Ramses II

       I don't think that it was right for Ramses II to be so concerned about his reputation in history. While he was a very successful ruler, and Egypt did not have many pharaohs like him, he lied about many of the achievements he claimed to have made. This results in him being thought of as just having an inflated ego, even though it might have been a tactic for controlling his people, and the surrounding nations. If you can publicize you achievements, it might instill fear in others which would be an effective ruling tactic. I think that historical reputation is important to leaders today as well. Leaders who have a good historical reputation tend to be remembered more, and when people remember you, they remember what you did. It is in a sense a way to live forever, and I think that leaders grasp that so that people can learn from them in the future, and probably so that people will praise them for a long time.

Ancient Phoenicians

       The Ancient Phoenicians were a group of people that descended from the Canaanites, and lived in the Levant in the Bronze Age. Their main contribution to history was the invention of the alphabet. This was a very big contribution as it produced the growth of literacy since it was easier to learn than any other ancient language, and eventually led up to the foundation of western civilization. The Phoenicians were also know for their trading. They traded many goods such as ivory, cedar and purple dye (which is what they were named after). This trading also lead to their alphabet being spread out into different cultures.

Torah vs. Code of Hammurabi

       The Torah is both very similar and very different to the Code of Hammurabi.  One similarity between them is the lex talionis principle that we see a lot. In the bible we see the saying, "an eye for an eye" which is also carried through in the Code of Hammurabi. They tried to match the punishment as closely to the crime as possible. They also are showing guidelines for how the people should live their lives. The Code has many guidelines for how others should treat each other, and what should happen in many given circumstances, and the Torah tells a lot about how the Jews should act, and how to sacrifice for instance, and what rules there are for how you should act. There are also many differences between these documents too. The Code of Hammurabi for instance is very focused on justice, and how punishments should be carried out, and many of those punishments are a death penalty for things that do not endanger the lives of others. The Torah does not focus nearly as much on the punishments, but focuses on showing you how you strive to live, and helping you to get there. The Code of Hammurabi is more of a judgement book, and the Torah is a law book. Also, the Code of Hammurabi is set in place by a king so it is obviously not perfect, however the Torah came straight from God so it is perfect, and you can follow it without wondering if it is really the right way to live.

Ancient Egypt and Sumer

1.       I think that the civilizations of ancient Egypt and ancient Sumer are both similar, however they did mot influence each other. Much of the reason for this is that Egypt was so far removed from civilization that it was hardly influenced, nor did it influence any other civilizations. This was because of so many land barriers that disconnected it form all other civilizations for a very long, so they remained one of least changed culture of the ancient times.

2.       There are many different advantages and disadvantages of having a monarchy or a government. One reason to have a monarchy over a government is that the decisions can be made much faster, so in times of need, the ruler can at with supreme authority and get whatever needs to be done done. Also, in a monarchy, there is less complications in the ruling system, as to who has what power, because in a monarchy it is one man with all the power. In a government the power is distributed to many branches, and keeping them all in check becomes a struggle. However, if there is a corrupt ruler in charge, and no one is able to stand up to him, then the civilization can crumble, and the people can be oppressed. This is one reason not to have a monarchy. Also, in a government, there are many people keeping each other accountable, so it is harder for it to be shaken by corruption.

Code of Hammurabi

These paragraphs of the Code of Hammurabi show us a lot about what the ancient Mesopotamians valued. They believed that justice was guided by an idea called "lex talionis", or "the way of the claw." This meant that anyone who committed a crime would be punished as closely to their crime as possible. However, I think that how they followed this rule shows that they did not value the human life as much as we do now. Many punishments for crimes would be the punishment for death- even for things like withholding compensation for a mercenary. It seems also that they valued property as much as their lives, as basically any type of robbery would be punished by death I think that they did not have very just laws for this reason; because punishing by death many crimes that do not endanger the lives of others does not follow the principles of lex talionis. We can also learn from  these passages that the people trusted the gods a lot. Many deciding factors in justice would be things that were out of human control (like seeing if the accuser would float or not in a river), so they could have the gods decide for them. So, I think that we can see that they view the gods as completely just, and left much deciding to them.