Thursday, June 10, 2010

Final Exam - Bryan Doherty

Question: Explain why some scholars have called the Ancient Egyptians a "death obsessed" culture. Do you agree?

Thesis: Death was an important staple in the Ancient Egyptian religion as they believed that each person went on to another life; the Egyptians seemed to be death obsessed because of the care they took in making sure a deceased person had what they needed for the afterlife.


Primary Source #1:

"Thou shalt come in and go out, thy heart rejoicing, in the favour of the Lord of the Gods, a good burial [being thine] after a venerable old age, when age has come, thou assuming thy place in the coffin, and joining earth on the high ground of the west.


Thou shalt change into a living Ba(1) and surely he will have power to obtain bread and water and air; and thou shalt take shape as a heron or swallow, as a falcon or a bittern, whichever thou pleasest.


Thou shalt cross in the ferryboat and shalt not turn back, thou shalt sail on the waters of the flood, and thy life shall start afresh. Thy Ba shall not depart from thy corpse and thy Ba shall become divine with the blessed dead."


"SURVIVAL AS BA - Death, Afterlife and Eschatology - Egyptian Conceptions of Death - Mircea Eliade, "From Primitives to Zen""
Mircea Eliade. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/169.html.




Primary Source #2:


The mode of embalming, according to the most perfect process, is the following:- They take first a crooked piece of iron, and with it draw out the brain through the nostrils, thus getting rid of a portion, while the skull is cleared of the rest by rinsing with drugs; next they make a cut along the flank with a sharp Ethiopian stone, and take out the whole contents of the abdomen, which they then cleanse, washing it thoroughly with palm wine, and again frequently with an infusion of pounded aromatics. After this they fill the cavity with the purest bruised myrrh, with cassia, and every other sort of spicery except frankincense, and sew up the opening. Then the body is placed in natrum for seventy days, and covered entirely over. After the expiration of that space of time, which must not be exceeded, the body is washed, and wrapped round, from head to foot, with bandages of fine linen cloth, smeared over with gum, which is used generally by the Egyptians in the place of glue, and in this state it is given back to the relations, who enclose it in a wooden case which they have had made for the purpose, shaped into the figure of a man. Then fastening the case, they place it in a sepulchral chamber, upright against the wall. Such is the most costly way of embalming the dead.

"Ancient History Sourcebook: Herodotus: Mummification, from The Histories." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/herodotus-mummies.html.


Primary Source #3:


The Company of the Gods rejoice at thy rising, the earth is glad when it beholdeth thy rays; the people who have been long dead come forth with cries of joy to behold thy beauties every day. Thou goest forth each day over heaven and earth, and thou art made strong each day be thy mother Nut. Thou passest over the heights of heaven, thy heart swelleth with joy; and the Lake of Testes (the Great Oasis) is content thereat. The Serpent-fiend hath fallen, his arms are hewn off, the Knife hath severed his joints. Ra liveth by Maat (Law), the beautiful! The Sektet Boat advanceth and cometh into port. The South and the North, and the West and East, turn to praise thee. O thou First, Great God (PAUTA), who didst come into being of thine own accord, Isis and Nephthys salute thee, they sing unto thee songs of joy at thy rising in the boat, they stretch out their hands unto thee. The Souls of the East follow thee, and the Souls of the West praise thee. Thou art the Ruler of all the gods. Thou in thy shrine hast joy, for the Serpent-fiend Nak hath been judged by the fire, and thy heart shall rejoice for ever. Thy mother Nut is esteemed by thy father Nu.


"Ancient History Sourcebook: Hymn to Ra, from Book of Ani." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/ra-ani.html.


Explanation of Argument:

The first primary source shows the importance of the Ba or the spirit that lives on in you after your body has died. It explains the belief that all people have the ability to move on to eternity with the gods. This is also shown in the third primary source, a Hymn to Ra. The hymn is praising Ra because he has brought out the the dead and made them see beauty. These primary sources show the importance that people go to the afterlife and get into "heaven" with the gods. The second primary source shows how precise and careful they were while dealing with the bodies. These bodies were sacred objects after they died because they housed the spirit of the deceased, taking this extra care and expressing it through writings gives the impression that they were death obsessed when really they were only trying to respect.















Question: Do you think Alexander honestly felt like he was avenging Persian wrongs? Or was that just propaganda to mask his goal of conquest?

Thesis: Alexander the Great continued his conquests far beyond what would be classified as "avenging the Persian wrongs" and would have continued had he had the supplies and ability to.



Primary Source #1:

If you have any complaint to make about the results of your efforts hitherto, or about myself as your commander, there is no more to say. But let me remind you: through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia, and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia; Persia and Media with all the territories either formerly controlled by them or not are in your hands; you have made yourselves masters of the lands beyond the Caspian Gates, beyond the Caucasus, beyond the Tanais, of Bactria, Hyrcania, and the Hyrcanian sea; we have driven the Scythians back into the desert; and Indus and Hydaspes, Acesines and Hydraotes flow now through country which is ours. With all that accomplished, why do you hesitate to extend the power of Macedon--yourpower--to the Hyphasis and the tribes on the other side ? Are you afraid that a few natives who may still be left will offer opposition? Come, come! These natives either surrender without a blow or are caught on the run--or leave their country undefended for your taking; and when we take it, we make a present of it to those who have joined us of their own free will and fight on our side.


"Ancient History Sourcebook: Arrian: Speech of Alexander the Great, from The Campaigns of Alexander." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/arrian-alexander1.htm


Primary Source #2:

Philip and all his court were in great distress for him at first, and a profound silence took place. But when the prince had turned him and brought him straight back, they all received him with loud acclamations, except his father, who wept for joy, and kissing him, said, "Seek another kingdom, my son, that may be worthy of thy abilities; for Macedonia is too small for thee..."

"Ancient History Sourcebook: Plutarch: Selections from the Life of Alexander." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/plutarch-alexander1.html


Primary Source #3:

With the conquest of Thrace our situation changed: we controlled the whole of the western coast of the Aegean; but our mastery of the Aegean was threatened by the maritime power of Persia. Fortunately I struck before Darius was ready. I thought I was following in the footsteps of Achilles and should have the glory of conquering a new Ilium for Greece; actually, as I see today, it was absolutely necessary to drive the Persians back from the Aegean Sea; and I drove them back, my dear master, so thoroughly that I occupied the whole of Bithynia, Phrygia, and Cappadocia, laid waste Cilicia, and only stopped at Tarsus. Asia Minor was ours. Not only the old Aegean basin but the whole northern coast of the Mediterranean was in our hands.

"The History Sourcebook: The Need for Source Criticism: A Letter from Alexander to Aristotle?"FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/alexfake.html


Explanation of Argument:

In each of these sources Alexander The Great tells of his conquests. The extensive conquest that Alexander and his men performed was magnificent, but it was not necessary to "revenge the Persians". In the first source he reminds his men of how far they've come and how much they have conquered. This is inspiring but it shows the greed that Alexander had. he continued his conquest even after the threat of Persians in the Mediterranean was gone, as he told Aristotle in the last source.














Question: Who is a better model for modern historians: Herodotus or Thucydides? Why?

Thesis: Herodotus and Thucydides were both excellent hostorians that had their own personal style of writing and telling history about two very different time periods.


Primary Source #1:


Of the other lower officers I shall make no mention, since no necessity is laid on me; but I must speak of a certain leader named Artemisia, whose participation in the attack upon Hellas, notwithstanding that she was a woman, moves my special wonder. She had obtained the sovereign power after the death of her husband; and, though she had now a son grown up, yet her brave spirit and manly daring sent her forth to the war, when no need required her to adventure. Her name, as I said, was Artemisia, and she was the daughter of Lygdamis; by race she was on his side a Halicarnassian, though by her mother a Cretan. She ruled over the Halicarnassians, the men of Cos, of Nisyrus, and of Calydna; and the five triremes which she furnished to the Persians were, next to the Sidonian, the most famous ships in the fleet. She likewise gave to Xerxes sounder counsel than any of his other allies. Now the cities over which I have mentioned that she bore sway were one and all Dorian; for the Halicarnassians were colonists from Troizen, while the remainder were from Epidauros. Thus much concerning the sea-force.

"Herodotus: Artemisia at Salamis, 480 BCE." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/480artemisia.html

Primary Source #2:

For instance, it is evident that the country now called Hellas had in ancient times no settled population; on the contrary, migrations were of frequent occurrence, the several tribes readily abandoning their homes under the pressure of superior numbers. Without commerce, without freedom of communication either by land or sea, cultivating no more of their territory than the exigencies of life required, destitute of capital, never planting their land (for they could not tell when an invader might not come and take it all away, and when he did come they had no walls tostop him), thinking that the necessities of daily sustenance could be supplied at one place as well as another, they cared little for shifting their habitation, and consequently neither built large cities nor attained to any other form of greatness. The richest soils were always most subject to this change of masters; such as the district now called Thessaly, Boeotia, most of the Peloponnese, Arcadia excepted, and the most fertile parts of the rest of Hellas. The goodness of the land favoured the aggrandizement of particular individuals, and thus created faction which proved a fertile source of ruin. It also invited invasion. Accordingly Attica, from the poverty of its soil enjoying from a very remote period freedom from faction, never changed its inhabitants. And here is no inconsiderable exemplification of my assertion that the migrations were the cause of there being no correspondent growth in other parts. The most powerful victims of war or faction from the rest of Hellas took refuge with the Athenians as a safe retreat; and at an early period, becoming naturalized, swelled the already large population of the city to such a height that Attica became at last too small to hold them, and they had to send out colonies to Ionia.



"The Internet Classics Archive | The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides." The Internet Classics Archive: 441 Searchable Works of Classical Literature. Web. 10 June 2010. http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html


Primary Source #3:


[1.1] Now Persian story-tellers declare that Phoenicians were the cause of the difference. For they say that the Phoenicians, having come from what is called the Red Sea into this sea and having inhabited that land which they even now inhabit, immediately set themselves to long voyages, and that, bringing as freight both Egyptian and Assyrian goods, they used to come upon various places, including Argos, which at that time surpassed in every way the poleis in the land now called Hellas.

So some Phoenicians, having arrived at Argos, set out their freight. On the fifth or sixth day after they arrived, almost everything being sold, there came down to the sea—among many other women—the king's daughter. And her name (according to the way the Hellenes say it) was Io daughter of Inachos. While these women were standing by the prow of the ship buying whatever of the freight they most desired, the Phoenicians, after encouraging one another, attacked them. Although most of the women got away, Io, along with some others, was caught; embarking them into the ship, the Phoenicians sailed off to Egypt



"Herodotus (selections), U. of Sask." Homepage. Web. 10 June 2010. <http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/DeptTransls/Hdt.html#intro



Explanation Of Argument:

Neither Thucidydes or Herototus are better role models for modern historians, as each has a distcint way of telling th history that they are recording. Herodotus makes it sound as if he is sitting there talking to you and explaining what had happened in the war or battle. Thucydides is a strict history writer who tells what happened and gave all the names and dates. In perspective of having just the information there for a textbook, Thucydides is better but it is much more enjoyable to read Herototus' work.












Question: Were the Vikings barbarians?

Thesis: The Vikings had a distinct culture, religion, and civilization where there were scholars and literature; the Europeans were the victims of the Vikings and so classified them as "barbarians".


Primary Source #1:


Eventually it happened that the Danes came with a ship-army, harrying and slaying widely throughout the land, as is their custom. In the fleet were the foremost chieftans Ivar and Ubbi,5 united through the devil. They landed warships in Northumbria, and wasted that country and slew the people. Then Ivar went [south-]east with his ships and Halfdan6 remained in Northumbria gaining victory with slaughter. Ivar came rowing to East Anglia in the year in which prince Alfred--he who afterwards became the famous West Saxon king--was 21.7 The aforementioned Ivar suddenly invaded the country, just like a wolf, and slew the people, men and women and innocent children, and ignominiously harrassed innocent Christians. Soon afterward he sent to king Edmund a threatening message, that Edmund should submit to his alliegence, if he cared for his life. The messenger came to king Edmund and boldly announced Ivar's message: "Ivar, our king, bold and victorious on sea and on land, has dominion over many peoples, and has now come to this country with his army to take up winter-quarters with his men. He commands that you share your hidden gold-hordes and your ancestral possessions with him straightaway, and that you become his vassal-king, if you want to stay alive, since you now don't have the forces that you can resist him."

"Medieval Sourcebook: Abbo of Fleury: The Martyrdom of St. Edmund, King of East Anglia, 870."FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/870abbo-edmund.html


Primary Source #2:


There was a man named Thorvald, the son of Asvald, the son of Ulf, the son of Yxna-Thoris. His son was named Eirik. Father and son removed from Jadar (in Norway) to Iceland, because of manslaughters, and occupied land in Hornstrandir, and dwelt at Drangar. There Thorvald died, and Eirik then married Thjodhild, daughter of Jorund, the son of Atli, and of Thorbjorg the Ship-breasted, whom afterwards Thorbjorn, of the Haukadalr (Hawkdale) family, married; he it was who dwelt at Eiriksstadr after Eirik removed from the north.

"The Project Gutenberg EBook of Eirik The Red's Saga:, by The Rev. J. Sephton." Main Page - Gutenberg. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17946/17946-h/17946-h.htm.


Primary Source #3:

They sailed toward this land, and came to an island which lay to the northward off the land. There they went ashore and looked about them, the weather being fine, and they observed that there was dew upon the grass, and it so happened that they touched the dew with their hands, and touched their hands to their mouths, and it seemed to them that they had never before tasted anything so sweet as this. They went aboard their ship again and sailed into a certain sound, which lay between the island and a cape, which jutted out from the land on the north, and they stood in westering past the cape. At ebb-tide, there were broad reaches of shallow water there, and they ran their ship aground there, and it was a long distance from the ship to the ocean; yet were they so anxious to go ashore that they could not wait until the tide should rise under their ship, but hastened to the land, where a certain river flows out from a lake. As soon as the tide rose beneath their ship, however, they took the boat and rowed to the ship, which they conveyed up the river, and so into the lake, where they cast anchor and carried their hammocks ashore from the ship, and built themselves booths there. They afterward determined to establish themselves there for the winter, and they accordingly built a large house. There was no lack of salmon there either in the river or in the lake, and larger salmon than they had ever seen before. The country thereabouts seemed to be possessed of such good qualities that cattle would need no fodder there during the winters. There was no frost there in the winters, and the grass withered but little. The days and nights there were of more nearly equal length than in Greenland or Iceland. On the shortest day of winter, the sun was up between "eykarstad" and "dagmalastad." When they had completed their house, Leif said to his companions, "I propose now to divide our company into two groups, and to set about an exploration of the country. One-half of our party shall remain at home at the house, while the other half shall investigate the land; and they must not go beyond a point from which they can return home the same evening, and are not to separate [from each other]. Thus they did for a time. Leif, himself, by turns joined the exploring party, or remained behind at the house. Leif was a large a powerful man, and of a most imposing bearing¬a man of sagacity, and a very just man in all things.

"Modern History Sourcebook: The Discovery of North America by Leif Ericsson, C. 1000 from The Saga of Eric the Red, 1387." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 June 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1000Vinland.html.


Explanation of Argument:

The Europeans thought that the Vikings were barbarians because of the invasions that took place as they were looking for land. This apparent in the first source as a European author tells tales of how the Vikigs ruthlessly killed men, women and children. However the vikings had their own literature, as seen in the second source, Erik the Red's Saga, and they performed amazing feats of discovery as they pushed westwards as show in the third source.





Question: What would St. Benedict have thought of the monasteries that followed his rules by 800 AD? (from A.B. Watt)

Thesis:

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Italy and Rome - Review 6/2/10

  • started as a village in the hills
  • story of Romulus and Remus
  • Romulus became the first king of Rome
  • after centuries of having kings - the roman republic came
  • several wars involving Greeks and Romans
  • Peric Victory - win the battle but lose so many people you can't continue
  • Punic Wars - Carthage and Rome
  • First Punic War - Rome takes control of Sicily and Sardinia and many if the trade routes in the Mediterranean
  • Causes anger and feelings of Vengeance in Carthage
  • Second Punic War - Hannibal goes into modern day Spain and come down through the north part of Italy - ultimately defeated by Scipio
  • Third Punic War - Rome attacks Carthage to try and finally finish the wars, once and for all - Carthage take over and destroyed - never really recovered
  • After the Third Punic War - Rome becomes the superpower in the Mediterranean
  • Continues to grow takes over Greece and Gaul
  • borders stretch for thousands of miles

  • The Senate in Rome grows very powerful
  • large division between social classes
  • Brother Gracchis wanted things to change
  • both brothers were assasinated
  • Mrius and Sulla - generals that divide the Army
  • private armies battle each other
  • in this Caesar rises
  • two generations of civil war
  • Caesar born into one of the prominent classes
  • changed politics - went directly to people
  • wasn't popular with senators
  • when term was up - senators sent him to Gaul to be a Governor
  • Gaul was in the middle of nowhere with hairy men in plaid waving axes
  • Caesar decides to conquer Gaul
  • Sent amazing messages about all the great things he was doing back to Rome
  • went all the way to Britain
  • even formed London
  • Defeats Gauls at Alesia

Monday, May 31, 2010

Monarchy vs. Democracy



Monarchy vs. Democracy

Monarchy and Democracy have survived side by side for the last few centuries. Even today democracy survives and thrives in the United States of America, and monarchy thrives in the United Kingdom. These two nations, both of which being super powers, have succeeded in their respective forms of government and have done so for over two hundred years. How have these two very successful nations survived with two very different forms of government? Both the United States and the United Kingdom have perfected their forms of government, however, the democracy in the United States gives people a unique opportunity to truly take part in their government in a way that the United Kingdom’s monarchy does not.

A monarchy is a form of government where there is undivided rule or complete sovereignty by a single person. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monarchy) The United Kingdom has had one monarchy to rule the entire United Kingdom since 1603 when King James VI of Scotland took the English throne. Before King James’ rule the monarchy had been shared. Separate monarchies were formed to rule Scotland and another to rule England. King James’ dynasty, the Stuart dynasty, ruled from 1603 to 1714. Towards the end of the Stuart dynasty it was decided that only Protestants could hold the throne and after the death of Queen Anne, power shifted to King George I of the Hanoverian dynasty. The Hanoverian dynasty which lasted until 1901 saw a “period of expansion and stability”. This was the dynasty in which the great Queen Victoria acquired the vast Empire that Britain had come to be known for. With the marriage of Queen Victoria came the House of Saxe – Cobourg – Gotha, which only lasted until after World War I, after which the current House of Windsor came to power, which still rules to this day. (http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/HistoryoftheMonarchy.aspx)

Throughout the change of dynasties, there was also a change in the way the government was run. Currently the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy with limited power that shares is power with a constitutional government that actually controls most of the government. In a constitutional monarchy, the king or queen had very limited power, and is usually only a ceremonial figure. In the United Kingdom, the Parliament, holds the majority of the power and makes most major decisions regarding the country. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/689632/constitutional-monarchy)

The United States of America has been a democracy since the country’s fight for independence starting in 1776. By definition, a democracy is “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy) This means that in the United States the citizens control the government. The people vote on the leaders they want to represent them in Congress and in the White House. As the Declaration of Independence states,” Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html) meaning government should be ruled by the people and should always do what is best for them.

The democracy in the United States allows for anyone, who meets a set of guidelines laid down by the Constitution to be part of the government. “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html) This passage from Article two of the Constitution outlines the qualifications of a person running for office in the House of Representatives. It is clear that anyone who fits these guidelines may run, opening the government to every citizen. This is very different than the dynasty form that monarchies use. Instead of having to be born into government, the United States democracy allows all to be involved in the government.

Both monarchies and democracies thrive throughout the world, and have done so for hundreds of years. The United Kingdom is stilled considered a monarchy, while its fellow super power and ally, the United States of America, is the most power democracy in the world. How is it that two of the worlds super powers have such different governments and can still be successful? Monarchies and democracies both have faults and assets, but democracies allow for direct involvement by the people which monarchies do not.


Works Cited
Box, Checking This. "Constitutional Monarchy (government) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 19 May 2010. .
"Declaration of Independence - Transcript." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 20 May 2010. .
"Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 20 May 2010. .
"History of the Monarchy." Web. 19 May 2010. .
"Monarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 19 May 2010. .
"Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 20 May 2010. .

Exploration Weekly


Is Exploration a Good Thing?

Exploration by definition is “the investigation of unknown regions”. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploration). This can be related to anything; the arts, science, math, literature, geography, even food and cooking techniques. However, exploration, particularly exploration during the Renaissance, has meant something more to western civilization that what the definition suggests. The exploration conducted during the late renaissance, has forever changed the way that we look at the arts, our building techniques, our architecture, and the lands that we live. Great explorers like Christopher Columbus, pioneered western interests and exploration all over the world, but did not always fit the heroic characteristics that history has given them.

Perhaps the most famous explorer of the late renaissance period was Christopher Columbus. The saying “Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492” is taught in schools and known by people throughout North America and Europe. Early in the morning of October 12, 1492 Christopher Columbus, his three ships, and his men made landfall in the Caribbean. Soon after wards the native people come out in interest of these new comers and were amazed at the technology they had. The natives at that time had never seen iron or horses or ships like the ones Christopher Columbus had. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html) Columbus’ journey brought technology and knowledge to the Americas that the natives had never seen before. What was common knowledge and centuries old technology in Europe, might never had been discovered in the Americas without voyages such as Columbus’.

The voyage of Columbus did not have solely good effects. The exchange of diseases between the native people and Columbus’ men took a toll on populations in both the New World and Europe. Small pox in the New World and tropical diseases and syphilis brought back to Europe killed thousands of natives and Europeans alike. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus).

Columbus also did not view these natives as his equals. He thought he and his men were clearly better than the indigenous people because of their better technology and wealth. In his journal he said, “I thought then, and still believe, that these were from the continent. It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion. They very quickly learn such words as are spoken to them. If it pleases our Lord, I intend at my return to carry home six of them to your Highnesses, that they may learn our language.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html) Columbus had clear plans to bring the natives back as servants and perhaps even had plans to completely conquer them as he said in another passage from his journal. “Weapons they have none, nor are acquainted with them, for I showed them swords which they grasped by the blades, and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their javelins being without it, and nothing more than sticks, though some have fish-bones or other things at the ends.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html). Columbus knew that they would be at a complete disadvantage to the Europeans superior technology and weapons, and he could easily defeat them in any type of battle.

Exploration during the Renaissance forever changed the way that western civilization lives and works. Because of explorers like Christopher Columbus, new worlds, technologies, and ideas have been added to that already in place in western culture. But was Christopher Columbus the hero that everyone made him out to be? Without a doubt, there are huge benefits to his exploration, but was the death toll, not only in the Americas but also in Europe, really worth it? Exploration of new lands, like everything, has both good effects and bad effects on humanity. Every great accomplishment has consequences on the rest of the world.


Works Cited
"Exploration | Define Exploration at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploration>.
"Medieval Sourcebook: Christopher Columbus: Extracts from Journal." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html>.
Time, Columbus's. "Christopher Columbus." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus>.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Three Laws With Hammurabi

Saturday, May 22, 2010

The Renaissance Notes

The Renaissance

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

11:38 AM

  • Artist looking at new ways to paint people - not entirely biblical and featuring daily life
  • Brought about different views of religion and people
  • Division in church - east and west
  • Protestant break of
  • Martin Luther in Germany essentially makes a new sect of Christianity
  • In the renaissance there is more art created then there has been since the roman times

  • Medici Family had the most influence on the Italian Renaissance
  • Florence 1389 man baptized - not noble
  • Humble beginnings
  • Dawn of 15th century
  • Treasure trade
  • Holy church had most of it
  • Treasure was knowledge
  • Lost secrets of the ancient world
  • Achievement of classics were above everything that had happened in the past few hundred years
  • Florence was a major trading city that didn't have a king but different family's fought for power
  • Medici bank prestigious trading
  • Chose clients carefully
  • Helped a priest become pope and then had the pope (John 23) "remember"

  • Medici planned to rebuild and overambitious unfinished cathedral
  • They needed ancient architectural knowledge
  • Went to Brunelleschi - a maverick architect
  • Had a bad temper and "weird ideas"
  • Medici not intimidated
  • Was doing things that had not been seen for thousands of years
  • Used old styles like roman columns and such
  • With Medici's help sparked an archictual revolution
  • Medici was becoming patron to up their power
  • Brunelleschi went to work on the dome and got the go ahead from the authorities
  • Got inspiration from pantheon

  • Head Medici died and his son couzimo took over
  • Their rivals the albitzis controlled the city for generations
  • As medicis got more power the tensions rose and fighting heightened
  • Cauzimo was thrown in jail but a bribe got him out
  • He was banished and because he had paid for most of the cities economy the people got tired of the albitzis
  • They brought cauzimo back and gave him control of the city
  • Revenge was selective but brutal
  • Money flooded back into Florence
  • Work on the dome started once again
  • As they grew they became more powerful they

  • The patsi were another rivals of the Medici
  • They hatched a plan to kill the heirs of the Medici
  • They need to kill both brothers at the same time
  • On Easter Sunday they attempt the assassination in the cathedral
  • One of the brothers escaped wounded but alive
  • Violence broke out as fighting between the two sides supporters reeked havoc on Florence
  • The surviving brother, Lorenzo the Magnificent, went and made a deal with the other side
  • Returned to Florence - now peaceful and under the control of the Medici
  • Used his new found power to fund art
  • One that he sponsored was Leonardo da Vinci
  • Started the first art school in Florence
  • Michelangelo went there and Lorenzo thought he was great
  • Lorenzo took him home to live with him and his family
  • Michelangelo had two types of art - normal religious figures and humanist
  • There were other people struggling between the two
  • Creativity and art were at its peak but they were struggling financially
  • Medici banks couldn't keep up with what people were asking
  • Lorenzo fell ill and died at age 43
  • People of the church who had not liked the art that Lorenzo made (they thought it was sinful) damned him
  • Things flipped upside down when Lorenzo died
  • Radical Christians took over and - beat prostitutes, killed homosexuals, got rid of wigs and jewelry and makeup, got rid of literature and paintings that weren't Christian
  • Everything that Lorenzo did during his life was reversed