Week 7 Blog: The Popes take Authority

I enjoyed reading about how the Popes try to take the power from the rulers. Based on how interpretation of Christ's words is so open to any translation, it makes sense that everyone thought differently about who had the real power. The idea that popes could create and depose of emporers was quite a leap from what the Bishops of Rome were supposed to do. It makes sense though, with the rise in interest of Christianity, it seems appropriate that their religous leaders would also be the secular powers. The power struggles that ensued between religion and state were more detrimental than those that we see today--in that these struggles were to determine who had leadership. Currently the debate is based on whether or not religion should anything at all to do with rule.

Week 6 Blog: Hermits

It was exciting to read about the hermits and how they developed into what we might consider monks. And also how their lifestyles developed into the system of monasteries. As these people sought out the baroness of the desert, they believed that they were living a more primordial existence. By living this "existence" hermits thought that they could deduce life to more of what God expected. It also gave them the ability to clearly see what it was that God intended. Moving away from the hustle of civilization to see the "truth" can be compared to how astronomers use their telescopes in areas where there is no light pollution. To these monks, civilization polluted the pondering of what life is. This distancing of one from the pollution of civilization seems to be somethings that even many intellectuals have sought out--take Thoreau for example, with his seclusion to Walden Pond. For Thoreau, it was impossible to see the simplicity of nature in a civilized world. Even Jesus supposedly went into the desert to ponder and pray.

Week 5 Blog: Roman Slavery

I thought the article, "Roman Slavery in the Republic," was very interesting and thought provoking. I am reading a book, The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby, and one of the chapters discusses much about the ways slaves were treated in the South on plantations. Marking most notably the fact that slaves were simply considered possessions. A distinct difference between these new Americans and the Romans can be seen by looking at the value that the latter group puts on slaves. If a southern plantation owner died, his slaves were either freed or sold to the next plantation owner. The Romans however, put a much higher value and importance on the slave with regard to the family. So much, as the article explains, that if the roman slave owner died, the slaves were also killed because it was their duty to protect him. If a roman committed suicide, the slaves were killed because they were thought to have not done their duty in helping the owner pursue a happy life. The Southerners saw slaves as merely working tools--not agents to benefit the mental stability of their owners, like the Romans.

Week 4 Blog: Unsettled Government

The reading this week was overwhelming. I was taken back by the amount of instability the Roman government underwent. Could you imagine changing presidents four times in one year?! It would have been worse for the Romans because the emperor had way more power than our presidents do. It seemed strange to me that powers that were simply didn't abolish the senate all together. With all the power that they had, what position did the senate really have? It didn't seem that they had any real power.

I found Augustus to be the most interesting of all the rulers we read about. They way he expanded the boundaries of Rome is impressive. Also the characteristics of his ruling seemed to be the most appropriate for the time--given some power to the senate. I also found it quite enlightening to learn how our calendar came to be. The origin of the month August and July, and the meaning of SEPTember, OCTober, and DECember never crossed my mind. It never made sense that they were numbered wrong--now it does.

Week 3 Blog: Early Rome

I did not know that Rome had begun so early--753 BC. As we were reading about Greece, I had figured that we didn't hear about Rome because it hadn't really been created. I was enlightened and now realize that Rome wasn't really a threat because Greece was not a threat to Rome. I thought it was interesting how Rome, in the beginning, was not concerned with conquering the world. They were simply occupied with trying to ease tensions at their borders by controlling those that opposed or threatened them. Up until reading this week's assignment, I had always thought of Rome in the context of world domination. I now compare very early Rome with Athens--that is, not world domineering and mostly interested in creating a reasonable government. I know that this only lasts for awhile, but the beginnings of the two are somewhat comparable.

Wikipedia Article Analysis #1

The article that I decided to use for this assignment was the result of a basic search: “Ancient Greece.” Also titled “Ancient Greece,” the article attempts to summarize the period of Greek history lasting from 1100 BC to 146 BC. Divided into four periods (Greek Dark Ages, Archaic Period, Classical Period, and The Hellenistic Period), Greek history is analyzed by its pottery styles and political events. The last half of the article breaks down the Greek humanities under several generalized sub-headings: Colonies, Politics and Society, Government and Law, Warfare, Education, Economy, and several others.

Listed Criteria:
1.) Eight Pages, about 5,400 words.
2.) Search Term: “Ancient Greece.” Article title: “Ancient Greece.”
3.) No disambiguation links.
4.) In the Discussion tab I found pages and pages of debate, corrections, and questions regarding the article. Some of it seems somewhat like our blogs.
5.) There have been over 500 changes to the page, starting in 2006. The last change was made in August of 2008.
6.) There are six external links provided.
7.) There are nine references.
8.) There are nine items listed under “see also.”

I felt that this was a good article in the sense that it was very general. There are not many details, just huge paragraphs of “facts.” The article was easy to read (as with most Wikipedia articles), and despite its pithy nature, the article helped to generalize the chronology of the time period. Overall, I would suggest that a student use this article to further refine a search topic.

Week 2 Blog: Alcibiades

I was profounded by how "slimy" Alcibiades was. He is a real example of how selfish and spiteful a human can be. After persuading Athens to fight a war that she didn't want to fight, Alcibiades insults her culture by defacing public property. When faced with the consequences of his actions he cowardly runs away--then steps even further by becoming a traitor. In telling Sparta of the coming assault, he basically destroys Athens' chance of winning their battle. This might not be so bad (saving Sparta), but IT WAS HIS IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE. I wonder how Sparta reacted to his news. Were they glad that he told them of the coming battle? I wonder if he told them that it was his movement--probably not. I bet he left that part out and was paid handsomely for his knowledge.

I felt sorry for Nicias. Having to fight in a war that he didn't even want to participate in must have been a great challenge. I would be hard to motivate thousands of men to fight when one's heart isn't even in it. It was somewhat comic to see how he tried to manipulate the council only to have in backfire in his face--twice!