tribes, especially in ancient civilizations, are important for families and neighbors to grow close, and for communities to protect each other. But their are downsides to this idea of the tribe. tribes are not very connected with other tribes, they have not alot of skills for working with each other. they all have different customs, different beliefs, and different opinions.  because of this, when islam brings these tribes together, they can't communicate because of their differences. Also many lower tribes were looked down upon by higher ones, and this went against Muhammad's teachings. when Muhammad's power needed to be passed on, these different opinions flared up, and fights broke out. Muslims broke up into the Sunnis and the Shiites, who still fight today. The Sunnis believe that the power should go to whoever was taught by Muhammad, and the Shiites think that the power should go through his bloodline. This idea also relates back to one of the tribes traditions which is that many small fights will elevate and last for generations. In conclusion, because of tribes and the concept of the tribe in islamic history, the muslim people are broken in two.

India is a very peaceful place. There are many reasons for why they are so peaceful, but in my opinion, it is mainly its rich Hindu and Buddhist history. The powerful empire of the Guptas was Hindu, and the empire of the Mauryas, ruled by Ashoka, was Buddhist. At many times, there were Buddhists, Hinduism and Jainists living right next to each other. Because of this, they were forced to be accepting of each others opinions. These religions focused on self control, living without desire, and peace. All three of these religions became popular throughout the world and are still today. An example of one who practices Hinduism, is Ghandi. He believed in standing up for what you believe for, but to use nonviolence. He spread his teachings throughout the world. he protested the apartheid in south Africa, and he peacefully fought for India's independence. Ghandi said,"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for, but no cause that I am prepared to kill for." If Ghandi wasn't From India, and didn't practice Hinduism, then he wouldn't be a person who is as insightful and peaceful as he was, and India wouldn't be as peaceful as it is today.

Yes, migration can definitely have a positive impact on both the natives and their land. There is a chain reaction that occurs when two cultures or peoples move into the same land. Let's use the example of the population of a city that runs out of food and is forced to migrate. They combine with another city  where resources are less scarce. When people are near each other, population increases. This leads to expanding cities and trade routes. As more people and cultures flow into this city state, it becomes more and more developed and will soon turn into an empire. When cultures come together,  art, technology, and science are all enhanced. Monks, traders, and missionaries travel to the city and spread religion, which unites the people, and starts the cycle over again. Although this seems like a great system, it does have some drawbacks. Overpopulation can mean not enough food to go around, deforestation, and quickly spreading diseases. These things can lead to quickly collapsing empires like the Mongols. However, overall, migration is a positive thing that helps cultures and cities thrive and expand.

He who is richest is content with the least. I agree with this quote because it proves why poor people can be happier than rich people. Because I cant find anything to disagree with him over, I am going to quote him again. Socrates said that there is only one good, knowledge, and only one evil, ignorance. I think that if you are knowledgeable, than it is easier to be good, but I don’t think that being ignorance makes you evil. everyone is ignorant about much more than they are knowledgeable about. So if Socrates is right, than it would mean that all humans are much more evil than they are good.



To Plato, Justice is when the lowest class respects the next class up and happily does what ever they are told. This ladder continues up to the guardians, the people who run the state with wisdom.



Platos ideal republic is when Everyone happily does what people in a higher class tell them to do. at the bottom are the strong who do all of the dirty work. above them are the brave who are the policemen and the army. above the strong are the smart who rule the government.

The only positive that i could find, was that woman were probably treated equally to men. However, there were some problems with Platos idea. Plato came up with this idea from the perspective of an aristocrat, someone who would end up at the top of his social pyramid. He makes it sound like everyone is treated equally and is only judged on how smart, brave, or strong they are. Really, i think that people were born into poverty and so even if they were smart, they never found out because they never got an education.



My ideal state today is basically America minus, the housing market, inflation, rising unemployment, and the government bailouts. i think that it is great that Basically everyone is treated equally. Although having more money does help, kids everywhere have a free education. there is no socail status that puts woman and foreigners below others. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have shown that no matter your race or backround, pretty much everyone can become a ruler. My ideal state would be a democracy, also like America.

if I was a young teenage girl of the citizen class, then I would rather live in Sparta. In Athens, girls stayed at home, and had no political power at all. The girls had little or no education. They learned about spinning, weaving, and other domestic art. However, in Sparta the girls were treated much better. They were taught survival skills, gymnastics reading, writing, and sports. They were treated much more equal to boys than the Athenian girls. Sparta was a much better place for girls to live

if I was a slave,then I would rather live in Athens. In Sparta the slaves had to give half of what they made to the land owners. they had hardly any rights. If they wanted to, than an owner could kill a slave. In Athens, they weren't treated nearly as harshly. some were even given import jobs like a policeman. Athens was a better place for a slave to live.

if I was a boy of the citizen class, than I would rather live in Athens. In Sparta, the most important thing was war and they started training their boys young. They were taken from their parents at age seven and trained to be a warrior. this training was painful and dangerous. they were given very little education. In Athens, boys had a good education that started at age 5 and ended between 14 and 18. they studied reading writing, math music, poetry sports, gymnastics, philosophy, ethics, and public speaking. their military training camp lasted for only two years. It would be much easier to be a boy in Athens than in Sparta.

if i was a young soldier, than i would rather live in Sparta than Athens. Sparta had the best military program of the time. Sparta's entire society revolved around warfare. although it was harsh, it would strengthen and toughen young men and eliminated the weak. if a baby looked strong, than they would train and fine tune him as a young child. if the baby was weak, than they would kill it. they started their army training at age 7. because of their brutal and dangerous training, the Spartans came out with the strongest soldiers of Greece. Therefore their army was the strongest in Greece. it would be much better to fight in Sparta's army than Athens, which started at age 18 and only lasted for 2 years

if i had to be a wealthy person of the citizen class, than i would be one in Athens. This is because in Sparta, money isn't valued. i would own a lot of land and have a lot of money but i would always be either fighting, or in the barracks. Athens was much more materialistic than Sparta. Their lives could be much more luxurious because there were more things to buy and because they had time to spend with their wealth. For Sparta, money didn't mean nearly as much as war. This is why i would rather be a wealthy citizen in Athens.

i think that Athens would have been a much better place to live. Athens was much more materialistic than Sparta. The Athenians valued money and luxury, while the Spartans got by on as little as possible. The Spartans lived very rugged lives. People came from all over just to trade in Athens, and therefore had a very diverse people. They also had a lot of different goods to buy. sell, and trade. The second reason why i would rather live in Athens is because of their war training and education. Boys were taken from their parents at age 7 to begin their training. They were only given a cloak and hardly any food. they would have to steal clothes and food to survive. Even though Sparta had the best army in Greece, I dont think that the brutall training would be worth it. The last reason why I would rather live in Athens is the government. Sparta was run by Two kings who had almost all of the power. It would be easy for the 2 kings power to go unchecked. Spartas government wasn't as good as Athens because The 2 kings had to much power. Athens was much more democratic then Sparta. Athens was ruled by 9 people, whose power was limited by assembly. Their councel was made up of 500 male citizens above 30. Although there were different peices to the Athenian government, the most important part was the people. This was the Assemble and they had the final say on just about everything. All of these reasons together is why i would rather live in Athens than Sparta.

why does change happen during periods of economic or political stress?

during times of econimic, socail, and political stress, big changes need to be made. if everything is going fine, than everyone is happy, and noone needs to change anything. during the end of the Qin dynasty, the peasants and merchants were unhappy because of the strict leagalist laws and punishments. Therefore, when the emperor Shi Huangdi died, the peasants revolted and formed a new, more peaceful dynasty, the Han dynasty. The Han dynasties laws were much less strict and much more in line with confucious thought. They had zoos, universaties, and womans rights.
In modern times our financail market is in a crisis. Both presedentail canidates are promising change because our economy is doing so bad. because of the financail crisis America has taken up quick ways to get the market back on it's feet overnight. We have set up a huge bail out fund.

was population growth the most significant development of the classical period. true or false?

false. Although population growth seemed important, it was only the effect of all of the other things happening in the classical period. Humans decided to farm in large quantities. on farm would produce alot of one thing. They would then trade it for what they needed. They had horses and other animals to do the hard parts of their work, and had metal tools to help them. This system allowed for a large population growth spurt. if they were nomads following animals, than this large population would not have been possible. Because they were never on the move, their houses were perminent and very livable. their were many great trade routes such as the silk road, mediteranean sea routes, and the Greek roads. These trade routes alowed for the people to get luxuries that they wanted. These things all helped the population grow, but the growth itself wasn't important. The only way that it affected anyone was bad. because they were living very close to animals and very close to each other, diseases spread more quickly. Large cities led to deforestation and pollution. If the farmers get lazy, food could run out. The population growth was hardly impoertant, and if it was, it was only important in bad ways.