Copernicus

I found the reading from Copernicus on the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies really interesting. This was a way to get into Nicholas' head and see how he came up with his theories on the earth being round, its rotation and how it was not the center of the earth. We have known all our lives that the earth was round, how it rotated on its own axis and that the sun is the center of the Universe (Well actually galaxy if you want to get technical). What Copernicus was saying was new, cutting edge science during his time. It was amazing to read this excerpt on his thoughts and how he came up with these ideas. It was pretty much just simple observations on what was really moving and what was not. I just think it's really cool to read something in a first hand perspective that we have known to be truth and fact our whole lives.

Renaissance and Galileo

I have always loved the Renaissance era and I'm not really sure why, it has just always been my favorite. I also have a huge weakness for the artwork during that time. So of course my favorite reading this week was that of the Renaissance. It is always interesting to hear the stories told behind certain pieces of art or of architecture. The external links provided this week to Nicholas Pioch's Web Museum was amazing. I have taken several Art History classes but I learned a few new things with this link.

Also, I found the reading on Galileo interesting. I had know idea the man was accused of heresy for saying that the sun was the center of the universe and the earth was not and it in fact moved and not the sun. He was accused because what he was saying "was contrary to Holy Scriptures". The part that really saddened me was that Galileo went against what he wrote in his book and told the Inquisitors he was wrong and would not repeat his mistake. I can understand why he did it though. No one was going to believe him, and there wasn't a way to prove his theory just yet.

Wiki Assignment #3

The article begins with what a the Protectorate is and the time frame for which it was in effect. It also give a brief history of what the English, Scottish and Irish government was like before the Protectorate. The title is officially known as the Lord Protector. The article then goes to tell us what the role of the Lord Protector is and basically their responsibilities. The first Lord Protector was Oliver Cromwell. There is a section called Cromwell's role which tells us what he did as Lord Protector, his accomplishments basically and then the article closes with the succession of his son Richard Cromwell the restoration of the monarchy in England.

1. The article has 954 words.
2. The search term used was The Protectorate. This also the name of the article.
3. There is not a disambiguation link.
4. On the discussion page there some comments about the page itself and some posts regarding some changes that have made to the page.
5. There have been 16 changes to this page. The first occurred on Feb. 14, 2005. The last occurred on Jan. 19, 2008.
6. 2 external links.
7. There are 4 references listed and I think its worth it to note that there is a request for more citations for verification for this article.
8. There are no links for further reading.

I would say that I might recommend this article for maybe a starter spot on learning about the the Lord Protector of England. Granted there is not much information to begin with on this subject but this still seems a little vague on certain points. Not too mention that the article stated that it needed more citations for verification. This says to me that the sources listed maybe a little shaky.

All Over Religion

I don't think I will ever truly understand why people feel the need to kill others over their religion. I know this subject has been talked about to death but the reading this week on St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre just brought me right back to it. Several things seemed to have gotten this massacre started. First, the Catholics weren't really happy with the peace treaty set up to end the "Third War of Religion". Second, Henry III of Navarre (protestant) and Marguerite of Valois (catholic) were gonna get married. Which the Pope and most Catholics did not agree with. Paris, a dominatly catholic city was filled protestants around the time that Henry and Marguerite were to get married. Lastly, the failed assassination of the Huguenot Admiral de Coligny upset the catholics even more. This all occured in a time period of about 2 years. Apparently the Catholics were feeling threatened by all this protestanism and went on a killing spree. I read that over 2,000 people were killed in Paris and over 3,000 more in the surrounding French provinces. That's over 5,000 people dead because someone else didn't believe the same thing. The sad thing is that it still happens in our world today and will continue to happen. (Here is the link for my extra information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_Massacre)

Freedom of a Christian

Martin Luther's writing on the Freedom of a Christian was interesting. Toward the beginning he said "A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none, a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one." This totally confused me, but as I read on I understood that he was talking about the inside soul and the outside human of a person. That to him being a Christian was something that is on your inside, your soul and that the outside was basically your shell while on earth. He also said that things that can harm the body do not harm the soul and that even though the body dresses and does Christian things does not mean the soul is Christian. The point Martin was making by all this was that Christianity for a person was based on the faith. That faith resided in the soul alone and no where else. I thought this was a interesting point that Martin Luther made about Christianity.

Reformation

It was good to see the people of the early modern world start thinking for themselves and really exploring their thoughts on religion and the Bible. The fact that printing press was now in full swing made it possible that these people could share their thoughts. On top of that, the Bible was being translated into different languages. Now almost everyone could have their own copy of the Bible in their own language and read it for themselves instead of blindly following the Papacy. Obviously, this started problems. The Catholic religion was really THE religion at that time. This started the religious wars. It was amazing to see the different countries jump back and forth between Catholicism and Protestantism depending on who there leader was at the time. No one wanted to compromise (or let one stay in place very long) and let people believe in what they wanted. It was like each religion was out to save the other because they were wrong in what they believed and they were going to go to hell for it.

Power Hungry?

The reading this week on the Papacy in Avignon brings up again the rivalry in powers between the king and the pope and then between popes. The part that interested me the most the was the Great Schism. It started with two rival popes, one Italian the other French. Each had their own college of cardinals, own curia and there were two religious governments. They each excommunicated each other. Thirty years later, we have the same problem, only now it has escalated to THREE popes, their colleges, and their curia. None of them willing to back down. Talk about some serious power hunger. No wonder a council was called again. The purpose was to fix the problem of three popes. The council disposed of all three popes but none of the seemed to want to let their power go. Especially Pope Benedict, retiring in Spain but still excommunicating everyone against him until he died( A sad way to go if you ask me). Even after this popes still ignored councils, side stepped them left and right and avoided them all together. I assume this was because they were afraid that a reform in the church would take away their power. It seemed they weren't even willing to talk about it at all, they just wanted to reassert and hold on to that power of being the pope. The sad thing was that Christians were now seeing the pope as a threat to the church. Ouch. Serious trouble in the church and all over having the power.

Status of Humanity

The article on 12th century Renaissance was pretty cool this week. Even though the church dominated almost everything, the people of this time were interested in rising to the occasion. People were looking for closer relationship the divine and a more personal religious experience, not only that but they were looking to better themselves as well. The church was trying to make Christianity more Human and more oriented to people which also led to this time period to also be named "The Age of Faith". It was interesting to learn that people wanted to obtain a higher status. I am not all surprised by this after the readings last week, who wouldn't want to take a chance at higher status. The cool thing was that for the most part people did it because they wanted more knowledge although there were those (town dwellers or bourgeois) who were in it mainly for the money. It seems though that eventually this love of knowledge and learning grew so much that it became independent of the church. I can see where this would upset the clergy but the population of people wanting to be students had grown so much that the monasteries and churches had no more room (Wow that many students in that time period). Thus we have the development of the University.

A View in Peasant Life

Once again, reading about how a culture or how a particular type of people live interests me. The essay on "Advances in Agriculture" that we read this week is the one that grabbed my attention. Granted, this essay focused on agriculture but it still reflects what life must have been like for these people and how they lived their lives on a daily basis. Between the years 800 and 1000 villages consisted small huts made of clay and grass, surrounded by two fields. The huts were small, only one or two rooms with a loft above for storage, one door and no windows. I can't imagine living with my family in one room with our animals. I mean, what would that be like, waking up with your pigs and cows laying down next to you? You would stay warm in the winter I guess. I imagine if you were lucky enough to have two rooms in your hut you could pen your animals in one and you could sleep in the other. Each hut had about 1/2 acres of land attached to it called a messuage that you used for your own use for a garden or a place to keep your animals outside. The two fields surrounding the village were also used by families. It was known as an open field system. Each family owned portions of each field but it seems that all were responsible for the whole field. Sixty percent of the harvest went to taxes and church tithes, leaving the village people with 40 percent for themselves which would be put towards things you couldn't grow or make yourself. It would take 35 bushels for one basic family to live, which equals out to about 30 or 40 acres of plowed field for each family assuming your growing year went well and there were no early rains to ruin your crops. I wouldn't want to live in such times when you had to hope that everything went well so you could survive the next year and you didn't have much to begin with.

Wiki #2

This Wikipedia article begins with Williams early life, who he was and how he came to be the Duke of Normandy. The article then goes on and discusses his conquests in England and how he eventually became King William I. We then move on to the details of Williams reign in England and the reforms he made. Towards the end of the article is the death of William the Conqueror and his succession. Lastly mentioned is the legacy he left behind after his death.

1. Article contains 3,665 words.
2. Search term used "William the Conqueror". Title of article "William I of England".
3. There is no disambiguation link.
4. Discussion page has a place where you can suggest improvements to article. Also, there is a long list of posts of things that other people have suggested to improve the article.
5. Over 500 revision, with earliest being August 30, 2005 and the last being October 14, 2008.
6. There are seven external links provided.
7. There are twenty references provided.
8. There five entries for further reading listed.

I would recommend this article if you are looking for just about anything on William the Conqueror although this article calls him mainly William I of England. There is a lot of material here for research including external links and links for further reading. There is quite a bit of detail on his endeavors in life and about him personally including his physical appearance.

Controversy of Powers

When Charlemagne was crowned emperor of Rome by Pope Leo III many questioned it. Some say the Pope did it for protection from enemies and some say that Charlemagne did it and his advisors noted that they wanted it for him. Obviously, this started a huge controversy on who had the power. The church already had land and power but the coronation of Charlemagne now united the church and state and also started the precedence of popes having the power to make or unmake emperors. We also see in the letter from Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius, "Doctrine of the Two Powers" how the church views their power over the emperor. Pope Gelasius says that kings can rule humans but for anything concerning the divine a king will bow their head to the clergy. He also says that the hearts of the faithful will submit to priests and that people are more obidient becuase of their devotion to the church. It seems that church/pope feels that they should and do have the power over all, emperors and kings included.

The First Monks and Monasteries

It was interesting to learn how monks and monasteries came to be. Really the first monks were hermits or desert dwellers. They were people who lived a solitary life in the middle of the desert to gain a deeper knowledge of the universe. At first this sounded weird to me, but then I realized that it is really no different than someone going camping to commune with nature or the early Native Americans going through a rite of passage to find their spirit guide. After Anthony of Alexandria, who became the model of eremitical life, there was a flood of people living as hermits. So many people in fact that they couldn't really live alone anymore. This was hard for me to believe that there wasn't enough space for everyone. Eventually, Pachomius developed rules so that these people could live in small groups in huts. This eventually led to small established communities (monasteries) in which monks could live together under one roof following rules and rituals according the Abbot of their monastery.

A Roman Life

I was totally drawn to the section on the social history of the Roman Empire. Learning about the actual culture and how other people live is amazing to me. The part about the Roman family itself interested me the most. I mean, how it would be growing up in a family where your Dad could decided to kill you or sell you into slavery at anytime while you were growing up? You can bet that I would be the best behaved child that ever existed. I'm also a person who likes my space and it would drive me nuts that my mother, father and all my brothers, their wives and their kids were living together especially if we were living in an apartment building. Romans seem to have a bit more modern attitude towards women, not much mind you, but a bit. At least you weren't pretty much locked up in your house with the kids all time like the Greeks. Roman women were appreciated for what they did. They were also able to acquire rights to land and businesses. No, they weren't allowed to have anything to do with politics really but they certainly had more rights than Greek women did. One last thing that that interested me was that each year bread, wine and oil were given to the urban people.....free. No charge, just "Here you go, Enjoy!". How do you that that with a population over 500,000 to possibly a million?

Roman Politcal Mess

I was amazed when I read the section on the The Roman Revolution. Reading about all the conspiracy, bloodshed and betrayal of everyone to get what they wanted for themselves. So much selfishness, it seemed like a race to the top to rule the world and people would do anything to get it. The senate was weak and loosing their hold on Rome and things had gotten way out of control. It was easy to bribe or force your way to the top. If you had any standing at all or money you just hire gangs and threaten people to vote for you or you get a couple of buddies together and threaten the senate and there you go you have power. I can't imagine what kind of political world that would be. I can't say they were all bad and selfish. Some good came from some of them. Although the only one that comes to mind at the moment is Octavian/Augustus Caesar. He was the man that grabbed the reigns and gave some direction to the people, for a while anyway. After his death, well things went down hill in hurry again. What a mess!

Wikipedia Assignment #1

The article starts off with the history of Leonidas, who his brothers were, who he is descendant from and when he died. No one is very sure of his birth date but it is believed to be around 540 BC. The first part of this article is limited on information because there is not a lot of information to be had on Leonidas’ life prior to the Battle of Thermopylae. The article then goes on to talk about what Leonidas is most famous for, the Battle of Thermopylae. The information given in the second paragraph goes into detail of how Leonidas was involved in the Battle of Thermopylae, how it played out and how it ended.


1. The article has 1,243 words.
2. The search term I used on the Wikipedia website was "king leonidas". The exact title of the article was "Leonidas I".
3. The Disambiguation link shows several other links that reference the name Leonidas.
4. The Discussion page shows several threads of discussion varying from corrections that need to be made to the article, “protection” from “vandalisms” being needed for the article around the release of the movie “300”, and links to other sites regarding subjects in close relation to this particular article.
5. It looks like there have been over 500 changes to this article, the first dated December 17, 2004 and the last dated September 11, 2008.
6. There are no external links listed.
7. There are 3 references listed for this article and a note that there is text incorporated from Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition (I think it is worth noting that at the top of this article there is a request for additional references).
8. There are no “Further Reading” or “See also” links for this article.


Would I recommend this article to others as a reference? I have would have to say yes and no. It is good for someone who is looking for a quick once over view of Leonidas I for just general information and his involvement in the Battle of Thermopylae, but not for someone who is looking for details on what is known about Leonidas’ whole life.

Aristotle's Salvery

I found it very odd to be reading something that was justifying slavery. I guess because this country spent so much time and effort in banishing it and that I grew up learning that it was wrong to own another person. Aristotle’s idea that there are some whose nature it is to rule and those who are meant to be ruled just didn’t sit right with me. How do you decide by nature who is meant to rule and who is meant to be a slave, especially at birth?

Aristotle went on saying that if a man didn’t have the ability of rational principle then by nature he is a slave. My idea from this was basically that if were considered dense and not very smart in the areas that mattered, politics and society, then you need to be a slave because you are not worth anything else but to be owned and follow some one else’s orders. I guess in a world where participation in politics and the world around you is key and you were not able to do that, you would not be worth much. I can see where it would make sense, but that kind of thinking would not get you very far in today’s world

The GREAT Alexander the Great

Right off the bat I have to say, "WOW"! I have taken Art History classes and learned about this time period to a degree and we learned about Alexander and some of the pieces he is depicted in, specifically the Battle of Issus. Here is a man who has gone up against insurmountable odds over and over again and always come out on top, it makes me wonder "how did he do that?". I guess it goes back to his father teaching him war tactics mixed with some of his own masterminding (i.e., the Macedonian Phalanx). The man had to be crazy, and there were times that his sanity was questioned. He wanted to take over the world, had cheated death at least seven times (that we know about) and has legends written in books about him. One of things that amazed me the most about all of his expeditions was that after it was all over and he had died was the affect it had on the acient world. He literally embedded the Greek culture into the Middle East. What an amazing person... but he was still crazy!

Democracy for Aristotle

I find it amazing that for over 2000 years there has been some form of democracy on this earth. In his essay on democracy, Aristotle talks about the three elements in a state, "the very rich, the very poor, and the mean". This is directly related to our upper class, lower class and our middle class in America. He goes on about how the middle class needs to be largest to keep the other two classes in check and keep either of them from completely taking over a community. By far, in America the largest class is the middle class and they are constantly trying to keep the upper class from having absolute control over all monies, and keeping the lower class from sucking them dry by those that "use the system" to live. It seems to me though, that in Greek civilization there wasn't really a middle class at all. There were the citizens, all male, who held the political positions, decided everything and had money and then there was everyone else, women, children and slaves, who basically no rights and not much money. Maybe this is why democracy fell apart so fast in Athens.