Scientific Revolution

By the latter half of the 17th century we began to see an increase in scientific institutions and the importance of science in schooling. All this newly acquired knowledge and ideas began to gain acceptance and spread freely through existing universities like Cambridge and Oxford. Societies completely devoted to science began to spring up; most notably being The Royal Society which was a result of the English Civil War. These societies and groups were crucial in the advancement and the spread of ideas, because now great minds were able to come together and exchange ideas and opinions. It is also during this time that we see less involvement by the church, and that of course gave more freedom to the masses to express radical ideas without the possibility of being charged with heresy. Look at Copernicus for example who delayed the publishing of his theories out of fear of the church. It wasn't until after his death that his book and ideas were published. This latter part of the 17th century set the precedent for being able to back up theories with actual irrefutable facts and evidence. Guys like Galileo and Copernicus had great ideas, that in part were later found to be right, but it wasn't until Newton that these ideas were proven as they were being thought up. This period of time was specifically crucial in the Scientific Revolution, and was influential in advancing the way we a people approach and study science.

Brunelleschi vs. Da Vinci

We were all taught to admire and respect the works of Leonardo da Vinci, and rightfully so. He was responsible for countless inventions, theories, and works that revolutionized art and humanity. It was with these accomplishments that Leonardo da Vinci became the face of the Renaissance, and the name most people associate with that particular time. However after reading this week’s readings I began to wonder if say a Brunelleschi wasn't just as deserving or more so to be known as the face of the Renaissance. For many Leonardo da Vinci is a house hold name, but I am sure a Filippo Brunelleschi is far less recognized. And again I wonder why? Brunelleschi is considered to be the premier architect of his time, and maybe even in the history of the world. His achievement of constructing the dome at the Cathedral of Florence expanded the way people not only went about constructing such a task, but also how you approach such a massive undertaking mentally. His unorthodox approach and relentless pursuit of the project embodied what a thinker of his time was all about. It was Brunelleschi's idea of linear perspective that transcended Renaissance art from two dimensional to a more realistic three dimensional. The distinction of the Renaissance is this rebirth in art and this rebirth can be contributed to this idea of linear perspective and Brunelleschi. It is in my opinion that Brunelleschi had just as big impact on the Renaissance as Da Vinci did. However as we know in history many times the most worthy are often forgotten by the masses.

Queen Elizabeth I

The speech that Queen Elizabeth gave to the troops during the attack of the Spanish Armada in 1588 gives a a great insight in to the leader and person she was. She was quick to admit she could not be physically affective on the battlefield with her feeble body, but she was able to gain the troops trust by assuring she was willing to die in the fight for her country. I am guessing that many of the men on the battle field were initially weary of having Queen Elizabeth trying to motivate them in such a situation, but she was quick to reverse their thinking with her apparent passion and demeanor. I especially like when she tell them, "but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field." Queen Elizabeth didn't have the heart of a King, but the heart of a brave leader. You could tell that she had the ability to motivate and bring together the masses, much like a Gandhi or Napoleon. Queen Elizabeth proved that a not only could a woman do a historically male job, but in this case even better.

Wikipedia Article Analysis

"Charles I"

Charles I was king of England from 1625 until his death in 1649. His reign as king can be highlighted by his constant disagreements with parliament, and national religion. His stubbornness to comply and reason lead to England’s only Civil War in which Charles I would repeatedly end up on the losing side. With all the national and religious tension surrounding the years 1642-1649 it was only fitting that when Charles I was eventually captured and tried, he would be executed for treason. Cromwell would regain power, and for a short time the monarchy would be disbanded. Later however Charles II, Charles son would reestablish the monarchy.

1. 9,280 words
2. The search term I used was “Charles I,” and the exact article title is “Charles I of England.”
3. The disambiguation link consists of articles related to the topic. A number of articles can be found here most are concerning the civil war and parliament however.
4. The discussion page is a forum where people can voice their disagreements and or suggest needed changes in the article. You can also ask questions, and point out errors. In this particular article there are a number of people pointing out errors in the article. These errors are usually concerning grammar or dates.
5. Their have been 500 changes made to this article. The earliest being on December 21, 2002, and the latest being on November 21, 2008.
6. 30 external links are provided.
7. 47 references are provided.
8. 19 entries under further reading.

This article is particularly perplexing, because the amount of information provided would lead you to believe that this article is completely credible. However after reading all the discussion and history you get the impression that although there is an abundant of information a lot of mistakes are present. This leads me to believe that a number of the facts are not entirely credible. As for recommending this article to other who is interested in the subject I would definitely give them the go ahead. A lot can be taken from the article, but I would be sure not to use this article as a primary source.

Wallenstein

It was interesting to read about the fear and envy possessed by many territorial rulers and the emperor toward Wallenstein. Wallenstein was a very successful leader on the battle field during the Thirty Years War, and for being victorious he was reward with a smaller army and eventually death. Many high powered individuals were, so afraid of Wallenstein's power that they ordered the Emperor to reduce the power of the Imperial army. Later the Emperor would even go so far as to have Wallenstein killed basically out of fear. Fear that another man could gain the popularity of the masses, and one day use that to gain control. We see this theme come up throughout history, most notably being with Julius Caesar. Other men’s power becomes another man’s fear. One of my favorite movies of all time portrays this point perfectly and that is, Gladiator. In Gladiator Russell Crows characters ability to control the masses with his popularity drives the emperor up the wall as he battles with the idea of killing Crows character and becoming hated amongst his people, or letting him live and risking being exposed for what he is to all his people. You have seen it many times before in history; when an individual controls the masses sky is the limit. For example Hitler’s ability to persuade the masses was instrumental in his ability to mount such a tragic and monumental take over. Who knows if Wallenstein would have ever been capable of such power, but as it is the fear of one man was just too much.

Henry VIII

I find it incredibly amusing when I read about Henry VIII. Due to his love affair with Anne Boleyn he almost single handedly cause a separation from the church. Henry VIII was so obsessed with divorcing Catherine that he took extreme measures to see it through. Henry VIII knew that if the trial over the divorce was to go to Rome he would not come out victorious, so what a King to do? Go to Parliament of course. In 1533 Parliament finalized the divorce and made it official. This was good for Henry, because previously that year he had took matter into his own hands and married Anne. To make these proceedings official and in part legal the Parliament passed the Act of Succession in 1535. This signified the official split between England and the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England was now in full affect and Henry now controlled all religious land holdings and monasteries. It’s ironic because this reformation was caused by Henry's obsession with Anne, and when it was all said and done Anne was executed shortly after their marriage but the split from the church remained. Henry VIII although extremely crude and shallow was a sort of businessman in a sense, and he definitely knew how to persuade and connive in order to get his way. After Henry's death England would go on to switch the national religion back and forth depending on the King or in later cases the Queen. But as it stands the reason for England’s schism from the church was caused by a stubborn mans obsession with a women.

National Monarchies

Between 1400-1500 AD the monarchies had a sort of resurrection. After years of civil war in most countries a monarchy had been established. It was these fresh monarchies like Henry VII, Luis XI, and Ferdinand and Isabella that forged a new system of basically complete control. Now the monarchies controlled church, state, and life. Lords and Nobles no longer held the power and wealth they once did. There was a transition taking place that would eventually end the idea of me and my land, and transform in to our land. Now people began to buy in to the idea of Nations. A Nation controlled by a monarchy that if unified could prosper. This was the key catalyst in the transition from medieval to modern times. It was a combination of tyranny and of patriotism. The idea that one person will control everything and we as commoners just follow order we too can prosper. It was this new system that will manifest itself into World Wars. However it is interesting to think that until 1400 AD these kings and emperors although powerful were petty compared to the sleeping giants that would emerge in later centuries.