Early Classical Era
In chapter 3, Strayer begins his discussion on the Second-Wave civilizations that appeared from 500 B.C.E. through 500 C.E. Even though the first of human history's civilizations had collapsed or were absorbed into larger empires, the Second-Wave civilizations, that had taken shape, the idea of forming into civilizations was a notion that was spreading across the globe at this time. These Second-Wave civilizations were similar to the first civilizations in the sense that they all came into being, expanded, and then collapsed for one reason or another, and their continued to be segregation between the upper and lower classes of each civilization. The main differences between the first civilizations and this Second-Wave were that the populations of the Second-Wave civilizations were larger and grew much more quickly. Also,the growth of what became known as empires was a new phenomenon in these civilizations. An empire is classified as being a state with political power that ruled over varied types of people. Empires usually have a history of political or cultural oppression towards some, if not most of these people.
Most empires did not have direct contact with one another as they were spread out across the globe. In our own "information age", we are able to find out what is happening across the globe within a matter of seconds. Thus, ideas spread quickly and it is no surprise when groups of people adopt ideas that are working for others in another part of the world. It is quite astonishing that the civilizations of the Early Classical era, not having much, or any, knowledge about what was happening in places far removed from them, have so many parallels. This begs the question that we have asked in class about the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras. How and why did the groups of people living without direct knowledge of each other's practices and lifestyles form in societies with so many similarities at around the same time in human history? Did the evolution of the human brain cause people to think and act in very similar ways at around the same time?
The empire that intrigued me the most while reading was the Roman empire. Rome began as an impoverished city-state but later flourished to include much of the Mediterranean. Rome was once ruled by a king, but around 509 B.C.E. the Romans did away with the monarchy in favor of a republic in which the wealthy class were in control of the empire. Though the wealthy were in charge, the lower-class citizens, known as plebeians, were offered protection through a written code of law and the plebeians were allowed to participate in public policy making. The Romans believed that their citizens enjoyed more freedoms than any of the surrounding empires. In reflecting on the discussion from our last class meeting, it occurred to me that Rome may be an example of an empire that was trying to maintain a civilization that was orderly, but not oppressive.
Another interesting aspect of the Roman empire is that this idea of a republic, and their expansion into Europe, Africa, and Asia, was entirely innovative. The Romans continued to grow their empire mainly out of concern for it. Each time a new region was taken under control of the Romans, it left the empire with new vulnerabilities. The Roman's answer to this was to take control of another region. This idea that conquests were the only way to maintain their power caused them to invest in their army which was well organized.
Although the Roman empire claimed to give its citizens more freedoms than any other, women were left out of this equation. Being that was Rome was a civilization driving by conquests, it became a warrior society in which masculinity was prized. A Roman man had complete control of his wife, children, and slaves. Women's role in society was to bear strong young men who could one day become a soldier for the Roman army. Eventually the women of the upper-class were granted more freedoms but, paradoxically, this freedom for the wealthy women of Rome took place when more and more women from other empires were being brought into Rome as slaves.
What started out as an empire dedicated to a society with more liberty than any other, ultimately could not maintain these values as the empire continued to expand. There was an ever increasing divide between the upper and lower classes and civil war broke out between the traditionalists and those who had just come in to wealth and power. The emperor Octavian came into power and it was clear that Rome had discarded its previous ideal of a republican empire. This makes me wonder why it is so prevalent throughout human history that societies whose original intent was liberty for its people often fall victim to greed and a hunger for power. Animal communities, even those with a clear leader, are not oppressive to those in their own tribe. Again I think about the human brain and consider that maybe it is our superior prefrontal cortex, which make us distinctly human, may also give rise to a need for power over others.
With more advanced cities. states, and agriculture came increasing, and differing, thoughts about spirituality. This makes sense because people's physiological needs and their need for safety were being met and they could then begin to explore their personal need to be included in something larger than themselves and to search for answers to the question of, "why are we here?". I was excited to see that Strayer had included Zoroastrianism in this conversation of the history of human spirituality. Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion, yet it is often left out of history books because of the fact that it did not spread as far or last as long as many of the more commonly known religions.
Zoroastrianism was prominent in Persian from 558-330 B.C.E during the Achaemenid dynasty. The Persian prophet, Zarathustra, denounced Persian polytheism and claimed that a benevolent deity named Ahura Mazda was the only god and following Ahura Mazda would lead the people to paradise in the the afterlife. Similarly to the Christian God's struggle against Satan, Ahura Mazda fought against an evil being called Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda won in his battle against Angra Mainyu and Zoroastrianism emphasized that all humans must do the same and win their personal battle against evil.
Zoroastrianism was not a missionary religion and, therefore, did not spread very far outside of Persia. When Alexander the Great and his Greek army invaded Persia, they destroyed Zoroastrian temples and burned the sacred writings. The religion was able to survive this hardship until the arrival of Islam as an Arab empire began to thrive in the region.
Though Zoroastrianism did not take hold of a large population of believers, remnants of the religion of survived in other traditions, due in large part to the Jews who were in the Persian empire during the time of Zoroastrianism's prominence. These include the idea of a struggle between good and evil, a last judgement, a savior, and the end of the world. These notions became part of the Jewish tradition as well as Christianity and Islam.
As I said, I have never read about Zoroastrianism in any of my history textbooks even though this religion laid the groundwork for the major monotheistic religious traditions. This sparks a thought about what should and/or should not be included in history teachings. Obviously, not every single minor achievement humans have ever made can be included into a 10 week course. There is simply not enough time to cover everything. This problem will persist and become even greater as human history continues on and changes and innovations occur more and more rapidly. Unless the students of the future are required to read books that are thousands and thousands of pages long (or take up too many bytes on their handheld personal devices), teachers and historians will be forced to pick and choose what they deem to be the most important. How much of human history will our predecessors learn about, and how much of it will be lost?
No comments:
Post a Comment