Awakening

Awakening... That is the best word to describe what went on in the 12th century/scientific revolution. It seemed like all of the sudden the way people though up and changed! It really amazed me to read about the difference in the way "science" and "nature" were thought about. I like the word awakening because it seems as if people were sleeping during the medevil time period and the next thing you know they woke up into the early modern era with these new ideas about how the world worked. I thought it was interesting as well that in one of the lectures science was described similar to religion by saying it was about belief because in that time no one really knew for sure if these ideas that were floating around everywhere were correct the scientists just had to believe in them. This whole period of time fascinates me.

Urban Population

Obviously there was a big problem with population growth in Europe in the 16th century. The problems they are facing because of this are numerous. The main problem set forth in the reading was with the divers (beggars). It is a common problem that urban cities face. If you have ever been to a large city (Boise doesn't really count although there are beggars here too) like Seattle, Portland, New York, or Chicago they have several areas where beggars and homeless people are rampant.
It is an issue that has lasted for 5 centuries and lawmakers are still trying to come up with a solution for. The poor law in the reading this week was trying to come up with a solution. The negative thing the draft does is try to blame the poor for being poor. They list all the reasons someone could become poor and have to beg. This is a common trend in the history of elitism. This is true for different disciplines as well. The history of education goes through the same elitism and blaming the poor for there poverty. Population influx is a major problem and will be until the number of people quite growing... ya right
Some would argue that war and disease is a way of population control. It that is the truth maybe that is the reason for the black plague running through Europe for centuries.

Oliver Cromwell Wikipedia

The article on Wikipedia about Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector, was a very thorough biography of his life, as well as political and military dealings. There were many sections dealing with his influence on different places in Europe and his posthumous reputation.

1) 14,036 words
2) Search term: Cromwell Actual term: Oliver Cromwell
3)Disambiguation: one Monty Python song about the Lord Protector,
BR standard class 770013 Oliver Cromwell,a locomotive named after the above,

an actor who goes by a different name but whose real name is above.

4) Discussion: the article is classified as one of the History good articles and is in the scope of several religion based wiki projects. The comments on this topic are so vast that the discussion has an outline of context.

5)History: the most current change was done Thursday November 20th 2008 at 9pm

the earliest change was September 30th 2001

3,000+ changes overall (wouldn't load them all)

6) 9 external links

7) 24 references with over 100 footnotes mentioned, 20 biographies of Cromwell, 11 military studies on him, 11 era surveys and 6 other primary sources listed.

8) mentioned in above sections? no specific section for Further Reading

This is the first article I have read on wikipedia that seems complete and citable. This would be quite a good resource to someone interested in his life or accomplishments. This article is thorough and has many reliable resources behind it. Wikipedia has labeled it a good history article and I completely agree. I think it has enough information to be a citable resource itself but if some one has a stigma about the site then it has many many other sources to jump into.

Why not the crown?

While reading this week about the English civil war I found one thing particularly intriging about it. Why when Cromwell took power after King Charles I, did he not accept the crown from parliment? He took all the power of England without the responsibility of the crown. He played by all the same rules of the king so why Lord Protector over King Oliver? He was more militarily minded than thinking for the good of England. He waged several wars and depleated the treasury in the process. I am not familiar with all the rules of a monarchy but it seems to me if he was not the king then he should have had no right to name a sucessor, not that his sucessor did much but regaurdless. Some historians call him a dictator with genocide on his conscience others praise him as a hero of England. He certainly left a reputation with England king or not.

Government for all

The Levellers section was interesting to read. They stood for equalizing the wealth of all the people under their government. They had some of the most unique reasoning I have heard in favor of this socialist type program. This group of people was feeling oppressed and wanted all people to be subject to all the same laws. The foundations make this sound like it will be good for the everyday citizen and eliminate the class system many detested in England. I don't believe what they proposed would have been effective. A class system cannot dissolve just by equalizing the amount of wealth a person has. There will always be people in a society that believe they are better or on a different level than others around them. It would take a cultural miracle to create that kind of equality. Government being involved that much in some one's personal business is unappealing in my opinion.

Bible says...

I think to some extent the way the Church tried to control its patrons by interpreting the Bible for them, continues on to today. Not completely or even in every religion, but I know a number of people that are religious that have never read the whole Bible or other book used by their church. There is still some control that the Church wants to have over people. The citizen is not left to make their own interpretations of the stories, they are always at the mercy of the priest, pastor, bishop, etc. Even if they are aware enough to have read the entire Bible they are usually still under the influence of their church's views because they are exposed to that thinking (presumably) every week. This obviously is a generalization of time now, because a lot more people today have and are able to read their religious books. This also is a reflection of the amount of education that is available compared to early modern times.

100 years war

When reading about the hundred years war I saw a similarity between this and others I have learned about, conflict begining over something fairly insignificant. This was was in part started over a woman. The French King did not want King Edward the third to rule France so he brought back some ancient rule that property(and thrones) can only be passed down through males. This leaves King Edward III out of claim to the throne. This conflict is ovbiously about something bigger than they let on, posession of the throne of France. This important to control but 100 years is a long time to fight. It takes a great amount out of the army of the countries and the citizens living through it.

Creation of University

The section we read about education and universities caught my attention this week partially because I am a education major. I thought it was quite interesting how similar everything has remained since their creation in 1000-1200. All the words have evolved but have very clear Latin roots that are quite recognizeable. Those are things we as university students say every day and somewhat take for granted, not realizing the history behind them. I also thought that the church's influence as an intrical part of the founding of the higher education was unique from the way other schools were founded. The whole point back then was to get people educated that partained to the church in some way. The story of the university after that sounds like it could be happening now nothing is really that different. Maybe the police would do less killing but who knows...

Wikipedia Assignment #2

Viking Wikipedia Article
This article paints a picture of the Viking Age as they call it. Where the vikings were from what that meant, their customs etc. The article goes over what regions the vikings stormed through and the effect they had the people and the country there. And it compares the romanticized version of the viking, horned helmets and all, to the more realistic version that history details. It explained the weaponry as well as viking ships, the most legendary aspect of the vikings.

Word count: 6,833
Term search: vikings Actual title: Viking
Disambiguation: There was a lot in this section- a history part disusing the age of the vikings and other historical references, a section just for viking ships, aerospace, organizations, military, film and music section, sports, names of places that are viking in Canada and Minnesota, companies, and several others.
Discussion: The article had many, many comments and discussion about the actual term 'viking' itself and how the article portrays it and if it is accurate. This article was a former featured article and had B ratings on several wikipedia projects. There was even one comment from someone who discovered their ancestry included viking blood.
History: First change date- March 16th, 2003
Last change date- Oct. 2nd, 2008
Number of changes-just over 1,000
External Links: 6
References: 5
Further Reading: 0

I would recommend this article to most anyone who was interested in the topic. I think Wikipedia is a good tool to use when you know nothing or very little about a topic. It is very good if you are unsure if you are interested or not because it gives you the high lights of the topic, it is almost like cliffs notes for any subject matter. I do think it is a good idea to look at the discussion page to determine how reliable the information written is and if there is a dispute over any of the material.

Vikings the good the bad and the ugly!

I thought the reading about the Vikings was the most intriguing this week. I thought that we knew a lot more about them than was presented. It was mostly just stories from other sources such as the monks or other victims of their raids. Their lifestyle is fascinating to me, they don't have much at home so they just sail around looking for something to do. They sound like teenagers that get into trouble doing the same thing. One of the most interesting parts of the raids that were mentioned was the part that they did not destroy the places they raided because they liked to come back and do it again. If they were just looking for money and riches that area would have been depleted mostly by the first raid. Plus it sounds like they were brutes and nothing really slowed them down, so why wouldn't they go to richer places, just look at the inventory of the royal estate we read, there was plenty to be had there. To me it sounds like they really were looking for something else and maybe that is why so many settled in the areas eventually.

The results of the raids and their travels left the Vikings scattered everywhere bringing their own culture to many different places across western Europe. That causes a mix of many ethnicities of people across the area. Now a days it is so hard to find out your ancestry in part because of things like this, for example you family could be from England but are you 100% English probably not... The neatest way I have seen to find your ethnic heritage is to do a DNA testing. National Geographic was doing this for people, you gave them a saliva sample and they could genetically tell you if you were of German or Japanese heritage (if you were having a hard time deciding).

The begining of taxes

This week when I was reading The Capitulary De Villis 9th Century and the way they discussed the reporting of the income, it reminded me of a rudimentary version of the way we file our income taxes. The reading was going through all the specific things they needed reported, I was picturing it as a tax form and all the lines and exact items the federal and state government needs from you. I think this was especially fresh on my mind with all the polictical ad campaigns on tv and such a focus on taxes from the two presidential canidates. That made this article tie into life now for me, gave me a feeling of how this has always been an issue and will forever be one.

The Middle Ages

This is really the first time we see religion coming to play a significant role in the way history plays out in my opinion (in the western world), with the development of christian based faiths. The Islam section of reading was of particular interest to me, as I didn't know a lot about it. I learned a great deal. I thought the line about the Islam being more humane than many other religions of the time when now we think of if as sort of extremist. This time period is when areas start waring over religion instead of political power and land. Muhammad even said to convert or go to war with non-believers. This is humane? I also found it interesting that Mecca was more of a worship center for anyone that wanted to go there, until Muhammad changed that. This explains to be somewhat where Islams negative reputation has stemmed from. It has helped me to understand all the conflicts much better going on in the middle east. I enjoyed this reading very much.

Women in Rome

It is amazing to me how the Romans almost disregarded the women in their society in my opinion. Sure they let them have more freedom than the US did 100 or so years ago but it was because they were basically ignored in Rome's laws and constitution. They had the freedom to do mostly what they wanted. They were the ones left in the cities when the men were gone for years fighting the many wars for Rome. They were a big part of how successful the society would be and then left without attention from the same nation they were trying to keep working like a well oiled machine. When the women in the US were not thought of in the laws of the country they thought of the same way in a social way. It was parallel unlike the Roman society.

Ancient Bullies

The progression of violence for political gain is what caught my attention out of all the reading from this week. It was really the downfall of the republic. The Roman Republic really had no plan for itself. It let these military generals take advantage of the situation with no consequence. Each man took progressively more and more power against the constitution. The Senate really had almost no power to face a military leader with an army behind them. The Republic was doomed with the first showing of this coercing. The Senate actually set themselves up for this with the Gracchi brothers. They killed the brothers because the were a threat and had revolutionary ideas. Then Julius Caesar took it all the way to the extreme of dictator control by militant power. It is hard for me to even grasp what could prevent this from happening, their empire was so vast it seems impossible.

Roman Empire

Who would have thought (besides history buffs) one of the greatest empires in history was essentially created by accident? I never realized this, or had it explained, that world rule was never really a thought out plan by the leaders of Rome. Many other societally important things have been come across or invented by accident, such as penicillin, microwaves, ice cream cones, potato chips, LSD and the pacemaker. Some of these things have changed lives (some are just fun), like the Romans changed many lives in the surrounding states they conquered.

The Peloponnesian War Wikipedia article

The Peloponnesian War
The article starts off by splitting the war into 3 phases. The Archidamian War included Spartas invasions of Attica & Athens naval supremacy are covered concluding in 421 BC. The second phase (just called the Second War) covering the renewed fighting in Peloponnese and a attack on Sicily and the destruction of the entire Athenian army in 413 BC. The final phase is Decelean or Ionian War in which Sparta and Persia join forces with rebellions in Athens' subject states, this completely undermines the Athenian empire. This effectively ends the war with the Athenian defeat and destruction at Aegospotami. Athens surrenders the following year and re-shaped the Ancient Greek world. The rest just goes into details and expands on each area.

Word Count: 5,218
Searched Peloponnesian War - same article title
Disambiguation: there was no link but other article links are First Peloponnesian War and Athenian War redirects to this article.
Discussion Page: Many posts here about the article itself, its mechanics, what needs to be added or removed, spellings of names etc. Also one or two postings about the rating of the article and how to improve upon that. Also found there are the article milestones: former featured article, good article nominee, and refreshing and brilliant prose.
History: there have been over 1,000 changes to the article (popular subject) the 1st change to the article was May 31, 2006 and the most recent was at 5:00 last night (September 11, 2008)
External links: 3
Further Reading: 5 classic and 13 modern

I would recommend this article to other searching for information on this topic especially if they are not sure where to begin because I feel it give a good jumping off point. If you read through the references and further reading it gives you good resources and within the article there is some good information. As long as this article is not the sole (or even majority) of the information received.

Athenian Constitution

I am facinated with government and how governments came to be. Especailly ancient forms because those are the oldest forms we can study. So learning about the Athenian constitution was interesting. Their demorcracy was starkly different than what we are accustom to in the US. They gave the poor all the power over the government and the decisions and almost shunned the elite and well-born. That way of thinking is almost opposite of the US democracy. The Athenian democracy was in direct opposition of the oligarchy type governments around them, where only the rich and elite got a say. This explains the reasoning behind the way the consitution was written and the way the power was distributed. I think they went overboard with the switch. Their has to be some balence and while they still allowed the rich and the elite in the Assembly, they blamed them for eveything that went wrong with policy imposed. They just went to far in trying to correct the problem they saw with others. They put the poor completely in control. The US tried to do more of a balance of the two extremes, it still leans to give the power to the well-off and rich more so than anything but it is closer. Not everyone would agree with that but it is my oppion, government is such a touchy subject sometimes.

Greek Democracy?

The Athenians actually had a direct democracy for a while. This is interesting because to hear people talk today that would be an impossibility, unfathomable. Although it did not last the form of democracy Athenians created at around 460BC had incredible forethought and planning behind it. Every citizen was to serve to gain knowledge through experience on the council. Greeks as a broad group were pensive and thought the things they were planning on thoroughly. Modern governments do not have the kind of mindset they did in that ancient time. It is incredible that the Athenians were able to put this kind of system into action at that time on Earth. They overhauled their systems often to keep current issues in check. They had council meetings to see what needed improvement. They collaborated with each other. In this country different parties don't do that, they think that their way is the best no compromising. Greek culture is fascinating, especially the way they worked with each other (within the polis) so well.