# data[].attributes.body
If John had been the ruler of Athens, the people who didn't agree with him either would vote him out of power or move out of the city state. There probably wouldn't have been a Magna Carta. If he was the king of Babylon, nothing would have probably happened because the people believed highly in the gods and who they chose as a ruler; no Magna Carta.

# data[].attributes.body
3) The people of Athens did not seem to disagree with the King and the authorities, so the Magna Carta most likely would not have been created. If he was the King of Babylon, the people would think the Gods told him to do whatever he did and they wouldn't rebel.

# data[].attributes.body
It depends on the situation because it worked out with the Magna Carta, but rebellion can also lead to war. This is why Socrates and Hammurabi would disagree because even though they both have different values, beliefs, and attitudes toward different topics neither of them want a war.

# data[].attributes.body
2) Yes and no because if you don't rebel, it stops the fight of the situation,. but doesn't change it. If you do rebel, it will most likely change the situation, but with conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
1) He would have disagreed with what the rebel barons because the people "overthrew" the king, when you are part of a place with a form of king or government you are put under a metaphorical contract to abide by the laws and rules of said place.
2)I feel that both Socrates and Hammurabi would have disagreed for the fact that rebellion is going against the set laws, which is unjust.
3) I feel that everyone in babylon would have gone with the laws because their is a set king which is almost a god to them. So in the end their might not have been the Magna Carta. In Athens, i feel that people might have tried a form of impeachment to John, because they had a form of democracy.

# data[].attributes.body
1) He would not agree with their choices because they decided to stay which means they accepted the laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates would disagree with the rebel barons because he would say that the laws were set in place for a reason and that no matter how pure your intentions were or how unfair they thought it was, its still the law. An example of this is when the barons wanted equal degree of punishment to crime. Socrates would tell them them just to follow the laws like he did when he was convicted.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Socrates would disagree with the rebel barons. This because they are disobeying their government, the government that raised them, and the government they have agreed to be ruled by.

2. Socrates would say that rebellion is not the only way to change an unfair situation. Hammurabi would strongly disagree with the rebellion because laws are the only way to keep order. As well as the belief that The Gods created the laws and to disobey the laws would be disobeying The Gods.

3. If King John were King of Babylon the people would have accepted his word as the word of The God and the people would obey without question. If King John were King of Athens he would have been tried/ impeached because he violated the belief of equal justice for all citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
1) He would give them a speech similar to Crito's about following the laws because the state provides for them and it's an important moral to have.
2)  They could have held it in court for a less dangerous outcome. Socrates wouldn't be too on board with the thought if rebellion because it doesn't only go against  the law, but also the state. Hammurabi on the other hand probably would care less because his laws contained a lot of violence anyways.
3) If John happened to become the King of Athens, then I would imagine that he would still continue to break the laws  to gain power, especially if nobody forces him to sign anything.

# data[].attributes.body
#1: Socrates believed that the robber barons should fight for their rights to have just laws. He said this in Crito when he discussed that  it is the duty of the citizen to reform or replace unjust laws.

#2: Yes! Rebellion is the only way to change and an unjust law because it brings awareness to the unfair situation. Socrates would definitely agree because he supported citizens standing up for their rights to change laws. Socrates was also not the sole leader. He was simply a part of the system of Athens. Hammurabi would definitely not agree because it would be going against the gods and also because an uprising would look bad. Also, he was the only leader of Babylon and it would be an attack on him.

#3: If John was the king of Babylon, he would have been proclaimed as king and people wouldn't want to challenge the gods. This means that a Magna Carta wouldn't be needed because the citizens wouldn't want to risk attacking the king and his rule. First of all, John would never have been a king because Athens was a democracy. His laws would not have gone through because the powerful people had a say so they never would have had an uprising. Also, people would have hated his ideas and kicked him out. However, if he did end up as a king, a massive Magna Carta would have been needed to keep the good of the country in alignment with King John.

# data[].attributes.body
#1
He would say that by living in a place you are in an implied contract to follow those rules and not disagree no matter what and if you do not agree you have the right to leave. He would also say that this is unjust and wrong and that is directly against his beliefs.
#2
No, you could talk to the leader and maybe threaten rebellion and force them to change.Talking peacefully is the best option. Socrates would agree whit this statement. Hammurabi would to but he would say he would have to consult with the gods first and see if there needs to be a change.
#3
I don't think the Manga Carta would have been created in babylon. Based off of what we have been taught about these civilizations because the king was believed to have a connections to the gods and the people were afraid of the gods so the would have been submissive and not revolution. In Athens, based on socratic thinking they would have either left or sat by and done nothing and let John rule.

# data[].attributes.body
#1 Socrates would not agree because he believes by living within the land of the king/leader, you are metaphorically signing a contract to live by their rules.

#2  Rebellion is not the only way to change an unfair situation, but more of a last resort after everything else has been attempted. Rebellion has a loud and demanding voice and is seen as a threat which could break out into war instead of creating a solution, so rebellion should be considered at the end if nothing else is working.

#3  If John was the king of Athens, not much would have been different. His ideals would be the same, but there would probably be no Magna Carta because the people of Babylon would not ask questions because they would believe he knows best.

# data[].attributes.body
How might the Magna Carta have been different if John had been the king of Babylon, of Athens?

# data[].attributes.body
Is rebellion the only way to change an unfair situation? Would Socrates agree? Would Hammurabi agree?

# data[].attributes.body
What would Socrates say to the rebel barons about their situation and choices?