Final Exam

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

Thesis: Ancient Egyptian culture had many beliefs about death and the afterlife, building huge pyramids juts for this purpose, and scholars are right to say that it was a “death obsessed” culture.

Primary Source #1:
“Ho! king Neferkere (Pepi II)! How beautiful is this! How beautiful is this, which thy father Osiris has done for thee ! He has given thee his throne, thou rulest those of the hidden places (the dead), thou leadest their august ones, all the glorious ones follow thee”
Pyramid Texts: The Dead Pharaoh Becomes Osiris (2022-3)
http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/167.html

Primary Source #2:
“I have not killed.
I have not given the order to kill.
I have not inflicted pain on anyone.
I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples”
Book of the Dead: Chapter 125 The Judgment of the dead
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM

Primary Source #3:
“How sad is the descent in the Land of Silence. The wakeful sleeps, he who did not slumber at night lies still forever. The scorners say: The dwelling-place of the inhabitants of the West is deep and dark. It has no door, no window, no light to illuminate it, no north wind to refresh the heart. The sun does not rise there, but they lie every day in darkness. . . . The guardian has been taken away to the land of Infinity.
Those who are in the West are cut off, and their existence is misery, one is loathe to go to join them. One cannot recount one's experiences but one rests in one place of eternity in darkness.”
Of Silence and Darkness
http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/170.html

Explanation of Argument:
The Egyptian people had a god of the dead, Osiris, and they believed that when the Pharaoh died, he became Osiris. They also believed that when they died, they would be judged by the gods. A lot of their religious beliefs had to do with death, and so scholars are right in saying that they were obsessed with what would happen when they die.

Question: Considering all of the conflict of the first century BCE, was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?

Thesis: Rome was not better off as an empire because most of the emperors were power-hungry rulers who did actually care for the good of Rome.

Primary Source #1:
“But the successes and reverses of the old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians; and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius (Caligula), Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred.”
Tacitus: The Annals book 1 (109 AD)
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/tacitus-annals.txt

Primary Source #2:
“His acts and words were equally cruel, even when he was indulging in relaxation and given up to amusement and feasting. While he was lunching or revelling capital examinations by torture were often made in his presence, and a soldier who was an adept at decapitation cut off the heads of those who were brought from prison.”
Suetonius (69-122 CE): De Vita Caesarum: Caius Caligula (110 CE)
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/suetonius-caligula.html

Primary Source #3:
“Nero had the wish---or rather it had always been a fixed purpose of his---to make an end of the whole city in his lifetime. Priam he deemed wonderfully happy in that he had seen Troy perish at the same moment his authority over her ended. Accordingly, Nero sent out by different ways men feigning to be drunk, or engaged in some kind of mischief, and at first had a few fires kindled quietly and in different quarters; people, naturally, were thrown into extreme confusion, not being able to find either the cause of the trouble nor to end it; and meantime met with many strange sights and sounds. They ran about as if distracted, and some rushed one way, some another. In the midst of helping their neighbors, men would learn that their own homes were blazing. Others learned, for the first time, that their property was on fire, by being told it was burned down.”
Dio Cassius: Nero and the Great Fire (64 CE)
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/diocassius-nero1.html

Explanation of Argument:
As a republic, Rome did not have one all-powerful leader, but as an empire it did. Many of the emperors of the first dynasty were not good leaders, having many people put to death and Nero even burning down the city. Therefore, Rome was not better off as an empire, it was better off as a republic.

Question: Describe the importance of the Battle of Tours

Thesis: The Battle of Tours is important because if the Muslims would have been victorious against the Franks, Christianity would have been completely wiped out.

Primary Source #1:
“The Muslims planned to go to Tours to destroy the Church of St. Martin, the city, and the whole country. Then came against them the glorious Prince Charles, at the head of his whole force. He drew up his host, and he fought as fiercely as the hungry wolf falls upon the stag. By the grace of Our Lord, he wrought a great slaughter upon the enemies of Christian faith, so that---as history bears witness---he slew in that battle 300,000 men”
Chronicle of St. Denis (732 AD)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Primary Source #2:
“For almost seven days the two armies watched one another, waiting anxiously the moment for joining the struggle. Finally they made ready for combat. And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like North a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts [of the foe].”
Isidore of Beja’s Chronicle (732 AD)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Primary Source #3:
“Musa being returned to Damascus, the Caliph Abd-el Melek asked of him about his conquests, saying "Now tell me about these Franks---what is their nature?"
"They," replied Musa, "are a folk right numerous, and full of might: brave and impetuous in the attack, but cowardly and craven in event of defeat."”
Arabian Chronicler (732 AD)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Explanation of Argument:
The Muslims were favored to win the battle against the Franks, and they were not scared of losing at all. If they would have won, the Christian faith would have been demolished.

Question: Were the Vikings barbarians?

Thesis: The Vikings’ practices were much different than those of today, but they had very organized believes and they were certainly not barbarians.

Primary Source #1:
“Then Bur's sons lifted the level land,
Mithgarth the mighty there they made;
The sun from the south warmed the stones of earth,
And green was the ground with growing leeks.
The sun, the sister of the moon, from the south
Her right hand cast over heaven's rim;
No knowledge she had where her home should be,
The moon knew not what might was his,
The stars knew not where their stations were.”
The Poetic Edda: Voluspo
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/

Primary Source #2:
“In the beginning he established rulers, and bade them ordain fates with him, and give counsel concerning the planning of the town; that was in the place which is called Ida-field, in the midst of the town. It was their first work to make that court in which their twelve seats stand, and another, the high-seat which Allfather himself has. That house is the best-made of any on earth, and the greatest; without and within, it is all like one piece of gold; men call it Gladsheim”
The Prose Edda: Gylfaginning
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/pre/pre04.htm

Explanation of Argument:
The Vikings had many religious beliefs. Their actions did not make them barbarians, because they did them solely for their beliefs.

The Battle of Tours

The Battle of Tours on Prezi

Laws of Hammarabi

The Laws of Hammurabi on Prezi

Michelangelo Notes

Michelangelo - didn't sleep very much
He sculpted a 35 foot block of marble

Michelangelo was raised along side the heirs of the Medici dynasty

The sculpture was David, and it became a symbol of the Florence

The Medici's wanted to reclaim Florence, and they sent an army in to do so

Giovanni became Pope Leo X
Florence welcomed its former enemy back

Gold boy dies

Giovanni Medici had risen higher than any of his ancestors

Michelangelo was forced to paint the ceiling of the Vatican , but he never thought of himself as a painter.
He created the greatest work of art of the Renaissance

Medici's ordered Michelangelo to build magnificent tombs for their ancestors.

Machiavelli wrote a handbook for dictators
His plan backfired, the Medici refused to employ him
His name became a word for ruthless and cynical politics

The pope hears of a conspiracy against him, and he has the conspirators killed instead

He started selling papal indulgences that would cleanse your sins

Democracy or Monarchy?

Is monarchy more or less effective than democracy?

Both monarchies and democracies have proved to be effective forms of government. In a monarchy, one individual holds all the power, but in a democracy, the people elect their leaders and have more say in what happens. A monarchy could be more efficient because the leader can do what they want when they want. However, this does not mean they will be an effective government because they do not always have the interest of the people in mind. A monarchy may be able to make laws faster, but these laws do not always benefit the country because they were only passed by one individual. A democracy passes laws that are more effective in the long run because they were passed for the benefit of the people. In order to be effective, a government must put the interest of the people first; therefore a democracy is a more effective form of government than a monarchy.

A monarchy is “supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.” ("Monarchy” Dictionary.com. Web. 14 May 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy.) The problem with this is that the people do not have any power to elect their leader. Instead, the king or queen is chosen simply by blood relation to the dynasty. Because of this, it is easy for someone who does not really care about the country to become the ruler. For example, in Middle Age England, King Henry VIII was more concerned with his own life and his wives than he was with the welfare of England. When he became king in 1509, the England’s economy was doing well, but by the end of his reign, it was failing. This is because he spent much of England’s money on unnecessary luxuries such as the construction of forty-three new palaces. ("Henry VIII of England." Wikipedia. Web. 14 May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England#cite_note-12.)

King Henry’s first wife was Catherina of Aragon, but when she failed to give him a son, he wanted to divorce her. The Church had the most power at that time, and so in order to get a divorce, Henry had to appeal to Pope Clement VII. The pope, however, refused to divorce them. As a drastic result, Henry VIII broke away from the Church completely. He declared, in the Act in Restraint of Appeals, that he had supreme power over the new Church of England:

“ …the body spiritual whereof having power, when any cause of the law divine happened to come in question, or of spiritual learning, then it was declared, interpreted, and showed by that part of the said body politic, called the spiritualty, now being usually called the English Church…”

(King Henry VIII. Act in Restraints of Appeals. http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/h8a.html#145). All appeals were cut off from Rome, and he made it treason to deny his power as head of the Church. After divorcing Catherine, Henry married again and ended up having five more wives, two of which he had beheaded. ("The Life of King Henry VIII." Luminarium. Web. 14 May 2010. http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tudorbio.htm.) With people like King Henry VIII becoming rulers, it is clear that a monarchy is definitely not the most effective form of government for a country.

Democracy is the opposite of a monarchy because it is rule by the people, as opposed to one person. The people elect their own leaders, and they have a lot of say as to what choices the leaders make. This greatly lessens the possibility of an irresponsible leader coming to power. For example, in the Unites States, the president cannot just choose to pass a law; it must go through a long approval process before it can be passed. ("Democracy." U.S. Department of State. Web. 14 May 2010. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/democ/.) Democracies are better for the people because they give them more freedom and power in what the government does. In fact, the United States was started because the people of England wanted to break away from the monarchy there.

It is difficult to tell whether a democracy or a monarchy is more “effective.” Monarchies can be effective and efficient, but because there are often rulers who do not really care what happens to their country, this is not the best form of government. It is better for the people to have a say in what goes on in their government because this will make sure that the people of the country are being benefitted. Therefore, a democracy is a more effective form of government.

Works Cited

"Democracy." U.S. Department of State. Web. 14 May 2010. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/democ/.

Henry VIII of England." Wikipedia. Web. 14 May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England#cite_note-12.

"Henry VIII Part A." FreeUK Customer Homepages. Web. 14 May 2010. http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/h8a.html#145.

"The Life of King Henry VIII." Luminarium. Web. 14 May 2010. http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tudorbio.htm.

"Monarchy” Dictionary.com. Web. 14 May 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy.

Summarize how Elizabeth rises to the throne

Elizabeth was the daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. When Elizabeth was very young, her mother was beheaded because she failed to give the king a son. Because of this, Elizabeth became a bastard child, and she had to grow up without a mother. Then when Elizabeth was only thirteen, King Henry VIII grew sick and died, and Elizabeth was left an orphan. Edward Seymour became the Lord Protector of England until the younger Edward came of age. Henry's wife Katherine was remarried to Thomas Seymour, and Elizabeth and Edward had to go live with them. Elizabeth and Thomas allegedly had an affair, and so she was left in disgrace. Edward Seymour was removed from power and replaced with John Dudley. However, he became sick and died, making the heir to the throne Mary, Elizabeth's half sister. While Mary was queen, Elizabeth was somehow tied up in a conspiracy against Mary, and so Elizabeth locked up in the Tower of London. However, there was no evidence against her, and so she was let free. Mary accepted Elizabeth as the heir to the throne, and when she died on November 17, 1558, Elizabeth was crowned Queen of England.

http://www.elizabethi.org/us/earlyyears/heir.html

Italian Renaissance

Medici Family

People searched for lost secrets from the ancient world

Ancient knowledge was carried back to Florence.

Giovanni Medici grew up in poverty

Cosimo Medici - his son

Giovanni gets bank account and the family joins an elite group of powerful Florentine families.

Scholars like Cosimo tried to decipiher the mysteries of the ancient world

Philipo Berneleski - genius

Unorthodox style - few friends

Had a vision of classical simplicity

Sparked an architectural revolution across Europe

He wanted to build a dome

He attempted to rewrite the rules of western architecture

Cosimo's father became unhealthy and died

Giovanni was laid to rest in the church built by Berneleski

Albizzi family - Medici's rivals

Cosimo's enemies wanted to see Berneleski fail

Albizzi hatched a plot to wipe out the Medici

Cosimo was captured by them and he was taken to the top of a tower

He was at the mercy of his enemies

Cosimo was accused of treason against the city, and the people voted him guilty

He faced execution

He paid his jailers to let him out, and he survived

The Medici's were banned from Florence

Berneleski was put in jail

Since the Medici bank had run most of Florence, the city was now in turmoil

Cosimo was offered control of the city of Florence, and he accepted

He took revenge on the Albizzi

Medici bank was the most profitable bank in Europe

Medici's rival was the Pazzi

Pazzi had a conspiracy against the Medici's

They knew they would have to kill both brothers

During mass on Easter, They are killed Lorenzo and Juliano

Juliano was stabbed 19 times and died, but Lorenzo was not dead

The people turn against the plotters, and they were killed

Lorenzo saved Florence from people who disliked the Medici's in the south

He took control of the city government

Leonardo Da Vinci was recognized for his artistic abilities

Monte Chelli glorified the physical world and passions

A monk thought that Lorenzo was the cause of all that was sinful in the Renaissance

Lorenzo's wife became very sick

Michelangelo is brought into the Medici family by Lorenzo.

Lorenzo and Michelangelo have a very close relationship

The monk thought Lorenzo's reign was going to lead to the downfall of Florence

In 1492, Lorenzo fell seriously ill

He turned to the Church for the future of the Medici's

Savonarola told Lorenzo that God disapproved of his life's work

Lorenzo died, fearing hell to his last breath.

Savonarola took charge, and his rules were enforced

People burned all their vanities in a huge fire

Elizabethan Age

Elizabeth I - became England's vest loved queen

She was the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn

Anne controlled everything that Elizabeth wore

Anne miscarried a boy, and a plot was hatched to dispose of her

She was executed for adultery and treason

The rivalry between Mary and Elizabeth subsided

King Henry had 6 wives

Elizabeth was fascinated by her father's power

Henry died in 1527 and the heir was his ten year old son Edward

Edward was too young to come to power

Edward Seamore was declared protector of the realm until Edward came of age.

Elizabeth's uncle Thomas Seamore had an affair with her, and she was left in disgrace

She was 25 years old when she became queen of England

She thought that Parliament was a tiresome necessity

She assured Parliament that she would not take a husband because she did not want to surrender her independence.

Robert Dudley was interested in Elizabeth, but he was already married.

His wife was found dead, and there were rumors of foul play, so Elizabeth and Dudley could not get married.

If the queen did not marry, she would not be able to leave an heir.

Mary (Elizabeth's cousin) was constantly involved in plots against Elizabeth

Elizabeth brought Mary to trial in 1586, and she was found guilty

Mary was beheaded

Elizabeth was on the brink of a new era - The Elizabethan Age

She was extremely vain, and she wore great dresses and much jewelry

She was known as the virgin queen

Elizabeth hates changes

Plays of Shakespeare were actually written under James I

Robert Dudley died, and he had remained her closest friend in her life.

Essex was condemned to death by Elizabeth because of rebellion

When Elizabeth died, James VI of Scotland became king.

Is exploration a good thing?

Is exploration a good thing?

There has never been a time when people have not wanted to explore. Whether it be exploration of the physical world or exploration for knowledge and culture, it has been important throughout history. The Italian Renaissance is a perfect example for both types of exploration. During this time, there was much exploration of the known world, but there was also a lot of internal and cultural exploration. The people of the Renaissance searched for knowledge about themselves and understanding of the human person. During this time, there was a lot of success in art, business, and politics. Because exploration of the world and of the mind can give people knowledge as well as land and territories, it is definitely a good thing.

During The Renaissance, there was a lot of exploration of the known world. People improved on the inventions and tools that made it possible for them to explore. For example, their ships became more advanced, and their maps became more reliable. The people had to explore in order to find trade routes. For example, Prince Henry, who was from Portugal, organized explorations and was able to find a trade route to India without having to cross land. Because imported products were so wanted, this exploration was very helpful to the economy. ("Renaissance - Exploration and Trade." Annenberg Media. Web. 7 May 2010. http://www.learner.org/interactives/renaissance/exploration_sub.html.) Probably the most well known explorer of the time was Christopher Columbus. Columbus was the first to explore all the way to the Americas, which one of the most important discoveries ever to be made. He set sail in 1492 with the goal of finding a western trade route to Asia. According to the journal that Columbus kept, in just three months, he landed in what he thought was India. ("Christopher Columbus: Extracts from Journal." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 7 May 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html.) However, it was later realized that he had really landed in the Americas. This exploration was obviously important because it was the discovery of what is now America.

The people of the Renaissance are also known for their exploration of mind, which led to the creation of a lot of famous artwork. It is during the Renaissance that modern art is born. Artists stopped seeing the world as two-dimensional and started to add depth to their work. Before the exploration of art during the Renaissance, people would only paint religious subjects. However, Renaissance artists started to question this, and they depicted the things that they actually saw in their physical world. Their works also started to have more symbolic and complicated meanings. Leonardo da Vinci was a Renaissance artist who explored the human person and also different styles of art. He mixed his art with science and math, and added depth to his work, which had not been done before. For example, his drawing, the Vitruvian Man shows that he searched for ways to depict exactly what he saw in a physical aspect. The exploration of artists like him was very good because it gave a whole new way to look at the world and it was the birth of modern art.

Another way the exploration was important in the Renaissance was the exploration of new architectural possibilities. Architects explored mathematical possibilities, and the rules of western architecture were completely changed by a man named Filippo Brunelleschi. His goal was to build a freestanding dome, which had never been done before. To do this, he had to come up with his own methods and engineering plans. By exploring mathematical and physical possibilities, Filippo created the first freestanding dome ever on the Cathedral in Florence. ("Filippo Brunelleschi." PBS. Web. 7 May 2010. http://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/renaissance/brunelleschi.html.) The exploration of architecture was a very good thing because it resulted in new ways to build things that were thought to be impossible before.

Exploration has been a very good thing throughout history. It has led to the discovery of new places, and it has created new thoughts and ideas about life. Exploration of the mind has also contributed to many great art pieces. Architectural exploration has created new possibilities that were not there before. Exploration for knowledge is one of the main causes of the Renaissance, and exploration for land really helped the economy during this time. Because of all the success caused by exploring, exploration is a very good thing.

Works Cited

"Christopher Columbus: Extracts from Journal." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 7 May 2010. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html.

"Filippo Brunelleschi." PBS. Web. 7 May 2010. http://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/renaissance/brunelleschi.html.

"Renaissance - Exploration and Trade." Annenberg Media. Web. 7 May 2010. http://www.learner.org/interactives/renaissance/exploration_sub.html.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Uomo_Vitruviano.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/View_of_the_Duomo's_dome,_Florence.jpg

Renaissance Art

The Renaissance brought many changes, especially in art. Before the Renaissance, almost all art was about religion, and it was very two dimensional. None of it was really how it would appear in real life. However in the Renaissance, artists became more interested in the physical world. Their art became more true to what it would actually look like in real life because they used depth and shadowing. Also, instead of focusing on religion, there were many different subjects of Renaissance art. Portraits became very popular during the Renaissance, and they were very realistic paintings. Much of the art began to become complicated, and it made the viewer think about what the artist meant. Artists like Leonardo Da Vinci began to really inspect the makeup of humans in order to be able to paint them better. Renaissance art was different than Medieval art because it was much more realistic and it focused on more worldly things.

Early Renaissance Notes

Great Schism - split between east and west Churches
Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic Church

Modern art is born

Art goes from being all about religion to being less two-dimensional.
Not looking at the bible and Christian theology - but looking at real life and portraits

Da Vinci - artist, scholar, architect.
Not enough just to get the image across
Wants to try new things - portrays different poses

Major archaeological discoveries take place

Much conflict between the artists and the Church because there is a lot of religious confusion
Protestant reformation
95 Thesis - statements against the Roman Catholic Church
Martin Luther Founds a new church
Henry VIII also forms his own new church in England

Hieronymus Bosch

War raged between Protestants and Catholics

The seven deadly sins are what god eternally sees us committing.

The art becomes COMPLICATED

What do you think?

What do you think? How did people of different classes think differently?

In the Middle Ages, there were two main divisions among social classes. Among the upper classes included the knights and nobles, and the merchants, and in the lower class were the peasants. Each one of these classes led completely different lifestyles, and that is what influences what they ‘thought’. In other words, the views they had and things that were important to them were directly based on the experiences they had. The classes’ interactions with one another affected what they thought about people above or below them on an economic and social level. People of different social classes think differently because their different experiences and lifestyles have shaped their views on life.

The lowest of the social classes in medieval times were the peasants and farmers. They lived a life of poverty, and most of them did not have any land of their own. They worked and lived on the lords’ land, and these serfs did not even have any political rights. ("Roles and Rights of a Peasant." Minnesota State University. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/pdailylife.html.) The hard and laborious life that the peasants led made them resent the nobles and merchants, and they thought this social system was unfair. In 1381, the peasants revolted because they were tired of the way their class had to live, and they wanted to end their unfair treatment. According to the Tales from Froissart, “They were neither angels nor spirits, but men formed after the same likeness with their lords, who treated them as beasts. This they would not longer bear, but had determined to be free, and if they laboured or did any other works for their lords, they would be paid for it.” ("Froissart: Beginning of the English Peasant Revolt." Nipissing University. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/peasants.htm.) The experiences and lifestyle that the peasants had caused them to think negatively towards higher social classes because the way they were treated was unfair.

On the other end of the social classes were the nobles, lords, and merchants. They were much wealthier, and their lifestyles led them to think about a lot more than just a life of labor. For example, the knights took vowels to their lords, and there was nothing more important to them than fighting for their lords. What the knights thought about most was nobility and chivalry, for this is what was important to them. The idea of their manhood was also very important to them, and they spent a lot of time hunting. They thought that all their sons should become knights too and their daughters should marry knights. ("Knighthood." Minnesota State University. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/knighthood.html.)

The other members of the upper classes were the wealthy merchants. They lived in grand houses and made use of many of the newest inventions that the people of the lower class would not have had. While the peasants thought about the manual labor they had to do, the merchants thought their trade and travel. Because they travelled so much for trade, they were able to bring back many different items that were very expensive. ("Trade and Travel in the Middle Ages." Minnesota State University. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/trade.html.) Although the peasants though that the social system was unfair, the people of the upper classes lived luxurious lives, and they thought little about the peasants. Instead, they thought about their nobility and wealth.

Because of their difference in lifestyle, the people of the upper class and the people of the lower class thought much differently during the Middle Ages. Because the peasants of the lower class lived under the control of the wealthier lords, they resented them and hated this feudal system. Hard work and labor was all they knew, and so that is primarily all they could ‘think’ about. On the other hand, the nobles and lords lived a life of luxury, and they hardly even considered the peasants to be people. They had a lot more to ‘think’ about than the peasants, and they were more concerned with their chivalry and honor. Peoples’ experiences and interactions with others really shape what they ‘think’.

Magna Carta Notes

Magna Carta
1215
King was now bound by law, can't just do what he wants

Crusades were a failure
Children' s Crusade - many children died

Ongoing attempt to limit the power of the king

1337 - Hundred Years' War
Power for all of Europe
First Part = Edwardian War
Second Part - Caroline War
Third Part - Lancastrian War
Lasts 116 years
Rise of Nationalism

Italy remains un-unified

The Canterbury Tales - Jeffry Chaucer
Tales about pilgrims

1381 - Peasants revolt in England

Henry V leads soldiers in battle of Agincourt
He is outnumbered and he wins

The Medici family rises to prominence in Florence - 1434
1453 - Hundred Year's War ends


1455 - Johan Gutenberg - prints bible for the first time
War of Roses begins in England

Notes on England Middle Ages

Dialectic - a form of logic

Muslims and Christians cannot get along
Muslims have many works of philosophy, and they are not speaking to the Europeans

This changed the way people thought

Nationalism - the people in a country don't want to deal with people outside of their borders
Confused with patriotism

England rises in power in the 14th century
English monarchs developed dynasty

Abelard - philosophy teach
Fell in love with his student Heloise
Heloise's family hates Abelard, and she is sent to a convent
Have a relationship via love letters
WOMAN's voice in primary sources

Artwork - very religious

France becomes extremely powerful
Many cathedrals being made
More powerful than England

Can you "read" a building?

Can you “read” a building?

Throughout history, architectural styles have changed a lot, from very early huts to today’s enormous skyscrapers. Not only have buildings become more sophisticated, but they can also portray a certain culture’s practices and beliefs. There have been different styles of architecture to go along with different periods in history. These different styles are based on what was going on during that time period. By looking at the architecture of a building, you can tell what time period it came from and also what was important to the people who built it. Take Romanesque and Gothic architecture as an example. Though these styles came from similar time periods, the differences between them are unmistakable. Romanesque architecture came just before the Gothic style, and the building style is completely different, which shows that the people of the two time periods had totally different views and beliefs. Architecture is used like a language to portray culture and important beliefs of the people, and therefore it is possible to “read” a building.

In the time period of Romanesque art, about 1000 to 1500, the Church was at the center of civilization and learning. Therefore, the style in which they built their churches can show their beliefs and thoughts on what was important. Romanesque churches were made from very heavy and solid stone, so that they looked almost more like fortresses than churches. This is how the people viewed the Church, and there was one in the center of every town. They were built with huge round archways and multiple towers. The thick walls and pillars seem overbearing and oppressive. ("Romanesque Architecture." Earthlore Explorations. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://elore.com/Gothic/Learning/romanesque.htm.) Another part of the Romanesque style of architecture is that there were very few windows, and the ones that were built were very small. As a result, the interior of the churches were very dark. ("Romanesque Architecture." Sacred Destinations. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://www.sacred-destinations.com/reference/romanesque-architecture.) A very important aspect in “reading” Romanesque church buildings is the artwork that is portrayed. Much of the artwork in these churches had to do with the end of the world and God’s second coming. For example, the church at Vezelay Abbey in France has a huge depiction of Judgment Day right above the main doorway. This shows that the people of the time were very preoccupied worrying about the end of the world. By looking at and “reading” Romanesque churches, it is clear that the people had an anxiety of the unknown, and they saw their church as a stronghold.

The period of art and architecture that came after Romanesque was Gothic, and the buildings of this period show that the people’s views on life and religion changed greatly. The churches of the Gothic period were very different than Romanesque churches. The churches were built with tall and elegant pointed arches. There were also intricate designs found throughout the buildings and churches. Another big change is that the people built many huge windows, many of which were decorated with stained glass. ("Gothic Architecture." Castles. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://www.castles.me.uk/gothic-architecture.htm.) This allowed a lot of light to shine into the churches. This showed that the people’s attitude changed from anxiety to hope. Their change in view can also be “read” in the artwork that they put in their churches. Instead of images of the end of the world, Gothic churches were filled with depictions of hope. For example, in Niederhaslach Church, there is a statue of the angel of the Annunciation. By reading the churches of the Gothic period, it is clear that the people were no longer preoccupied, and they saw life with more hope.

The way buildings were built can show a lot about the people who built them. Architectural styles are unique to certain time periods, and by looking at buildings, the time period in which they were built can be seen. Because the people’s views are shown through their architecture and in their buildings, it is possible to look at a building and “read” it to find out about the people who built it.

Works Cited
“Gothic Architecture." Castles. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://www.castles.me.uk/gothic-architecture.htm.
"Romanesque Architecture." Earthlore Explorations. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://elore.com/Gothic/Learning/romanesque.htm.
"Romanesque Architecture." Sacred Destinations. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://www.sacred-destinations.com/reference/romanesque-architecture.

The Forbidden Village

There was once a small village on a large mountain. Nobody ever entered. There was a village at the base of the mountain, and nobody ever dared to venture to the village. Legend had at that if someone were to enter the village, God would be angry and send down his plague. One day, a daring group of kids decided to find out what was really in the village. They snuck out and climbed for two days. When they finally reached the village, they saw no motion and heard no noise. They thought that the village must be abandoned. However, as they entered the houses, they found, to their utter surprise, that people had lived in this village. But they were dead now, nobody was left alive. They saw corpses all around - in houses, on the floors. They did not know what to do, and they began to regret their decision to climb to the village. All over the corpses were rats and bugs. They approached one of the bodies, and as they came closer, they saw that the insects did not look normal, not healthy. Suddenly, a small red-eyed insect flew over angrily and bit the youngest boy right on the neck. The boy had a small red mark on his neck, right where he had been bitten. But it seemed to be growing, and growing fast. Within minutes, it covered his whole neck. All the other kids gathered around to see what was going on, and they all tried to stop the growth of this mysterious bug bite. The boys knew journeying to this forbidden village was a big mistake. They had to get the youngest some help, so they all ran from the village. Back down the mountain, back through the forest, and back to their village. They knew that they would get in trouble for going to the village, but they didn't care. They needed to get the youngest some help, for what started out as just a small red mark had grown to cover his whole neck and chest. All the wise elders and the best doctors in the village did not know what this was, and they did not know what to make of it. Within days, the boy's entire body was covered in red. He began to get weaker and weaker, and it was clear that he was going to die. The boy did die, but not before three other cases of this spreading red mark were found in his village. Nobody could find a way to cure this, and nobody knew what to do. They realized that this must have come from the abandoned village the kids had visited. The old legend must have been true. Just weeks later, some relatives of some of the village inhabitants came to visit. But when they got there they found exactly what the children had found in the small village on the large mountain. They were terrified at what they saw, but they did not know what to do. Nobody had survived. And as they were leaving to return to their village, one of their sons was bit by a small red-eyed insect.

Notes on Black Death

Plague swept Europe in the 1300's
They catapulted dead people into the city.

Rats carried the disease on ships.
No one would let ships dock when they saw that the sailors were sick.
The rats got off the ship and that is how the black death entered Europe.

People looked to the Church for spiritual support.
Within a month, the black death had spread throughout Sicily.
Priests believed that the plague was brought by God.
People thought they were witnessing the end of the world.
They believed it was hell on earth.
Few who caught the disease ever recovered.
When it reached Rome, the Pope surrounded himself with a ring of fire for weeks. This way he would not catch it because no rat could get through.

One man survived the plague and was determined to find a way to cure it.
There were two types of plague, and one was more deadly than the other.
The sick were bricked up in their houses

People accused the Jews, and they were massacred throughout Europe.

In two years, it swept across Western Europe to Scandinavia.
It killed 20 million people, a third of the population.
People believed more in God, but authority and tradition were no longer accepted without question.

Fleas transmitted the disease from rat to man.

1066: The Year In Review

Notes 4/12 - 4/16

1. Futile System
• Social classes
• No social nobility - could not leave the class you were born into
2. A cow cost five shillings.
3. The value of your life was determined by the class into which you were born.
4. Three classes: monks/priests, nobles/knights, and workers.
5. Laws were very unjust, and everyone except the very rich was excluded.
6. Sophisticated logic
7. Supernatural events are recorded often
• Sightings of strange creatures
8. All living things belong to three categories - animals, humans, and spiritual beings
9. They believed in weird creatures like "Dog heads"
10. Change from writing on papyrus to animal hide.
11. Books were called manuscripts - written on animal hide
12. Books were valuable and rare because they were tedious to write out.
13. Capetian Dynasty - allied relationship with the church

The CHURCH - the MOST powerful leader in Europe.

14. Pope Urban II calls for the first Crusade in 1095.
15. Jerusalem was the center of the world in Medieval mind.
16. First Crusade is a complete failure.
17. Romanesque art - 1000-1100
18. 1100-1400 - Gothic art
19. Churches were built like fortresses and were the center of the town
20. Romanesque - round archways, dark and oppressive - judgment and death
21. Goth - images of light - life and hope

The Medieval Imagination

The people of the early Medieval times seem to have had very wild imaginations. They believed in many strange creatures that they had no proof even existed. This is because they were living in anxiety about what would happen when they reached the year 1000, so it is not surprising that they made up strange explanations for the things that happened. An example of the strange creatures they believed in is the Dogheads. These were creatures that had the body and soul of a human but the head of a dog. One of these had never actually been seen, but they believed strongly in these creatures none the less. They debated about what they should do if they were to meet one, and if they should preach to them. The people even named one of them a saint in the church. They also believed that solar and lunar eclipses were a divine sign from God, despite knowing their physical causes. The people of the Medieval age believed in many strange things that seem ridiculous to the people of today, and they definitely had big imaginations.

http://medievalhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/book_review_author_robert_bartlett

http://www.mythfolklore.net/medieval_latin/06_augciv/supp/christopher.htm

Power and Inequality

The Medieval ideas about power and equality were far different than the ideas of today. Today, most believe that all people are equal and should have equal opportunities. However, in Medieval times, they believed that once you were born into a class, whether it be peasant or noble, you were a member of that class your whole life. No matter what you did, you could not move up or down on the ladder of social classes. The upper class felt that their lives were more valuable than those of the lower class. Though peasants and serfs worked much harder than the nobles and knights, their lives were not worth as much. Equality was definitely not a part of the Medieval age, considering that their entire social system was based on inequality.

http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hifeudal.html

Pericles vs. Lincoln

1. Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address and Pericles's are similar.
1. They were both given to honor soldiers that had died in civil war.
2. Lincoln's speech took place after the battle at Gettysburg in the US Civil War.
3. Pericles's oration took pace shortly into the Peloponnesian Wars.
4. The Gettysburg Address is a better funeral oration because he does a better job of honoring the soldiers who gave their lives.

2. Appeal to Patriotism
1. Lincoln does a better job appealing to patriotism because he excites the people to keep working to be a new free nation.
2. "...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/al16/speeches/gettys.htm .

Who's a good guy? Who's a bad guy?

The question of who is a ‘good guy’ and who is a ‘bad guy’ is difficult to answer because it depends on the point of view. For example, the Vikings were ravenous and barbaric, raiding and destroying villages throughout Europe, so everyone of their day no doubt viewed them as bad guys. However, from the Vikings’ point of view, they were not bad guys at all. They were actually very civilized and religious people, and in their religion, war and conquest were honorable and pleasing to the gods. Although it may seem barbaric, war was a big part of their lifestyle and does not necessarily make them bad guys. In order to decide who is a good guy and who is a bad guy, both sides and points of view must be considered.

It is commonly known that Vikings went from village to village raiding and taking treasure. Though the Europeans of the time feared the Vikings, they were actually much more civilized and organized than they seemed. They did not see themselves as thieves at all; in fact, in their religious beliefs, stealing was condemned. In their minds, raiding a village was not stealing; it was actually honorable because they took fighting as a challenge. If they could successfully raid a village, they were revered as heroes. Also, the violence of their raids has probably been exaggerated from what it was actually like. ("Hurstwic: Viking Raids." Hurstwic, a Viking Age Living History Society. Web. 22 Mar. 2010. http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm.) The Viking raiders did not believe they were wrong in these actions; they actually thought their raids were honorable, so they did not see themselves as bad guys at all.

Aside from these raids, their daily lifestyle was held up to very high standards of principles and ethics. However, their ideas of morals were different than what most people think of today. For example, they believed in personal and family honor, but in order to maintain this, they thought that revenge was very important. The Vikings did not have an established state government, but they were still able to remain organized in their way of life, which shows that they were very civilized people. Most people today probably think that raiding was the Vikings’ main purpose of life. However, the truth is that most Vikings were farmers. ("DAILY LIFE IN THE VIKING PERIOD." Arild Hauges Runer. Web. 22 Mar. 2010. http://www.arild-hauge.com/elife.htm.) Though Vikings’ morals were different than those of today, it is not at all fair to say that they were barbaric and heartless.

Even though the Vikings believed they were justified in their actions and their raids, they still took a lot of treasure, burned down many villages, and killed many people along the way. According to the Vikings, war was honorable, but that does not excuse the fact that the main reason for their raids was to steal treasure. For example, the raiders continuously attacked and stole from monasteries, one being the Monastery of Noirmountier. The monks living there were eventually forced to abandon the monastery, and it is no wonder that so many people of the time were terrified of the Vikings. As they developed, their raids got even more violent, as they began burning down villages and killing the inhabitants. ("Viking Raids: 800-900." Then Again. . . Web. 22 Mar. 2010. http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/WestEurope/VikingRaids.html.) No matter what the Vikings believed, the things they did made it impossible for the people of their day see them as anything but bad guys.

Bad guys are heartless and evil people with no morals or respect for honor. Therefore, the Vikings could not have been bad guys. They had very high moral standards and only did what they did because it was considered honorable. From the view of the Europeans of that time, however, the Vikings were greedy and ravenous people. Though the raids that the Vikings took can be considered ‘bad,’ the Vikings themselves were not bad guys.

Works Cited

"DAILY LIFE IN THE VIKING PERIOD." Arild Hauges Runer. Web. 22 Mar. 2010. http://www.arild-hauge.com/elife.htm.

"Hurstwic: Viking Raids." Hurstwic, a Viking Age Living History Society. Web. 22 Mar. 2010. http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm.

"Viking Raids: 800-900." Then Again. . . Web. 22 Mar. 2010. http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/WestEurope/VikingRaids.html.