I was reading a fellow student's blog on the intellectual revolution and she posed a question about how intelligent it would be to compare our own technological explosion to the renaissance.  It's sort of interesting to think about.  To many of us now to live without computers and television and all of our little convinces would seem overly simplistic and in some cases barbaric.  I'm sure it was feelings like that that spawned the great awakening in the minds of early philosophers.  It's interesting to see that at some point, the human mind started to grasp exactly what it was we could accomplish, and look how much we've done!  Form morals, to politics and religion, to the way society interacts, we've completely overhauled our lives in the last 600 years.  

I thought it was neat how the author used the words "new human identity" to describe the thought process that went into the shifting of mass thought.  The idea of replacing the old line of thinking with a new, updated, better way of thinking truly pleases me, i feel like our own society has undergone it's own sort of shift in the human identity with the election of an african american president, and with approving the rights to gay marriage.  (i understand that the right to gay marriage was taken away, but i feel like at this point, it is a matter of months before prop 8 is overturned and homosexuals are given back their rights, i'm optimistic.  it is almost ridiculous to think that at this point in our society people are just going to lay back and accept being denied their basic rights. this is why i compare the two.)   

ANYWAY, i thoroughly enjoyed reading about the intellectual change that took place in society, i hope that human beings at as a whole wont stop evolving in this manner.  

The Renaissance-weekly post

I thoroughly enjoy the idea of modern artists trying to improve upon the past.  It seems that in art, there is the original, and the basic, and the first, and all we can do as artists is try and make the past into something different, but still relevant.  In art classes i always wondered who it was that discovered various mediums for art.  Take the oil paintings of flemmish artists, it was adopted by the italians and is still used today.  I'm still fascinated by the fact the the society we have now, art, religion, politics, are all affected by the past, and the foundation that was laid thousands of years ago. 

The experimentation with depth and lines and all the things that makes paintings beautiful also excites me.  in the art classes i've taken, they explained all the methods, i had no idea that the methods themselves were developed by italians so long ago.  

I was very pleased to read about how the artistic revolution took place. 

Over the summer i spent hours watching the Elizabeth movies and Other Boleyn Girl.  I always meant to look up the truth beyond Hollywood, but never got around to it, so i was pleased to see that we sort of cover that time period.  

These sections were some of the most interesting i read.  It seemed hard to believe that some of the events took place were real.  It seemed like a adventure story, complete with hidden alliances and kidnappings in the middle of the night.  Also, its never quite fun until there's an execution!  

I was sort of pleased at first to see the success of the radicals, but understood the disappointment the levellers felt when there was no drastic change.  That was, until, i read the section on Oliver Cromwell entering the debate with Parliament, then simply calling in his army and having them disband Parliament.  The man obviously had guts.  Imagine being able to just walk into a meeting hall and disband an institution that had been in effect for years and years.  Wow. Would've been more impressive still if he'd managed to find a parlimentary system that actually worked.  

Well, My head is just spinning trying to keep up with all the back and forth political changes.  No wonder there was so much unrest.  

Wikipedia- Martin Luther

This article is a very detailed account of the life of Martin Luther.  There are extensive amounts of resources.

1. 11,900

2. I searched Martin Luther, and turned up an article of the same name

3. Martin Luther diplomat, Martin Luther Musician, Martin Luther Film (1953)

4. There seems to be a disagreement about whether or not the page should be re-written, as it hadn't been edited for two years.  

5. Over 500, the latest revision was on November 16th 2008

6.none

7. 127

8. It gives a link to a page with hundreds of reference material 

This seems like it would be extremely helpful to anyone hoping to learn about Martin Luther.  The article itself is very long, and if you managed to read it, and were still unsatisfied, there is over 100 resources listed with links that you could explore.  Anyone researching Martin Luther should start here.  

I found myself continuously drawing comparisons between Martin Luther's Freedom of Christianity and Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail.  Obviously very different circumstances, but both wrote rather eloquently about their beliefs.  It's just my minds inability to ignore the similar names i guess, but still, sort of interesting to think about.  

I guess i've just got classic political literature on my mind.  When reading about the Levellers there were several quotes that i felt could have come straight from Emma Goldman's Anarchy and Other essays.  Goldman, in her essays tries to set the record straight against slander of the anarchists, and the Levellers do to, and they had kind of similar beliefs about the social system.  Obviously there are distinct differences in their teachings but this was once again a comparison i couldn't help but draw several times throughout reading the statement of the Levellers.  

The Schleitheim Confession was difficult for my to read for many reasons.  First and foremost i feel that my views on religion are made fairly obvious by my previous blog posts, and also the language itself can be hard to process, but it was mostly just the rules that people force themselves to follow, and the authority that some are vountarily given, that confuses me.  We see over and over again rules made by the church and the wars fought over religion, but it seems that no one realized that maybe they should just remove their religion from their politics.  still today, it plays such a big part.  

early modern europe

I was excited to start reading about the transition from medieval country, to socially and economically modern countries.  In the introduction, it states that there were major changes in education and science, as well as religion, but it seems that i may have missed the parts that did not only cover religion, if someone could point out to me where i missed those sections, it would be greatly appreciated.

The reformation- as i am urged in the reading to touch on this subject, I'd have to agree that perhaps the creation of new church was because of the failure of the catholic church.  it would be nearly impossible to create a religion that meets the needs of every single one of its members, which is probably why so many desired to branch off.  

I feel silly saying that had no idea what martin Luther was responsible for, it's interesting to find out that such a familiar name was actually the foundation for an entire religion.  The same would go for John Calvin, i had never even begun to think of how many people it took to spread religion.  And also, how religions can be so similar, but very simple little variations justify war.  

  

week 10

oh religion, how you make my mind spin.

as the cultures we've been studying have changed, i wondered where the rebellion against the church was going to come.  It made me smile that translating the text of the scriptures was illegal, and when they were translated, it was found that they were ridden with contradictions.  Yet another example of how the past corresponds to the present, authority figures were lying to keep us quiet thousands of years ago.  They still lie to cover their posteriors today.  

I found it strange the the church was irritated by the waldensians missionary procedure, it seems that the church would have wanted people to be attracted to religion.  I guess there will always be people that say, as far as religion goes, that their own beliefs are true and no variation can be accepted.  Obviously the followers of the variations were seen as heretics, but instead of causing trouble, why would the church just, use that method of teaching gospel to their advantage?

Was there ever a ruling party that wasn't in some way propelled by favors or power or greed?  Ever? Anyone?  Reading the Crises in the Medieval Church section, i couldn't help but try to recall a completely honest political party.  There sure isn't one now.

week 9

"Our own generation enjoys the legacy bequeathed to it by that which preceded it. We frequently know more, not because we have moved ahead by our own natural ability,  but because we are supported by the menial strength of others, and possess riches that we have inherited from our forefathers.  Benard of Clairvaux used to compare us to punt dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants.  He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature."

I love that quote.  It sent me on a mental tangent, sometimes i get cocky and I tend to believe I am the FIRST to feel things and the FIRST to have certain thoughts and no one has ever been in the same place or understood the things i do.. but it is only because of the great strides other people have made that i am allowed to progress and form new ideas.  I liked that.  Everything has been done before, and as depressing as that can sound, it also makes me feel slightly safe, humbling to remember...and probably important.

ANYWAY, I was pleased to see that around the 11th century people started thinking less about pillaging and fighting wars, and more about intellect and social organization.  Just a few sections ago we were reading about how men lived to fight in the days of Rome, and here we are reading about how students flocked to attend classes.  Such strides!

"Justice, both secular and divine, became the key to good government, peace, and security."  

It's interesting that secular law, and church were fighting over what was right and what was wrong so many years ago, and we continue to do so.  I also enjoyed reading about the transition of Christianity, from a strictly puritan standpoint, to the more familiar loving god, humanity in Christianity religion we have now.  I'd been waiting for it.

Also the thought that status was more important than wealth.  still true.  

I was also excited to read about the black death.  I've had classes before where it was briefly explained or mentioned, but never in great details.  The two passages were fairly terrible, it would be interesting to know whether they know for sure there were two plagues at work and if they were the same disease fitted to effect different parts of the body, or if it was two seperate diseases that happened to be rampant at the same time. 

Kind of funny how the educated men said that thinking positive thoughts would help drive the plague away.  People are willing to believe all sorts of crazy things.

all in all it was a very interesting section this week.

I like how occasionally, events from hundreds of years ago tie back to present day.  Interesting that Hungary is now a horse-breeding place, that originated from fierce, horse-breeding warriors.  Also, same sort of idea, Normandy, land of Northman.  

I was wondering whether or not we were going to touch on the vikings, It's interesting to find that the name given to the group of raiders isn't quite accurate.  Despite the many raids, without them, culture in France, England, and Russia would've been different.  

I thoroughly enjoyed the "Advances in Agricultural Technology" section.  It's easy to read over the sections detailing the daily lives of peasants, and not even truly think about it, since we're so removed from it.  Looking at how humans have progressed blows my mind.  Between lack of resources, fertilizer, pesticides, it's a wonder they were able to grow anything at all.

Wikipedia-Section 2

I chose to re-visit Charlemagne.  The article i found is very thorough.  It details Charlemagne's life, including alledged illegetimate children and all of his wives.  It also seems to cover just about every battle Charlemagne had to deal with, overall i would say the article is one i would recommend to someone that was interested, but only if they had a decent amount of time to kill, seeing as it's so long.

1.9515

2. I searched Charlemagne

3. Charles the Great, Charlemagne Peralte, Charlemagne Tower,  Manno Charlemagne, Charlemagne the band...it literally goes on and on

4.It says there isn't a talk page for Charlemagne, then offered me the option to start one, which i politely declined.

5.Over 500 revisions, the most recent being October 10th

6. seven

7. 33

8. There are not further reading options.

Carolingian

Well it seems that no matter what time period we read about, there is a lack of good, true leaders.  Thank goodness we live in a time where our leaders are always trustworthy, competent and fair..............

just kidding.

Uh, anyway, i was excited to read about Charlemagne.  It was nice to be able to read at least one section that involved a true leader, living long enough to accomplish something. Why did the Saxons keep rebelling?!  It seems like the brought ruination upon themselves by continuously denying the orders that they were given.  I mean, i don't like to see people defeated, or chieftains murdered, but come on.  Also, if Charlemagne was so intensely worried about the Saxons, why did he keep pestering them?  It seems that no one was ever really interested in peace, only postponing conflict.

I didn't know before reading this, that Charlemagne was a Christian crusader, and i must express confusion at a religion like Christianity forcing beliefs upon people at sword point.  

Again, as history repeats itself, i could not help comparing the people like Roland to the Kamizakes.  Why are people so eager to sacrifice themselves for their leaders?  Maybe it's because i'm not drawn to religion, it just seems strange the lengths that people will go to in order to preserve their beliefs.  

Medieval Europe 1

I would have liked to read more about how the transition from a multi-god loving people turned into a single god loving people, and if that Christianity that was intact then, was the same sort of religion one would expect to see now.  i guess it would be safe to assume probably not, however, the religion has stayed intact so long, it'd be interesting to see how it progressed.

After reading so much about Rome, it saddens me slightly to find that instead of the misleading "Fall of Rome" there was just a steady decline.  It seems that with such a rich history, Rome would be deserving of a rich, dramatic end.  

Ha, well looks like there is a section on religion, sad and strange that a religion was spread through persecutions and what was probably violence to those that opposed it.

Thank god America cannot decree that our families be bound to soil for life, what a horrific way to help stimulate the economy.

week 5

First and foremost, kudos to the Romans for giving woman at least a little bit of freedom. It was a great stride in society for there to be no segregation for the ladies. Despite not being able to participate in public life, woman were able to own businesses and own controls.  So long ago!  It's also neat that divorce was so easy to acquire, less than a hundred years ago divorce was looked down upon in our society, so it appears that the Romans were slightly ahead of their time.  

It seems that if family was the center of roman life, the father wouldn't want to exercise his power so heavily that his son would want to poison him.  Also strange that a culture that seems to be at least slightly liberal for it's time would allow the father to sell of his children and murder his wife.  Divorce is allowed, however adultery, at least for the woman, was punishable by death.  Strange moral compasses.  Also abortion?  We just barely made that legal in the last century.  

Also, interesting that liberal arts in education and medicine being practiced as a career were introduced so early in history.  Rome was very advanced, they had a government, census, taxes, medicine, various types of education, it's so strange to think of such a developed civilization so long ago.  I sure wish Boise would provide me with bread, wine and entertainment.  

It's unfortunate that Domitian followed Titus, it seems that for Rome, every time there is something good, such as a good ruler, it is followed by something or someone who is troublesome. 

It seems to me that it is a good idea, that the "five good emperors had"  occasionally co-ruling.    

week 4

There was a lot of material to cover this week, so i'll just touch on some of the parts i enjoyed the most.

The Punic Wars- Despite Rome's initial ineptitude at sea, you have to respect the romans for being able to adapt in times of war.  The corvus was genius.   However,  with the introduction of Hannibal into the war, i thought Rome would fall for sure.  It's strange that Hannibal, after defeat and exile sort of just faded out.

Tiberious Gracchus-Why was he opposed by the senate so intensely?  If they were going to be compensated for their estates, and the financing was there, then why was he troubled so much?   And why did he start the trend of violence in politics?  Also, It's good that there were politicians like Gaius that were willing to put forth positive acts for the people.

Also

Wikipedia

1. 8220 words
2. "The Persian Wars" was my search term, the article is called Greco-Persian Wars
3.There isn't a link for this article
4. The article had to be re-written at one point because it was poorly executed. Some believe the article should be split up into several parts. It's rated B-class.
5.This article has been edited over 500 times, the first article was written in September, 2003, the latest revision was September 1st, 2008.
6. There are two external links
7. There is not a references section, however there are 156 entries under the "notes" section
8.There are 17 further reading opportunities.

This article covers everything from the Ionian revolt, to the peace of Callias, it even has tactical advantages and goes into considerable detail about every single aspect of the war. I would recommend it to someone that has to do serious research on a topic, but not for someone that simply wants a summery of the Persian war. It is very long, and can be tedious.

week 3

While reading this i was initially confused by the roman-etruscan-tarquin conflicts. Were the Tarquins and the Etruscans related somehow? Or Were the Tarquins running rome prior to the Etruscan takeover? I guess it's a small details, considering the Etruscans eventually fell to ruin, but i just wanted to become clear on that. While reading this week's passages i found myself sectioning off my notes into "intelligent" and "unintelligent" sections. Of course, i've never run an empire, never even attempted to really, but i still spotted some things that struck me as good ideas. I thought it was a good idea that there was at least some sort of check balance system in the early monarchy. When i first read about the sort of caste system, with the patricians and the plebeians, i thought it would eventually turn into a civil war, so another intelligent thing to do, was surely, even if slowly, give rights to the plebeians.
Later on, when the Consul, quaestor, censor government was instated, i was impressed by the fact they had some sort of constitution, my impression soon turned sour, when the Consul was described. What happens if the two in charge disagree or dislike each-other? It seems that would be a sort of problematic setup. Also, with the Censors becoming so powerful, and taking bribes and so on, why didn't the government put a hold on their power?
I do have to give kudos to Rome for promptly rebuilding after getting burned down, and for eventually gaining control over italy. It was also a big fat entry in the intelligent category to give rights to the states they took-over.

week 2

If someone could clarify for me what exactly the Oracle as Delphi is, that would be great. It is referenced often in mythology and a few times in the reading but i have always been confused as to whether or not it was a specific person, or a group of people, or some sort of deity that somehow manifested and spoke to the masses.

Initially i just felt bad for the Greeks. Although conquered, they had a relatively comfortable life under Croesus's rule. As long as they payed their taxes, they were free to just sort of live their lives. And then hell broke loose, and Persia had to conquer the medes. It's no wonder the greeks were not fond of Cyrus, i only wish that their attempts at revolution had succeeded. I would have probably attempted to get out of town, or sailed to Italy. I didn't initially understand Darius, if he was so lenient and generous, why did everyone want to revolt? Why did Aristagoras try to take over? I'm glad he failed, and a lot of greek cities gained back some temporary freedom, but i felt myself constantly asking: What was the point of that? It must just be the desire for power, but still it seems that a lot of these plans set forth by sudden tyrants or rulers just crumbled and fail.

It also sucks, that Athens eventually lost her empire, i agree that it was detrimental, because a united nation seems to work better than lots of little independant city-states with a uniform agreement on what the rules should be.

I felt the Peloponnesian war was very important, it brought about the disillusionment about gods. I think it's healthier for humanity for a whole to realize that it's the men that decide how life goes, and not some absent Deity.

week 1

Upon reading the orgins of democracy, i found it very strange that every citizen had a certain duty to uphold, and if they did not uphold that duty, they were thought of as inferior.  This probably seems so strange to me, because here, in america, it is sort of common to have a negative attitude toward government, especially with President Bush in office, and aside from the taxes that every citizen to required to pay, no one is required to do much for the government, some people don't even vote!

Also, another thing that struck me as awkward, and sort of unfair, is that the men were not supposed to hang around with their wives after marriage, they dined in men's clubs instead.  Where are the women's clubs?  What are the ladies supposed to do for fun, hmm?  

hi,

this is my first post