Disease In The Roman Empire St Cyprian Analysis

“The holy Roman Empire is neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. ”That quote was said about the Roman Empire by Voltaire. Rome began around 750 BCE as an unremarkable settlement. The roman army conquered from modern-day Scotland to Spain, the whole Mediterranean sea, and established colonies in North africa, Egypt, the Middle East and Asia Minor. Soon the empire began to go from a republic to more like a dictatorship.

The Roman Empire: one of the world’s greatest ever civilizations, was in existence from 700 BC to 476 AD. Although the empire was not ever an extremely weak world power, it’s “highest” point in time was from about 50 BC to 200 AD. During this time period, it was at its all-time high. The empire spanned across what is today 3 continents (Asia Minor, Europe, Northern Africa), was home to 50 million people, and had a its capital city, Rome, had a population of 1 million people. But what can make such a huge world superpower collapse? The “Fall of Rome” can be accredited to a weakened central government troubled by political assassinations, disease, and foreign invasion, during the empire’s last century of sheer existence.

In 117 AD the Roman Empire was the most powerful empire in the world. Rome was a powerhouse! How can such an amazing empire suddenly turn into dust? The Roman empire reached north-western Europe all the way to the east at its peak. Once they had so much area to control, there was no room for error.

Although many historians and professors attribute the fall of the Roman Empire to excess and corruption, the role of shifting spheres of power, trade created a situation that made the fall of such a large cumbersome empire inevitable, the military played a role for not obeying protocol as well and an excess of things were happening in the government that also led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Each mistake made by the Romans contributed to their fall of their empire since after time of accumulation of their mistakes, it becomes a tremendous problem. Though the Roman Empire still did have their climax in history before everything came crashing down.

Does that not seem to you like betrayal and rejection of his own people? Alexander could never have had it both ways. As the conquerors we will never accept the customs of the conquered. Political move it may have been, but it was the wrong one. At the trial of the royal pages conspiracy, it was stated to Alexander that he abhorred the customs of his own country. Thus it was the king of Persians, not of the Macedonians that they wanted to kill13. Alexander has simply become so far removed from his own people that some do not even see him as their own king. The plot against his life was to pursue him as a deserter in accordance with the conventions of war14. When a sailor rescued Alexander’s crown from the sea and placed it on his own head to keep it dry and out of harm’s way, he was rewarded handsomely for the rescue. When it was pointed out by another to Alexander that the crown had been on another’s head, regardless of the situation he had the same man promptly executed on the belief that it was a bad omen. With the adoption of Persian luxury came outright abuse of power and skewed

The clearest evidence of this lies in Document C, entitled Alexander of Macedon by Peter Green and published by the University of California Press in 1991. This excerpt describes one of the many brutal rampages that Alexander’s troops embarked on, this time against Tyre, under their leader’s orders. His commands were “executed with savage relish” and even the men of Sidon, who had been rivals with the Tyrians for centuries, were “horrified by what they now witnessed”. Those who sought refuge were slayed, buildings were burned down, thousands of men at military age were crucified, and even survivors that surrendered were eventually enslaved. Therefore, Alexander was undoubtedly a relentless and power-hungry military leader that would have done anything in order to further himself and his plans. Moreover, Document B, written by Lucius Flavius Arrianus in 130 CE, also, though unintentionally, displays Alexander’s cruelty. Taken from Arrianus’s book called The Campaigns of Alexander, the story was supposed to be a recount and positive reflection of Alexander’s accomplishments, given that it was written by a Greek philosopher and historian. However, it, instead, is even further proof that Alexander was anything but great. The document narrates Alexander’s last major battle against Porus on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes

Alexander has too much integrity making him seem rude. Document D says, “Alexander was himself steering the trireme (a warship with oars), when a strong gust of wind fell on his broad-brimmed Macedonian hat, and the band that encircled it. The hat, being rather heavy, fell into the water. However, the band was carried along by the wind and was caught by one of the reeds growing near the tomb of one of the ancient kings….One of the sailors swam off towards the band and snatched it from the reed. But he did not carry it in his hands because it would get wet while he was swimming. He therefore put it around his own head and brought it to the king. Most of the biographers of Alexander say that the king gave him a talent* as a reward for his zeal. Then he ordered his head to be cut off because the prophets had explained that....he should not allow the head that had worn the royal head band to be safe.” That isn’t the only person Alexander has killed. This proves that Alexander the Great was not actually great because killing people for silly reasons is not a good

Being self-centered is not how someone great would act. In document A it shows a map with how many cities he ruled. 11, which were all named after himself. This shows that he is conceded, and very much self centered. Also in document D it gives a story told by ancient biographers of Alexander. In “The Legend of the Hat Band” it tells a tale of Alexander’s hat being blown into the water so one of his men retrieved it for him and placed on his head so it would not get wet. At first Alexander gave him a talent but then ordered his head to be cut off because the prophets had explained “ he should not allow the head that had worn the royal headband to be safe.” This is wrong, selfish, and cruel. The man did a generous and kind thing for Alexander. Alexander killed an innocent man because he believed the man was not worthy to live because he had worn his headband. You should not be called great if you injure and are violent towards the people you lead and rule because you are too self

Alexander cared about his army and there needs. According to document D, “The army was crossing a desert of sand and the sun was already blazing down on them. They were in need of water. As they went on a party of light infantry which had gone looking for water. They found some and poured it into a helmet. They brought it back to Alexander, Alexander took the helmet and in full view of his troops poured it on the ground,”(Arrianus Doc D). This shows that Alexander the great was truly great because he showed concern for others. When he poured the water on the ground he showed brotherhood. Brotherhood meaning if he was not going to drink the water the army would not either. This trait is good to have so that one can be caring for others and it makes one a good leader so they will be able to succeed in life. Next, Alexander was aware of others. According to document C, “When the last organized resistance was broken, Alexander and his army went on a wild search. Alexander had ordered that all except those who took safety in the temple were to be put to death,”(Green Doc C). This shows that Alexander the great was really great because he showed concern for others by honoring those who took safety in the temple he saved their lives. When one does this they are saving many lives and am being very honorable just like Alexander was. This trait is important to have in life so they can succeed in life by honoring others and their choices. In summary, Alexander the great was truly great because he showed concern for

There is a legend where he and his army are in the desert, and instead of drinking the precious little water reserved for him, he poured in out onto the ground (Doc D). This gesture inspired his army and kept them going through the hard times. You could argue his greatness by saying that he was a general who knew how to keep his troops going through remarkably difficult and trying times. Another legend says that at sea one day, Alexander lost his crown in the wind and a sailor swam out to retrieve it. In order for it to stay dry, the sailor had to keep it on his head. The man was given a reward for saving the crown but then was put to death because the only head that the crown could ever touch must be royal (Doc D). One could use this document to argue that Alexander was even cruel to his own people. The truth is that there are two sides to every story. If you define someone as one thing, you are bound to get debates about whether or not that one thing was true throughout their life.

Greatness in a leader implies passion and integrity. Alexander spent his life fighting hundreds of battles all while having no respect for the army that fought by him,

Roman Fever" is an outstanding example of Edith Wharton's theme to express the subtle nuances of formal upper class society that cause change underneath the pretense of stability. Wharton studied what actually made their common society tick, paying attention to unspoken signals, the histories of relationships, and seemingly coincidental parallels. All of these factors contribute to the strength and validity of the story of Mrs. Slade and Mrs. Ansley.

“Roman Fever” is a short story written by Edith Wharton in 1934. The story is about two old friends Alina Slade and Grace Ansley reconnecting. Alina and Grace run into each other while on a trip to Rome with their daughters. The two women grew up in Manhattan and were childhood friends. A romantic rivalry led Alina to get feelings of jealousy and hatred against Grace. In the first part of the story, the two women talk about their daughters and each other's lives. Eventually, Alina reveals a secret about a letter written to Grace on a visit to Rome long ago. The letter was addressed from Alina’s fiancé, Delphin, inviting Grace to meet at the Colosseum. Alina had written the letter, to get Grace out of the way of the engagement by disappointing her when Delphin didn’t show up. Grace is upset at this revelation, but reveals that she was not left alone at the Colosseum. She had responded to the letter, and Delphin went to meet her. Alina eventually states that Grace shouldn’t pity her because she won by marring Delphin while Grace had nothing but a letter Delphin didn't even write. Then, Grace reveals that she had Barbara, Grace’s daughter, with Delphin. “Roman Fever” uses a lot of dramatic irony and has many events that contribute to thematic conflict. Wharton uses the letter Alina writes to Grace to trigger all the deception between them, which shows readers that when people are being deceitful with one another nobody wins. Alina sends the letter to Grace to get her out of the picture, but it gives Grace the chance at Delphin that she wouldn’t have gotten otherwise, and Grace takes advantage by writing back to Delphin without Alina’s knowledge. Both characters are keeping secrets about their relationships with Delphin and they both think that they won when neither of them did.

Alexander was a complex, inscrutable man of passion and iron-will . The King possessed a keen intellect, with an ability to make quick decisions. He had supreme courage and excellent leadership skills , which contributed significantly to his greatness as a

Edith Wharton’s Roman Fever appears to suggest that friendship built on a lie would be destroyed because it is built on a bad foundation. In the story it shows that social status and jealousy are important. Roman Fever last sentence shows that with jealously and a bad friendship can cause problems later in life.