romans indulged in state-sponsored terrorism, subjugated people responded in kind.

This article was written by Gregory G. Bolich and originally published in the Spring 2006 edition of MHQ (Quarterly Journal of Military History.)

Waiting for the barbarians

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

A once-great empire, Rome fell into catastrophic cultural and economic decline. Morris Berman on chilling parallels with modern AmericaMorris Berman from the Guardian Online MagazineFriday 5 October 2001 21.18 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 31 August 201611.57 EDT

When I wrote my recent book, The Twilight of American Culture, my focus was on what might be called "inner" barbarism, the structural factors endemic to American society that were, I believed, bringing about its disintegration.

The contemporary American situation could be compared to that of Rome in the Late Empire period, and the factors involved in the process of decline in each case are pretty much the same: a steadily widening gap between rich and poor; declining marginal returns with regard to investment in organizational solutions to socioeconomic problems (in the US, dwindling funds for social security and Medicare); rapidly dropping levels of literacy, critical understanding, and general intellectual awareness; and what might be called "spiritual death": apathy, cynicism, political corruption, loss of public spirit, and the repackaging of cultural content (e.g. "democracy") as slogans and formulas.

What I overlooked, however, was perhaps the most obvious point of comparison; obvious, at least, with the benefit of hindsight. This is the factor of external barbarism, destruction from without. The events of September 11 brought that possibility home, in stark relief.

In the case of Rome, the historical outline is clear enough. The Goths began pressing against the border of the Roman Empire from the late third century, and scored a decisive victory in AD 378, when Roman legions were resoundingly defeated at Adrianople.

"The battle", wrote historian Solomon Katz, "did more than expose the weakness of Rome to the barbarians and encourage them to return to the attack again and again, for never afterward did they leave Roman soil".

From that time on, siege and potential invasion became facts of Roman life. The Visigoth leader Alaric invaded Italy in 401, and finally captured and sacked Rome in 410. The city was further sacked by the Vandals in 455, and in 476 barbarian mercenaries deposed the last Roman emperor and put the Germanic chieftain Odoacer on the throne, making him king of the western empire.

America, too, now has barbarians at the gates, and also, it would seem, within them. It, too, is committed to a war to the finish, "total victory", defined by President Bush as the point at which there are no longer any terrorist organizations capable of international reach - which some would say is a formula for permanent war.

One photograph of the shell of the World Trade Centre eerily resembles pictures of the Roman Coliseum. But there are many more concrete similarities between the invasion of Rome and the attack on America. As American military personnel have recently suggested, September 11 is not likely to be the end of it. The US can expect further terrorist attacks on its soil.

More poignant, the destruction of the WTC showed that America is not invincible. In the case of Adrianople, things were never the same thereafter. The sharks smelled blood, and they kept coming back. America can expect something similar. (Note also that just as the barbarians used Rome's excellent network of roads to mount their invasions, so did the terrorists of September 11 use America's aviation schools, banking systems, internet accessibility and the like to mount theirs.)

The response of the empire is to regard the attackers as the ultimate other. ("Barbarian", comes from an ancient Greek anecdote, that those who couldn't speak Greek just uttered strange sounds - "bar bar" - that didn't amount to a real language.) In the main, the Romans had no understanding of non-civilization: of different values, nomadic ways of life.

Similarly, America views Islamic terrorism as completely irrational; there is no understanding of the political context of this activity, a context of American military attack on, or crippling economic sanctions against, a host of Arab nations - with unilateral support for Israel constituting the central, running sore.

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

Instead, the enemy is characterized as "jealous of our way of life", "hateful of freedom", and so on. Hence President Bush, no less than the Islamic terrorists, uses the language of religious war: we are on a "crusade"; the military operation was initially called "Infinite Justice"; and the enemy is "evil itself".

Along with this is the belief that the Pax Romana/Americana is the only "reasonable" way to live. In the American case, we have a military and economic empire that views the world as one big happy market, and believes that everybody needs to come on board. We - that is, global corporate consumerism - are the future, "progress".

If the "barbarians" fail to share this vision, they are "medieval"; if they resist, "evil". Most historians see a relationship, in the case of Rome, between its internal decay and its susceptibility to invasion. By the fourth century, if not much before, Rome had lost its central value, the legacy of Greek culture, and was effectively existing for the sake of military and administrative purposes.

As it overextended itself, creating a huge standing army and a bloated military budget, the middle class began to disappear, and there was a reciprocal, reinforcing interaction between internal decadence and instability on the one hand, and external vulnerability on the other. I n the case of the United States, the nation no longer stands for the enlightenment tradition, but rather for military-political hegemony and the total commodification of life.

It is hardly an accident that the terrorists' targets were the WTC, symbol of American global finance, and the Pentagon (although the White House was apparently the original target in this case). Consider how remarkable, even bizarre, it would have been if the terrorists had selected instead the Jefferson memorial and Columbia University.

But the latter no longer represent the United States; Wall Street does. What is likely to happen, as obtained in the case of Rome, is increasing budgetary appropriations for military expenditures, leaving (in the American case) fewer and fewer funds for education, the rebuilding of cities, health care and social welfare. As in the case of American involvement in Vietnam, this could eventually bleed the country morally and financially.

In addition, military action versus Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Arab nations will sow the seeds of more intifadas. By the third century, nearly every Roman denarius collected in taxes was going into military and administrative maintenance, to the point that the state was drifting towards bankruptcy. The denarius, which had a silver content of 92% in Nero's reign (AD 54-68) was down to 43% silver by the early third century.

The third century saw even greater increases in the size of the army and the government bureaucracy, followed by further debasement of the coinage and enormous inflation. The standing army rose from 300,000 troops in AD 235 to about 600,000 a mere 70 years later. By the time the fifth century rolled around, Rome was an empire in name only. Spiritual and intellectual collapse were unavoidable in such a demoralized context, especially because the economic life of the cities was virtually destroyed.

For centuries, the aim had been to Hellenize or Romanize the rest of the population - to pass on the learning and ideals of Greco-Roman civilization. But as the economic crisis deepened, a new mentality arose among the masses, one based on religion, which was hostile to the achievements of higher culture.

In addition, as in contemporary America, the new "intellectual" efforts were designed to cater to the masses, until intellectual life was brought down to the lowest common denominator. This, according to the great historian of Rome, MI Rostovtzeff, was the most conspicuous feature in the development of the ancient world during the imperial age: primitive forms of life finally drowning out the higher ones.

For civilization is impossible without a hierarchy of quality, and as soon as that gets flattened into a mass phenomenon, its days are numbered. "The main phenomenon which underlies the process of decline," wrote Rostovtzeff, "is the gradual absorption of the educated classes by the masses and the consequent simplification of all the functions of political, social, economic, and intellectual life, which we call the barbarization of the ancient world."

Religion played a critical role in these developments. By the third century, if not before, there was an attitude among many Christians that education was not relevant to salvation, and that ignorance had a positive spiritual value (an early version of Forrest Gump, one might say).

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

The third century saw a sharp increase in mysticism and a belief in knowledge by revelation. Charles Radding, in A World Made By Men, argues that the cognitive ability of comparing different viewpoints or perspectives (quite evident in Augustine's Confessions, for example) had disappeared by the sixth century.

Even by the fourth century, he says, what little that had survived from Greek and Roman philosophy was confused with magic and superstition (much as we see in today's new age beliefs or in the so-called philosophy section of many bookstores). Only a warped version of the classical culture of antiquity remained.

"Short of the mass destruction of the libraries", writes Radding, "a more complete collapse of a classical civilization is hard to imagine." And so the proverbial lights went out in Western Europe. The parallels with contemporary America are not identical, but they do seem disturbing. The factors of hype, ignorance, potential bankruptcy and extreme social inequality are overwhelming, and they make a kind of spiritual death - apathy and classicist formalism - ultimately unavoidable.

The phrase "Twilight of American Culture", however, implies an eventual dawn, and at some point we are going to emerge from our contemporary twilight and future darkness, if only because no historical configuration is the end of history. After centuries of stagnation, the culture of the Latin west became a viable option once more, thanks to the medieval monasteries, especially Irish ones, which began to stow away nuggets of intellectual achievement from Roman civilization.

That, however, is a whole other story. In terms of the current American situation, recovery at the external level probably depends on a reconsideration of American foreign policy but also a reconsideration of internal purposes. The United States does not seem to grasp the impact of its current foreign policy on the have-nots of this world. Without such an understanding, an Israeli-style scenario would seem to be inevitable: a garrison state, and a condition of endless siege. It is a chilling thought, the possibility that for the remainder of the new century, America will be waiting for the barbarians.

Life Has Changed A Lot in 1,500 YearsBy Bill Gates  

| October 21, 2010

Vaclav Smil has written another very informative book called Why America is Not a New Rome. This is

the third book of his to come out this year. I have previously reviewed and recommended both of the

others, which focus on energy. Although energy is not the primary topic of this book, Smil still does his

normal, thorough, fact-driven logical job on this topic.

After reading so many articles and speeches predicting what will happen to America because of some

supposed similarities to the Roman Empire, Smil felt it was important to explain that there is no

predictive power in these comparisons. Smil is a great student of history, including Roman history and

the dynamics of its Empire over time. Even though I took five years of Latin and enjoyed being able to

understand some of the quotes in the book, my understanding of the Roman Empire was greatly

expanded by reading this book.

Smil points out that the Roman Empire went through many phases over nearly two millennia–starting

with a Republic and then with an Emperor and finally splitting into a Western Empire and Eastern

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

Empire. The western part died out about 500 C.E. and the eastern part lasted until 1453. Although

many theories have been put forward about what factors finally led to the empire’s demise, historians

do not agree.

The key point of the book is that more than 1,500 years separate our current era from Roman times,

and life has changed so much that any sense of similarity is illusory. In Roman times, people had barely

enough food to sustain them. Human and animal muscle power comprised virtually the entire kinetic

energy source. Life expectancy was between 20 and 30 years. Income levels were a fraction of what we

have today. So the dynamics of “surviving” were completely different then.

Smil makes an important point regarding scientific and technical advances. Whereas U.S. innovation

has played a central role in creating a modern global civilization in less than 150 years, “the Roman

Empire had an unremarkable…record in advancing scientific understanding, and its overall

contributions to technical and engineering innovations were…fairly limited.” By contrast, he notes,

China’s Han dynasty, which overlapped several centuries with the Roman Empire, was far more

innovative in ways that changed the world—such as the invention of paper, iron, ploughs, harnesses

and many important nautical advances.

The primary similarity that Smil finds between the U.S. and ancient Rome is that people overestimate

the dominance of both. At its peak, the Roman Empire comprised 12 percent of the world’s population.

At the turn of the millennium, the U.S. represented just 4 percent of the global population. Militarily,

the Roman Empire never controlled most of the world, just as the U.S. does not today.

Smil makes the case that the U.S. is not an empire by any reasonable definition of the word.

Economically, the U.S. percentage of the world’s economic product in 2005 was 22.5 percent, with

China, Brazil, Russia and many countries in the European Union continuing to gain in economic

strength.

You could argue that America has some level of hegemony, but that is the strongest word that applies

to our position. It is certainly interesting to discuss how the U.S. position will change in the future, but

reaching back to Roman analogies will not aid in that discussion. Most references to Rome simply talk

about things that are common to all large and long-lasting governments—complexity, disagreement,

and some level of failed ambition.

Anyone expecting Smil to forecast the future of America will be disappointed but he does allude to a

number of trends that are of serious concern. I hope this book will help us focus on fixing these trends

without thinking that analogies from the Roman Empire will help us find the right approach.

405

410

415

420

425

430

435

Venn diagram Instructions: After annotating each of the readings above and having the Paideia Seminar, complete the Venn diagram below with a minimum of 15 comparison/contrasts between Rome and the Modern World. (If you need more room on another Venn diagram, use loose leaf and draw another one.)

Rome

The West/America

1

2

3

4

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

440

445

450

455

460

Venn diagram Instructions: Using the three video links below, compare and contrast the three world’s major religions with seven (7) facts minimum.

Learning Targets:SS912.W.3.2, Compare the major beliefs and principles of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.3.7, Analyze the causes, key events, and effects of the European response to Islamic expansion beginning in the 7th century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S_Tw6jA77E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWsKZ2Xto4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XceOxLsGzg

1

2

3

4

1

2

465

470

475

Moe Notes: Complete Moe Notes by reading the notes from the Power Point and summarizing them in your own words.

Section 1 – The Rise of Islam

Muhammad-

Mecca-

Hijra-

Medina-

Kaaba-

Quran-

Mosque-

Hajj-

Sharia-

Muhammad’s Teachings

Muhammad’s Troubles

Muhammad’s Exile

Islamic Conversion in Medina

Muslim Beliefs

Muslim Prophets

Muslim Holy Scriptures

Five (5) Pillars of Islam

480

485

490

495

500

505

“People of the Book”

Sharia Law

Islam and Equality

Section 2 – The Arab Muslim Empire

Caliph-

Sunni-

Shiite-

Baghdad-

Minaret-

Spread of Islam after Muhammed’s Death

Abu Bakr

Arab Unification under Abu Bakr

What are the major differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims?

Shiites Sunnis

Emergence of the Sufis

Victories over Byzantine and Persian Empires

510

515

520

525

530

535

540

Muslim lands under the Umayyads and Abbasids Map Study

A New Capital City

Meaning of Baghdad “ “

Mongol Invasion

Section 3 – Muslim Achievements

Muslim Economic Achievements

Arabic Numbering System

Arabic New Business Practices

Muslim Architecture

Dome of the Rock’s Importance

Muslim Education

Numbering System and Math

545

550

555

560

Section 4 – India’s Muslim Empires

Sultan-

Akbar-

Nur Jahan-

Shah Jahan-

Taj Mahal-

Muslim Rule in India

Two Sultanates

Two Sultanates Map Study

Muslim Sultan’s Defeat of Delhi

Contrasting Hindu and Muslim Beliefs

Hindus Muslim

565

570

575

580

Blending of Muslim and Hindu Cultures

Sikhism

Akbar the Great

Akbar’s Unity

Influential Indian Women

Taj Mahal

Section 5 – The Ottoman and Safavid Empires

Ottomans-

Istanbul-

Tehran-

Characteristics of Ottomans and Safavids

Renaming of Istanbul

Ottoman and Safavid Empires Map Study

585

590

595

600

605

Suleiman’s Reign

Treatment of Non-Muslim Women

Persia (Present Day Iran) Map Study

Impact of Shiism in Iran

Ottoman Empire

Persia

610

615

620

625

630

Venn diagram: Comparing/Contrasting Three World’s Monotheistic Religions

Task: To create a three circle Venn diagram comparing and contrasting the world’s monotheistic religions and to analyze each religion with graphics and collages that illustrate the similarities and differences between them.

Requirements:

1. Minimum ONE well written fact in complete sentences per comparison/contrast. (One per number on the Venn diagram. There are Seven Numbers so you need at least seven comparison/contrasts. (Extra well written facts added to the minimum for extra points given to all members of the group on this project if a 100% is not earned and then added to the unit test if there are extra points leftover.)

2. Minimum one image per religion, demonstrating how they are similar or different from the other religions. (May be an individual picture with a caption explaining a difference or similarity OR may be several images creating a miniature collage to create the image.) Bottom line is you must have three separate and distinct images or one per religion and the image must illustrate a difference or similarity!!!

3. Must create a title of the Venn diagram.4. Must have all group members’ names on the Venn diagram.5. Must have four individual paragraphs, written be each member of the group, comparing and contrasting the

three world’s major religions.

Rubric/Checklist:

Requirements Completed with High Quality Low Quality OR MissingFact #1Fact #2Fact #3Fact #4Fact #5Fact #6Fact #7Image/Collage #1Image/Collage #2Image/Collage #3Venn diagram TitleGroup Member’s NamesParagraph #1 Name: _____________Paragraph #2 Name: _____________Paragraph #3 Name: _____________Paragraph #4 Name: _____________Extra Points for Extra FactsExtra Points for Extra Images

Final Grade:

Student #1 ___________ Student #2 ___________ Student #3 ___________ Student #4 ___________

635

640

645

650

655