west civ final

Question 1: Explain why some scholars have called the Ancient Egyptians a "death obsessed" culture. Do you agree?
Thesis: The ancient Egyptian culture had an extreme emphasis on death, whether it be the countless hours building pyramids and cities of the dead or the countless books referring to death, the Egyptian people were a “death obsessed culture”
Primary Source 1:

“Thou shalt come in and go out, thy heart rejoicing, in the favour of the Lord of the Gods, a good burial [being thine] after a venerable old age, when age has come, thou assuming thy place in the coffin, and joining earth on the high ground of the west.
Thou shalt change into a living Ba(1) and surely he will have power to obtain bread and water and air; and thou shalt take shape as a heron or swallow, as a falcon or a bittern, whichever thou pleasest.
Egyptian concept of death and the survival as Ba 
http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/169.html
Primary Source 2:
“Homage to you, Great God, the Lord of the double Ma'at (Truth)!
I have come to you, my Lord,
I have brought myself here to behold your beauties.
I know you, and I know your name,
And I know the names of the two and forty gods,
Who live with you in the Hall of The Two Truths 
Who imprison the sinners, and feed upon their blood,
On the day when the lives of men are judged in the presence of Osiris 
In truth, you are "The Twin Sisters with Two Eyes," 3 and "The Daughters of the Two Truths."
In truth, I now come to you, and I have brought Maat to you,
And I have destroyed wickedness for you.
I have committed no evil upon men.
I have not oppressed the members of my family.”
Egyptian Book of the Dead Chapter 125, Judgment of the Dead 
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM
Primary Source 3:
“Let my Ba- soul come forth to walk about hither and thither and whithersoever it pleaseth. Let my name be called out, let it be found inscribed on the tablet which recordeth the names of those who are to receive offerings. Let meals from the sepulchral offerings be given to me in the presence [of Osiris], as to those who are in the following of Horus. Let there be prepared for me a seat in the Boat of the Sun on the day wheron the god saileth. Let me be received in the presence of Osiris in the Land of Truth-speaking- the Ka of Osiris Ani.”
Egyptian Book of the Dead A HYMN OF PRAISE TO RA WHEN HE RISETH IN THE EASTERN PART OF HEAVEN
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html
Explanation of Argument: The first source suggests that the Egyptian religion had such a focus on their death that they used their life to decide what they would be as a Ba and live a life based mainly to make it to the afterlife. The second and third back this up in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, there are hymns to Osiris that they will one day be able to get to the afterlife. In the Judgment of the Dead, the source states that the ancient Egyptians entire lives were based on their death and how they wanted to be perceived by their god of death, Osiris.
Question 2: Considering all of the conflict of the first century BCE, was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?
Thesis: With all of the conflict in the first century BCE, Rome was better off as a republic because with the Roman Empire slowly digressing, the Roman Republic brought in revolutionary concepts.
Primary Source 1:
I.1
"If he (plaintiff) summon him (defendant) into court, he shall go. If he does not go, (plaintiff) shall call witnesses. Then only he shall take him by force. If he refuses or flees, he (plaintiff) shall lay hands on him. If disease or age is an impediment, he shall grant him a team (of oxen). He shall not spread with cushions the covered carriage if he does not wish to.
II.3
Whoever is in need of evidence, he shall go on every third day to call out loud before the doorway of the witness."
III. 1
"When a debt has been acknowledged or a judgment has been pronounced in court, 30 days must be the legitimate grace period. Thereafter, arrest of the debtor may be made by the laying on of hands. Bring him into court. If he does not satisfy the judgment (or no one in court offers himself as surety on his behalf) the creditor may take the debtor with him. He may bind him either in stocks or fetters, with a weight of no less than 15 lbs. (or more if he desires)." [After 60 days in custody, the case is returned to the court, and if the debt is not then paid, the debtor can be sold abroad as a slave, or put to death.]

IV. 1 "A dreadfully deformed child shall be killed."
IV. 2 "If a father surrender his son for sale three times, the son shall be free."
V. 1 "Our ancestors saw fit that "females, by reason of levity of disposition, shall remain in guardianship, even when they have attained their majority."
V. 7 A spendthrift is forbidden to exercise administration over his own goods.
V. 8 The inheritance of a Roman citizen-freedman is made over to his patron, if the freedman has died intestate and has no natural successor.
VI. 1 When a party shall make bond or conveyance, what he has named by word-of-mouth that shall hold good.
VI. 2 Marriage by `usage' (usus): If a man and woman live together continuously for a year, they are considered to be married; the woman legally is treated as the man's daughter.
VIII. 1 "If any person has sung or composed against another person a SONG (carmen) such as was causing slander or insult.... he shall be clubbed to death."
VIII. 2 "If a person has maimed another's limb, let there be retaliation in kind, unless he agrees to make compensation with him." (Lex talionis)
VIII. 21 "If a patron shall defraud his client, he must be solemnly forfeited (`killed')."
VIII. 23 "Whoever is convicted of speaking false witness shall be flung from the Tarpeian Rock."
VIII. 26 "No person shall hold meetings in the City at night."
IX. 3 "The penalty shall be capital punishment for a judge or arbiter legally appointed who has been found guilty of receiving a bribe for giving a decision."
IX. 6 "Putting to death... of any man who has not been convicted, whosoever he might be, is forbidden."
X. 4 "Women must not tear cheeks or hold chorus of `Alas!' on account of a funeral."
X. 6a "Anointing by slaves is abolished, and every kind of drinking bout....there shall be no costly sprinking, no long garlands, no incense boxes."
XI. 1 "Marriage shall not take place between a patrician and a plebeian."
XII. 5 "Whatever the People has last ordained shall be held as binding by law."
The Roman Twelve Tables

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/12tables.html

Primary Source 2:

“To the senate belongs, in the first place, the sole care and management of the public money. For all returns that are brought into the treasury, as well as all the payments that are issued from it, are directed by their orders. Nor is it allowed to the quaestors to apply any part of the revenue to particular occasions as they arise, without a decree of the senate; those sums alone excepted. which are expended in the service of the consuls. And even those more general, as well as greatest disbursements, which are employed at the return every five years, in building and repairing the public edifices, are assigned to the censors for that purpose, by the express permission of the senate. To the senate also is referred the cognizance of all the crimes, committed in any part of Italy, that demand a public examination and inquiry: such as treasons, conspiracies, poisonings, and assassinations.”

Polybius: Rome after the Punic Wars Book 6
http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ANCIENT/polybius6.html

Primary Source 3:

“Our Roman constitution, on the contrary, did not spring from the genius of an individual, but of many; and it was established, not in the lifetime of a man, but in the course of ages and centuries”
The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero: Comprising his Treatise on the Commonwealth; and his Treatise on the Laws.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=546&chapter=83299&layout=html&Itemid=27
Argument Explaination:
These three sources all show the organization of Rome as a republic. With the tweleve tables and a constitution, the people of Rome had a strong sense of organization and planning. The Roman Republic was an organized system much like America’s democracy and under it the Rome thrived and expanded its territory. When Rome was a republic it treated its territories better than as an Empire which caused much of the violence in the first century BCE.
Question 3: Who is a better model for modern historians: Herodotus or Thucydides? Why?
Thesis: Thucydides is a better model for historians because of his great writings of the Peloponnesian Wars and in depth research on topics rather than hearing stoires through word of mouth.
Primary Source 1:
“Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he could see the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the quarrel; those who delayed doing so at once having it in contemplation”
 Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian Wars, Chapter 1
http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html
Primary Source 2:
“Thucydides stands alone among the men of his own days, and has no superior of any age, in the width of mental grasp which could seize the general significance of particular events.”
11th Britannica: Thucydides
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/eb11-thucydides.html
Primary Source 3:
“Such is the account which the Persians give of these matters. They trace to the attack upon Troy their ancient enmity towards the Greeks. The Phoenicians, however, as regards Io, vary from the Persian statements. They deny that they used any violence to remove her into Egypt; she herself, they say, having formed an intimacy with the captain, while his vessel lay at Argos, and perceiving herself to be with child, of her own free will accompanied the Phoenicians on their leaving the shore, to escape the shame of detection and the reproaches of her parents.”
Herodotus: The Histories, Book I
http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.1.i.html
Argument Explanation: Thucydides is a better model for modern historians because of his in depth writing of the Peloponnesian Wars. He was focused completely on this topic and traced it back to it origins through research, unlike Herodotus who based his writings on word of mouth references.
Question 4: Were the Vikings "barbarians"?
Thesis: The Vikings were perceived by much of the world as barbarians, but the Vikings were just like the rest of the world with a foundation of religion, great ship building skills, and looked towards the future through exploration.
Primary Source 1:
“Then sought the gods | their assembly-seats,
The holy ones, | and council held;
Names then gave they | to noon and twilight,
Morning they named, | and the waning moon,
Night and evening, | the years to number.”
 The Poetic Edda
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe03.htm
Primary Source 2:
Now when Harald came to Sicily he plundered there also, and sat
down with his army before a strong and populous castle.  He
surrounded the castle; but the walls were so thick there was no
possibility of breaking into it, and the people of the castle had
enough of provisions, and all that was necessary for defence.
Then Harald hit upon an expedient.  He made his bird-catchers
catch the small birds which had their nests within the castle,
but flew into the woods by day to get food for their young.  He
had small splinters of tarred wood bound upon the backs of the
birds, smeared these over with wax and sulphur, and set fire to
them. As soon as the birds were let loose they all flew at once
to the castle to their young, and to their nests, which they had
under the house roofs that were covered with reeds or straw.  The
fire from the birds seized upon the house roofs; and although
each bird could only carry a small burden of fire
Heimskringla: The Saga of Harald Hardrade 
http://omacl.org/Heimskringla/hardrade1.html
Primary Source 3:
Thence come the maidens | mighty in wisdom,
Three from the dwelling | down 'neath the tree;
Urth is one named, | Verthandi the next,--
On the wood they scored,-- | and Skuld the third.
Laws they made there, and life allotted
To the sons of men, and set their fates.
The Viking Poetic Edda
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe03.htm

Argument Explaination:
These three sources from Viking literature have nothing involved with how they were not Vikings, but through what they say in their wrintings, it reveals a great culture. In the Poetic Edda, sources 1 and 3, The Viking people describe their belief in a sound religion that they belived in and united them. In the second source from the Heimskringla, The Vikings have written accounts of their heroes. The Viking people may have seemed savage but they just did what was necessary to survive in their harsh world.

Question 5: Describe the significance of the Battle of Tours.
Thesis: When the Franks defeated the Muslim forces in the Battle of Tours, it was a turning point in history because it sent the Muslims out of the Frankish territory and stopped the spread of the Moors throughout Europe.

Primary Source 1:
“The Muslims planned to go to Tours to destroy the Church of St. Martin, the city, and the whole country. Then came against them the glorious Prince Charles, at the head of his whole force. He drew up his host, and he fought as fiercely as the hungry wolf falls upon the stag. By the grace of Our Lord, he wrought a great slaughter upon the enemies of Christian faith, so that---as history bears witness---he slew in that battle 300,000 men, likewise their king by name Abderrahman.”
Battle of Tours: Three Accounts
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Example Exam Question

From the primary sources from the Persian Wars how would the history be different if Persia was won the Persian Wars?

Outline

            Introduction

A.    Thesis: If the Persians had won the Persian Wars, everything that the Greek philosophers in the Classical Age, like Aristotle, would have been lost.

Body 1

B.     “It were indeed a monstrous thing if, after conquering and enslaving the Sacae, the Indians, the Ethiopians, the Assyrians, and many other mighty nations, not for any wrong that they had done us, but only to increase our empire, we should then allow the Greeks, who have done us such wanton injury, to escape our vengeance.” "Ancient History Sourcebook: Herodotus: Xerxes Invades Greece, from The Histories." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 27 May 2010.http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-xerxes.html.

1.      This quote shows that the Persians did not treat the countries they conquered with respect and the Persians had an animosity with the Greeks so Greece would not have been able to flourish under their control.

           Body 2

C.     “I undertake the war, and pledge myself not to rest till I have taken and burnt Athens, which has dared, unprovoked, to injure me and my father.” "Ancient History Sourcebook: Herodotus: Xerxes Invades Greece, from The Histories." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 27 May 2010.http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-xerxes.html.

1.      This quote shows that the Persian’s would stop at nothing to destroy Greece, specifically Athens. With Greece and Athens destroyed the Classical Age would never have happened and great minds would never had their ideas exposed to the world.

Body 3

D.    "Once let us subdue this people, and those neighbors of theirs who hold the land of Pelops the Phrygian, and we shall extend the Persian territory as far as God's heaven reaches."

a) This quote shows that the Persians wanted to rule all of Europe and would have stopped at nothing to have complete power throughout Europe.

Conclusion

E.     The ruler of Persia would stop at nothing to try to control Europe and destroy his rivals, especially the Greeks. If the Greeks had not defeated the Persian army at Salamis, the world, Greece, and knowledge would be deeply affected because if there was no Greece, there were no famous philosophers. 

Florence Renaissance III

Florence 1501- Home of Italian Renaissance

Michaelangelo was a workaholic

Didn't take boots off for a long time so his skin came off with the boots

Michaelangelo was adopted in the Medici family

Exposed to a world of artistic achievement 

Civil war broke out in Florence

1504- Michaelangelo exposed his work to the outside world

Created a piece of Republican art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

Pope Julius II was from powerful family

DaVinci studied the human body

Greatest artist of the time but Michaelangelo was going to take over his title.

1512- Soldiers were coming towards Florence

Niccolo Machiavelli was consulted in by people of Florence 

After Julius, cardinals elected Giovanni

Giovanni di Lorenzo de Medici was born in Florence, second son of Lorenzo the magnificent

Poisoned by gold paint on his skin

Giovanni Medici rose high than any of his ancestors

Became Pope Leo X

Michaelangelo was forced to paint the Papal Chapel in the Vatican and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (above)

Michaelangelo had crafted brilliance, arguably the greatest work of art of the Renaissance

Machiavelli was exiled from Florence.

Conspirators were going to kill Pope Leo, but he found out and had them killed instead.

Pope Leo sold indulgences

Luther was outraged and wrote a book about how the indulgences should be damned

Leo was killed by a winter chill

Pope Clement VII became the pope

Sack of Rome was an attack by Charles V on Clement.

Pope Clement stood poised to attack Florence

Michaelangelo hid in the tombs that he built for the Medici.

Clement called Catherine de Medici a pearl

Clement capitalized on Catherine's survival and married her off to a French King

Clement was about to die so he told Michaelangelo to create a fresco in the Vatican. Symbolized the Last Judgement

Julio Medici died

The corrupt of the popes was over

How does Henry VIII maintain power while breaking away from the Catholic Church and destroying monasteries and churches?

Henry VIII was able to maintain power while he was breaking away from the Chruch because there were not many threats to his power. He had total control over England and there was not many people who could challange his authority. The separation from the Church was because of his wives were unable to give him the son he always wanted. He had been married to Catherine of Aragon for twenty years, she had been unable to produce a son, and he wanted to divorce her and marry Anne Boleyn. The Pope refused to grant Henry’s divorce, so he broke with the Catholic Church and started the Church of England. Henry then ordered the King’s Archbishop of Canterbury to perform the marriage.

Another reason for the break with the Church was that Henry needed money. He had spent a lot on wars with France, constructing buildings, forming England’s first real navy, and on his expensive lifestyle. Henry knew that the Church was very wealthy and owned a quarter of the land in England. By breaking from the Church he could obtain all of this land and money that the church was in possession of. The way Henry was able to keep his power during all of this was because he set up royal supremency that allowed him stay in power throughout his separation from the Roman Catholic Church.

"Henry VIII." Brittania History. Britannia.com, 2007. Web. 12 May 2010. (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon41.html).


"The Six Wives of Henry VIII." PBS.org. Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2003. Web. 11 May 2010. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/sixwives/portrait/power.html).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry-VIII-kingofengland_1491-1547.jpg

Article

Monarchy vs. Democracy

     The new idea about how government should be and is looked up to is democracy. It is the ideal government in today’s world because it is effective, balanced, and fair. In the medieval world, this was a novel concept and almost barely used. The ideal government in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was the monarchy. In a monarchy, all power was put into the hands of central leader, or monarch, who had absolute or all political control of his monarchy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) The monarchy was the most popular and preferred government compared to today’s democracy, but which is more effective? The democracy is preferred today for its well structured system and balance between branches of the government where all parties have their opinions considered, and that is why democracy is more effective than monarchy.

     The Constitution of the United States is the primary example of democracy. The power of the U.S. government is spread out within three branches: The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. These three branches are governed by checks and balances so no branch can become too powerful. Article II Section I of the United States Constitution explains the way senators, the president, and vice president are governed:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

        In Article II Section II the role of the President in explain in more detail regarding the appointment of other officials:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

         The idea of a central leader stayed constant from monarchy to democracy, but in democracy the central leader’s power is kept in balance through the other branches of government and that is why it is the preferred and most balanced way of government today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

        The medieval monarchies were very different. All or most power was put into the hands of a single ruler until death. Unlike in democracy where the leaders are elected by the public, the monarch was hereditary, passed on from generation to generation. The king had the power to do whatever he wanted without the permit of the public or other leaders. The monarch had full control and these monarchs had no checks to their power. Many of these monarchs abused their power instating laws that would never be allowed in the world today. The Treasons Act was written in 1571 protecting Queen Elizabeth I from criticism, which does not allow people to speak freely about how they feel. This act states, “An act whereby certaine offences be made treason....Be it enacted, declared, and established...that, if any person or persons whatsoever, at any time after the last day of June next coming during the natural life of our most gracious sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth..., shall, within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend the death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death, destruction, maim, or wounding of the royal person of the same our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth.” (http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/archives/eliz2.htm). This Act would never be allowed in today’s world because of the freedom of speech given to everyone.

         The problem with monarchies is not that they did not accomplish anything, but that it was unfair to the people which caused people to revolt and fight against the government. This friction and inequality between the people and government would have slowed down everything in the monarchy, making it less effective. Democracy is not without its own problems, but as compared to the medieval monarchs it is more effective because of the balance involved because every class of citizen is considered, from working class to senator.



Works Cited

"Democracy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy.

"Elizabeth I - Treasons Act, 1571." The Gunpowder Plot Society. Web. 14 May 2010. http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/archives/eliz2.htm.

"Monarchy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy.

"Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 14 May 2010. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg

Germany/Martin Luther

• Germany was in a dark place filled with disease and poverty
• The people had hope found in the Church and the promise of heaven
• the church was corrupt though
• Martin Luther stirred Europe into a rebellion against the church
• Martin Luther came from humble origins
• He grew up in a small town in Northern Germany where the Church was the most important thing in peoples' lives
• The Church taught that if you obeyed its rules then you would be taken to heaven when you died
• Luther's father had very high expectations of his son
• The fear of punishment drove him for the rest of their lives
• Luther worked very hard and was committed to his studies and was on his way to becoming a lawyer which is what his father always wanted
• Then just before he became the lawyer his father wanted the Black Death hit
• 3 of his closest friends were killed by the disease
• This show of what he believed was God's wrath was a major turning point in his life
• One night when he got stuck in a thunderstorm he prayed to God and he vowed to become a monk if he survived
• Luther joined one of the strictest monasteries in Europe.
• Luther was a very dedicated monk
• In later years he said that being a monk had severely hurt his health because of how extreme he was in the monastery
• Luther was concerned that he would never please God and never get to heaven
• He had a feeling of hopelessness that he would never receive salvation
• He went to Rome on a pilgrimage to Rome
• In October of 1510 they arrived in Rome
• When he got to Rome it was in the height of the Renaissance
• When he was in Rome he was disappointed in the Church
• The Church was also taking profits from the members
• The Church was selling people indulgences which took time off of purgatory
• because of how disappointed he was in the Church he questioned his faith for the first time in his life
• being a monk became awful for Martin Luther
• One day a man offered him to be the head of Biblical studies at the new university in Yittenburg

Scotland 14th to 16th century

The fourteenth, fifthteenth, and sixteenth centuries were important years for Scotland. Robert I became king of Scotland in 1306. Robert I battled to win Scottish Independence as King for over 20 years, beginning by winning Scotland back from the English invaders slowly. The Scottish people had their great victory and won their freedom when they defeated the English at the Battle of Bannockburn. Fourteen years later they wrote their declaration of independence called The Declaration of Arbroath. The Declaration of Arbroath was the first documented declaration of independence in history. The Declaration of Arbroath ends with:

"To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the maintenance of our cause, csating our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought."

War with England continued for several decades. The Stuart Dynasty was established when Robert II came to the throne. The Stuarts ruled Scotland for the remainder of the Middle Ages.


Sources:

"Scotland." Wikipedia. Web. 13 May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#Medieval_period.

"The Declaration of Arbroath (English Translation)." Web. 13 May 2010. http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html.