Thursday, September 12, 2013
Rebel, Rebel
In your World History textbook, one can find a passage on p. 100 in the section on Persia in which it's noted that Darius, the Persian ruler who seized the crown in 522 B.C., faced a number of revolts that he and his army had to put down. The word "empire" seems to offend our democratic sensibilities today, but empires weren't all the bad right? They might have help areas by improving certain factors. So, this fact does beg a few questions. 1) Do you think the revolts against Darius were justified and why? (Make sure you use evidence.) 2) Were there other empires against whom it was important to rebel (again make sure you use evidence)? As you make your case and respond to each question, please support your argument with clear evidence -- whether you believe in the advantages of empire or whether you feel it absolutely necessary to resist all empires or only certain one we've covered. Please respond in 7-!0 thoughtful sentences. Your original opinion, evidence, and argument are required for full credit. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Were the revolts against Darius or against Cambyses? The book says that the revolts occurred “immediately after Cambyses’s death.” At that point was Darius already ruling?
ReplyDeleteWell, either way, the revolts were not under Cyrus’ rule; going on how the book depicted Cambyses’ rule, the revolts were certainly justified. He, unlike his father, neglected to treat people with respect. Normally, this would not be as surprising (looking at the many conquests of other dynasties) but one would assume that having a highly venerated ruler like Cyrus as a predecessor, it might affect any subsequent successors’ rulings. Especially considering the fact that the empire seemed to prosper so much during Cyrus’ rule. To me, it shows ignorance not following an example such as that.
I do believe that many of the rebellions that bloomed in this time were justified – mainly because the rulers were often unjust and tactless. For example, the Qin Dynasty. The ruler (Shi Huangdi) treated his people like bugs, and then when his son succeeded the rule, being a much less strong emperor, the dynasty fell. I do believe that it was important for the people of this dynasty to rebel against their ruler – for one, they were treated abhorrently, and the book emphatically states Shi Huangdi’s son was a poor ruler – if the people had tried to rebel during Shi Huangdi’s rule, I assume that the outcome would be very different.
-Marisa
The revolts were justified, but they shouldn't have been against Darius. Cambyses is at fault for the revolts, because he was the one that burned images of Egyptian gods and scorned the religions of those he conquered. The way the book puts it, Darius was was only trying to create an efficient administration and expand Persia's empire.
ReplyDeleteIt was also important to rebel against the Assyrian Empire, because they were cruel and vicious rulers. They destroyed cities and killed all of the inhabitants, and when people refused to pay taxes they were sent into exile.
And, perhaps the most justified, was the overthrow of the Qin Dynasty. Shi Huangdi stifled all opposition in China by murdering Confucian scholars, and burning books of poetry and religion. The Qin Dynasty tried to crush independent thinking, and so had to be overthrown.
Bronwyn
In the past, there have been many empires; some empires treated their people-- as Marisa said-- as if they were "bugs." Others chose quite differently: In Cyrus's case, he treated the people that he conquered with kindness and respect. On the other hand, after Cyrus's death, Cambyses' took over the empire and treated the people with the exact opposite way. After Cambyses' death, the empire rebelled. I feel as if revolts against Darius were needed. The civilization had been under 2 rulers--one wonderful, and the other opposite-- and was presented with yet another. The civilians were tired of being mistreated and without power, so they rebelled. This, I concur, is how many other individuals must have felt when the empire treated them poorly. Civilizations, when treated poorly, needed to rebell.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Darius should've been immediately rebelled against. He should've had time to prove his worth as a leader. Despite the fact that his predecessor was bad, that doesn't mean that all empires are bad. Other empires, like that of Cambyses, should've been rebelled against, but only after they were proven as bad empires. Empires can work, and it has been proven by people like Cyrus, who was extremely kind and respected those he conquered. Darius ended up being a good leader also, but had he not had to deal with all the attempted rebellions, he could've gotten to work much quicker into his reign. He still was able to do a great deal for the Persians, but he is a prime example of why you give people a chance.
ReplyDelete- J��rdan Valdés #3
I believe that revolts against Darius were acceptable. He was a tactless ruler. Who gave no care or respect towards his people. He came forth as a leader after Cambyses tyrant rule and continued on. The people deserved to be free from such power. Even though Empire’s have had their glory moments providing much advance technology, religion, civilization and many other things they always had one ruler. I don’t believe power should be attained by only one person. Power needs to be spread out, checked and balance. Empire’s let people have too much power that could easily be corrupted.
ReplyDeleteI think the revolts themselves were justified. These revolts occurred AFTER the death of Cambyses, am I right? And on top of that, the most likely reason for that being that Cambyses was a crappy emperor, right? He treated his subjects poorly and he didnt respect the religion of the Egyptians. He didnt follow after his father Cyrus and he didnt respect the cultures of the conquered. So naturally, I wouldnt blame the sybjects for rebelling. However, I didn't think that they should have rebelled as soon as Darius began his esteemed reign. They should have revolted during the reign of the emperor they hated in the first place, Cambysaes. (I'm agreeing with Jordan on this.) They should have waited for Darius to rule for a small period before attempting to rebel, since they lost their chance to do that during Cyrus' son's reign.
ReplyDeleteNext, it was important to rebel against Shi Huangdi, as it clearly says that he treated them like bugs. if he doesnt respect his subjects, why should they respect him?
Didn't*
ReplyDeleteSubjects*
Cambyses*
I think the people did need to rebel. Cambyus was a bad ruler and Darius just continued his legacy. Cambyus and Darius didn't respect their subjects. Yes its great if you make your empire bigger but its going to collapse sooner and its going to be a bigger rebellion because you don't take the time to learn about them or try to understand their beliefs. like Felicia said if you have one ruler its not going to work out in the end. eventually they will become power hungry and/or really comfortable with their position and believe that they deserve it more than anyone else which means that they will look down on the people they are supposed to be representing. while we don't have a perfect system of politics now what we have is better than a king because its more equal. Athens Greece had a form of politics where all the citizens voted on what to pass and what not to pass. this worked well because while things may not go your way, you know that your voice might make a difference.
ReplyDeleteWhen Darius seized the throne in 522BC the ongoing revolts he put down weren’t his fault. The blame goes to the ruler whom succeeded Cyrus, Cambyses. Unlike Cyrus, Cambyses was a harsh, disrespectful, and all around horrible ruler. The reason revolts didn’t happen during Cyrus’s reign was because Cyrus respected each civilizations culture society and form of ruling. Therefore the revolts were justified, but not against a king such as Darius who restored the order, peace and tolerance of Cyrus. I believe that most empires need to be rebelled against, but not all. The Assyrians and Qin dynasty deserved revolts because of their harsh legalistic, militaristic ruling style. They allowed limited rights and freedom, which their peoples longed for dearly. The Qin dynasty, who forced peasants to die working on the great wall, treated their subjects so harshly that as soon as weakness was spotted they attacked. The burning, pillaging peoples known as the Assyrians deserved a revolt because of their intolerance of other cultures’ cities, people and culture. Those empires may be absolutely despicable, but not all empires are bad. In fact, you could consider the USA to be an empire, yet we aren't at a threat of rebellion and haven’t been for many years. We have territories where people have restricted rights and don’t get the full “American Freedom” so many people long for. The fact is that that many of the large modern countries could be considered empires. China took over Tibet a few years ago, and Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza. Some empires may be horrible and oppressing, but depending on your view, some empires that oppress still exist today.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that it was inportant that some of theses civilizations rebelled ageinst their leaders. The revolt against Cambyses was defiantly justified because he was the total opposite of his father who was smart, powerful and understanding of what the people wanted and needed. He knew how to keep peace and happiness among the people of his empire. While his son paid no mind to his fathers example and scorned the Egyptian religion, ordering the burning of all the images of the Egyptian gods. I believe that Darius on the other hand did not deserve the anger of the people that was not technically directed at him, if the people wanted to rebel they should of done it against Cambyses earlier.
ReplyDeleteI believe that rebellion was a very important thing it built a stronger empire because when the people are strong and happy so is the empire. I think that the overthrow the the quin dynasty was very important because he may of been a strong leader but he was crushing the people and all of their individual thoughts and rights.also the over throw of the Assyrians because they were cruel and made many enimies they defiantly got what they deserved.
I think that the revolts against Darius were justified, but I am not really sure that they were against Darius. It seems as if he was just the heir (he wasn’t really the heir) to a kingdom that already had problems, but that is not really what the question is asking. I do think the revolts were justified because the people who rebelled obviously had a reason to do so. If they were happy/happy enough they would have stayed quiet and avoided trouble. It seems as if Cyrus treated his conquered subjects very well, but when it really came down to it, they were still prisoners in their own cities. That is probably not a very nice thing to be. Also, Cyrus’s son Cambyses had not treated the conquered subjects very well. This was evident when he disrespected Egyptian gods/religion during his attack upon Egypt. This is probably a more influential reason for the rebellion than the one that I gave earlier. Still, they are both (in my opinion) perfectly good reasons to rebel.
ReplyDeleteThere were several other empires/times during other empires in which it was important for the empire’s subjects to rebel (even though they did not). One of the most important empires to rebel against was probably Assyria. They were very mean and disrespectful to the people who they defeated. The book says this at the top of page 96. It says that they usually enslaved and separated the people they conquered in order to lessen the possibility of rebellion. This tactic worked to stop rebellion, but it did not make their neighbors like them. Ultimately, their cruelty was a large part of their downfall. They were eventually destroyed by armies of enemies that they had made during their time in power. Another empire in which rebellion would have been a good choice was the Shi Huangdi section of the Qin Dynasty in China. Shi Huangdi did do constructive things for china in the long run (he unified it, and helped it become a more powerful empire), but he was really abusive to his subjects while he was in power. The other Empires like Egypt were good and bad in different ways and at different times, but I don’t think that it was essential to rebel against them.
I think that the revolts that took place against Darius were not necessary at all. Darius was a great warrior who led a very impressive army. He divided the empire into 20 provinces and in each of those provinces, people were allowed to follow their own set of laws, practice their own religion, and speak their own language. His empire was very diverse, which is good and respectable. The only time I think revolts are necessary, is when human rights are being violated. When human rights are being violated, and there is some type of internal problem within the empire, a revolt is needed. Someone new needs to come into power soon to fix these problems. Power-hungry, and revenge-hungry people who lead revolts are just dumb, you should be happy with what you have. As long as it's food and water and a place to sleep every day. Some revolts are necessary, but some aren't, it all depends on the character and the ruling of the man in power.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the revolts against Darius weren't justified because it was right after he had taken the thrown. He hadn't been able to stably rule and show his technique yet, the revolts were mainly the fault of Cambyses for scorning the egyptian religion and burning of images of the egyptian gods. I believe it was right to rebel against the Assyrians for their cruel way of ruling and the Qin for their controlling nature. The Assyrians showed no mercy when conquering a city, they would kill or enslave their victims then send them off to a far away province so they couldn't rebel. This is cruel and unfair, they needed to be rebelled against until this happened to everyone and their culture destroyed. The same logic of preventing culture from being destroyed is also why you should revolt against the Qin. They would burn the books of different ideas than their own.
ReplyDeleteI believe the revolts were justified, but the revolts that were out down were people more mad at Cyrus's son. Darius took over in a time of great turmoil, after Cyrus's son had ruined the empire. Many revolts against empires were necessary as well. For example, the Qin dynasty had legalist ideals that truly oppressed and practically murdered hundreds of thousands of people. Also, the Assyrians were cruel and forced conformity within the people they so brutally conquered. Empires may have some good things, but in the end it is truly bad for any form of ruling to have ultimate power. You can have great countries/.groups of people, like the Persians, who may have one amazing ruler and have a period of greatness, but in the end they fall to some stupid mistake by the next son or perhaps the grandson. With the democratic system we avoid having total failure by splitting up the power, allowing us to stop any incompetence or bad decisions with our freedom and splitting of power.
ReplyDelete