History – 5

Why did Tiberius Gracchus attract so much suspicion from the Roman Senate?

In the second Punic war, Roman soldiers came home to find that their land was destroyed and useless for farming. Due to this they sold their land to the rich and moved to the city where there was a scarce amount of jobs. This was a big issue because now the soldiers could not rejoin the army due to the fact that you had to be a landowner to do so.

Tiberius Graccus who was a Roman politician in the second century BC, wanted to pass a land reform that would distribute land to the veterans and make them eligible for the military. However, he did not have enough support in the senate, so he went straight to the counsel of the plebs. This didn’t look good because it was an unwritten law that you first had to get the consent of the senate before a bill was taken to the any of the assemblies. This is what made the Senate suspicious of Tiberius.

Advertisements

Science – 3

Some genetic disorders are not hereditary. Give an example of one of these, and describe the molecular process that causes the disorder to occur.

Genetic disorders occur when the sequence of DNA is disrupted causing a type of error to occur within certain parts of the person carrying the disease. These errors can be internal or external and can cause mutations in single or multiple genes as well as damage to chromosomes. Sometimes these conditions are passed down from parent to child such as down syndrome.

Down syndrome is the result of either the mother or father giving an extra copy of chromosome 21, causing an imbalance in the genetic code during conception. Because of this extra chromosome, once the child is born they will experience health issues, developmental delays, and many other problems. The only way down syndrome can be caused is through conception unlike other genetic diseases that have nothing to do with your parent’s genes. Many forms of cancer are examples of this and are caused by exposure to different chemicals, sun, as well as substances such as alcohol and tobacco among many other things.

Healthy cells function normally and are constantly reproducing and working to carry out tasks needed for humans to thrive. However some cells are unhealthy and are destroyed by the body, this stops viruses from entering and prevents the flow and pattern of the cells from interrupting. But sometimes unhealthy cells are able to make it through and begin to copy itself over and over. Once the cell has copied it is difficult for your healthy cells to control the growing amount of unhealthy cells in your body. These cells create a lump which continues to get bigger and bigger as the cells multiply. This lump is referred to as cancer and develops over time.

There are many examples of hereditary and non hereditary genetic disorders these are just two, both are very unfortunate occurrences however there is still a lot to learn about them to further prevent them. I hope you learned something new.

 

English – 12

How Important was the rhetorical Context of Cicero’s orations: his listeners’ fear of Catiline’s conspiracy and army?

Cicero used the rhetorical context of his orations against Catiline very smartly. I believe it was extremely important in the defeat. In fact if it hadn’t been for the intimidation within his speeches Cicero might’ve been assassinated.

This is how I see it, Cicero couldn’t have taken down his rival alone. He needed an army as well as the support from the Roman people who could’ve easily joined in Catiline’s rebellion. So Cicero used the power of his words to persuade the people to stand by him, he even got the senate to give him temporary power over the army. Without this, Rome’s government could’ve been overthrown by its own people and I think that Cicero knew the severity of the situation if he didn’t handle it correctly.

This situation goes to show how truly intelligent Cicero was. Without his use of speech Rome would’ve fallen a lot earlier than it did.

English – 11

If you had been Catiline, what would you have said to undermine Cicero’s case?

Around 63 B.C conservatives were having trouble electing a statesman for Rome, three candidates were up for the running and only two were able to advance into a position in office. This resulted in fierce competition within the candidates; Cicero, Antonius, and Catiline. With each having their own set of strong suits and weak points, it was growing more and more difficult to choose the winners.

Marcus Tullius Cicero, commonly referred to as simply Cicero, was a lawyer and philosopher from a small town in Italy. He was very skilled in oratory however he is most well known for his literature written in latin.

Markus Antionius was also in the running alongside Cicero. The least is known about Antonius out of all of his fellow candidates but nevertheless, his oratory career was very big in Rome and he was considered the the most distinguished orator of his time.

Lucius Sergius Catilina, known now by his english name; Catiline was born into one of the oldest patrician families in Rome. He also had a distinguished military career making him a respectable figure.

Cicero was at a disadvantage being that he was in fact from Italy and not necessarily from Rome itself, this resulted in being called an ‘immigrant’ and a ‘foreigner’. He also didn’t have a good budget for the campaign, due to this he decided to use his skill of speech to boost himself in the rankings. Cicero attacked the character of his two opponents especially that of Catiline. This was probably not the best idea in my opinion, especially considering the fact that in the end there would be two winners; one for the first place winner who would go on to become the statesman and one for the second place winner who would become right hand hand man to the statesman. So creating bad blood is arguably not the safest way to go.

Nevertheless Cicero made the points that both Antonius and Catiline had close relationships with a young Julius Cesar who was not exactly a respectable figure at the time. He also mentioned that Catiline stole from foreigners and to gain the attention of the wealthy he also mentioned that he would fight for property rights.

In the end Cicero ended up winning the election with Antonius coming in second leaving Catiline to ultimately lose the campaign altogether. Understandably, this humiliated Cataline and throughout the next year he spent preparing for the next election. Meanwhile, Cicero was doing a great job as statesman and accumulated a big following.

During the next elections Cicero came in first yet again and Catiline remained in third for the second year in a row. Now obviously frustrated, Catiline decided that the only way to gain the power he wanted was to overthrow Rome. Thus he created a sort of misfit group containing dissatisfied veterans, flopped politicians, as well as enrolling men who were willing to fight on their behalf before he devised a plan.

In the midst of this, Catiline and his group were compromised resulting in a letter being sent for their banishment from Rome. So they planned an attack to kill Cicero which was unsuccessful. However Cicero made his first speech against Catiline to the senate urging him to be exiled from Rome. Cataline did end up leaving Rome but only to join his army where they planned another attack.

Now Cicero makes his second speech against Catiline to the people. Followed by this a third and fourth after receiving incriminating documents against Catiline’s group. This resulted in the order to find and execute them all. The word got around and Catiline’s small army decreased in numbers making his chance of survival scarce.

When the two army’s met face to face Catiline had no choice but to engage and was killed in battle along with his men. This entire ordeal did not benefit Catiline in any way and in fact made Cicero’s career reach its peak.

Now the question; If you had been Catiline, what would you have said to undermine Cicero’s case?

Analyzing the case that Cicero made against Catiline we can see that the claims made were taken heavily by the Roman people. Catiline was accused of stealing from foreigners as well as being close friends with Julius Cesar. I’m not sure if the claims were argued on behalf of Cataline but I have no reason to believe they were argued against. If these claims were true it still doesn’t account for the fact that Cicero is in fact a foreigner himself.

Cicero’s weakness is that he is not Roman so using that is good advantage. Catiline comes from a well known wealthy family in Rome which puts him at the upper hand. If Cicero wants the attention of the rich by promoting property rights what’s to say Catiline won’t do it better? Why would rich Romans trust a man from a small Italian town to help them with their properties when a like minded Roman who grew up in a wealthy and well known family would likely know more about what the rich want?

Another weakness we can address is Cicero’s lack of money for his campaign. He’s all talk and no action. So why not address this? Why not expose his method? Catiline has the money for his campaign, so why not give action? Put your funds into a project to show how well you can handle your money and show how easy it is to promote an idea to capture attention yet not take action on that idea.

In terms of the situation regarding Julius Cesar it’s difficult to say. A polarizing figure we can use as a comparison would be Donald Trump, if there was someone running for statesman and everyone found out he was friends with Donald Trump it probably wouldn’t look so good. I think if Cataline was willing he would not associate himself with Julius if it meant he would win. I would imagine it would help a lot if Catiline announced that he doesn’t associate or necessarily agree with the actions of Julius.

In conclusion I believe Catiline did not handle the situation he was given in the best way. In fact there were countless ways he could’ve handled it better and possibly ended up as statesman however his actions proved he was likely not fit for the role.

History – 4

Art is a key piece in many cultures, it can give an inside on a society. Greek art is no different and is arguably one of the most recognizable features of Ancient Greece. The periods of Greek art include geometric, archaic, classical, and hellenistic. They all include unique art styles that have been analyzed by historians for centuries.

The Venus de Milo is one of the most famous sculptures in history initially thought to have been created by well known sculpture Praxiteles. However this was proved wrong by the fact that there was an engraving on the art piece which led to the discovery that it was created by Alexandros of Antioch. Alexander made Venus sometime between 130-100 BC as a depiction of the goddess Aphrodite. She stands at 6ft 8in, is made of marble, and was discovered in 1820. Both her arms are missing and have been since her discovery in the ancient city ruins of Milos.

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 3.15.19 PM

The Venus de Milo is from the hellenistic art period (130-100BCE) however she has features that make it seem as though she is from the classical period, this period lasted from 800 BC to 400 CE. The hellenistic period has a strong sense of history and in terms of art there isn’t much information. But hellenistic art was collected not only among the locals but among the Romans who took a great liking to the style.

This sculpture represents the hellenistic periodic in a way that is bit difficult to see if you’re comparing it to the classical style. Hellenistic sculptures are more detailed than that of the classical and show much more emotion. Thus making Venus resemble this era a lot closer.

In conclusion there is a lot we do not know about many aspects of Ancient Greece but what we do know can still give us a peek of what the greek society was like. The Venus de Milo is just one creation of many beautiful art pieces crafted by the most skilled artists known today. So I hope you learned something new.

English – 10

How does the view of ethical cause and effect in history in Works and Days compare with the furies’ view in The Eumenides?

          To summarize; Works and Days is a piece of literature written by Hesoid that tells about his brother inheriting the bigger share of the family farm. This leads to Hesoid teaching him about the heirarchy of gods.

The Eumenides is piece of literature written by Aeschylus that tells about a man named Orestes who murdered his stepmother to avenge his father. This leads to a group of furies to terrorize him.

Although both of these pieces are different in many ways including in the writing style and the story overall, they both speak about the consequences of doing wrong. In fact Hesoid clearly expresses that being evil is easy and being good is difficult.

To begin, what is the ethical cause and effect in works and days? Well Hesoid wrote about many gods including Zeus and Cronus in a time where humans were strong, powerful, and heroic however to make a long story short it ultimately ends in humans becoming victims of their own violence. So how does this compare?

In Eumenides, Orestes is being haunted by the furies who although have nothing to do with the situation, still see that he had done wrong. The wrongdoing heavily outweighs the purpose of the action in itself. Similar to the god and human relationship in works and days.

The concept is very simple and is used in countless forms of literature to express the consequences of actions. Be good and good things will come you way however if you choose the path of evil then you should expect nothing less in return.

 

English – 9

“What was Aeschylus’s view of the Trojan war?”

Within the literature of Aeschylus’s Agamemnon there is little information on his judgment on the Trojan war specifically. However we can easily decide how he might have have felt based on his feelings towards war in general. Although in Greek culture war was very common and normalized, it is safe to say not everyone liked the idea of how much focus was put on it in the society during this historical time period.

Aeschylus didn’t see much of the honor or glory in participating in the army, he instead saw the ugly side of war such as the suffering of warriors. Those who were in the army faced many harsh elements including the cold winters and hot summers with little to no clothing, scarce amounts of food, years spent away from home, among many other things. It’s valid to not support the war during this time period or any time period for that matter especially considering the training process for warriors during the period of the Trojan war.

If we look back on Aeschylus’s views of the hierarchy between mankind and God, we can get an idea of how he as the writer sees war based on the terms its spoken about. In his eyes the god Zeus is the supreme ruler over man. Zeus isn’t the most kindhearted god, therefore he creates war as a way to avenge mankind. I believe that its safe to say that Aeschylus doesn’t view war in a very good light. But can you blame him?

So maybe we don’t know in detail exactly how Aeschylus feels about the Trojan war.  Even though he doesn’t seem to speak much about it in Agamemnon we can still conclude about what he has, or rather hasn’t said in his literature that his views of war are negative.