West Civ. Final Exam Question 10

I actually learned a lot this semester. I have learned how to write an academic essay, and learned a lot about finding high quality sources.  I have also learned a lot about the topics we covered. This class has definitely been worth my time. It has taught me how to manage time, and how to write good quality work.

West Civ. Final Exam Question 9

A Renaissance Man is like a polymath,  or a person who is good at  a significant number of different subject area. I would say Shakespeare is a perfect example of a polymath. Shakespeare was almost like the father of poet. He was the best at the written word.  Shakespeare was a businessman, actor, and a writer. Today, his plays are performed and read more often and in more nations than ever before. "In a million words written over 20 years, he captured the full range of human emotions and conflicts with a precision that remains sharp today."  His great contemporary, and dramatist Ben Jonson said, "He was not of an age, but for all time."

West Civ. Final Exam Question 8

                        The Romanesque Cathedrals were made with thick, heavy walls; however, on the other, Gothic Cathedrals were made with thin, elegant walls.  In Figure 1, one can see thick walls of the Romanesque Cathedral. The thick walls were also used for protection, which took a lot of time; instead of spending so much time on the thick walls for protection, they could have spent more time with God. The thick walls also showed how the people they tried to hide from God and didn’t accept many people. This shows that they weren’t really focused on accepting people; they were more focused on protection and judgment day.  On the other hand, the Gothic Cathedral in Figure 2 had much less thick walls with design and elegance. The less thick walls showed how accepting they were to other people coming into the Church to praise God. The design showed how elegant the Gothic Cathedrals and tried to draw even more people in.  The walls weren’t the only part of the differences of the Gothic and Romanesque architecture in theology.

                 Another difference between the Romanesque and Gothic architecture about the theology were the windows.  The Romanesque windows were very small and skinny and were based on protection.  The small windows show how protective the people wanted to be and showed how they people believed in Judgment day because the small windows let in very little light. The Romanesque windows clearly display how the people believed times were dark because of judgment day; however, the Gothic windows are quite the opposite. The Gothic windows were huge and were used to let in lots of light.  The huge windows were used to let in the light, metaphorically meaning, to let the light of God inside. The big windows show how accepting and open the Gothic theology was compared to Romanesque. As you can see the huge windows of the Gothic Cathedrals were used to let the light of God in, but the small windows of the Romanesque Cathedrals were used for protection, which showed some insecurity in their faith.

                                                                      Romanesque 

                                                                           Gothic

                                                                          Romanesque

 Gothic

 Romanesque

  

                                                             Gothic

West Civ. Final Exam Question 7

1.) The Black Death is believed to have been started by fleas from rodents and filth.  The spread got people to think that they were going to die, and people got crazy. This also caused starvation for some people, because it was a harsh winter, and the farmer might be dead from the Black Death.,
2.) The people with the Black Death were disgusting and people had bumps, vomited, and smelt like vomit.  People had bumps on their groin and neck. They had a huge fever and vomited blood.
3.) If a plague like the Black Death were to happen today, it definitely, wouldn't be good. People would start acting crazy, and this worst part is that none would even expect it. People would turn to God and pray a lot, while other would steal and just wait for death. I really don't know what it would be like, because I can't even imagine it, but I'm sure some scientist would try to figure out the cause to the overwhelming plague. Others would probably commit suicide, because they just can't wait for death to come they no it will come.The Black Death took out over half the population of Europe, so it would definitely be a very hard situation to handle.

West Civ. Final Exam Question 6

1. http://richardthelionheartedcrusade.wikispaces.com/

2. Dear Editors:
                Richard has no idea what he is talking about. He is so young like teenager and nothing compared my experience in war. Jerusalem is rightfully ours, and means more to us then the Christians. after all, this is where the prophet Mohammed ascended into heaven. i would like to see him try to take over Jerusalem from me, he doesn't know what he is getting him self into to.  this would only be a loss for him and not me.
               If Richard even sets foot on my turf, I will show no mercy and just obliterate him into dust. The slogan and picture has no effort what so ever, and is a disgrace to the internet. Jerusalem is well to fortified and when Richard is gone his brother will take. The Third Crusade has no meaning and no benefits.

West Civ. Final Exam Question 5

The Ancient Roman Empire is compared to the United States today often. However people need to understand that they are nothing a like. Sure we have democracy just like the Romans, but today ours is a lot more advanced and organized. The Ancient Roman Empire was the best in its day, and now the U.S is best in its day. It is still not fair to say that the United States is the modern day equivalent of the Roman Empire.
First, in the front page of "The Courier Journal"http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=KY_CJ&ref_pge= it has a section about the economy, and at the same time, the Romans had an economy. The Romans had tax collectors and jobs. Today, we have a lot more industrial jobs then agricultural like the Romans. Also today we have a lot more technology which allows more jobs and trade. Today in the U.S, we also have a toil more advanced currency system that allows the economy to change sometimes. (Courier Journal 2011) Not only was the economy different, but the architecture is also different in some ways.
Sure we still have bricks, cement, and columns from the Romans, but we also have a lot more materials due technology and discoveries. In the front page of the "West Central Tribune" has something about elevators.

West Civ. Final Exam Question 4

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/a-day-of-terror-the-response-rescue-workers-rush-in-and-many-do-not-return.html?ref=sept112001 This article was about the rescue workers who went and didn't return. This article is really specific and tells better information. This is more like Thucydides because he was very specific in a lot of his writings. Thucydides found better information that people could rely on ,and put the straight up facts. This allowed people to really understand the gists of the stories and let people know what was actually going on.

West Civ. Final Exam Question 3

The Egyptian and Greek beliefs of after life are both similar, but both different.  Both believed that the afterlife was decided by the gods. Both civilizations were polytheistic which means the believed in multiple gods. The Egyptians had the God Horus and the Greek god of death was Hades.   The  psyche was the spirit and soul for the Greeks. And the Egyptians called their soul Ka. Both civilizations  had rituals.
       The Greeks anointed the bodies with oil and dressed them with burial clothing. while the Egyptians used things like mummies and pyramids. The Egyptians believed that their soul would be weighed and if lighter than a feather, they would go to eternal life.The Greeks and Egyptians weren't obsessed with death, but rather prepared for it and did what they thought was correct. As you can see the Greeks and Egyptians had both similarities and diffrences.

West Civ. Final Exam Question 2

1.) The Agricultural Revolution allowed people so They didn't have to hunt.  The people also  were able to settle down and  create settlements. It gave a food surplus, domesticated plants and animals. It also made trade much easier, and  gave people more time to do other things. The Agricultural Revolution allowed trade to be faster, which means people could get the resources they needed faster, which lets them build settlements.
2.) 

View West Civ. Indus Valley in a larger map
3.) It has been thirty ears since the collapse of the Agricultural Revolution. People are turning into cannibals and are doing what ever it takes just to let themselves survive. New York is now no longer a city; the ports were destroyed and towers fell. There is an approximate of only a billion people left on earth.  There is no trade anymore, and no more cities. Life is not an option without meat. All we have are a few animals to feed of of. To me, my family aren't even the people I saw when I was born.
          People have no homes and live on the street.  We live in our own filth and have no bed. when historians said life would progress, I didn't know progression was like this. The United States was last to fall, because everybody coming to the U.S to leave a better life. All the people turned crazy and turned against the government. There is no government anymore, and no organization.

West Civ. Final Exam Question 1

Chat: http://todaysmeet.com/hutton

Worst Job in Middle Ages

The worst Job in the Middle Ages was probably the fuller. The fuller was responsible for making the wool softer and bringing it together, to make it tighter. The downside was that the wool was softened with urine. The urine was used as the softener. The fuller would put the cloth in a fairly good sized bucket then pure the urine in. Next they would take off their shoes and start walking on the cloth in the urine barefoot. Not only is it disgusting enough to be barefoot standing in urine, but sometimes you had to run in the urine. Running in the urine would eventually make you tired and definitely make your feet smell. This would definitely be my least favorite job, and I would have probably quit in the first ten seconds. After this long and disgusting process of walking in urine, the wool would be used for armor for the knights or just clothing.  

Josh's first year at John Carroll.

     Josh learned a lot this year, not  only in academics, but also about himself. In the beginning of the year Josh had the mindset to tryout for soccer. However, he missed the tryouts. Josh put that behind himself, and school was starting shortly. He was very nervous, but also excited to to see all his friends that he didn't see over the summer. His first class of the first day was Biology. The teacher was very nice and respectable. Then Josh started meeting new people and making new friends. Soon it got towards Christmas Break and Josh was very excited. He got one week out earlier then his brother.

     After Christmas Break, school was very depressing, but happy at the same time. People were sad, but rejoicing at the same time. People were sad that the break was over, but rejoicing in seeing all their new friends.  Then came midterms. Josh has never had midterms before, so he was very nervous. He studied two hours for each subject. However, Josh came to realize that each exam day, you got out early. In that news, Josh rejoiced. The exam days went one by one for Josh, and he realized that now he was halfway finished his freshman year of high school.
   
    Third quarter, was different for Josh. It was easier to get around, and he knew a lot of people. Overall, Josh just felt more comfortable. Until, Josh missed tennis tryouts again. How could Josh forget again, don't you learn from your mistakes.

Aliens: Good or Bad

I agree with Stephen Hawking, because most likely they will not be friendly, and will just raid the earth for resources, to let their race continue. Christopher Columbus is a perfect example of how it might play out.  on the the other hand. if aliens turn out, it would be helpful for information and trade. However, I would not take the chance.

Weekly #9 Final Draft

Josh Mannion

May 6, 2011

Western Civ.

Weekly #9

Question: Why is it so important to understand Charlemagne if one is to really understand the culture of the Middle Ages?

            Charlemagne was born in the late 740s in modern day Belgium and was the son of the Frankish king Pepin the Short. Charlemagne is short for Charles the Great. Charlemagne was king of the Franks and Christian emperor of the West. When Charlemagne became sole ruler in 771, he spent his early part of his reign on military campaigns to expand his kingdom. Charlemagne did a lot to the shape the Middle Ages in Europe through his conversion to Christianity, the Carolingian Renaissance, and his conquers over most of Europe.

            During the Middle Ages, there was a lot of conversation, arguments, and attempts to fix Christianity, but it was eventually fixed the High Middle Ages. According to BBC, “He also attempted to consolidate Christianity throughout his vast empire. He persuaded many eminent scholars to come to his court and established a new library of Christian and classical works” (BBC, 2011). This quote from BBC shows how Charlemagne attempted to spread Christianity throughout his huge empire.  Charlemagne even had a library of Christian works, which demonstrates his try to bring back Christianity. In the Middle Ages, it was common in trying to restore Christianity, just like Charlemagne during his reign over most of Europe. Charlemagne conquest to bring back Christianity was a very nice try, but not enough. Because Charlemagne tried to restore Christianity, it shows how he built some of the culture of the Middle Ages in Europe. However, this is not all he did.

            During the Middle Ages, it was also common for art and scholar. Charlemagne contributed to and basically made the Carolingian Renaissance. BBC states: “His reign marked a period of enormous cultural and literary achievement” (BBS, 2006). This displays how Charlemagne made a culture with art and literature, which was very popular in the Middle Ages. During the Carolingian Renaissance made under Charlemagne, there were increase in writing, architecture, and even liturgical reforms. This quote shows how significant his reign was in changing and in the achievement of cultural and literary enhancement. Charlemagne is a classic example of a ruler during the Middle Ages not all because of his conversion to Christianity and literary advancements, but there was more.

            Charlemagne was not only known as Charles the Great, but is also called Charles the Conqueror. According to BBC, “He invaded Saxony in 772 and eventually achieved its total conquest and conversion to Christianity. He also extended his dominance to the south, conquering the kingdom of the Lombards in northern Italy. In 778, he invaded northern Spain, then controlled by the Moors” (BBC, 2011). Another huge part during the middle Ages was conquering places. According to this quote from BBC, Charlemagne took over most of Europe which allowed him to spread Christianity and introduce the Carolingian Renaissance. Charlemagne extended his Frankish Empire all along the Mediterranean Sea, and was too large for his successors to keep up with. Because of him conquering what he did, how could we not call him a prime example of the culture during the Middle Ages?

            These quotes show how Charlemagne is a perfect example of the culture of the Middle Ages in Europe. Through his spread of Christianity, his advancements in literature, and his expansion of his empire, why wouldn’t he be an example of the culture during the middle ages? Charlemagne did much to the shape and create the Middle Ages and its culture in Europe through his spread in Christianity, his Carolingian Renaissance, and his conquers over most of Europe. Charlemagne placed a precedent for all his successors in the Middle Ages. Because of all the things Charlemagne did that influenced the culture of the Middles Ages, it is important to understand and learn his life.

Works Cited

BBC, Initials. (2011). Charlemagne (c. 747 - c. 814). Retrieved from  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/charlemagne.shtml

BBC, (2006, Mar. 30). The Carolingian Renaissance. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from            http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003hydz

Weekly #9 Rough Draft

Josh Mannion

May 3, 2011

Western Civ.

Weekly Rough Draft #9

Question: Why is it so important to understand Charlemagne if one is to really understand the culture of the Middle Ages?

            Charlemagne was born in the late 740s in modern day Belgium and was the son of the Frankish king Pepin the Short. Charlemagne is short for Charles the Great. Charlemagne was king of the Franks and Christian emperor of the West. When Charlemagne became sole ruler in 771, he spent his early part of his reign on military campaigns to expand his kingdom. Charlemagne did a lot to the shape the Middle Ages in Europe through his conversion to Christianity, the Carolingian Renaissance, and his conquers over most of Europe. Charlemagne did nothing to shape the Middle Ages and was insufficient to the culture during this time.

            During the Middle Ages, there was a lot of conversation, arguments, and attempts to fix Christianity, but it was eventually fixed the High Middle Ages. According to BBC, “He also attempted to consolidate Christianity throughout his vast empire. He persuaded many eminent scholars to come to his court and established a new library of Christian and classical works” (BBC, 2011)  This quote from BBC shows how Charlemagne attempted to spread Christianity throughout his huge empire.  Charlemagne even had a library of Christian works, which demonstrates his try to bring back Christianity. In the Middle Ages, it was common in trying to restore Christianity, just like Charlemagne during his reign over most of Europe. Charlemagne conquest to bring back Christianity was a very nice try, but not enough. Because Charlemagne tried to restore Christianity, it shows how he built some of the culture of the Middle Ages in Europe. However, this is not all he did.

            During the Middle Ages, it was also common for art and scholar. Charlemagne contributed to and basically made the Carolingian Renaissance. BBC states: “His reign marked a period of enormous cultural and literary achievement.” (BBS,2006) This displays how Charlemagne made a culture with art and literature, which was very popular in the Middle Ages. During the Carolingian Renaissance made under Charlemagne, there were increase in writing, architecture, and even liturgical reforms. This quote shows how significant his reign was in changing and in the achievement of cultural and literary enhancement. Charlemagne is a classic example of a ruler during the Middle Ages not all because of his conversion to Christianity and literary advancements, but there was more.

            Charlemagne was not only known as Charles the Great, but is also called Charles the Conqueror. According to BBC, “He invaded Saxony in 772 and eventually achieved its total conquest and conversion to Christianity. He also extended his dominance to the south, conquering the kingdom of the Lombards in northern Italy. In 778, he invaded northern Spain, then controlled by the Moors” (BBC, 2011). Another huge part during the middle Ages was conquering places. According to this quote from BBC, Charlemagne took over most of Europe which allowed him to spread Christianity and introduce the Carolingian Renaissance. Charlemagne extended his Frankish Empire all along the Mediterranean Sea, and was too large for his successors to keep up with. Because of him conquering what he did, how could we not call him a prime example of the culture during the Middle Ages?

            These quotes show how Charlemagne is a perfect example of the culture of the Middle Ages in Europe. Through his spread of Christianity, his advancements in literature, and his expansion of his empire, why wouldn’t he be an example of the culture during the middle ages? Charlemagne did much to the shape and create the Middle Ages and its culture in Europe through his spread in Christianity, his Carolingian Renaissance, and his conquers over most of Europe. Charlemagne placed a precedent for all his successors in the Middle Ages. Because of all the things Charlemagne did that influenced the culture of the Middles Ages, it is important to understand and learn his life.

Works Cited

BBC, Initials. (2011). Charlemagne (c. 747 - c. 814). Retrieved from            http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/charlemagne.shtml

BBC, (2006, Mar. 30). The Carolingian Renaissance. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from         http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003hydz

Weekly #8 Final Draft

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

            The Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals both originated in Europe during the medieval period. The Romanesque period lasted from the ninth to eleventh centuries soon after that followed the Gothic period from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. The Gothic and Romanesque architecture were somewhat similar, but completely different in the meaning due to the change in culture. The Romanesque architecture focused on judgment day and protection during violence; however, the Gothic architecture was peaceful and tried to le the light of God in. The Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were based on two completely different theologies, but eventually led into what Christianity is today. 

            The Romanesque Cathedrals were made with thick, heavy walls; however, on the other hand, Gothic Cathedrals were made with thin, elegant walls.  In Figure 1, one can see thick walls of the Romanesque Cathedral. (Figure 1) The thick walls were also used for protection, which took a lot of time; instead of spending so much time on the thick walls for protection, they could have spent more time with God. The thick walls also showed how the people they tried to hide from God and didn’t accept many people. This shows that they weren’t really focused on accepting people; they were more focused on protection and judgment day.  On the other hand, the Gothic Cathedral in Figure 2 had much less thick walls with design and elegance. (Figure 2) The less thick walls showed how accepting they were to other people coming into the Church to praise God. The design showed how elegant the Gothic Cathedrals and tried to draw even more people in.  The walls weren’t the only part of the differences of the Gothic and Romanesque architecture in theology.

            Not only did the Romanesque Cathedrals have thick walls, but also had thick pillars to hold those walls for protection. The Gothic Cathedrals used thin, designed pillars, which were used to attract people in its elegance. The pillars on this Romanesque Cathedral show how thick and solid they could be. (Figure 3) The thick and solid pillars demonstrate how the people believed in protection and tried to keep safe. The thick pillars provided the people protection will they worshiped God and focused on judgment day. The thin, elegant pillars in this Gothic Cathedral display the Gothic’s theology in its architecture. (Figure 4)  The thin pillars show that the people believed in making peace instead of protection like the Romanesque architecture. The elegant designs on the pillar also showed how they tried to draw people into the Church to make it grow.  The Gothic theology was for peace and bringing people to see God; while the Romanesque theology was protection and judgment day and one could clearly see that through the pillars of the architecture.

            Another difference between the Romanesque and Gothic architecture about the theology were the windows.  The Romanesque windows were very small and skinny and were based on protection. (Figure 5)  The small windows show how protective the people wanted to be and showed how they people believed in Judgment day because the small windows let in very little light. The Romanesque windows clearly display how the people believed times were dark because of judgment day; however, the Gothic windows are quite the opposite. The Gothic windows were huge and were used to let in lots of light. (Figure 6) The huge windows were used to let in the light, metaphorically meaning, to let the light of God inside. The big windows show how accepting and open the Gothic theology was compared to Romanesque. As you can see the huge windows of the Gothic Cathedrals were used to let the light of God in, but the small windows of the Romanesque Cathedrals were used for protection, which showed some insecurity in their faith.

            In conclusion, the Romanesque and Gothic architecture both had its own particular way of showing its unique theology. Through the walls, pillars, and windows, one can see each detail that depicts its own theology. Through the thick walls, solid pillars, and small windows, one can see that the Romanesque theology was about protection and judgment due to the lack of light from the windows and the thick walls and pillars. Through the thin walls, elegant pillars, and huge windows, the Gothic’s theology was about letting the light of God in and building up the Church. Just the architecture of the Romanesque and Gothic show their differences in theology that eventually led up to Christianity.  

           

Figure 1

Tournai, Belgium

The five towers of the Notre-Dame Cathedral, exterior, 12th century,  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tournai_JPG001.jpg,photograph taken in 2005

Figure 2

Brussels, Belgium

Bruxelles Notre-Dame du Sablon, exterior, (n.d),    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruxelles_Notre-Dame_du_Sablon.jpg ,          photograph taken in 2009.

Figure 3

Nivelles, Belgium

St. Gertrude Collegiate Church, interior,11^th/12^th centuries,            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nivelles_JPG00_(13).jpg,

            photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 4

Manche, France

Coutances' cathedral, interior,(n.d),            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedrale_de_Coutances_bordercropped.jpg,

            photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 5

Schwarzach, Germany

Schwarzach Germany Roman-Monastery-Church, exterior,(n.d),            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwarzach_Germany_Roman-Monastery         Church.jpg,

            photograph taken in 2006.

Figure 6

Reims, France

Reims Cathedrale Notre Dame, interior,(n.d),            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reims_Cathedrale_Notre_Dame_interior_002.  PG,

            photograph taken in 2008.

Weekly #8 Rough Draft

Josh Mannion

April 27, 2011

Western Civ.

Weekly 8

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

            The Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals both originated in Europe during the medieval period. The Romanesque period lasted from the ninth to eleventh centuries soon after that followed the Gothic period from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. The Gothic and Romanesque architecture were somewhat similar, but completely different in the meaning due to the change in culture. The Romanesque architecture focused on judgment day and protection during violence; however, the Gothic architecture was peaceful and tried to le the light of God in. The Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were based on two completely different theologies, but eventually led into what Christianity is today.  The Gothic and Romanesque architecture had nothing to do with theology and are exactly the same.

            The Romanesque Cathedrals were made with thick, heavy walls; however, on the other, Gothic Cathedrals were made with thin, elegant walls.  In Figure 1, one can see thick walls of the Romanesque Cathedral. (Figure 1) The thick walls were also used for protection, which took a lot of time; instead of spending so much time on the thick walls for protection, they could have spent more time with God. The thick walls also showed how the people they tried to hide from God and didn’t accept many people. This shows that they weren’t really focused on accepting people; they were more focused on protection and judgment day.  On the other hand, the Gothic Cathedral in Figure 2 had much less thick walls with design and elegance. (Figure 2) The less thick walls showed how accepting they were to other people coming into the Church to praise God. The design showed how elegant the Gothic Cathedrals and tried to draw even more people in.  The walls weren’t the only part of the differences of the Gothic and Romanesque architecture in theology.

            Not only did the Romanesque Cathedrals have thick walls, but also had thick pillars to hold those walls for protection. The Gothic Cathedrals used thin, designed pillars, which were used to attract people in its elegance. The pillars on this Romanesque Cathedral show how thick and solid they could be. (Figure 3) The thick and solid pillars demonstrate how the people believed in protection and tried to keep safe. The thick pillars provided the people protection will they worshiped God and focused on judgment day. The thin, elegant pillars in this Gothic Cathedral display the Gothic’s theology in its architecture. (Figure 4)  The thin pillars show that the people believed in making peace instead of protection like the Romanesque architecture. The elegant designs on the pillar also showed how they tried to draw people into the Church to make it grow.  The Gothic theology was for peace and bringing people to see God; while the Romanesque theology was protection and judgment day and one could clearly see that through the pillars of the architecture.

            Another difference between the Romanesque and Gothic architecture about the theology were the windows.  The Romanesque windows were very small and skinny and were based on protection. (Figure 5)  The small windows show how protective the people wanted to be and showed how they people believed in Judgment day because the small windows let in very little light. The Romanesque windows clearly display how the people believed times were dark because of judgment day; however, the Gothic windows are quite the opposite. The Gothic windows were huge and were used to let in lots of light. (Figure 6) The huge windows were used to let in the light, metaphorically meaning, to let the light of God inside. The big windows show how accepting and open the Gothic theology was compared to Romanesque. As you can see the huge windows of the Gothic Cathedrals were used to let the light of God in, but the small windows of the Romanesque Cathedrals were used for protection, which showed some insecurity in their faith.

            In conclusion, the Romanesque and Gothic architecture both had its own particular way of showing it’s unique theology. Through the walls, pillars, and windows, one can see each detail that depicts its own theology. Through the thick walls, solid pillars, and small windows, one can see that the Romanesque theology was about protection and judgment due to the lack of light from the windows and the thick walls and pillars. Through the thin walls, elegant pillars, and huge windows, the Gothic’s theology was about letting the light of God in and building up the Church. Just the architecture of the Romanesque and Gothic show their differences in theology that eventually led up to Christianity.  

           

Figure 1

Tournai, Belgium

The five towers of the Notre-Dame Cathedral, exterior, 12th century,  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tournai_JPG001.jpg,photograph taken in 2005

Figure 2

Brussels, Belgium

Bruxelles Notre-Dame du Sablon, exterior, (n.d),    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruxelles_Notre-Dame_du_Sablon.jpg ,          photograph taken in 2009.

Figure 3

Nivelles, Belgium

St. Gertrude Collegiate Church, interior,11^th/12^th centuries,            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nivelles_JPG00_(13).jpg,

            photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 4

Manche, France

Coutances' cathedral, interior,(n.d),            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedrale_de_Coutances_bordercropped.jpg,

            photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 5

Schwarzach, Germany

Schwarzach Germany Roman-Monastery-Church, exterior,(n.d),            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwarzach_Germany_Roman-Monastery         Church.jpg,

            photograph taken in 2006.

Figure 6

Reims, France

Reims Cathedrale Notre Dame, interior,(n.d),            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reims_Cathedrale_Notre_Dame_interior_002.  PG,

            photograph taken in 2008.

Weekly #7 Final Draft "Did the Roman Empire 'decline and fall' or did it evolve into something new?"

Josh Mannion

April 12, 2011

Western Civ.

            The Roman Empire ended in 476 due to constant changing and new uprisings. The Roman Empire basically had its own people turn on them like the Crusaders and Christians. The people of Rome disagreed on almost everything the government did or issued. Whenever the Emperor would try to fix something, it did the opposite most of the time. The Roman Empire 'declined and fell' gradually over a long period of time due to constant changing, attacks on the empire, and somewhat Christianity.

            Christianity in the Roman Empire was gaining popularity and pretty much taking over. Gibson stated: “the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion” (Gibson, n.d).  This shows that as Christianity was becoming more powerful, the religion was actually taking over the Roman culture. Christianity basically distracted the Roman people from everything else, and everyone concentrated on Christianity. When the people of Rome where distracted, it left them vulnerable because they didn’t pay attention to the issues surrounding them. Because they didn’t pay attention to the issues, the issues overtook the people, and basically lead to the downfall. Christianity took over the people of Rome and the things that used to be important to the people of Rome weren’t so important when Christianity came into play. Christianity drew the intention of the people from major issues to the religion and culture, and in addition to that there was constant changing.       

The constant changing in the empire also lead to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The History Channel also states: “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” (History Channel, 2011). This quote from the history channel describes how change can often lead to suffering. When Emperors kept changing, dying, and retiring; the people could not get used to one good emperor. The people of Rome eventually got tired of getting a new emperor almost every year. Each new emperor would be different and try new things to try fix the struggles already, and when the people realized the new emperors didn’t really work they rebelled. The constant change of the emperors made people angry, and the people started to turn against its own government, which eventually lead to the fall of the great Roman Empire.

Because of the constant changing and the distraction of Christianity, the Roman Empire was left vulnerable to the surrounding forces that wanted to seize the Roman Empire included Germans, Parthians, and Goths. The History Channel states: “Meanwhile, threats from outside plagued the empire and depleted its riches, including continuing aggression from Germans and Parthians and raids by the Goths over the Aegean Sea” (History Channel, 2011).This quote reveals how when the ‘outside threats’ attacked, they deprived the Romans of everything. This quote also shows how the Roman Empire decreasingly lost its power overtime. As everything else was going on this quote demonstrates that the surrounding forces that were attacking the Roman Empire were aggressive, brutal, and took everything for the Romans. As the Germans, Goths, Parthians attacked like a ‘plague’, the Roman Empire was declining and fading from the map slowly.

                        Through these quotes, one must realize that the Roman Empire collapsed and declined because of constant changes, attacks from surrounding forces, and religions powerful influence on culture. If the Roman Empire just changed then why didn’t they just still keep the name as the Roman Empire? If the empire just evolved then, why was it destroyed by the surrounding forces and then rebuilt their way? Christianity distracted the people of Rome from the big issues around them, which lead them vulnerable of attacks from surrounding sources. As the Germans, Goths, and Parthians attacked Rome, the Romans kept changing its government and emperor just seeing if they could make something work. Obviously, Rome collapsed because it was just destroyed by its attackers while it was left vulnerable by issues inside Rome.

                                                                                                  

Works Cited

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

History Channel, (2011). In Decline and Disintegration. 
      HistoryChannel.com. Retrieved Apr. 12,         

      2011, from 
      http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/page2#a7

Weekly #7 "Did the Roman Empire 'decline and fall' or did it evolve into something new?"

Josh Mannion

April 12, 2011

Western Civ.          

           The Roman Empire ended in 476 due to constant changing and new uprisings. The Roman Empire basically had its own people turn on them like the Crusaders and Christians. The people of Rome disagreed on almost everything the government did or issued. Whenever the Emperor would try to fix something, it did the opposite most of the time. The Roman Empire 'declined and fell' gradually over a long period of time due to constant changing, attacks on the empire, and somewhat Christianity. The Roman Empire did not fall by constant changes, religion influences, and attacks; it evolved and changed into something new.

            Christianity in the Roman Empire was gaining popularity and pretty much taking over. Gibson stated: “the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion” (Gibson, n.d).  This shows that as Christianity was becoming more powerful, the religion was actually taking over the Roman culture. Christianity basically distracted the Roman people from everything else, and everyone concentrated on Christianity. When the people of Rome where distracted, it left them vulnerable because they didn’t pay attention to the issues surrounding them. Christianity took over the people of Rome and the things that used to be important to the people of Rome weren’t so important when Christianity came into play. Christianity drew the intention of the people from the issues to the religion, which left them vulnerable to surrounding forces.

            The surrounding forces that wanted to seize the Roman Empire included Germans, Parthians, and Goths. The History Channel states: “Meanwhile, threats from outside plagued the empire and depleted its riches, including continuing aggression from Germans and Parthians and raids by the Goths over the Aegean Sea” (History Channel, 2011).This quote reveals how when the ‘outside threats’ attacked, they deprived the Romans of everything. This quote also shows how the Roman Empire decreasingly lost its power overtime. As everything else was going on this quote demonstrates that the surrounding forces that were attacking the Roman Empire were aggressive, brutal, and took everything for the Romans. As the Germans, Goths, Parthians attacked like a ‘plague’, the Roman Empire was declining and fading from the map slowly.

            The major reason for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was the constant changing. The History Channel also states: “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” (History Channel, 2011). This quote from the history channel describes how change can often lead to suffering. When Emperors kept changing, dying, and retiring; the people could not get used to one good emperor. The people of Rome eventually got tired of getting a new emperor almost every year. Each new emperor would be different and try new things to try fix the struggles already, and when the people realized the new emperors didn’t really work they rebelled. The constant change of the emperors made people angry, and the people started to turn against its own government, which eventually lead to the fall of the great Roman Empire.

            Through these quotes, one must realize that the Roman Empire collapsed and declined because of constant changes, attacks from surrounding forces, and religions powerful influence on culture. If the Roman Empire just changed then why didn’t they just still keep the name as the Roman Empire? If the empire just evolved then, why was it destroyed by the surrounding forces and then rebuilt their way? Christianity distracted the people of Rome from the big issues around them, which lead them vulnerable of attacks from surrounding sources. As the Germans, Goths, and Parthians attacked Rome, the Romans kept changing its government and emperor just seeing if they could make something work. Obviously, Rome collapsed because it was just destroyed by its attackers while it was left vulnerable by issues inside Rome.

                                                                                                  

Works Cited

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

History Channel, (2011). In Decline and Disintegration. HistoryChannel.com. Retrieved Apr. 12,         

       2011, from http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/page2#a7

Week 6: Daily # 3

Josh Mannion

April 6, 2011

Western Civ.

Question: How does Early Christian and Byzantine portraiture represent both a continuation of and a break from the past?

            The early Christian and Byzantine portraiture represent a lot about religion and don’t look much different from what we have today. Today, we have many paintings and art that deal with religion, like stain glass windows in many churches. Many of these paintings also have to do with culture and what the people looked like and did. Right down in Baltimore, we have statues of people who were sports great, just how many Christian and Byzantine portraitures had pictures and statues of people in different events. The portraiture of Early Christian and Byzantine art also showed great people from the past like the Ravenna Portrait of Justinian because this shows emperor Justinian and the Bishop of Ravenna in a meeting of some sort while surrounded by soldiers. This closely relates to the national monument at Mount Rushmore, because Mount Rushmore shows the great presidents we once had. As you can see both Early Christian and Byzantine portraiture clearly represent a continuation from the past.

           

            As the early Christian and Byzantine portraiture represent a continuation of the past, they also represent a break from the past. The Christian and Byzantine portraitures are in a lot more detail than they are today, because most portraiture now are very simplistic and are more abstract.  As you can see not only did we change from the past, but will also learn and keep some of the past in the present, just like we saw in the early Christian and Byzantine portraitures.

Daily, Final Draft Stoicism Essay

    Josh Mannion

    4/5/11 

     Today, many people let their emotions take control of them and some can’t endure pain that comes with some tasks. One of the hardest tasks in life is to obtain stoicism. 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.
     At his death, “Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will” (Tacitus). As Seneca he showed no emotion what so ever, even though he knew he was already going to die. Seneca was able to control his emotions, even under extreme pressure. This shows his ability and will power to endure the pain while he knows that he is going to die. Stoics like Seneca, know not to let their emotions to get the best of them, and this quote from Seneca is a prime example. Seneca at his death was not only able to control his emotions while writing his will; he was also able to endure his hardship many other times.
     Seneca once said, “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 practices 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” (Tacitus).Through this, one may realize that Seneca has the will power and heart to do what he knows is best for him. Seneca shows his determinedness to become a better person and to endure whatever pain that may come with that journey to correct his character. When Seneca said he will discipline himself, he knew that it wouldn’t be an easy task to endure the hardships it comes with, but Seneca completed that task showing no emotion just like any other stoic person would do. In this quote Seneca shows that he is able to complete a very difficult task with no emotion.
     This was written down about Seneca: “Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks” (Tacitus).This quote about how Seneca controlled his emotions and endured the pain shows the true stoicism that he had. Even though Seneca knew his death was near, he showed no fear or sadness, where most ordinary people would just break out in tears of horror. Seneca controlled his emotions by showing no fear and not even looking sad in times of horror. This quote demonstrates how perfect of a stoic Seneca is because of him being able to take the pain and show no emotions. This also proves that Seneca and his stoicism cannot be broken apart; they are one and Seneca would never stop being stoic. This work demonstrates how a real stoic like Seneca should truly act.
     Through these quotes, one must realize that Seneca is a prime example of a stoic. Even at the hardest moments of life, during death, Seneca was able to control his emotions and endure the pain that comes with death. Seneca was by far, one of the greatest stoics who ever lived. He was able to discipline himself and even teach himself to be a better person. Even any one person wanted to be a stoic, the first person they should observe is Seneca.

Bibliography

Tacitus,(1998). In Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE.
      Fordham.edu. Retrieved April4,2011,from
      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

Rough Draft, In Class Academic Essay

One of the hardest tasks in life is to endure pain and control your emotions. The will power and the capability to do this is called Stoicism. 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.
At his death, “Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will.” As Seneca he showed no emotion what so ever, even though he knew he was already going to die. Seneca was able to control his emotions, even under extreme pressure. This shows his ability and will power to endure the pain while he knows that he is going to die. Stoics like Seneca, know not to let their emotions to get the best of them, and this quote from Seneca is a prime example. Seneca at his death was not only able to control his emotions while writing his will; he was also able to endure his hardship many other times.
Seneca once said, “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 practices 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.” Through this, one may realize that Seneca has the will power and heart to do what he knows is best for him. Seneca shows his determinedness to become a better person and to endure whatever pain that may come with that journey to correct his character. When Seneca said he will discipline himself; he knew that it wouldn’t be an easy task to endure the hardships it comes with, but Seneca completed that task showing no emotion just like any other stoic person would do.


Through these quotes, one must realize that Seneca is a prime example of a stoic. Even at the hardest moments of life, during death, Seneca was able to control his emotions and endure the pain that comes with death. Seneca was by far, one of the greatest stoics who ever lived. He was able to discipline himself and even teach himself to be a better person.

Daily Assignment, 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.

1. “Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will.”
2. “It was brought to him and he drank it in vain, chilled as he was throughout his limbs, and his frame closed against the efficacy of the poison. At last he entered a pool of heated water, from which he sprinkled the nearest of his slaves, adding the exclamation, "I offer this liquid as a libation to Jupiter the Deliverer." He was then carried into a bath, with the steam of which he was suffocated, and he was burnt without any of the usual funeral rites. So he had directed in a codicil of his will, when even in the height of his wealth and power he was thinking of his life's close.”
3. “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 practices 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.
4. “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.”
5. “Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks.”
1. Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE
2. Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE
3. Marcus Aurelius Antonius: Meditations, 167 CE (Book 1)
4. Marcus Aurelius Antonius: Meditations, 167 CE (Book 1)
5. Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE

Video Weekly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1fhS_vm1Fc

Do you think that Caesar’s killers were justified in their actions?

Brutus truly believed that he killed Caesar for the good of Rome and the Roman

Republic. He made a decision he thought was in the best interest of Rome and although

he was not successful in protecting the Roman Republic, his intentions were good; but,

were they justified? Like Brutus, there are many that believe that the “ends justify the

means”.

Such as in the case of Adolf Hitler, I believe that if a leader is known to be a significant

threat to his state and the people then I would say yes. Even if this act is illegal, I

believe that the assassination would be justified if it prevented a greater evil from being

committed. However, I don’t believe that Caesar was a threat to the Romans as Hitler

was to the Jews.

Julius Caesar was an influential, powerful leader who was very ambitious. When he

realized how dysfunctional the Roman society and government had become, he set forth

to reform the Roman Republic. To accomplish this Julius Caesar gained as much power

as possible. Many, including Brutus, believed that Caesar with an increasing amount of

power was a threat to Rome; therefore, they were justified in killing him, but I disagree.

If a difference of opinion in how a state should be governed is justification for murderer,

then today in the United States, there would hundreds of politicians lying dead in the

streets. So, I believe that despite Caesar’s healthy appetite for power, he was a very

accomplished Roman leader and because of Brutus’s actions, we will never know if

Julius Caesar would have been one of the world’s greatest leaders or one of its most

determined tyrants.