Exam question 7

The Black Death was a huge epidemic that went throughout Europe. It was extremely scary for the people of Europe and they practically had to live their lives in fear.

Exam question 10

     I feel as if I learned many things this semester. Instead of just going over different areas of the world, we actually looked into them with detail and really got to know the people from those areas and their ways. I understand the crusades, the Renaissance, famous artists, etc. The people of these times are well known to a point, but I believed I learned a lot more. I also learned about how to find good sources and how to really look into information.

Exam question 9

    A Renaissance Man is someone who has many great accomplishments. Back in the Renaissance there were many great Renaissance men. All of them had different accomplishments and most of them are well-known today. I believe that Leonardo da Vinci best represented a Renaissance Man.

     Da Vinci had many great accomplishments in his time. He had ideas for flights: such as the helicopter; http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com/da-vinci-helicopter.html. It wasn't invented when he was alive, but it came about many years later. Also, he had ideas for a tank: http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com/da-vinci-invention-tank.html. That, too, didn't come about until after he had died. Finally, he had painted the world famous painting: The Last Supper; http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com/the-last-supper.html. Most of his ideas aren't recognized as his, but many of the things we have and use today were thought of by Da Vinci. That is why I believe he portrays the best Renaissance Man.

Exam question 8

The Romanesque Cathedrals were all about safety. They didn't have many windows and their walls were rounded and thick. They were always ready for an invasion. The cared about praising God, but they mostly were concerned for the city and where the people would go if there was an invasion . They aren't very flattering or flashy and they don't appeal well to the eye.

Gothic Cathedrals were more about being noticed and beautiful. They had stained glass windows and they wanted to praise God as much as they could. They were extremely large and beautiful. They usually have many gardens around them, and when you walk inside they have beautiful columns and pictures inside.

Figure 1 -  Xhignesse

Figure 2- The rotunde of Saint George

Figure 3- Cathedral of Amiens

Figure 4- Milan cathedral

Figure 5- Castañeda

 

Figure 6- Cathedral of St Etienne of Bourges

GRANDMONT, Jean-Pol (Producer). (2005). Xhignesse JPG02.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xhignesse_JPG02.jpg

Borak, Matt (Producer). (2005). Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg

(2006). Cathedral of Amiens front.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_of_Amiens_front.jpg

(2002). MailaenderDom.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MailaenderDom.jpg

(2005). Castañeda2.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casta%C3%B1eda2.jpg

(2005). Bourges - 002 - Low Res.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bourges_-_002_-_Low_Res.jpg

Exam question 6

I can't stand the crusades. It's not fair Richard decides to walk in and act like he rightfully owns Jerusalem when our God lies here too. We understand how much Jesus meant to the Christians but our temple is here. Everyone thinks they have the right to own Jerusalem when we should all be able to share it. I don't understand why we can't live in the same city without wanting to kill each other. We should have learned to be civil and live together. There's no need for all the violence.

I understand that he wants to own the city that his savior was born, walked, and died in. But, he also needs to understand that this city is important to us too. Our temple is here, we care about living here, and we don't want to leave. We've always lived here and it's not easy to just pick up and leave. But, if he wants a war he can come down here and have one. We're ready.

Exam question 5

     Rome had constant fighting and hundreds of new leaders before it collapsed. Power was constantly changing hands, and it seemed as if there was always scandal. The United States carefully picks each president they want to rule their country, and they have many different forms of government to make sure the president is on task. The United States isn't like a modern day Roman Empire; the United States is under control and actually has leaders that understand what they are doing in office and why they are there.

     The United States cares not only about the government but also the people in the country. They try not to make decisions unless they know how it will effect the people. Also, they try make decisions that will benefit the people. Such as: The economy and job searches; http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=AL_OAN&ref_pge=gal&b_pge=1. In Rome, whoever was in power practically did what they want without caring about anyone else. There were some rulers who did truly care about the people, but they weren't obligated to. The leaders of Rome did whatever pleased them, and the leaders of the United States tries to do whatever will please and help the people of the nation.

     The United States also has many "mini empires" as you could say. They don't allow one person to have all the power. They give each state the opportunity to make their own laws, deal with their own problems, and help their own people. But, each state still deals with overall government and has to obey all the laws. Such as: State budgets; http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.aspfpVname=CT_RJ&ref_pge=gal&b_pge =1. In Rome, they practically had one person controlling everyone and everything. Certain cities/states weren't allowed to make their own decisions, everyone had to obey the leader no matter what he said. The ruler was allowed to do anything he wanted without having to answer to anyone.

     Finally, the United States gets to vote for the people they want to be in the government. Someone doesn't automatically get put into the office because they're related to the leader that has recently stepped down or gone out of office. The people of the nation get to choose, such as: Choosing judges; http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=AR_BCDR&ref_pge=gal&b_pge=1. In Rome, whoever was related to the last leader was obligated to lead next. The people of Rome didn't truly have a say in who was allowed to rule next or not. Whoever was next in line in the family came into office.

     The United States is almost completely different than the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was a difficult empire and barely let the people have any freedom. The United States believes in giving its people nothing but freedom. Those are a few of the reasons that the United States is not like the Roman Empire.

Rugaber, Christopher S., Crutsinger, Martin. (2011). "Nation should 'not panic.'" Opelika- Auburn News, 106. Page 6A.

Haigh, Susan. (2011). "Senate votes; state budget a done deal." Record-Journal, 159. Pages State 6.

Neal, Tracy M. (2011). "New Judges Named." The Benton County Daily Record. Pages 2A.

Exam question 4

     Herodotus practically wrote down anything he heard. He didn't care what it was, what it meant, or who said. He was very vague about what he wrote and he just gave a cap about it. He rarely went into detail and he was just concerned about getting done the basic information.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/dec/22/fiction.dondelillo

Thucydides cared more about getting down to the details and finding out everything that happened. He wouldn't write something down unless he thought it was extremely important and that it had true meaning. He was picky and he wanted to make sure he got the right things down.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/18/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety

Exam question 3

The Egyptians and Greeks had very different burial ideas. Even though they were different, they made sure that the dead person was respected as much as they needed to be. They did everything exactly the way they would do it for everyone.

The Egyptians thought more of the afterlife than they did with actual life. They made sure that when someone died, they did everything perfect so that person would be comfortable in their tomb and they would have a chance to make it to the afterlife. They wanted to make that person feel at home, so they would bury them with all of their animals, pottery, and pictures that people painted for them or that they owned. Also, they would sometimes bury people they loved with them because they felt as if they needed to die together. They would take all their organs out, put them in jars, and lay them in the tomb with the dead body. If an Egyptians heart weighed less than a feather at their "judgment" in the after life, then they were allowed to cross over. If it weighed more, than they were stuck inside their tombs forever

The Greeks had burial sessions quite like ours today. They would take care of the body, clean it, dress it, and then lay it out for people to come see. Once the family members were done mourning, they would take the body and do a normal funeral procession such as they have today. The family would bring things to lay on the grave that reminded them of the person, and they did everything at a certain time. They felt as if the dead person at least deserved the respect of having a proper burial procession. Everything was done extremely precise and almost perfect.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dbag/hd_dbag.htm

Exam question 2

    The Agricultural Revolution was important to the development of cities in many ways. They began by domesticating animals and began farming. It helped trade, which made people move to one spot so they could easily trade with other people. This allowed a city to form. Also, it gave people more time to do other things instead of hunt. People began pottery, weaving, decorating, sewing, etc. It gave people a food surplus, which also made the population grow tremendously. When people started coming together and they began living together, they started governments and actually established cities. Other than the positive aspects, the revolution also brought many negative things such as disease and conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2054675

\
View Agricultural Revolution in a larger map


If the agricultural revolution were to collapse, many things would go wrong. All of the animals would become undomesticated, and people would have to hunt for their food once again. Also, trade would no longer occur and we couldn't get things from other countries. Without trade, we wouldn't have half of the sources that we have now. That goes for the rest of the world also. Cities would collapse also and people would have more conflict and disease because they would have to become nomadic to survive. The government would probably no longer exist due to the circumstances of the people of the world. 

Exam question 1

http://todaysmeet.com/brainhumangeo

Fuller Job

    As a Fuller, your job was to collect urine, pour it into a bucket, and put a wool cloth into the urine and step around on it. This made the wool "softer" and "brought the wool tightly together." I could never do this job for many reasons. The smell of urine would make me absolutely sick. To have enough urine to do an entire wool sheet, it would have to come from a bunch of different people. Knowing that I was stepping in urine, that wasn't even mine would completely disgust me and I couldn't do it. Also, it seems like such a tiring and boring job. You have to stand in a bucket all day stomping on a wool sheet in urine. That's not fun or exciting. I find it extremely disgusting and unhealthy. I couldn't wake up everyday knowing that I had to go to work by stepping on a wool cloth in urine. That is why I'd never want to be a Fuller.

Freshman Year

     For Kelly McCloskey, freshman year was a life changing experience. She came into this school knowing only 3 people, and 2 of them she wasn't very close with. She would have never imagined meeting so many people and becoming friends with practically the entire freshman class. Sure, she made some mistakes through out the year and regrets some of the decisions she made. But, John Carroll was like a whole new world for Kelly. She joined the riding team and became so close with the girls that they're practically a family. She made new best friends that she spends her weekends with. She dated some dumb boys too, but freshman year is when you're trying to figure everything out, right? Freshman year was the beginning of something totally new for Kelly.
      Kelly worked hard to get good grades, and she succeeded by making honor roll every quarter. School always came before everything in Kelly's life, but now she found a new way to enjoy her work. She could work together with her classmates during her off mods, she actually was allowed to use a laptop in school, and it felt great to be able to do her school work with her own sense of style. Middle school was so cut out and boring for Kelly that she never had a chance to express herself in her work. John Carroll classes were the best thing that had ever happened to Kelly in her school-career.
      Besides school, Kelly made a whole new group of friends that helped her in numerous ways throughout the year. She made friends on the bus, in classes, during off mods, at parties, the riding team, and just staying for after school sport games. Since Kelly is from Baltimore, adjusting to Bel Air was a little hard, but it was exciting and fun for her. She met so many different people that shared the same interests as her, and she found it easy to fit in with the people around her. Of course the girls have their drama, all the time, but Kelly did her best to stay away from it and enjoy her time as a freshman.
     The horse back riding team was like Kelly's new family. She became close with so many different girls on the team, and found millions of opportunities opening up to her one by one. She spent her weekends away at horse shows with the girls winning ribbons, taking pictures, running around the hotels, taking care of the horses, and just bonding with the girls. Even when they weren't riding, the girls hung out and talked like they've known each other for years. Not only did Kelly find a single person who shared her love and compassion for horses, but an entire team.
      Freshman year was full of ups and downs, but nothing that could stop Kelly from putting a smile on her face. She appreciated this whole new world of people and couldn't have asked for anything more. The John Carroll school had changed Kelly's life forever, in the best way possible.

Aliens- Should we make contact or not?

I believe that we shouldn't make contact with aliens. It seems that we could cause more damage then good if we go out of our way to meet these non-earth creatures. Sure, it would be amazing if we could find that there truly is life on other planets. But, is it really worth the risk? Hawkings could be right; they might want to come in and just use all of our resources and leave us for dead. We don't NEED anything from these aliens, so why try to hard to meet/find them? It could only cause unnecessary trouble. There's always the flip side; the aliens could be extremely nice and fun creatures. They could actually help us in many ways. But, we don't NEED their help; we simply want it. Quite frankly, we don't even want their "help." We just want to find out who they are.

Weekly 8: How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?

How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology? (Rough Draft due Thursday for peer review -- BTW, a hint: the "opposite" argument would be that the architecture of churches does NOT mean anything about theology).

            Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were built in thousands of different countries and cities throughout Europe. They started in about the 6^th century and lasted until about the 16^th century. Romanesque Cathedrals and Gothic Cathedrals are extremely different in the way they are built and the designs that they have. Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals both define major differences and beliefs about religious theology in their different ways of architecture. Romanesque and Gothic don’t define any differences and beliefs about religious theology in the different ways that they were built.

            Romanesque Cathedrals roughly began in about the 6^th century and ended in the 10^th century; when Gothic Cathedrals began. Romanesque Cathedrals were built more like a bomb shelter than a church. They didn’t have many windows, and they were made out of brick or stone to assure protection against enemies (see figure 1). In case a war would ever break out or an invasion would occur, the cathedrals were the buildings that the people of the town would go to for shelter. Also, many Romanesque Cathedrals were circular or semi-circles (see figure 2). Romanesque Cathedrals were built this way because it allowed more support for the cathedrals, and it also allowed to wall to be thicker and more protective. Romanesque Cathedrals seemed as if they were more for the protection of the people, then the worship of God.

            Gothic Cathedrals formed from Romanesque Cathedrals, and lasted from about the 10^th century to the 16^th century. They were more elaborate and decorative than Romanesque Cathedrals, and they consisted of many windows and beautiful designs (see figure 3). When the Gothic Cathedrals began, the reason for many windows was to allow the light of God in; to be able to let God shine into the Cathedrals and fill the Cathedrals with his presence through the sunlight. Also, these Cathedrals were meant to be noticed and they were meant for the purposes of worship. Gothic Cathedrals couldn’t be missed by anyone, and they had a massive amount of detail and artwork built into them (see figure 4). When Gothic Cathedrals were built, it was obvious that these Cathedrals were meant to show God worship, and not serve the community with protection.

            Between Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals, there are extreme differences between the designs and the thought/planning put behind these two types of structures. The architects behind the Romanesque Cathedrals were more focused on safety then they were on appearance. Romanesque Cathedrals were practically plain and simple, and were used strict purposes only (see figure 5). On the other hand, Gothic Cathedrals are the complete opposite. The architects behind the Gothic Cathedrals wanted their Cathedrals to be noticed and they wanted them to be gorgeous. They consisted of high peaks, beautiful sculptures, and colossal stain glass windows (see figure 6).

Both Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals had a huge impact on the medieval time period, but they impacted in different ways. Romanesque Cathedrals showed a darker, more war-like side in history. Gothic Cathedrals showed a more elegant, loving, brighter side in history. Even though both types of Cathedrals are extremely different, they showed the world today how quickly beliefs and virtues can change.

Figure 1 -  Xhignesse

Figure 2- The rotunde of Saint George

Figure 3- Cathedral of Amiens

Figure 4- Milan cathedral

Figure 5- Castañeda

 

Figure 6- Cathedral of St Etienne of Bourges

GRANDMONT, Jean-Pol (Producer). (2005). Xhignesse JPG02.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xhignesse_JPG02.jpg

Borak, Matt (Producer). (2005). Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg

(2006). Cathedral of Amiens front.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_of_Amiens_front.jpg

(2002). MailaenderDom.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MailaenderDom.jpg

(2005). Castañeda2.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casta%C3%B1eda2.jpg

(2005). Bourges - 002 - Low Res.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bourges_-_002_-_Low_Res.jpg

Weekly 8: How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?

            Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were built in thousands of different countries and cities throughout Europe. They started in about the 6^th century and lasted until about the 16^th century. Romanesque Cathedrals and Gothic Cathedrals are extremely different in the way they are built and the designs that they have. Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals both define major differences and beliefs about religious theology in their different ways of architecture.

            Romanesque Cathedrals roughly began in about the 6^th century and ended in the 10^th century; when Gothic Cathedrals began. Romanesque Cathedrals were built more like a bomb shelter than a church. They didn’t have many windows, and they were made out of brick or stone to assure protection against enemies (see figure 1). In case a war would ever break out or an invasion would occur, the cathedrals were the buildings that the people of the town would go to for shelter. Also, many Romanesque Cathedrals were circular or semi-circles (see figure 2). Romanesque Cathedrals were built this way because it allowed more support for the cathedrals, and it also allowed to wall to be thicker and more protective. Romanesque Cathedrals seemed as if they were more for the protection of the people, then the worship of God.

            Gothic Cathedrals formed from Romanesque Cathedrals, and lasted from about the 10^th century to the 16^th century. They were more elaborate and decorative than Romanesque Cathedrals, and they consisted of many windows and beautiful designs (see figure 3). When the Gothic Cathedrals began, the reason for many windows was to allow the light of God in; to be able to let God shine into the Cathedrals and fill the Cathedrals with his presence through the sunlight. Also, these Cathedrals were meant to be noticed and they were meant for the purposes of worship. Gothic Cathedrals couldn’t be missed by anyone, and they had a massive amount of detail and artwork built into them (see figure 4). When Gothic Cathedrals were built, it was obvious that these Cathedrals were meant to show God worship, and not serve the community with protection.

            Between Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals, there are extreme differences between the designs and the thought/planning put behind these two types of structures. The architects behind the Romanesque Cathedrals were more focused on safety then they were on appearance. Romanesque Cathedrals were practically plain and simple, and were used strict purposes only (see figure 5). On the other hand, Gothic Cathedrals are the complete opposite. The architects behind the Gothic Cathedrals wanted their Cathedrals to be noticed and they wanted them to be gorgeous. They consisted of high peaks, beautiful sculptures, and colossal stain glass windows (see figure 6).

Both Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals had a huge impact on the medieval time period, but they impacted in different ways. Romanesque Cathedrals showed a darker, more war-like side in history. Gothic Cathedrals showed a more elegant, loving, brighter side in history. Even though both types of Cathedrals are extremely different, they showed the world today how quickly beliefs and virtues can change.

Figure 1 -  Xhignesse

Figure 2- The rotunde of Saint George

Figure 3- Cathedral of Amiens

Figure 4- Milan cathedral

Figure 5- Castañeda

 

Figure 6- Cathedral of St Etienne of Bourges

GRANDMONT, Jean-Pol (Producer). (2005). Xhignesse JPG02.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xhignesse_JPG02.jpg

Borak, Matt (Producer). (2005). Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg

(2006). Cathedral of Amiens front.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_of_Amiens_front.jpg

(2002). MailaenderDom.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MailaenderDom.jpg

(2005). Castañeda2.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casta%C3%B1eda2.jpg

(2005). Bourges - 002 - Low Res.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bourges_-_002_-_Low_Res.jpg

Weekly 7

          Once Rome was split into two different sections, they faced many problems with invaders and war. Both sides of the Roman Empire were decreasing slowly, but surely. Finally, both sides of Roman territory had been over-powered by different empires, and the Roman Empire was now nothing but a memory. The Roman Empire wasn’t transformed into a new empire; the Roman Empire had collapsed due to changes of power and constant attacks. 

            Once Diocletian came to power, he changed and transformed the government into something Rome had never seen before. “He established the tetrarchy (293A.D.), naming Maximianus as co-Augustus, and Galerius and Constantius as two subordinate Caesars. This experiment in power-sharing lasted only a short time. Constantius' son, Constantine (the Great), with dynastic ambitions of his own, set about defeating his imperial rivals and eventually reunited the Western and Eastern halves of the empire in 324A.D” (Lightfoot 2000 para. 7). Diocletian thought he was doing the right thing by turning the Roman Empire into a tetrarchy, when he clearly wasn’t. He had too many people in power, and eventually someone was going to tear apart the new form of government. Constantius’ son soon decided to rebel against the tetrarchy, and reunited the two sides of the Roman Empire that Diocletian had established not long before that. Also, how come it was that easy for Constantine to reunite the Roman Empire and rebel against the tetrarchy? No man can overthrow the Roman tetrarchy unless they have a strong source of power, or the Roman tetrarchy was extremely weak. This shows that either Constantine had gained power because his father was already favored in the Roman government, or that Diocletian’s Roman tetrarchy wasn’t even strong enough to keep itself together.

            After Constantine had established the new form of Roman government and moved the capital, things began to fall downhill when certain people within the Roman Empire started to form their own opinions and plans. “Driving many of the Germanic tribes—including the Visigoths—into the Roman provinces. What began as a controlled resettlement of barbarians within the empire's borders ended as an invasion. The emperor Valens was killed by the Visigoths at Adrianople in 378A.D., and the succeeding emperor, Theodosius I (r. 379–95A.D.), conducted campaigns against them, but failed to evict them from the empire. In 391A.D., Theodosius ordered the closing of all temples and banned all forms of pagan cult. After his death in 395A.D., the empire was divided between his sons, Honorius (Western Roman emperor) and Arcadius (Eastern Roman emperor)” (Lightfoot 2000 para 8.) Once again, the Roman Empire couldn’t control the people inside the empire. As soon as the Germanic tribes killed the emperor, it showed other tribes that, they too, could over rule the Roman Empire. Also, when Theodosius I thought he was controlling everything by starting campaigns against the Visigoths and didn’t make them leave the empire, he made them more upset when he closed the temples and ended pagan cults. When he did this, it didn’t fix anything; he just made the people more upset because their freedoms and worship places had been banned. This also played a huge part in the fall of the Roman Empire.

            Finally, the last factor that brought Rome to its fall was constant conflict and attacks. “In the west, constant attacks from German invaders such as the Visigoths broke the struggling empire down piece by piece until Italy was the only territory left under Roman control. In 476, the barbarian Odoacer overthrew the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, and Rome had fallen” (History para. 2). The Visigoths continuously tore down the Roman Empire in the West until there was nothing left except for Italy. While the West was getting attacked, the barbarians overthrew Romulus Augusta in the East. Roman was completely helpless and now there was nothing left of them. Romulus Augusta would be the last Roman Empire in history.

            The Roman Empire was completely destroyed by 476. New tribes and cultures had taken over what used to be the Roman Empire, and turned it into their own territories and small empires. Rome lasted as long as it possibly could, trying to fight invaders and wars endlessly. But, eventually Rome couldn’t fight any longer and the Roman Empire had ceased to exist.

Byzantine Empire. (2011). The History Channel website. Retrieved 9:30, April 12, 2011, from

http://www.history.com/topics/byzantine-empire.

Lightfoot, C. (2000, October). The roman empire (27 b.c.–393 a.d.). Retrieved from http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/roem/hd_roem.htm