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.

The Black Death

We have all learned for years the devastation caused by the Black Death. It was interesting to learn the details of the disease along with the so called remedies used for treatment. The plague was a particularly gruesome disease, and the symptoms seemed to incorporate everything associated with illness. For example you would have a fever, swollen glands, full body aching, and not to mention vomiting of blood. The plague was indeed the ultimate most powerful disease seen at this time. To think one third of the population of Europe was lost is unfathomable. It got to the point where family members avoided stricken family members, and had to hire others to remove the body. And although this action is very cruel the chances of transmitting the disease while making contact with the sick was extremely high. Avoiding affected persons was almost a matter of life or death. As we know if we are afflicted with the disease it can be treated if caught early enough. Back then however the remedies were in short supple, and usually were ineffective. People reverted to burning large amounts of incense, and even going as far as to shoot cannon and ring bells to use the sound to ward off the disease. I’m sure people tried a little bit of everything to find any relief for the victims. I was surprised to learn that for the most part most of the leaders and high ranking church members escaped these times plague free. Of course it was easier for them to avoid affected areas and people, but with the ease that the disease spread I was sure more kings or queens would have met their doom. As it turned out Pope Clement VI had the best solution by sitting between two large fires with the thinking he was breathing clean air. What he didn't know at the time was that the bacillus plague is sensitive to heat, and as it turned out the Pope had the best remedy. Professor Knox mentions that the plague still exists in remote areas in the Rocky Mountains, and I am wondering why it is centered primarily on this area? Is their something about the terrain and atmosphere that is conducive to the fleas that carry the plague?

The First Crusade

I can say confidently that the first crusade was instigated solely by Pope Urban II. His promise for remission of all sins for those who marched on Jerusalem was all it took to spark this vast pilgrimage east. As we learned however the problem was that common people most being oblivious to battle made the trip. This lack of experience would be deemed crucial while being slaughtered when entering Nicaea. Although the death of 20,000 or so people is a tragedy the false sense of security obtained by the Turkish would be deemed priceless later down the road. When the experienced soldiers and Knights marched on the Turkish later they obtained victory quite handedly. It was interesting to read about all of the men who made the trip, and the reasons for doing so. For many it was a religious crusade to free the holy land, but for some as mentioned it was just another way to conquer the east and expand an empire; of course by using the crusade as a cover. As it turned out Raymond and Godfrey emerged as the leaders, and would end up successfully seizing Jerusalem. I was particularly fascinated by the stories of the crusader army going twenty miles to get the wood necessary to make siege engines. I can't imagine the mass undertaking of such an event. Transporting and building those engines must have been remarkable. As it all played out Jerusalem fell, and the First Crusade although it started out slow became the only successful raid on Jerusalem.

Wikipedia Article Analysis #2

Summary: William the I of England began as the Duke of Normandy, but invaded England in 1066 and became the King of England. He came to power by defeating the Anglo-Saxons lead by Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings. His invasion and subsequent takeover of England became known as the Norman Conquest. William had a substantial impact on England, and set a standard for the way of life and culture that would endure in England for many years to come. Amongst the many things he changed were politics, English Law, architecture, English language, and most importantly bringing the practice of Feudalism into England.


1. 3,586 words
2. The search term I used was William the Conqueror, and the article title is William I of England.
3. The Disambiguation had related articles and further reading.
4. The discussion page has a ranking system of the article, and as it stands the article did not meet the good article criteria. Also there is a to do list that has suggestions on changing styles and topics. Lastly the discussion page has a spotlight section where people can post suggestions or questions. It is here that people can point out fallacies and or contribute to the article.
5. There have been 500 changes made to this article. The first being made on September 3, 2002 and the last being made on October 14, 2008.
6. Seven external links have been provided.
7. There are 20 references.
8. Five entries under further reading.

After reading the article I would recommend reading it to anyone who is interested in the subject. Although it is a very broad interpretation of William's life it does highlight significant moments and accomplishments of his life. Reading this article became very difficult at times because of the poor writing. It seemed as if the author just regurgitated names and dates with little effort to make the article flow. For reading enjoyment purposes I would not suggest this article, however to gain a brief insight into the life of William I recommend this article.

Papacy

We have all read about the power of the Popes in the medieval time period, and especially the corruption and abuse of power that took place within the Vatican. It’s particularly interesting to read about the origin and the rise of the Pope. Popes claimed to be direct descendents of Peter, but in fact were usually wealthy men who had entered the church. It was almost as if they were modern day politicians; usually coming from a well to do family buying their way into power. Pope Gregory I had a tremendously positive impact on Roman society and restructuring, and it was his past political experience that enabled him to in reality run Rome. I got the impression that most of the Popes that followed Gregory had similar backgrounds, but was either incompetent or corrupt. It wasn't until the Cluny revolution that Popes and high ranking church members were selected based not on wealth or connections, but on character and quality. With the position of the Pope solidified and the Christian faith spreading it was only a matter of time before the Pope would have more power then kings. This of course would not sit well with the distinct personalities of these leaders and kings. The power of the church lead by these Popes at this time exceeds all words. It goes to show that the power of beleiving in something greater then ourselves has the ability to draw together the masses and change the world.

Rome Moved?

Why as a young student working my way through k-12 did I never learn of how Constantinople actually became the new capital of Rome? So much emphasis is put on the collapse of the Roman Empire, but little is actually taught regarding how and what happened. I was very interested to learn that not only did Constantinople become the new capital, but in fact flourished for the most part and controlled the east in the fourth and fifth centuries. I believe the perception is that the city of Rome is for many the face of the empire, so when it is repeatedly sacked in the 5 century we automatically think the collapse of the empire.
It was also interesting to read about Gaul (southern France), and how after the Franks invaded the Roman culture and lifestyle that once reined supreme did little but fade away. A new culture and identity was formed here with the cohabitation of both the empire citizens and the barbarians. It is crazy to think that what would come out of this relationship would as Dr. Knox said form what is essentially Europe. And after thinking about this situation it makes perfect sense to think that Europe came about by mixing both Roman Empire citizens and barbarians. It was as if they were refined only to a point, but also barbaric only to a point.

Simularities In Life

Can you imagine a Rome being two to three times the size of Boise? With 500,000 citizens Rome was twice the size of Boise, and at that time was the ruling city in the world. With all of those people of course the living situation would be less then adequate. With most people living in apartment type building prone to fires. With no sewage system much of the waste was just thrown on the streets. The smell and sight is just unimaginable. In the home life the father ruled like most would figure. However it is interesting to learn that the father would obtain any assets or wealth earned by his sons as long as he lived. This of course would cause quite a bit of drama and betrayal. Women it seems were given much more freedom then that of their Greek predecessors. They were able to own property and speak their minds. Many had a direct influence on their husband’s political careers. In the early years most of the education was obtained at home, but after the Macedonian Wars the Romans were exposed to Greek liberal arts. Much of Rome's art and culture is derived from the Greeks. This is not surprising however because the Greeks were generations ahead of their time. As for slavery much of the Roman economy was based around slavery, and when manpower decreased this did not boat well for the Rome. Some say this was a significant factor in the Roman decline. That is similar to the early United States basing much of the economy around slavery, and if not for the industrial revolution we too might have not made it.

Hannibal the Great

Hannibal as it turned out was a militaristic genius who despite of being severely outmanned scored a number of victories, and in doing so scared the living daylights out of the Romans. His ability to lead and transport an army to safety was uncanny. How he was able to move that amount of men and elephants over the Alps is unthinkable. The Alps are a very harsh and unforgiving environment, and well never really know how Hannibal and his brother Hasdrubal managed to scale those mountains. It must be a family secrete. Although Hannibal was eventually unvictoriouse his legacy preceded him. He was particularly known for his cruelty, and this was evident when he made the order to hamstrung the fleeing Romans at Cannae. I have an affinity for Hannibal as it turns out. What he did was truly remarkable, and to have that lasting impression on the later Roman generations speaks volumes of his ability.

Rome Conquered for Security

It was interesting to read that Rome did not expand for greed but for protection. If they felt threatened by a neighbor they conquered them, but it is what takes place after the victory that is most astonishing. In order to keep relative peace with the newly acquired people and land Rome granted them certain rights and citizenship. Of course they still took taxes and men for their Army but for the most part they let the conquered areas or cities keep relative autonomy. They even go one step further by building a state of the art road system that assured the quick and smooth transportation of soldier and supplies to conquered areas in case of a sudden uprising. I believe it was the actions Rome took after conquering them that insured their power and stability for all of those years. By staying some what civil and intuitive Rome was able to utilize the new territories and they were able to spend more time worrying about the next frontier and not the previously conquered one. This genius involved with most successful empires is often overlooked or under appreciated. In this case I was stunned to see the impact of such a policy, and I am interested to see if future empires followed the Romans order. I am willing to bet that if those future expanding nations and empires utilized this same approach they too had a successful and lasting rule.

Wikipedia Article Analysis #1

“Battle of the Allia”
This article begins by explaining the Battle of Allia, and how Rome would eventually succumb to the Gaul’s due to this costly initial defeat. The article goes on by examining the after affects of Rome falling and ultimately the arrival of Camillus and his army signifying the recapturing of Rome. The article concludes with a brief summary regarding the Romans advancement in weapons, military organization, and important barricades. Also at the end is a very interesting story about how Rome never forgot the disgrace and humility that came with their city being sacked, and so each year on the anniversary of the battle they crucified guard dogs on the Capitoline Hill as Capitoline Geese watched seeing as their honking was the only call of warning.

1. 1,249 words
2. Gaul’s Sack Rome, exact title “Battle of the Allia”
3. I was unable to find aDisambiguation page.
4. The discussion page is a space where outsiders can voice their opinions and disagreements with the article. With this particular article there were questions regarding accurate dates, facts, and sufficient sources.
5. There have been 16 changes made to this particular article. The first being on November 25, 2006, and the last being June 2, 2008.
6. 3 external links are provided.
7. 3 references are provided.
8. There are no articles for further reading provided.

Regarding interest to the subject I would recommend this article. It gives a brief but precise account of this particular battle. Although with the lack of sources it is difficult to consider the information factual, if not reliable. With all that aside however the article will tell you what you need to know without watering it down in fluff.

Persian War and Greek Philosophy

The Persian War initially gave the impression of David verse Goliath. The Persian army outnumbered the Greeks 3 to 1 at any battle; including Marathon and Thermopylae. It was interesting to see the genius military strategy employed by the Athenian general Miltiades at the battle at Marathon. I have never heard of purposefully retreating in the center of the line in order to spread your opponents line thin and attacking their flank. I feel the risk reward factor in such a maneuver takes supreme confidence by the commander. You would think with such a monumental victory Miltiades would have become a more recognizable figure in Greek history. The movie "300" is an occurring theme in classmate’s blogs, and many students are disappointed in the many inaccuracies portrayed in the movie. I also agree that the movie emphasized fiction in the historical fiction genre; however after reading about the battle at Thermopylae the movie did a great job of portraying the bravery and tenacity of the Spartan soldiers. The Spartan soldiers could be compared to the modern day Navy Seals or Special Forces. Their fighting skills were far superior to any other city-state or empire at the time, and this of course could be attributed to their emphasis and focus on militarism in their culture. The story of how after Leonidas was killed the remaining Spartans fought their way to his body and carried him while fighting their way back to the main line. The trust and bond shared by those soldiers must have been unimaginable.
Much of what I know about Greek philosophy was learned in a high school history class, so you could say that while reading about the pre-Socratic philosophers of Miletus and the Sophist I was a little overwhelmed. It was interesting to see the progression of schooling from the Sophist to Plato and eventually the academies opened by both Plato and Aristotle. The Sophist movement reminded me of law school, and the ability of the students to talk and argue their way out of anything. With Socrates came the true evolution of thought and study. He revolutionized the way people thought, and approach the world. His dedication to his beliefs was so strong that he chose death over hypocrisy. As the years passed many great thinkers came after him including Plato and Aristotle, but little showed the dedication and true belief in what he was saying much like Socrates did. Aristotle faced also faced a charge of impiety, but was quick to flee and not face the music as they say. It’s ironic how Galileo and Aristotle shared similar beliefs, and like Aristotle when convicted Galileo recant his beliefs much like Aristotle might have done if in a similar situation.

Spartan Life and the Power of the Middle Class

While reading about Sparta I was initially shocked to hear about the timeline that the men followed. For many, life as a citizen did not even start until the age of 30, and to be participating on the council you had to be 60 years of age. I guess my initial understanding was that most individuals during this time period were lucky to reach the age of 30 let alone 60. I guess I was naïve to the fact that their quality of life was much more advanced then in the coming generations.
It was also interesting to see the similarities in the relationship between the helots and Spartans, and the slaves and American land owners. I do not condone slavery in anyway and I find it completely appalling and immoral. However the similarities between the Spartans and plantation owners can not be ignored. The system of life that was brought about due to slavery is almost identical. The slave population in America began to exceed that of their white counterparts in some areas, and in response measures had to be taken to if need be suppress a rebellion. In Sparta a similar thinking was involved, and with the slave population greatly outnumbering the Spartan population Sparta had to become a completely militaristic society. In both cases the economy of the nations was based completely on the production from the slaves. Both were utterly oppressive societies that in the end could never prosper due to the evil of slavery.
When talking about democracy Aristotle hit it right on the head when he said that the middle class held the power in a democracy. He goes on to say a city state with a strong middle class will prosper, because a city made up of masters and slaves is more likely to form dissension and fall apart. This again reminds me of the society we live in today; where the middle class is that buffer which ultimately decides much of the democratic process. You can see the genius of Aristotle now thousands of years later, because what he said is coming true today.