Roman Empire Unification

I think the Romans effectively unified their empire through roads. I think that the roads they built connected all the corners of their empire. It's a lot easier to move along a paved road then through a forest. Thus they could trade faster and travel faster and move their armies faster.
Because it's a lot easier to move along paved roads Roman armies moved quickly. This can come in handy when your invading a country and want to get your troops at the border as soon as possible. Also it can help in defense purposes, if someone is invading, the Romans could move thier armies to the border and provide backup for the armies already fighting faster than the other country(that doesn't have paved roads) can.
Also the roads helped the romans spread culture. The roads helped exchange goods faster and they also helped merchants and artisans travel more effectively. So farther parts of the empire were witness to the same art and goods as the closer and more civilized parts. And having the same art and goods results in having the same culture and having the same culture results in unity.
So I conclude that the biggest factor in unifiying the Romna Empire was the efficiency with which their roads worked. They made everytihng from soldiers to performing troops move faster and promoted communication, communication helps understand, and understanding causes unity.

How an Athenian might view our present day Democrasy

I think an Athenian from the 5th century BC might view our democracy in many ways. He would probably disapprove of the amount of years the president serves. Whether or not he approves of the representative system is a choice that the person will have to make himself. I think he would disapprove of the variety of voters.

I think the common Athenian would disapprove of the amount of years an official is allowed to hold power in our modern day society. First off all back during the start of democracy the people that were elected were common people and a country was run on a relatively basic principle. The leader had to manage trade and war, there wasn't that much politics involved. He didn't have to know go to Harvard and learn all the laws because the laws (if they even existed) were pretty simple. Therefore giving a leader as much time as we give our current leaders would probably lead to him becoming corrupt and trying to maintain his power longer.

I think whether or not the common Athenian approved of the representative system was a matter of choice. Because if we're talking about a woman or someone not eligible to be elected then probably they would approve of the representative more, even if they weren't able to vote for him. Because a leader will be a lot nicer if he knows that he has to be elected than if he is forced to go to some meeting that he doesn't want to attend. I think if you're someone eligible to vote or be elected you would probably disapprove of the representative system. Because basically what's happening is that it's becoming harder for you to gain power. But if you're someone who doesn't care and goes to the meetings only because your forced then you'd probably enjoy a representative that goes and sits and talks for you.

I think a common Athenian man capable of voting and being elected would disapprove of the variety of voters. I think the fact that anyone over 18, that is a citizen of the country, would displease the Athenian voting population. Firstly and majorly because you have more people who want stuff and are able to get it. You can't please everyone and if more people need to be pleased, well, then it's likely that some of your pleasure will be removed. If slaves could vote, they'd vote for no more slavery, but that would bother the rich white man who uses them as cheap labor. Therefore the best way for the rich white man to retain power is by oppressing everybody else. Not letting people vote is a great way to oppress them.

Comparison between Mayan values and our own

There are many different ways that you can interpret Mayan values in our current day society. For example you could look at religion and the influence of the Church. you could look at the extents people will go to make there body fit the quota of "beautiful." War was a value. But mostly to see Mayan values you could just look at the time.

In ancient Mayan civilizations religion played a big role. Religious sacrifices were not uncommon, in fact being scarifies was one of the few ways you could go to heaven. Losing something as simple as a ball game could lead to you being sacrificed. In our modern world religion plays just as big a part. Even though over the past years the amount of Atheists has increased there is still a large population of religious people. There is an international holiday that has a very powerful relation to religion, Halloween. Maybe we aren't sacrificing people anymore but there is definitely still some violent actions in the name of god.

Then there is the value of beauty. Mayans valued beauty. They went so far as to deform a child's head at birth so it would look beautifuler when the child grows up. Though the Maya's idea of beauty greatly differed from ours today there are still people who go to great extents to be "beautiful." Look at all the make up women put on, and all the hours spent lying in the sun to get tanner. Beauty still plays as big a part in our society as it did in the Mayan.

War was a huge value for the Mayans. They needed war to prove a cities superiority. Even ball games often resulted in the sacrifice or violence. In our world war is not so prominent as in the Mayans. But still we soldiers in Iraq. We fight for different reasons and we fight in different styles but the point is the same. Mayans went out and killed people, and so do we. And in some less urbanized tribes there are still brutal wars going on for the same reasons as the Mayans.

But perhaps the biggest Mayan value was time. The Mayans had an obsession with time keeping. Their calenders are probably the most accurate in the history of the world. They predicted eclipses and other solar events with enormous accuracy. In our modern world we have just as big an obsession with time. Maybe we don't spend hours at a time staring at the stars at night but if we had more time we probably might. And if you think about it where ever we go one of the easiest things to find is the time. Watches, cell phones, ipods, and even TVs all have watches built in. Not to mention that most people beyond the age of 5 have their own personal watch on their wrist.

I conclude that even though the Mayans lived more than a thousand years ago a lot of their values are still present in our society. Beauty, war, religion, and time all still exist and are ubiquitous in our societies.

Comparison between Legalism and Mohism

In Ancient China there were several schools of though. Two of the schools were Mohism and Legalism. Mohism and Legalism had many differences, they were created at different times, and by different people. But they both proposed ways for a country to be ruled.
Mohism was founded by Mo Zi around 470 BC. Mohism believed that all people were born partially good and partially bad. He said the only reason there is war is because people don't love each other. That the only way for there to be peace on Earth was if there was universal love. Because if you loved your neighbor like you loved yourself then you wouldn't do anything bad to him, thus all human caused sorrow would be eliminated. They believed that how you act matters as much as how you think and that you should study practical scienceses like math. Music and art were strgonly discouraged, as was gossip or talking about people from your own perspective. Everyone should be loved equally.
Legalism was founded by Gongsung Yang at around 338 BC. Legalism stated that all people were born bad. It stated the only way for a governemnt to avoid chaos was for it to keep the common people in agriculture. It states in the document that the common people should "take to agriculture." It also states that the rich should stay rich, kind of meaning that the social classes should be kept from generation to generation. Legalism had a strong stand against morality, people should do what the laws say, they shouldn't question if it was right or wrong. The laws were right, everytihng against the laws was wrong. Legalism also believed that war was a way to demostrate power, and if people followed rules they should be rewarded, and if they didn't they should be ounished with an iron fist.
I think the most effective way for a country to be ruled was by the Legalistst. Not that it was effective as in life was good for all, but in a way that the country would be strong. Personally I think in a Legalist country life for common people would be terrible. If a country has enough raw power (police, military) to keep all of it's people in line in acceptance with Legalist views then I think it will be a very powerfull country. For example if you have a draft, you have a constant military force, you also have the peasants (if there not in the army) working to harvest food. Then you have the officialls and rulers and smart people to spend all there time to work on ruling or developing new technologies. This taking into account that the ruler isn't a lazy tyrant who appoints officials who abuse there power.
I think Mohism wouldn't be a very long lasting way to keep power. Simply because there is no way that you can commit all people to universal love. There will always be one person who won't love and who will hate and ruin everything. Because hate comes from hate, so if that one hater will do something bad then other people will be prone to retaliate.

The most effective way for a ruler to maintain power

I think the most effective way for a ruler to maintain power is by diplomacy. First of all I think a ruler should not be allowed to rule his whole life. But for a ruler to rule correctly and keep the country peaceful, at least internally, he must be diplomatic but able to use violence if necessary.
A ruler must rule peacefully. If a ruler builds hate between the people of his country then there is a chance that civil war will break out. So in order to keep peace a ruler must be unbiased and treat all his people with equal respect. He must also try and avoid actually killing or hurting people in his country. Because lots of death means sadness, and sadness means hate and hate means more death. And it's a circle that if started will never end.
If a ruler rules his whole life he will get corrupt. It's just in the human nature, if you have too much power you don't want to lose that power. Then you get paranoid of losing your power and take steps that will keep you from losing your power, these steps often involve hurting people. So I think a ruler shouldn't be allowed to rule his whole life but should be allowed to rule like the president is in America.
Lastly I think in a order for a ruler to keep his power some violence is necessary. I mean if there's a rebellion well you obviously have to send in armed forces. But I think it shouldn't get to the point of Nazi Germany, where everyone who talked bad about the Nazi party was either killed or put in jail.
I conclude that the best way for a ruler to maintain his power is by being nice to his people, participating in there events (making speeches, being active in general), only resorting to violence if necessary, and not spending too much time on his own enjoyment like not being too flashy. Aside from obvious stuff like running the government good, not going to war for reasons that seem invalid to the people, and keeping the country away from invaders.

Response to Jared Diamond's thesis

I think that Jared Diamond is correct in believing that expansion of civilization is largely due to geographical luck. Because you need a crop that can grow in large quantities from one seed and produce many fruits to feed many people. The plant also needs to be rich in nutrients. In Europe and the middle east that plant was wheat and barley. In Asia it was rise, in the Americas it was corn. However in New Guinea there was no crop like that. Another thing that you need for civilizations to develope is animals. In Euroasia there were 13 species od animals that are domseticated to this day. One was in America, however in New Guinea there were none, except pigs, who were brought there from Asia. I think that this is largely the reason that civilization never got under way in New Guinea. Aside from that there is the fact that it was on an island and there wasn't much space to expand to. In Mesopotamia there was perfect climate, cows, pigs, sheep, and goat. Four species of animals that are very usefull when domesticated. There was also barley and wheat, and a good climate. When the climate changed the people from Mesopotamia had places to go. When they went to Egypt there was a huge boom in civilization, proving that what the Mesopotamians had was very helpfull for civilization.

Do the andvantages of agriculture and farming outweight the disadvantages

I think it matter depending on who you are. If you are someone who likes to live in the same place and likes to know that you have a steady supply of food that will be there tomorow then yes the advantages of farming outweight the disadvantages.
But on the other hand if your someone who doesn't really care then it is easier for you to hunt with the rest of the tribe and migrate with the animal herds, sure you don't know if you'll have something to eat tomorow, but you don't have to spend hours farming and taking care of animals, you just go out, find and kill.