Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Question 10:
I feel like I really did learn a lot this semester. There were things about Alexander the Great that I went home and told my parents about, and I never do that kind of stuff with school work. A lot of things that we learned this semester have really stuck with me. I will never forget the nastiest jobs because we talked about it a lot and it was probably one of the grossest things I ever had to watch. I don't think I will forget about the Third Crusade because we made those children's books that were actually a lot of fun to make! There were a lot of things we did this semester that will keep me from forgetting a lot of things we covered.
Question 9:
The Renaissance was a time of rebirth with the people, literature, art, religions, theature, and bunch of other things. There were many great philiosophers, artists, and writers that came from the Renaissance, but my idea of an ideal Renaissance man is William Shakespeare. I consider him to be the ideal Renaissance man because he wrote plays and other forms of literature, and he performed those plays on major theaters at the time where many people came to see them. The Renaissance was a time of class, and nothing was classier than going to see a good play at the Globe Theater were Shakespeare performed his works.
I think that his poetry with all of the sonnets he wrote made him a great writer, and the extremely popular plays that he wrote and performed made him an even more all around Renaissance man. He was able to write plays that ended well and were light-hearted, like A MidSummer Night's Dream, which ended with a good happy ending. He was also able to write more serious plays like Romeo and Juliet, where both of the lovers end up dead. This shows that he was a well rounded writer, and literature was a prime component of the Renaissance.
Finally, the way he wrote about love made him a true Renaissance man as well. This time of rebirth and happiness was also a time of love, and writing about love made him a true part of this era. Most of his plays and poems had some sort of love aspect in it, even if it ended in a sad or unexpected way.
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/
I think that his poetry with all of the sonnets he wrote made him a great writer, and the extremely popular plays that he wrote and performed made him an even more all around Renaissance man. He was able to write plays that ended well and were light-hearted, like A MidSummer Night's Dream, which ended with a good happy ending. He was also able to write more serious plays like Romeo and Juliet, where both of the lovers end up dead. This shows that he was a well rounded writer, and literature was a prime component of the Renaissance.
Finally, the way he wrote about love made him a true Renaissance man as well. This time of rebirth and happiness was also a time of love, and writing about love made him a true part of this era. Most of his plays and poems had some sort of love aspect in it, even if it ended in a sad or unexpected way.
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/
Question 8:
Romaneque Images:
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/CrypteBayeux_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral.JPG/800px-CrypteBayeux_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral.JPG |
.jpg/800px-Nivelles_JPG00_(6).jpg) |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Nivelles_JPG00_(6).jpg/800px-Nivelles_JPG00_(6).jpg |
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Schoengrabern1a.JPG/800px-Schoengrabern1a.JPG Gothic Images |
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Bruxelles_Notre-Dame_du_Sablon.jpg/449px-Bruxelles_Notre-Dame_du_Sablon.jpg |
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Reims_Cathedrale_Notre_Dame_interior_002.JPG/450px-Reims_Cathedrale_Notre_Dame_interior_002.JPG |
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Autel_cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-%C3%89tienne,_Toulouse.jpg/400px-Autel_cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-%C3%89tienne,_Toulouse.jpg |
Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express many different and opposite ways of religious theology. The Romanesque time was an era or protection and judgment, but the Gothic era was full of light and happiness. The different times led to different ways of living and theology; thus the two different eras has different architecture to base how the time was to their buildings.
The Romanesque time was a time filled with invaders trying to attack land and take over the Roman Empire. This period began in the 9th century and ended in the 11th century. The churches and cathedrals at this time had many small windows so invaders couldn’t break in and the church and everyone in it was more safe. The churches at this time were considered to be more of a protection area rather than a place of worship because of that stage in time. The Romanesque architecture also included many buildings with arched curves in them, also to protect from invaders. This time in the Roman Empire was a time of fear and protection, rather than the light from the Gothic times.
The Gothic times in the Roman Empire began in the 12th century and ended in the 14th century. The architecture was much different in these times that the Romanesque era. The cathedrals had huge windows filled with stain glass. This time was a time of light and stability. Since there were much less invaders, the architects were able to make windows and churches larger and brighter with stain glassed windows. This time in the Empire was full of happiness and faith because invaders were gone, and they could live happily and be more religious.
Question 7:
Part 1:
The Black Death started by a bacteria that was carried by rats wandering through out Europe. It spread very quickly and killed people almost instantly; therefore, it caused a lot of panic over the people of Europe. It was highly contagious, so you could get it without even being close to the person or people that had it. This spread meant that a lot of people were going to die in a very short time, thanks to the awful disease.
Part 2:
I am a physcians at the time of the Black Death. I have been called in to inform everybody about how serious this is and what it can do to your health. To begin, this disease is VERY contagious and spreads very quickly. It kills many people in one area, and then moves to the next area like a wave of mass destruction. It begins with tumors on the armpits or thighs called gavoccioli. Gavoccioli begins to spread itself across your entire body, and black spots begin to form on your arms, thighs, or other places, quickly growing in size. These are the major sign that death from this disease is coming. A lot of people died within three days of receiving the plague. Since it is very contagious, you do not want to get near it as a physician; it is very hard to treat.
Part 3:
If a disease like the Black Death were to occur in the United States, people would get very panicked much like they did with the swine flu, only on a larger scale. It is a definite that the technology and medicine today is much more advanced than it was back then, so there is a possibility that scientists could create a vaccine that would protect you from getting the plague or erase it from you when you receive it.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/boccacio2.html
The Black Death started by a bacteria that was carried by rats wandering through out Europe. It spread very quickly and killed people almost instantly; therefore, it caused a lot of panic over the people of Europe. It was highly contagious, so you could get it without even being close to the person or people that had it. This spread meant that a lot of people were going to die in a very short time, thanks to the awful disease.
Part 2:
I am a physcians at the time of the Black Death. I have been called in to inform everybody about how serious this is and what it can do to your health. To begin, this disease is VERY contagious and spreads very quickly. It kills many people in one area, and then moves to the next area like a wave of mass destruction. It begins with tumors on the armpits or thighs called gavoccioli. Gavoccioli begins to spread itself across your entire body, and black spots begin to form on your arms, thighs, or other places, quickly growing in size. These are the major sign that death from this disease is coming. A lot of people died within three days of receiving the plague. Since it is very contagious, you do not want to get near it as a physician; it is very hard to treat.
Part 3:
If a disease like the Black Death were to occur in the United States, people would get very panicked much like they did with the swine flu, only on a larger scale. It is a definite that the technology and medicine today is much more advanced than it was back then, so there is a possibility that scientists could create a vaccine that would protect you from getting the plague or erase it from you when you receive it.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/boccacio2.html
Question 6:
Part 1:
Part 2:
To Whom This May Concern:Hello, my name is Saladin and I am the Muslim ruler for the Crusade. I don't think that the Crusades are just for many reasons especially because the Christians do not realize that our prophet, Muhammad, descended into heaven. This is also where we have our Temple of Jerusalem where we worship Muhammad. The Christians think that they can walk all over us and the Holy Land because their leader Jesus lived, died, and ascended there. Us Muslims personally think that Muhammad is just as important as Jesus, and he should get the same, if not more recognition than Jesus.
I have talked with my army and government about this, and we decided that we could make a peace treaty with the Christians so we can both pray to our prophets or "lords" peacefully. If this does not work, we will prepare ourselves to attack the Christians for full power over the Holy Land again.
Sincerely,
Question 5:
“Is it fair to say the United States is the modern day equivalent of the Roman Empire?”
The United States is a lot like a modern day Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was thousands of years ago, but in a sense they are very similar. The similiarities between the Roman empire and the United states are having good emporers and bad emporers, governers and presidents in our case; being one of the most important and influential areas of land at the time; and they both have and had a lot of fighting going on inside and with their empires and countries.
The United States has been around for quite a long time now; and other the years, there have been some good representatives in our government, and some not so good ones. A good example of a very bad government representative at this time in history is US Representative Anthony Weiner. He might be a good political man, but he was recently caught cheating on his wife by sending inappropriate pictures online to younger women. (Noveck). This is just one of the many not so great Representatives that the United States has had, but ancient Rome also had their bad emperors. Caligula is a good example of a bad emperor of ancient Rome. He was a very selfish ruler who only thought of himself. He executed many people just because he wanted to. (Caligula Biography) This is a good way of how the United States and Rome are alike.
Next, the two times are a lot alike because they have a lot of fighting inside of the country or empire. If you look at the newspaper article, you can see that there is so much violence and so many bad things and bad people in the United States (Rogers). It is crazy to see how lunatic people are, and how cops have to fight with millions of people every day to save this country. Ancient Rome was much like this because the bad emporers and the soldiers that followed these rulers did harsh things to the people in their empire just for the sake of doing it. If you take the emperor Nero for example, you see what an insanely awful person he was. He confiscated senator's homes and properties, over taxed the empire, and played the fiddle while Rome burned to the ground. (Nero Biography). This man is a good example of how insane some people are, and there are people like him today; maybe not as powerful, but still insane just like Nero.
The last way that they are alike is that they are and were both very influential in their time range. At the moment, the United States is responsible for trade, new technology, and different ways and lifestyles of people. Even though the United States is having some troubles with jobs and not having enough money, we are still at the top of the money making and distributing scale in the world. (Rugaber). This article shows President Barack Obama with the title saying “Nation should not panic.” When you think of it, Americans are lucky to be in the position they are now instead of being like the starving in Africa. Rome was a lot like the US in this sense because for a long time they were the “top of the world” empire. When you think of ancient Rome, you think of all of the good things that happened at that time like the growth of the republic and the magnificent buildings created, even though a lot of damage was done in this time period. (Roman Empire).
The United States is much like the Roman Empire in the sense that a lot of things have gone wrong in this country, but America manages to get through it all and stay on top and continue to be a very wealthy country. Even though ancient Rome and the US have negative things like bad emperors, and fighting going on inside of their country or empire; the Roman empire was and the United States is still on the top as far as wealth and power come.
Works Cited:
Noveck, Jocelyn. (2011, June 8). Is sexting cheating? Times Daily. pp 1A, 7A
Rugaber, Christopher S. (2011, June 8). Obama on US economy, Nation should 'not panic' Opelika-Auburn News. pp. 1A, 6A
Rogers, Lisa. (2011, June 8). Manhunt ends with one in custody. The Gadsden Times. pp. 1A, 7A
Caligula. (2011). Biography.com. Retrieved 02:03, Jun 8 2011 from http://www.biography.com/articles/Caligula-
Nero. (2011). Biography.com. Retrieved 02:03, Jun 8 2011 from http://www.biography.com/articles/Nero-9421713
Question 4:
The difference between Herodotus and Thucydides is that Herodotus writes everything down and didn't make a direct opinion on it. Thucydides on the other hand gather all available evidence on what he thought was true, and he shapes his presentation to emphasize what he thought was true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/nyregion/antiterrorism-registry-ends-but-its-effects-remain.html?ref=sept112001 This link is more like Thucydides's way of writing because the writer is taking more of a side and standpoint, rather than explaining both sides without an opinion. In this article, the writer is being more opinionated about the Muslim and Arab immigrants coming into the United States, and even though they are the same race as a lot of the terrorist, they are not all terrorists. The writer was taking his stance on his story and he used people that terrorism deportation and other things along those lines as his backup.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/nyregion/conde-nast-publications.html?ref=sept112001
This link is a more Herodotus way of writing because even though there is not a lot of information on this particular link, there is no opinion being spoken here. There is also no writing trying to persuade people to think a certain way about a situation. Herodotus style writing is strictly black and white kind of writing, nothing about how you feel about this and that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/nyregion/antiterrorism-registry-ends-but-its-effects-remain.html?ref=sept112001 This link is more like Thucydides's way of writing because the writer is taking more of a side and standpoint, rather than explaining both sides without an opinion. In this article, the writer is being more opinionated about the Muslim and Arab immigrants coming into the United States, and even though they are the same race as a lot of the terrorist, they are not all terrorists. The writer was taking his stance on his story and he used people that terrorism deportation and other things along those lines as his backup.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/nyregion/conde-nast-publications.html?ref=sept112001
This link is a more Herodotus way of writing because even though there is not a lot of information on this particular link, there is no opinion being spoken here. There is also no writing trying to persuade people to think a certain way about a situation. Herodotus style writing is strictly black and white kind of writing, nothing about how you feel about this and that.
Question 3:
The Greeks believed that when you died, your soul was taken away from your body like a puff of wind. They then prepared the body for burial. They were very strict about the time taken for this, and thought that if you didn't take your time on it it was an insult to human dignity. There were three parts of the burial ceremony used done by a woman of the deceased family. These parts were heprothesis(laying out of the body), theekphora (funeral procession), and the interment of the body or cremated remains of the deceased. The body was then dressed and put on a high bed in his or her house.
The Egyptian used the art of Ka when people died. The deceased have a soul and the soul stays with you even during death. They take out the insides of the deceased body, mummify it , and then put it in a tomb and put symbols of what they like to do to define themselves. Soul eventually goes up and gets judged and would weigh your heart to a feather. Lighter than a feather-can go to afterlife.
Egyptian and Greek ways of dealing with afterlife are not very similar, but they have some aspects that relate to each other. For example, they both dress the deceased body and place them into a box where they are preserved. The Greek people bathed the deceased in oils and was more classy about the ways of the ritual; where the Egyptian people just ripped out their intestines and mummified the body.
The Egyptian used the art of Ka when people died. The deceased have a soul and the soul stays with you even during death. They take out the insides of the deceased body, mummify it , and then put it in a tomb and put symbols of what they like to do to define themselves. Soul eventually goes up and gets judged and would weigh your heart to a feather. Lighter than a feather-can go to afterlife.
Egyptian and Greek ways of dealing with afterlife are not very similar, but they have some aspects that relate to each other. For example, they both dress the deceased body and place them into a box where they are preserved. The Greek people bathed the deceased in oils and was more classy about the ways of the ritual; where the Egyptian people just ripped out their intestines and mummified the body.
Question 2:
Part 1:
The Agricultural Revoultion was very important to the development of cities because before this time, people were moving a lot with the animals that they wanted to hunt, and they didn't have one place to stay. This revolution brought the first real settlement in one area, where the people in this area could trade with each other for food, plants, clothes, and anything else they needed in order to live. The idea of settling down and trading within a group led to the development of towns and eventually cities, which were built in the same idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
Part 2:
View Agricultural Revolution in a larger map
Part 3:
BREAKING NEWS! Agricultural system in the United States falling apart!
There has been a lot of talk recently saying that the ways of agriculture in the US are beginning to fall apart, and we are going back to the ways of ancient Neolithic times where we were all fending for ourselves. Farmers are outraged with the loss of respect citizens around our country, and are beginning to not sell their crops and food to grocery stores and people at farmers markets. It is beginning to trend nationwide as well!
If the agricultural system collapses in America, we would all have to grow our own plants in order to have grains, fruits, and vegetables. Also, we would all have to hunt for meat in order to get enough protein in our bodies to function with our day to day lives. If this is to happen, the government would lose a lot of money from grocery stores and we could fall into a deeper depression than we already are! Terrible things could occur from the fall of the agricultural system, let's hope this trend doesn't occur. If it does, we could all suffer from this across the globe!
The Agricultural Revoultion was very important to the development of cities because before this time, people were moving a lot with the animals that they wanted to hunt, and they didn't have one place to stay. This revolution brought the first real settlement in one area, where the people in this area could trade with each other for food, plants, clothes, and anything else they needed in order to live. The idea of settling down and trading within a group led to the development of towns and eventually cities, which were built in the same idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
Part 2:
View Agricultural Revolution in a larger map
Part 3:
BREAKING NEWS! Agricultural system in the United States falling apart!
There has been a lot of talk recently saying that the ways of agriculture in the US are beginning to fall apart, and we are going back to the ways of ancient Neolithic times where we were all fending for ourselves. Farmers are outraged with the loss of respect citizens around our country, and are beginning to not sell their crops and food to grocery stores and people at farmers markets. It is beginning to trend nationwide as well!
If the agricultural system collapses in America, we would all have to grow our own plants in order to have grains, fruits, and vegetables. Also, we would all have to hunt for meat in order to get enough protein in our bodies to function with our day to day lives. If this is to happen, the government would lose a lot of money from grocery stores and we could fall into a deeper depression than we already are! Terrible things could occur from the fall of the agricultural system, let's hope this trend doesn't occur. If it does, we could all suffer from this across the globe!
Monday, May 23, 2011
Worst Job in the Middle Age
Watching the video on the worst jobs in history, my idea of the worst job would definitely be the fuller. A fuller is the person who takes the wool from sheep and go from household to household receiving their urine. The urine makes the cloth soft and brings the wool together. You would have to stop on the wool covered in urine for 7 to 8 hours at a time. When you are done stomping on the urine filled wool, the cloth is all brought together and then it is distributed to make clothes for knights and other fighters. I consider this the worse job because it involves you stepping in someone else's pee for 7-8 hours every day. Pee smells so bad too! I could probably throw up if I ever had to do this job, just thinking about it makes me sick. I am so glad that I was not alive during the Middle Ages so I don't have to stomp on pee as my job.
Friday, May 20, 2011
History of My Freshman Year
This year, Meredith became a freshman at the John Carroll School. Meredith started school at the end of August, playing junior varsity soccer. For the first quarter, Meredith got average grades; she didn’t expect some of her classes to be as hard as they actually were. She decided that she was going to work harder in school and sports. Closer to the end of the soccer season, Meredith got moved up to Varsity soccer, and received a varsity letter for it. She also picked up her grades receiving Second Honors for the second quarter and the Improvement Award. Meredith enjoyed a really successful soccer season as a freshman, with her team making the semi-finals against Archbishop Spalding in the last minute.
As winter came around, Meredith played Varsity Indoor Soccer with a lot of her friends from the regular soccer season. Indoor soccer was much more challenging for her, but she was able to become a better player with her foot skills because of it. Her soccer team ended up making it to the championship game against Maryvale at the DuBurn’s stadium in Baltimore. The game was tough, and her team was not able to push through. They unfortunately lost in the championship game. As for academics in the winter, Meredith really picked up her grades. She again received Second Honors in the third quarter. Meredith put equal time into sports and athletics; therefore she was successful at both in this season.
As the spring comes around, Meredith was very excited to start the lacrosse season, since it is her favorite sport. She was lucky enough to be one of the three freshmen that made varsity lacrosse at John Carroll, which is known for their outstanding lacrosse team. After a lot of team drama and bad things happening towards her team, they were still able to come together and play great lacrosse. They ranked fourth place in their conference before playoffs, which landed them a first round bye. In the quarter finals, they played against Notre Dame Prep, a very prestigious school for their lacrosse team. They had beaten them earlier in the regular season, but this was where it really mattered. After an hour of tough lacrosse, every girl on the field giving it there all, they came out unsuccessful and lost the game by one in the last minutes. The team was devastated, but they managed to play so well even in the worst circumstances. As for academics in the fourth quarter, Meredith is working hard for First Honors, which she is very close to receiving.
Meredith has met so many new people on the fields and just in school that she will serve long lasting friendships with. She had the ability to play varsity sports, which gave her the ability to meet upperclassmen and have amazing coaches to make her better along the way. She will never forget her freshman year, but she hopes for even more success to come her way she gets older.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Don't Tell The Aliens We're Here, Stephen Hawking Says; They Might Not Be Friendly Response
I don't think that we should go out into space searching for aliens, just like what Stephen Hawking says. It is far too dangerous to try to come in contact with aliens. We don't know what they are like, they could be very powerful and be able to kill our astronauts, and then possibly take over the Earth. I am not saying this will definitely be the outcome of coming in contact with aliens, but it could be. We have to be cautious of how powerful they could actually be. This is why I don't think we should go around searching for aliens, we don't know who they are and what they have the ability to do.
Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/aliens_stephen_hawking.html
Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/aliens_stephen_hawking.html
Friday, April 29, 2011
Week 8 Final Draft
How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?
Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express many different and opposite ways of religious theology. The Romanesque time was an era or protection and judgment, but the Gothic era was full of light and happiness. The different times led to different ways of living and theology; thus the two different eras has different architecture to base how the time was to their buildings.
The Romanesque time was a time filled with invaders trying to attack land and take over the Roman Empire. This period began in the 9th century and ended in the 11th century. The churches and cathedrals at this time had many small windows so invaders couldn’t break in and the church and everyone in it was more safe (see figure 1). The churches at this time were considered to be more of a protection area rather than a place of worship because of that stage in time. The Romanesque architecture also included many buildings with arched curves in them, also to protect from invaders (see figure 2). This time in the Roman Empire was a time of fear and protection, rather than the light from the Gothic times.
The Gothic times in the Roman Empire began in the 12th century and ended in the 14th century. The architecture was much different in these times that the Romanesque era. The cathedrals had huge windows filled with stain glass (see figure 3). This time was a time of light and stability. Since there were much less invaders, the architects were able to make windows and churches larger and brighter with stain glassed windows (see figure 4). This time in the Empire was full of happiness and faith because invaders were gone, and they could live happily and be more religious.
A huge difference between the Romanesque architecture and the Gothic architecture is the height and light factors. The Romanesque times were all about protection, so the ability to be dark and fit in tiny spaces was very important (see figure 5). They did not care about how it looked per say, they were more interested in keeping invaders away and people alive by protection. The Gothic times was all about the light of God and reaching high spaces being closer with God. The cathedrals and churches were very open and bright, letting in the light from God (see figure 6). They were interested in being closer with God, since they were at a good point of living at the time.
The images show that there is a very different style of building and architect at the different stages of the Roman Empire. The way that live is being lived and anything bad happening to the people or empire is expressed through the ways of the buildings. The Romanesque time was sad and judgmental, so the churches are dark and low; but the gothic times was filled with lights and high open buildings because it was a good time in the empire.
Apendix:
Figure 1-
Figure 2-
Figure 3-
Figure 4- Cathedral Notre-Dame de Reims. (n.d.). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Figure 5-
Figure 6-
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Week 8 Draft
How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?
The Romanesque time was a time filled with invaders trying to attack land and take over the Roman Empire. This period began in the 9th century and ended in the 11th century. The churches and cathedrals at this time had many small windows so invaders couldn’t break in and the church and everyone in it was more safe (see figure 1). The churches at this time were considered to be more of a protection area rather than a place of worship because of that stage in time. The Romanesque architecture also included many buildings with arched curves in them, also to protect from invaders (see figure 2). This time in the Roman Empire was a time of fear and protection, rather than the light from the Gothic times.
The Gothic times in the Roman Empire began in the 12th century and ended in the 14th century. The architecture was much different in these times that the Romanesque era. The cathedrals had huge windows filled with stain glass (see figure 3). This time was a time of light and stability. Since there were much less invaders, the architects were able to make windows and churches larger and brighter with stain glassed windows (see figure 4). This time in the Empire was full of happiness and faith because invaders were gone, and they could live happily and be more religious.
A huge difference between the Romanesque architecture and the Gothic architecture is the height and light factors. The Romanesque times were all about protection, so the ability to be dark and fit in tiny spaces was very important (see figure 5). They did not care about how it looked per say, they were more interested in keeping invaders away and people alive by protection. The Gothic times was all about the light of God and reaching high spaces being closer with God. The cathedrals and churches were very open and bright, letting in the light from God (see figure 6). They were interested in being closer with God, since they were at a good point of living at the time.
The images show that there is a very different style of building and architect at the different stages of the Roman Empire. The way that live is being lived and anything bad happening to the people or empire is expressed through the ways of the buildings. The Romanesque time was sad and judgmental, so the churches are dark and low; but the gothic times was filled with lights and high open buildings because it was a good time in the empire.
Apendix:
Figure 1-
Figure 2-
Figure 3-
Figure 4- Cathedral Notre-Dame de Reims. (n.d.). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Figure 5-
Figure 6-
Friday, April 15, 2011
Weekly 7
Did the Roman Empire 'decline and fall' or did it evolve into something new?
Rome as a whole, dealt with a lot during its long reign of power. They took over many land areas, tried some different forms of government, had a very successful military, and had a lot of emperors that did both good and bad for the empire. Many emperors changed the ways of Roman living, but as a new government called the tetrarchy formed, the Roman Empire split and it was all downhill from there. The Roman Empire dealing with a lot of good times and some falls during its long era of power was able to make it around a bad time and make something good out of it. The Roman Empire did eventually fall apart completely so the empire was completely over and left in ruins because of bad emperors, religious problems, and because of the barbarians that took over the empire.
Rome began its hardship and eventual fall of their empire when Diocletian started the new government called tetrarchy. “The stability of this system suffered greatly after Diocletian and Maximian retired from office. Constantine (the son of Constantius) emerged from the ensuing power struggles as sole emperor of a reunified Rome in 324. He moved the Roman capital to the Greek city of Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople.”(History.com 2). This quote perfectly describes what bad things the tetrarchy eventually led to. The empire was back to having people fight for sole power like what happened in ancient times with Rome and other empires that also eventually fell. Constantine was not a good leader because upset a lot of people that should not have been upset. He moved the Roman capital to the city of Rome which was very historical, to a Greek city which he named after himself. Constantine was looking to be remembered as a leader who could take control and create a new capital for his empire, but he was just hurting the already weakened empire. The fall of Rome was not because of the tetrarchy; instead it was the leaders who had control over the tetrarchy who made many large mistakes, like Constantine.
Religious mistakes from poor leaders also had a lot to do with the fall of Rome. “Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country,” (Gibbon). As Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the people began to outrage. Christianity, not long before this time, was considered illegal to the empire. Christian people were even persecuted for being Christian because they were stubborn and did not follow the laws that were set for religions throughout the empire. It made no sense for a religion, years before that frowned upon, to be the officially religion of the empire no matter what any emperor said. Religion was definitely one of the larger areas of complaints which eventually lead to the fall of an admirable empire.
Lastly, the Roman Empire fell because Barbarians were taking over the land without any control. “Cold, poverty, and a life of danger and fatigue, fortify the strength and courage of Barbarians. In every age they have oppressed the polite and peaceful nations of China, India, and Persia, who neglected, and still neglect, to counterbalance these natural powers by the resources of military art,” (Gibbon). Barbarians are uncivilized people sometimes called savages. They are strong fighters, but they do not know how to have that mental sense of fighting. They are just strictly physical. The barbarian people wanted war with the Romans, and invading their land was the best that they could do against the large empire at the time. As the Romans were trying to build up their weakening empire again, the Barbarians came and invaded their land which led to many battles and fights. The Roman people, in the end, could not defend themselves or their empire, which is the last reason why the Roman Empire fell.
Bad emperors who make many mistakes in the reign can lead to the fall of any empire. Constantine was an overall average emperor, but he made a lot of little mistakes which led to big impacts on the Roman Empire, like the change of the capital and religion. Selfish emperors only weaken and empire; and in this case, a selfish emperor destroyed an empire. In conclusion, the Roman Empire did fall because of the mistakes of the Roman people and leaders at the time, religious problems, and finally being attacked by the Barbarians. The Roman Empire was not able to evolve itself this time; it had fallen and was not ever going to be the strong empire that it once was.
Works Cited:
Ancient Rome, (2011). In Decline and Disintegration. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2011, from
Gibbon, E. (n.d.). Medieval Sourcebook: Gibbon: The Fall of the Roman Empire .FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Rough Draft of Week 7 Weekly
Did the Roman Empire 'decline and fall' or did it evolve into something new?
Rome as a whole, dealt with a lot during its long reign of power. They took over many land areas, tried some different forms of government, had a very successful military, and had a lot of emperors that did both good and bad for the empire. Many emperors changed the ways of Roman living, but as a new government called the tetrarchy formed, the Roman Empire split and it was all downhill from there. The Roman Empire dealing with a lot of ups and downs during its long era of power was able to make it around a bad time and make something good out of it; but the Roman Empire did eventually fall apart completely so the empire was completely over and left in ruins because of bad emperors, religious problems, and because of the barbarians that took over the empire. Rome, even through the worst times of its reign near the end, was able to evolve from all situations and change itself to become a different empire.
Rome began its hardship and eventual fall of their empire when Diocletian started the new government called tetrarchy. “The stability of this system suffered greatly after Diocletian and Maximian retired from office. Constantine (the son of Constantius) emerged from the ensuing power struggles as sole emperor of a reunified Rome in 324. He moved the Roman capital to the Greek city of Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople.”(History.com 2). This quote perfectly describes what bad things the tetrarchy eventually led to. The empire was back to having people fight for sole power like what happened in ancient times with Rome and other empires that also eventually fell. Constantine was not a good leader because upset a lot of people that shouldn’t have been upset. He moved the Roman capital to the city of Rome which was very historical, to a Greek city which he named after himself. Constantine was looking to be remembered as a leader who could take control and create a new capital for his empire, but he was just hurting the already weakened empire. The fall of Rome was not because of the tetrarchy; instead it was the leaders who had control over the tetrarchy who made many large mistakes, like Constantine.
Religious mistakes from poor leaders also had a lot to do with the fall of Rome. “Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country,” (Gibbon). As Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the people began to outrage. Christianity, not long before this time, was considered illegal to the empire. Christian people were even persecuted for being Christian because they were stubborn and didn’t follow the laws that were set for religions throughout the empire. It made no sense for a religion, years before that frowned upon, to be the officially religion of the empire no matter what any emperor said. Religion was definitely one of the larger areas of complaints which eventually lead to the fall of an admirable empire.
Lastly, the Roman Empire fell because Barbarians were taking over the land without any control. “Cold, poverty, and a life of danger and fatigue, fortify the strength and courage of Barbarians. In every age they have oppressed the polite and peaceful nations of China, India, and Persia, who neglected, and still neglect, to counterbalance these natural powers by the resources of military art,” (Gibbon). Barbarians are uncivilized people sometimes called savages. They are strong fighters, but they don’t know how to have that mental sense of fighting. They are just strictly physical. The barbarian people wanted war with the Romans, and invading their land was the best that they could do against the large empire at the time. As the Romans were trying to build up their weakening empire again, the Barbarians came and invaded their land which led to many battles and fights. The Roman people, in the end, couldn't defend themselves or their empire, which is the last reason why the Roman Empire fell.
Bad emperors who make many mistakes in the reign can lead to the fall of any empire. Constantine was an overall average emperor, but he made a lot of little mistakes which led to big impacts on the Roman Empire, like the change of the capital and religion. Selfish emperors only weaken and empire; and in this case, a selfish emperor destroyed an empire. In conclusion, the Roman Empire did fall because of the mistakes of the Roman people and leaders at the time, religious problems, and finally being attacked by the Barbarians. The Roman Empire was not able to evolve itself this time, it had fallen and was not ever going to be the strong empire that it once was.
Works Cited:
Ancient Rome, (2011). In Decline and Disintegration. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2011, from
Gibbon, E. (n.d.). Medieval Sourcebook: Gibbon: The Fall of the Roman Empire .FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
April 5th Daily (Revised In Class Essay on Seneca)
Seneca, a close companion to the Roman emperor Nero, was convicted of being the person to plot Nero’s death. Many people questioned him and his emotions towards what he was being convicted of, but Seneca remained stoical even when he was found guilty of this and was to be killed. Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one's emotions; Seneca, at his death, was a perfect example of a stoic.
Seneca was for the most part of his life a stoic; being able to take emotions, pain, and hardship and control them in which his emotions really aren’t seen at all. This trait makes someone seem powerful, in control, not scared or nervous even when the worst is happening to someone, like Seneca’s case of being put to death because he was said to be, by Nero, the one to try to plot against Nero and kill him. “He had no reason,’ he said, for ‘preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery. No one knew this better than Nero, who had oftener experienced Seneca's free spokenness than his servility,’” (Tacitus). This quote really explains how Seneca was a stoic. He control his emotions and made it seem like he didn’t want flattery and it didn’t matter to him. He didn’t want people to feel bad for him or treat him differently because he was convicted of a murder plot that wasn’t true. Seneca was fully able to control how he was feeling and how he was embracing his emotions on the outside.
As a friend of Nero, people would think that Seneca would be very upset about being sentenced with such an awful crime that wasn’t even true. But being stoical, he was able to go through this sentencing and encounter without even remotely acting like he was upset. According to The Death of Seneca, “He saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks,” (Tacitus).This shows that he was truly able to stay very strong even during the worst experiences. If many people were to be sentenced this at any time and wasn’t a stoic like Seneca, they would be begging to not be killed, sobbing, doing anything possible to get their way out of it. Seneca, on the other hand, acted extremely mature and made it seem like being killed was not that big of a deal. He was able to cover up his pain and emotions on the outside and maybe even on the inside as well. Seneca seemed to not be afraid of death and discomfort, instead he just showed no emotions.
Even as Seneca was about to die, he showed no pain towards what was happening. "Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship." (Tacitus). This quote, also from The Death of Seneca, really tells you just how stoical Seneca actually was. He was on his death bed, about to be murdered and all he did was ask to write his will. He was not crying, he wasn’t begging to live. He simply asked to have a tablet where he could write his will, and he gave his friends his finest possessions that he had. That is a very inspirational trait to have, being able to hide your pain and fear.
Seneca was an extremely stoical person who was able to truly control his emotions and deal with pain and hardships. Even during the hardest times, Seneca was able to push through his emotions and prove to everyone that he was a true stoic. Seneca eventually tortured himself to death by suffocation, but even then, he showed no emotion towards that fact that he was killing himself. The only emotion that ever came from Seneca was towards the love of his life, his wife named Paulina. Seneca, during his life and eventually his death, was a prime example of a stoic; a person who could endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one's emotions.
Works Cited:
Tacticus, Initials. The Death of Seneca (65 CE Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html
In Class Writing- Seneca and Stoicism
Seneca, a close companion to the Roman emperor Nero, was convicted of being the person to plot Nero’s death. Many people questioned him and his emotions towards what he was being convicted of, but Seneca remained stoical even when he was found guilty of this and was to be killed. Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one's emotions; Seneca, at his death, was a perfect example of a stoic.
Seneca was for the most part of his life a stoic; being able to take emotions, pain, and hardship and control them in which his emotions really aren’t seen at all. This trait makes someone seem powerful, in control, not scared or nervous even when the worst is happening to someone, like Seneca’s case of being put to death because he was said to be, by Nero, the one to try to plot against Nero and kill him. “He had no reason,’ he said, for ‘preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery. No one knew this better than Nero, who had oftener experienced Seneca's free spokenness than his servility,’” (Tacitus). This quote really explains how Seneca was a stoic. He control his emotions and made it seem like he didn’t want flattery and it didn’t matter to him. He didn’t want people to feel bad for him or treat him differently because he was convicted of a murder plot that wasn’t true. Seneca was fully able to control how he was feeling and how he was embracing his emotions on the outside.
As a friend of Nero, people would think that Seneca would be very upset about being sentenced with such an awful crime that wasn’t even true. But being the stoic that many believe he was, he was able to go through this sentencing and encounter without even remotely acting like he was upset. According to The Death of Seneca, “He saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks,” (Tacitus).This shows that he was truly able to stay very strong even during the worst experiences. If many people were to be sentenced this at any time and wasn’t a stoic like Seneca, they would be begging to not be killed, sobbing, doing anything possible to get their way out of it. Seneca, on the other hand, acted extremely mature and made it seem like being killed was not that big of a deal. He was able to cover up his pain and emotions on the outside and maybe even on the inside as well. Seneca seemed to not be afraid of death and discomfort, instead he just showed no emotions.
Even as Seneca was about to die, he showed no pain towards what was happening. "Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship." (Tacitus). This quote, also from The Death of Seneca, really tells you just how stoical Seneca actually was. He was on his death bed, about to be murdered and all he did was ask to write his will. He was not crying, he wasn’t begging to live. He simply asked to have a tablet where he could write his will, and he gave his friends his finest possessions that he had. That is a very inspirational trait to have, being able to hide your pain and fear.
Seneca was an extremely stoical person who was able to truly control his emotions and deal with pain and hardships. Even during the hardest times, Seneca
Monday, April 4, 2011
April 4th Daily
Read Tacitus' description of the Death of Seneca and Book One of M. Aurelius' Meditations. Find quotes within those two texts that help explain what Stoicism is all about.
Death of Seneca Quotes:
"He had no reason," he said, for "preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery. No one knew this better than Nero, who had oftener experienced Seneca's free spokenness than his servility."
"He saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks."
"Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship."
Book One of M. Aurelius' Meditations Quotes:
"From my governor, to be neither of the green nor of the blue party at the games in the Circus, nor a partizan either of the Parmularius or the Scutarius at the gladiators' fights; from him too I learned endurance of labour, and to want little, and to work with my own hands, and not to meddle with other people's affairs, and not to be ready to listen to slander."
"From Rusticus I received the impression that my character required improvement and discipline; and from him I learned not to be led astray to sophistic emulation, nor to writing on speculative matters, nor to delivering little hortatory orations, nor to showing myself off as a man who practises much discipline, or does benevolent acts in order to make a display; and to abstain from rhetoric, and poetry, and fine writing; and not to walk about in the house in my outdoor dress, nor to do other things of the kind; and to write my letters with simplicity, like the letter which Rusticus wrote from Sinuessa to my mother; and with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled; and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book; nor hastily to give my assent to those who talk overmuch; and I am indebted to him for being acquainted with the discourses of Epictetus, which he communicated to me out of his own collection."
"From Apollonius I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason; and to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the loss of a child, and in long illness; and to see clearly in a living example that the same man can be both most resolute and yielding, and not peevish in giving his instruction; and to have had before my eyes a man who clearly considered his experience and his skill in expounding philosophical principles as the smallest of his merits; and from him I learned how to receive from friends what are esteemed favours, without being either humbled by them or letting them pass unnoticed."
"From Sextus, a benevolent disposition, and the example of a family governed in a fatherly manner, and the idea of living conformably to nature; and gravity without affectation, and to look carefully after the interests of friends, and to tolerate ignorant persons, and those who form opinions without consideration."
Saturday, April 2, 2011
March 24th Daily
Read Augustus' 'Res Gestae ' paragraphs 19 - 21 and scavenger hunt for as many pictures relating to the places mentioned as you can find and chart them on a Google Map.
View Res Gestae Scavenger in a larger map
View Res Gestae Scavenger in a larger map
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
March 23th Daily
Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?
I personally think that the killers of Julius Caesar deserved such a harsh punishment of death because they assassinated Caesar. The sixty people that were involved with the murder of Caesar were part of the Senate. They didn't like Caesar because they went to the poor people for his votes instead of saying "vote for me because I am rich and friends with this senate member and this celebrity and they are rich too!" Caesar actually or at least seemed to really care that it was truly the common people's choice to vote for him, and he educated them on what he was running for. A lot of the people from the Senate didn't like him because he went against what they thought was the right thing to do, and he went to the poor and common people of Rome. They felt as if the power only came from the high class people, but in reality it was the poor people who had the higher population which led to more votes by them. Caesar was smart to go to the common people before the high class people because he was able to get more votes because of the larger common people population. Much of the senators resented him for it though. They hated the fact that he was a great leader. They hated the fact that he actually cared about the common people and that he treated them fairly. They hated the fact that he was able to conquer so many places and places that they personally sent him in hopes that he would fail. Caesar was on of the best people that came from Rome and helped change Rome. The fact that they killed him because of their resentment towards him was awful and stupid. How could someone hate a man who did so much good for an empire? But those sixty senators did hate him; and even though they killed him, they deserved to die because they purposefully killed one of the greatest Roman leaders to this day.
Works Cited:
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t09.html
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/caesar2.htm
Works Cited:
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t09.html
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/caesar2.htm
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
March 22nd Daily
Were the Julio-Claudians really as bad as they seem?
The Julio-Claudian's were the first five emperors of Rome: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. This line of emperors ruled the Roman Empire until 68 AD, when Nero committed suicide. Most of them were said to be just absolutely horrible and insane rulers of Rome. They were truly as bad as they seemed to be hearing about them. There was of course the occasional good that they did, but for the most part they were crazy. The only 'normal' ruler from the Julio-Claudians was Augustus. He was the only one that did general good for the Roman Empire. Under Augustus's rule, Rome expanded and had control over modern day Spain, France, most of Turkey, and much of central Europe. He was a great fighter and ruler and was not insane like the rest of the Julio-Claudian rulers. Under the rule of the Julio-Claudian emperors after Augustus, Rome was falling apart. Tiberius pushed people that he didn't like off of cliffs just for fun. Caligula was ruler after Tiberius and he wanted to appoint his horse as part of the Senate. Caligula was also one of the men to suffocate Tiberius to death, so he was obviously not the brightest out of the bunch. Claudius came into heir at a very young age and beg and pleaded to not become the emperor. From what you can even read hear, among all of the bad things that they did for the Roman empire, you can assume that yes, they were pretty bad. Some of them did do some good with expansion regards to the empire, but they were mostly insane.
Monday, March 21, 2011
March 21th Daily
Was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?
In my personal opinion, Rome was much better off as a republic rather than an empire. When they were a republic and not trying to take over other empire's land, they were much more successful on a political standpoint. Everyone was happy with that ways that they government was leading and no one was fighting. The plebeians were ecstatic that they actually had a massive say in what is going on with the rules and ways of living in Rome, since the Tribune of the Plebs came into effect. Since the plebeians were much of the population rather than the patricians, who before had all the control over the Senate, it only made sense that they had some say in what happens in the Senate. The Tribune of the Plebs shows that they were able to have a lot of control being common people and still lead a great republic. When Rome started to take over land from the Carthage empire, they began to consider themselves more and more of an 'empire' and then they somewhat fell apart politically. As Rome was gaining land and power, it was mostly the patricians who were gaining from it. The patrician, first class, people were the only ones who were gaining land and money from all of the land taken over by Rome. The plebeian people were not happy at all with that. Two brothers name the Gracchi brothers tried to bring fairness and equality back into Rome; they were assassinated. This shows a lot of people that when Rome as well as many other city or areas of land begin to form an empire and invade on other peoples land focusing on the military rather than the government, the government and political part of the empire begins to fall apart. People lose focus in what is really important in the empire- which is the people, not the amount of land that you have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)