PlanetPapers.com RSS Feedhttps://www.planetpapers.com/ Copernicus Where and when did Copernicus live? Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torün, (Pronounced Thorn), in Poland on February 19, 1473 as Niklas Koppernigk -- a name that he would later Latinize into Nicolaus Copernicus.. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork (Frauenburg), Warmia, where he died on 1543 May the 24th. Copernicus’ story. Copernicus’ father was a wealthy businessman, copper trader, and respected citizen of Toruñ. He died when Copernicus was 10. After his father died, Copernicus attended the University of Cracow, studying medicine at the time and becoming fascinated by astronomy, and then in 1496 he began ten years of studying law at the University of Bologna in Italy. While Copernicus developed an interest in astronomy and was one of the most influential astronomers of all time, he never majored in astronomy and was never a professional astronomer. Copernicus' mother, Barbara Watzenrode was born into a rich merchant's family. She predeceased her husband. Copernicus' maternal uncle, Lucas Watzenrode, a church canon (priest) and later Prince-Bishop (territorial prince of a church) governor of the Archbishopric of Warmia, raised him and his three siblings after the death of his father. His uncle's position helped Copernicus in the pursuit of a career within the Church, enabling him to devote much time to his astronomy studies. Copernicus had a brother and two sisters. Copernicus’ work. Copernicus is known for the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system. Copernicus first formulated the modern theory of the solar system in 1530, concluding that the earth revolved around the sun. However, his findings were in conflict with the church’s teachings that the earth was the center of the universe. So the church made him suffer a great deal because of this. Copernicus did not publish his great work on the revolutions of heavenly bodies until 1543 -the year of his death, it is said that he received his first copy on his deathbed. The name of his book that he published was called De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The seven parts of Copernicus' theory are: 1. There is no one center in the universe 2. The Earth's center is not the center of the universe 3. The center of the universe is near the sun 4. The distance from the Earth to the sun is microscopic compared with the distance to the stars 5. The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily 2007-03-05T06:23:41-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Copernicus-6724.aspx Why was opposition to Franco so ineffective for so long? “The regime of General Franco considered its greatest political achievement to be the establishment of an era of peace and order without precedent in the history of Spain.” Opposition to Franco was ineffective for so long due to a wide variety of factors, the Franco regime itself was very oppressive yet it cannot solely explain the lack of opposition as it did not prevent strikes, student demonstrations and the activities of ETA in the 1960s. There was tacit acceptance by the large sections of the Spanish population of the Francoist system, the Franco regime represented the restoration of traditional values in education, family, religion and social order; values which were more deeply rooted in Spanish society than the liberal-democratic reformists of the 1930s had believed. The Franco regime also benefited from the sheer exhaustion of the Spanish society after three years of bloody civil war and it can be said that there was majority social support for Francoism within Spain. Conflicts in Spain were much more severe than was apparent in the regime’s propaganda or reflected in a manipulated media. The resistance was heroic but its repercussions in Spain were limited, it revealed the repressive nature of the regime and the inadequacy of its institutions for solving the conflict of a modern society. The regime’s repression was very efficient, between 1939 and 45 the clandestine Socialist Party saw six executive committees imprisoned and until the end of the diplomatic isolation of Spain in the 1950s the government was not concerned with the effect of brutal repression on its image abroad; it in fact capitalised on international hostility. Harsh repression prevented any effective action by clandestine unions, when these unions were ineffective the workers were demobilised, concerned with the satisfaction of their individual needs rather than with collective action. Ridruejo spoke in 1961 of ‘a loss of working-class consciousness.’ Leaders of the ‘historic’ opposition were mostly forced into exile and therefore cut off from the clandestine struggle within Spain. Only the Communists successfully survived the difficulties created by exile combined with repression at home. They grasped the importance of action within Spain itself in the fight against Franco; they formed the only continuous and significant clandestine organisation. Nevertheless their guerrilla action between 1944 and 48 failed due to the strict press censorship there were no echoes of their activity outside of a 2006-05-14T10:41:37-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-was-opposition-to-Franco-so-ineffective-for-so-long-6501.aspx A Brief Comparison of Florence and Venice A Brief Comparison of Florence and Venice Florence and Venice were the economic powerhouses of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance. While there are vast differences between the two great cities, there are also some striking similarities, the most outstanding being their devotion to commerce. To both the Florentines and the Venetians, riches had an extraordinary significance. To be rich was to be honorable and to be poor was a disgrace (Hibbert Medici 32). The Florentines had a saying that “no one poor would ever find it easy to acquire honor and fame by means of his virtue; poverty throws virtue into the shadows and subjects it to a hidden and obscure misery.” This idea was equally true in Venice. Wealth and poverty were not only personal traits of esteem or distain; they were thought to reflect on the Republics as a whole. Rich men were an honor and a glory to the entire Republic and it was a citizen’s patriotic duty, along with serving in the military when called, and serving in the government, to gain as much wealth as possible (Hibbert Venice 53). This civic attachment to wealth is the central likeness between the two city-states. “[Florence] was a city of squares and towers, of busy, narrow, twisting streets, of fortress-like palaces … convents, nunneries, [and] crowded tenements, all enclosed by a high brick and stone crenellated wall.” (Hibbert Medici 20). By the 14th century, over 50,000 people lived within the city’s ramparts; less than in Paris or Venice, but more than in most other European cities, including London. For administrative purposes, Florence was divided into four districts called, quartieri, which were in turn divided into four wards. Every quartieri had it’s own distinct character and was generally distinguished by the trades that were carried on there (20-21). The city itself was a city of industry, and raw products flooded in from all over Europe to be finished, polished and dyed. Also, foreign governments routinely deposited large sums of money in Florence’s immense banks, and many rulers and great Lords were known to be indebted to Florentine bankers (Hibbert Florence 29). Theoretically, every member of the city’s twenty-one guilds had a say in the city government. In truth, a few very powerful families exercised a great deal of influence in determining the views 2005-08-05T23:27:22-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Brief-Comparison-of-Florence-and-Venice-6200.aspx The Scramble for Africa By the mid 1800’s colonialism appeared to have become a thing of the past. Except for Canada, which was on its way toward self-rule, Britain had lost her American holdings. Spain and Portugal had lost control of most of South America and the Caribbean, and The Netherlands was having difficulties maintaining the East Indies (saburchill.com). The prevailing train of thought was that colonies were a burden to the mother country and should be formally acquired only if absolutely necessary. Most nations, especially Great Britain, preferred to avoid governing foreign lands, and instead strove to build influence with native leaders in order to secure their interests. Imperialism was seen as something that despots engaged in and was unfitting of civilized nations. As time progressed, these views changed and a second phase of colonization took place. This “New Imperialism” was seen as glorious and combined the European’s curiosity, innovation, and desires to spread civilization, with greed, arrogance, and nationalism. Within twenty years, every corner of the world that was not formally governed would be claimed by a European state (saburchill.com). Of any place on Earth, Africa saw the most dramatic colonization. Between 1880 and 1900, the second largest continent on the globe was divided between a handful of European leaders. This is known as the Scramble for Africa. Europeans had known of Africa for centuries, and the Portuguese first established a chain of trading settlements along the West African coast in the 1400’s. The interior of the continent remained shrouded in mystery and untouched by Europeans well into the 19th century. The first Europeans to take an active interest in Africa were the missionaries who began arriving on the continent around 1800. The sheer size of Africa as well as other factors made penetration nearly impossible until the mid 1800’s when the quality of technology began to improve at an unprecedented pace. Technological advances facilitated overseas expansion: the steamship, the telegraph, medicines for tropical diseases, and the railway, made it possible for a few foreign countries to open up even the most remote of places. It’s no coincidence that the opening of Africa coincided with the closing of the North American frontier. People in Europe spoke of Africa as the “New Americas,” and after witnessing the Union Pacific and Canada Pacific railways take form, a trans-African rail system seemed realizable (Chamberlain 2005-08-05T23:26:03-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Scramble-for-Africa-6199.aspx ‘The Weimar Republic was weak from the start, its collapse was likely’. How far do you agree with t ‘The Weimar Republic was weak from the start, its collapse was likely’. How far do you agree with this judgement on the period 1919-1933? Theoretically the constitution the Weimar Republic was based upon was a perfect democratic instrument including aspects such as individual’s rights; this was democratically advanced for its time. It would therefore be unjustified to say that the collapse of the Weimar Republic was likely form the start. It was introduced during a time of great political instability for Germany; going from Monarchy to democracy in just six weeks, having just lost a war and with popular discontent engulfing the population, the new republic had a difficult task to face. The constant disruptions of party politics as well as attempted seizes of power from both sides made this task even harder. Taking all this into account it is apparent that its collapse was due to a continuous flow of difficult and unfortunate circumstances during the period of 1919-1933, which I shall now explain. “The German Reich is a republic. Political authority is derived from the people”, this is the first clause of the Weimar constitution, authority is derived form the people, therefore it is the people that held the power to whether the Weimar Republic would be successful or not. Early in 1919 the government faced an attack from the left in the form of the Spartacists, this was dealt with, yet early in 1920 the government faced another attack from the right in the form of the Kapp Putsch; these two examples indicate the situation into which the republic was born. Further problems came form the constitution itself, it was indeed theoretically ‘democratically perfect’; the problem with this is that democracy does not necessarily lead to a strong government. The Reichstag was elected using proportional representation which is the pinnacle of democracy however this led to a series of weak coalitions and as a result a weak government which the extremist groups realised, thus the attempted putsches took place. At this stage the government had already won the support of the military with the Ebert-Groener pact, so the Weimar republic was able to remain strong in the face of its enemies. Another aspect of the constitution which was criticized was Article 48. Designed to give the President Powers, essentially dictatorial, to deal with any immediate threats, it 2004-12-02T15:05:02-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/‘The-Weimar-Republic-was-weak-from-the-start,-its-collapse-was-likely’_-How-far-do-you-agree-with-t-5935.aspx Protestand Reformation The Protestant Reformation, which lasted from the early-1500s to the mid-1600s, was caused by society noticing weaknesses in the Catholic Church. Such people as Martin Luther and John Calvin exposed these weaknesses to society and started a widespread reform of the Catholic Church. Although the Reformation originally aimed to “renew” the Church, it evolved into a great revolt against it, and thus The Protestant Reformation should be viewed as a theological revolutionary movement. One of the major problems of the Church that people had was the sale of indulgences. In a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz, Martin Luther stated that works of “piety and love are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet these are not preached with such ceremony or such zeal.” Luther feels that if it is the “first and sole duty” of bishops to preach the Gospel, and yet if Christ never taught that indulgences should be preached, then why do the bishops permit the teachings of the Gospel to be unheard, and indulgences to still be sold. Martin Luther asserted in his first 2, of 95, theses that Jesus Christ willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance, and yet if an entire life be “one of repentance”, then why do the clergy administer the sacrament of penance, and confession and satisfaction. In “Against Catholicism” by Martin Luther, Luther shows his position on the pope. Luther says that the reason he abolished his reverence of the pope was because the pope obtained authority over every aspect of the Christian Church. Luther agrees with the idea of having the pope as head of the Church on earth, if he only taught the gospel “pure and clear”, and not introduced “human inventions and lies in its stead.” Luther believes that the pope took upon him “power, rule, and authority” over the Church, and over the Holy Scriptures and the Word of God, and Luther feels that no man should try to expound the Scriptures, and the pope doing this was not to be endured. Another leader of the Reformation was John Calvin. In the Doctrine of Predestination, Calvin stated that God has already determined whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to the torments of hell. Calvin feels that nothing the human beings may do can alter their fate, and that their 2004-11-28T23:31:34-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Protestand-Reformation-5924.aspx Protestantism: The Council of Trent During the 16th century, Protestantism spread throughout Europe and weakened the power of the Catholic Church. In 1545 Pope Paul III called the Council of Trent, which brought reform to the Church. The Council of Trent, which lasted from 1545 to 1563, was one of the most important councils in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. This Council of Trent reaffirmed the sacraments and added other beliefs to regain the power the Church once had. The Council made many decisions for the church during its years in session in an effort to establish the traditions and doctrines of the church, as well as to correct the corruption within it. The first session of the Council of Trent came up with tenets such as: scripture and tradition were to be of equal authority, the Church only was to have the right to interpret the Bible, good works were also needed to obtain salvation, and Bishops and priests were to preach regularly. This session also reaffirmed the seven sacraments. The second session was not as successful, as it only came up with few reaffirmations---that pilgrimages and penances were to be upheld, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and also that communion in both kinds was condemned, as were other aspects of the Protestant view of the Eucharist. The third session put an emphasis on the quality of the clergy. The third session of the Council of Trent confirmed the belief in the purgatory, the invocation of the saints, and clerical celibacy, and they were confirmed as essential elements in the Catholic Church. Also, the veneration of images and relics was upheld, and the Pope was distinguished as the Vicar of Christ on earth, and The Council of Trent essentially put the Pope in a much stronger position than before. Astoundingly, the doctrine of indulgences, a major cause of the Lutheran revolt, was reaffirmed. Another reform not mentioned was adding the Index of Prohibited Books in 1559. This was added with the intention of preventing heretical ideas from “corrupting” those who still remain in the Catholic Church. Most of the reforms of the Council of Trent benefited the Church, yet some corrupt ideas were still reaffirmed. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the seven sacraments so that the Church could bring things back to the way they originally were. The Council of Trent 2004-11-28T23:29:43-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Protestantism-The-Council-of-Trent-5923.aspx The Renaissance The Renaissance was a rebirth of classical textual scholarship, as well as new thought brought about by such prototypical philosophers as Machiavelli, Erasmus, and Sir Thomas More. These three philosophers can be thought of as Renaissance Italy’s greatest thinkers, and that these three men all left a legacy behind them and their ideas. Hardly any of the Italian Renaissance thinkers were truly original, but the same cannot be said for Italy’s greatest political philosopher, Niccolò Machiavelli. In 1498, Machiavelli became the secretary of the newly found republic of Florence. In 1512, the Medici overthrew the republic, and Machiavelli was removed from his position. He spent the remainder of his life devoting his time to writing. Perhaps his most celebrated work was a short, controversial piece, called The Prince. The Prince was Machiavelli’s attempt to condense his research on the factors behind political success and failure to a series of principles. Machiavelli was practical in thinking when he wrote this, and described the policies of government as they actually were (Lerner 410). Another mastermind of the Renaissance was Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus was born near Rotterdam in the mid 15th century, and was forced into a monastery when he was a teenager. Erasmus was a Christian humanist, and he believed that the corruption and immorality was a result of the society forgetting the basic teachings of the Gospels. Erasmus had “three different categories of publication: clever satires meant to show people the error of their ways, serious moral treatises meant to offer guidance toward proper Christian behavior, and scholarly editions of basic Christian texts (Lerner 425.)” One of Erasmus’ most famous works belonged to the first category, The Praise of Folly, in which he ridiculed “Scholastic pedantry and dogmatism”, as well as the “ignorance and superstitious credulity of the masses (Lerner 425.)” Even with Erasmus’ highly impressive literary creations, his textual scholarship can be considered his greatest achievement. Erasmus brought out reliable editions of many Christian works, and he also correctly translated the New Testament, for he thought that “no one could be a good Christian without being certain of exactly what Christ’s message really was (Lerner 425.)” This translation was one of the most significant milestones of biblical scholarship of all time. One of Erasmus’ closest friends was an Englishman named Sir Thomas More. More’s most renowned publications, was 2004-11-28T23:29:01-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Renaissance-5922.aspx "Dark Ages" vs. "Middle Ages" After the fall of Rome in 476 AD, the subsequent 1000 years made up a period of time called the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages are often referred to as the Dark Ages because of the way of life in Europe during that age. William Manchester suggests that this time period was actually a dark age, in his A World Lit Only By Fire. Manchester describes the ‘Dark Ages’ as a “mélange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness”. He also states how famines and plague repetitively thinned the population, and that “rickets afflicted the survivors”. Manchester strengthens his argument by establishing the fact that after a thousand years of neglect, the roads built by Romans were still the best on the continent, and that their was practically no stone buildings raised for ten centuries. Another situation that Manchester comments on is that only one of every hundred murderers was every brought to justice. In addition, he goes on to talk about how brutal the medieval tournaments were, and how Christianity was the foremost principal in medieval life, that the Church became the “wealthiest landowner on the continent, and the life of every European, from baptism through matrimony to burial, was governed by popes, cardinals, prelates, monsignors, archbishops, bishops, and village priests.” Manchester also insists that the Medieval world was a society that had not reached a relatively high level of cultural and technological development. Manchester also enlightens us on the fact that less than once percent of the souls in Christendom were wellborn, and that the rest – “nearly 60 million Europeans – were known as Hans, Jacques, Sal, Carlos, Will, or Will’s wife, Will’s son, or Will’s daughter.” Since most peasants rarely left their birthplace, there was “seldom need for any tag beyond One-Eye, or Roussie (Redhead), or Bionda (Blondie)…”. He also informs us that in the medieval mind there was no awareness of time, and that medieval men hardly ever knew what century they were living in, and he calls the Middle Ages a “meaningless, timeless blur”, where generations succeeded one another, and that popes, emperors and kings died and were succeeded by new popes, emperors, and kings. In his piece, Manchester feels that the term ‘Dark Ages’ is a more suitable title than ‘Middle Ages’ or ‘Medieval Period’. Fred 2004-11-28T23:27:58-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/"Dark-Ages"-vs_-"Middle-Ages"-5921.aspx Ancient Runic Inscription In this essay, I will discuss the history, origins, and other aspects of Futhark, the runic alphabet. I will focus on information and theories based on Scandinavian script, and use the Stentoften stone as an example of these ancient inscriptions. “The Latin alphabet was introduced into Scandinavia about the year 1000. Before that the only method of recording was the runic script. These mysterious symbols, incised on stone, were believed to have been created by Odin…” (Cohat, 1987, p.148). Runes are associated with “wisdom and well-being, words and deeds, and the Gods and Magical powers. They are both practical and mystical…” (Barrett, 1995, p.12). They have shown up over a period extending from 200BC to the present as historical and archaeological items, in an area spreading well past the Baltic to the Mediterranean (King, 2002, p.2). Their origins are unclear, but there are many theories as to how these symbols became, which will be discussed later. Even the origin of the word ‘Rune’ is unclear, but many different interpretations have been put forward, most being magically based. Peter Taylor, in a book by John Matthews (1992, p.34) states that “the word ‘Rune’, which occurs in both Germanic and Celtic languages, means ‘a Mystery’ or ‘Holy secret’ that is ‘whispered’”. Each rune has a name and meaning, and all 24 runes make up the runic alphabet, said to be the most developed magical alphabet. Nigel Pennick (1992, p.9) argues that technically, runic is not actually an ‘alphabet’, as this implies a row of characters beginning with alpha and beta, and so on. Unlike most letter systems, the first aett (group) of runes begin with the letters F, U, Þ (now replaced by the Latin ‘Th’), A, R, K. Runic ‘alphabets’ are therefore known as the Futhark. As with any script, the original developed over a period of time, resulting in three main variants of futhark. The oldest known to scholars is the Common Germanic Futhark, which consists of twenty-four symbols (King, 2002, p.4). Its letters were divided into three main groups of eight symbols, each group called an aettir. Each aettir was attributed to a deity, Freyja, Heimdall and Tiwaz. This was in use from its beginnings to the 9th century, until “a drastic modification took place to the sounds and their symbols, and their number 2004-10-03T08:27:14-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Ancient-Runic-Inscription-5815.aspx Renaissance Education Amidst social unrest and intellectual stagnation, 14th and 15th century scholars argued, emerged the Renaissance, the “rebirth.” It did not take long for this pervasive and intriguing way of life to escape from the confines of small 14th century city-states in Italy to receptive Europeans around them. The new avant-garde outlook adopted by Europe as a whole encompassed an array of ideas, beliefs, and means of expressive creativity. The humanism of the Italian Renaissance gave birth to the modern concept of individuality. New individualism spurred learning, artistic vision, burgeoning interests in cultures and sciences, and a love of antiquity. The values and purposes of Renaissance education were to improve society, increase economic prosperity, and restore religious beliefs. Intellectual endeavor “touched upon studies (grammar, rhetoric, geometry, music, Philosophy, and Humanities) by which we (the nobility) may attain enlightenment of the mind (Doc 1, 2).” This is the obsession that blazed inside every “Prince,” every noble, every leading citizen, and all those that considered themselves part and parcel of upper class lifestyle (Doc 1). From this thirst for knowledge developed the Renaissance Man. The Renaissance Man was a paragon of “civic humanism.” Based on the idea that man is a social animal, he was supposed to be a disciplined as well as an integrated member of society. He would exude confidence and demonstrate virtue by putting the good of the community first, cultivating his mind, fulfilling his role as an exemplary citizen, and taking care of his family. Being a citizen meant more than just living in the city; it meant being immersed in city life and politics by active service to the state. To attain this state, education was a prerequisite. The social lives of people were greatly influenced by advancements in education. Institutes for “Learning and training in Virtue” were mechanisms of self-betterment and furthermore civil righteousness (Doc 2). People were taught to understand and judge the writings of others. Francesco Petrarch, the great Renaissance humanist, noted the vast popularity that classical literature had gained in the then recent past; by first writing his works in vernacular he increased the potential audience for his humanist ideas. The Italian humanist Piccolomini, who himself was educated, believed that philosophy and literature, should be taught to individuals, because these studies revealed the truths about the 2004-05-09T06:48:49-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Renaissance-Education-5635.aspx Renaissance Education The Renaissance was a time of change. It began in Italy during the 14th century, and spread throughout the North. People all over Europe were affected, for the better and for the worse. Some people finally had a chance to control their own fate. Others, like upper class women, lost their social status. The values and purposes of Renaissance education were to improve the society, increase the economy, and restore the religious beliefs. The social lives of people were greatly influenced by advancements in education during the Renaissance. More people then ever before were sent to schools and educated. Schools for girls were built, and they were taught sewing, reading, writing, and dancing. Some of these schools even had teachers for singing and playing instruments. Upper class women were taught language, philosophy, theology and mathematics. But their education only prepared them for social life at home. Women lost political power, access to property and their role in shaping society. People were taught to understand and judge the writings of others. Courtiers, aristocrats and nobles were able to write poetry and text. By being well educated, having good penmanship, knowing how to ride, play, dance, sing, and dress well, men of high status gained respect and reputation. These skills also helped attain preference and support among princes. Nevertheless, the school system did not teach youth how to behave in daily life situations. They spent too much time on Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. Those studies that were realistic, enlightened men’s minds, and prepared them for life, were reserved for the Universities. Therefore, students had a slight understanding of the meaning and the true use of knowledge. They were only able to write Latin, which no one of judgement would want to read, and when they went to universities, they wasted their friends’ money and their own time. Afterwards, they would return home again, as unsophisticated and uneducated as they were before. In addition, many individuals thought that having to many schools was a terrible thing. They believed that only a minority of men should study literature, because more farmers were needed than judges, more soldiers than priests, more merchants than philosophers, and more hard working groups than dreamy and thoughtful individuals. Italian humanist Piccolomini, who himself was educated, believed that philosophy and literature, should be taught to every individual, because these studies reveal the truths about the past, the reality of the 2004-05-09T06:47:22-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Renaissance-Education-5634.aspx The Causes of Witch Hunting Hysteria From the late fifteenth century until the seventeenth century, Europe experienced a hysterical religious movement, centered on the persecution of individuals as witches. The movement was born during a period of considerable economic, religious, and social upheaval. The Protestant Reformation challenged the old structures of the Catholic Church; as a result, many parts of Europe had broken away from papal authority. Yet, the Catholic Church was far from defeated, it still held the attention of avid followers especially those in Spain and Italy. Certainly the Inquisition was in part responsible for instigating the witch craze and also for creating social tensions, which contributed to its propagation. Moreover, there were great socio-economic changes resulting from imperialism, mercantilism, and the deterioration of the manor. The main causes for the witch craze lie in the Reformation, the socio-economic changes, the scientific ambiguities indirectly endorsing mass hysteria and the failure of the justice system to deal effectively with preposterous claims. A witch is a person with supernatural knowledge and powers, usually acquired from the Devil in exchange for his or her soul. Witches are believed to be able to change shape, transform others, cause illness and death, concoct charms, and tell the future. In Europe from the late fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries, people accused of practicing witchcraft were generally poor, working class people. In addition to being poverty stricken, they were for the most part female and between the age of 24 and 50. As the lower class, unemployed, old, and women were collectively seen as the doormat of society, they were easy targets in this time of instability. Many parts of Europe (e.g. Germany, France, England, and Switzerland) employed this widespread discriminatory policy. Persecution was most prevalent in those areas where Protestant friction heightened religious tensions. Witchcraft predates the reform period. All religious authorities of the time believe in witchery. Pope Innocent VIII’s policy stated that, “… it shall be permitted to the inquisitors to exercise their office of inquisition and to proceed to the…punishment of the aforesaid persons for their said offences and crimes,” (Document 9) in 1484 establish the problem of witchcraft. The pope commissioned his inquisitors to punish witches, in doing so the pope gave them a wide range of powers to question, imprison and execute those, who were believed to be witches. 2004-05-09T06:27:10-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Causes-of-Witch-Hunting-Hysteria-5629.aspx niccolo machiavelli vs. cardinal richelieu Unlike Cardinal Richelieu, the prime minister of France during the early years of the Reformation, Niccolo Machiavelli never mentioned God nor did he quote the Bible to substantiate any of his arguments. He was secular, which makes him seem modern. Today, his principals on governing a state are deemed immoral; however, he would say that his methods are practical. Whilst this book was being written during the Renaissance, Italy was weak and the city-state structure was breaking down because of French and Spanish invasions. Desperately in search of a philosophy of politics to remedy this instability, Machiavelli wrote The Prince. This book is a step-by-step guidebook on how to rule by means of a ruthless dictatorship; whereas, The Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu by Richelieu himself advocates absolutism. As a result of the Fronde, Richelieu and many other French people alike wished for the government to be centralized under the leadership of the king which is otherwise known as an absolute monarchy. The French king, Louis XIV stated, “L’Etat – c’est moi,” which translates to “I am the State.” This statement embodies Richelieu’s as well as Machiavelli’s theory of government. Both books argue the importance of a strong state. In order for Machiavelli and Richelieu to have their ideas put into practice, they dedicated each of their books to the ruler of their respective states. Richelieu dedicated his book to the king of France, Louis XIII, so that his political beliefs would live on after his death through the king. Similarly, Machiavelli dedicated his book to Lorenzo de Medici, ruler of city-state, Florence so that he might receive a government job as an advisor to Lorenzo. Both writers were very humble and marginally sycophantic in their tone with regards to their dedications so as to accomplish the aforementioned goals. This is evident in the first paragraph of The Prince when Machiavelli referred to Lorenzo de Medici as “…Your Magnificence” (Machiavelli, p.1) and Richelieu obsequiously said “when it was first Your Majesty’s pleasure to give me a part to play in the management of your affairs I determined to devote my fullest efforts to the completion of your plans...” (Richelieu, p.3). Machiavelli had a very different reception from Richelieu. The former was avant-garde hence the world he lived in was not quite ready for his 2004-05-09T06:17:34-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/niccolo-machiavelli-vs_-cardinal-richelieu-5626.aspx The Communist Manifesto vs. Hard Times In the wake of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, the rift between the rich and the poor became wider and more irreparable. For those trapped in the underclass workforce, life seemed bleak and ridden with poverty give that they had no representation in the political arena and working conditions were perilous. The Industrial Revolution created a society where social classes were sharply schismatic. Charles Dickens under the visage of fiction and Karl Marx via nonfiction critiqued and offered solutions to the adversity that attended this period of industrial development. Karl Marx: Karl Marx’s pamphlet, The Communist Manifesto, details the basic objective of Communism whilst simultaneously explicating the theory which buttresses the movement. According to Marx, “all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes as various stages of social development” (472). The relationship between these different classes is normally characterized by the exploitation of the proletariat, the wage laborers, by the bourgeoisie, the boss or the employer. Inevitably, a revolution will springboard from this volatile relationship of overt inequality and subjugation and there will be a reordering of society, a new class will take the place of the bourgeoisie. Such class relations were clearly present during the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries and continues to affect our society today under the guise of capitalism, an economic system founded upon private investment and profiteering. For Marx, capitalism is a way of life that is inherently quixotic; stepping on others to achieve personal gain can only leads to acrimony and conflict. The Industrial Revolution “has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade” (475). Not only did industrial development stunt social mobility but it also effaced individualism; hence, it had the net-effect of translating the bond between man and man into a money relation defined by self-interest. Yet, the proletariat make up the majority of the workforce and remain perpetually bound by their lack of privileges; therefore, the aforementioned self-interest that all should be afforded is subject to an entire system driven by their 2004-05-09T06:06:40-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Communist-Manifesto-vs_-Hard-Times-5623.aspx Renaissance and Modern Gender Roles Gender role is defined simply as the perceived set of expectations, attitudes, and life goals of a particular gender. But who defines these expectations, and for what reason? Why is it ok for a boy to be a fireman, but not a nurse? Why are females discouraged from being discourteous and loud, where it is almost expected of men to do so? Someone or something had to have prescribed these roles for us to follow. - Without much effort, most of the above question is answered with a quick glance at history. Often referred to as the golden age of humanity, the Renaissance provided the world with a new belief that the individual was the centerpiece of the universe. Without the renaissance the whole philosophy of liberal studies, which is what this institution of higher learning deems as its most important quality, or many other beliefs and ideas would not exist. It no doubt has had a profound impact on the way we approach art, literature, and many other aspects of society. The above seems common knowledge, however a little known fact about the Renaissance is how it shaped modern thought regarding gender and the roles assigned to them. “…Just as [a man] must show a certain solid and sturdy manliness, so it is seemly for a woman to have a soft and delicate tenderness, with an air of womanly sweetness in her every movement…” (Castiglione 206). In his book, The Courtier, Baldassare Castiglione outlined the ideal man and woman. He outlined what things the genders should be educated on as well as how they should carry themselves in public and private life. In the early 1500’s this was the handbook on how to be a proper individual in society. In the great words of “Sir” Charles Barkley…. anything less would be uncivilized. For males, Castiglione wished that the proper man exercised regularly and was known to be energetic and full of vigor. He was also to be faithful to whomever he served. His reputation was key and “cowardice or other disgrace, always remains defiled before the world and covered with ignominy”(Castiglione 34). Aside from not being a wimp, the ideal man was to be learned in letters and studies, which today we call the humanities. He was to learn Greek, Latin, as well as his own 2004-05-03T17:17:36-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Renaissance-and-Modern-Gender-Roles-5610.aspx The Marriage of Henry the VIII and Catherine of Aragon Spain and England had a history of poor diplomatic relations, and it was common in the Fifteenth Century for members of a royal family to marry off a daughter or son to a child from another royal family, to establish an alliance between those two countries. Catherine of Aragon was the youngest child of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castille, who almost immediately began looking for a political match for her. When she was three years old, she was engaged to Arthur, the son of Henry VII of England. Arthur was not even quite two at the time. When Catherine was almost sixteen, in 1501, she made the journey to England. When she and Arthur were married on November 14, 1501, in old St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Catherine was escorted by Arthur’s younger brother, Henry. Following the ceremony, the young couple moved to Ludlow Castle on the Welsh border. Less than six months later Arthur died, possibly of the “sweating sickness”. Historians speculate that the history of England would have changed drastically if Arthur had lived a year longer. Catherine was now a widow and still young enough to marry again, so on June 25, 1503, she was formally engaged to the king’s second son, Henry, now Prince of Wales. The marriage, however, didn’t take place during Henry VII’s lifetime. Henry made use of the presence of the unmarried princess in England to extort new conditions, and especially to secure the marriage of his daughter Marry to the archduke Charles V. By 1505, when Henry was old enough to wed, Henry VII wasn’t as keen on a Spanish alliance, and young Henry was forced to reject the engagement. Catherine’s future was uncertain for the next four years. When Henry VII died in 1509, on one of the new young king’s actions was to marry Catherine. She was finally crowned Queen of England in a joint coronation ceremony with her husband Henry VIII on June 24, 1509. Catherine enjoyed a few years of married happiness; Henry showed that he could be an affectionate husband, and the alliance with Ferdinand was maintained against France. During Henry’s invasion of France in 1513, she was made regent; and showed great enthusiasm in preparing for the Scottish expedition, by riding north to put herself at the 2004-04-28T18:46:25-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Marriage-of-Henry-the-VIII-and-Catherine-of-Aragon-5599.aspx The Marriage of Henry the VIII and Catherine of Aragon Spain and England had a history of poor diplomatic relations, and it was common in the Fifteenth Century for members of a royal family to marry off a daughter or son to a child from another royal family, to establish an alliance between those two countries. Catherine of Aragon was the youngest child of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castille, who almost immediately began looking for a political match for her. When she was three years old, she was engaged to Arthur, the son of Henry VII of England. Arthur was not even quite two at the time. When Catherine was almost sixteen, in 1501, she made the journey to England. When she and Arthur were married on November 14, 1501, in old St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Catherine was escorted by Arthur’s younger brother, Henry. Following the ceremony, the young couple moved to Ludlow Castle on the Welsh border. Less than six months later Arthur died, possibly of the “sweating sickness”. Historians speculate that the history of England would have changed drastically if Arthur had lived a year longer. Catherine was now a widow and still young enough to marry again, so on June 25, 1503, she was formally engaged to the king’s second son, Henry, now Prince of Wales. The marriage, however, didn’t take place during Henry VII’s lifetime. Henry made use of the presence of the unmarried princess in England to extort new conditions, and especially to secure the marriage of his daughter Marry to the archduke Charles V. By 1505, when Henry was old enough to wed, Henry VII wasn’t as keen on a Spanish alliance, and young Henry was forced to reject the engagement. Catherine’s future was uncertain for the next four years. When Henry VII died in 1509, on one of the new young king’s actions was to marry Catherine. She was finally crowned Queen of England in a joint coronation ceremony with her husband Henry VIII on June 24, 1509. Catherine enjoyed a few years of married happiness; Henry showed that he could be an affectionate husband, and the alliance with Ferdinand was maintained against France. During Henry’s invasion of France in 1513, she was made regent; and showed great enthusiasm in preparing for the Scottish expedition, by riding north to put herself at the 2004-04-28T18:46:17-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Marriage-of-Henry-the-VIII-and-Catherine-of-Aragon-5598.aspx Macedonia through the hystory THE PROPAGANDA *Macedonians should not be recognised as Macedonians as they have been of Greek nationality since 2000BC. *Macedonians whose language belongs to the Slavic family, must not call themselves Macedonians as 4000 years ago they spoke Greek and today still speak nothing but Greek. *Macedonia has no right to call itself by this name as Macedonia has always been a region and is today a region of Greece. *The Serbs believe that Macedonians are misguided country cousins who belong in a Greater Serbia. (Yugoslavia) THE FACTS *Macedonia was never a region of Greece. On the contrary, Greece was often subject to Macedonia. In 1913, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria divided Macedonia into three parts. (BALKAN WARS) *Ancient Macedonians were a distinct European people and proud of their nationality, their customs, their language and their name. The same applies to their descendants today. *Ancient Macedonians regarded Greeks as neighbours not as kinsmen. The Greeks treated the Macedonians as foreigners ("barbarians") whose native language was Macedonian not Greek. *Macedonians claimed kinship with the Illyrians, Thracians and Phrygians, not with Greeks. *Greeks said Macedonians were "barbarians" (a word which means non-Greek) *Demosthenes, the great Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of the Macedonian King Phillip2 of Macedon as: Quote, "...Not only not Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from anyplace that can be named with honours, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave."[Third Phillipic, 31] *The Macedonian "barbarian’ defeated Greece at the Battle Of Chaeronea in August 338BC. The date is known as the end of Greek history or as The Macedonian Era. *Alexander The Great spoke Macedonian and was proud of his ethnicity. However the Macedonian language then was not used as a literacy idiom. The first native written language in Macedonia is the idiom called Macedonian or Old Church Slavonic (Cyrillic Alphabet) and is the basis of all Cyrillic alphabets today. *Alexander won his empire with 35,000 Macedonians and only 7,600 Greeks and called it the Macedonian Empire not the Greek Empire. *Today’s republic was created by Josip Broz Tito the anti-fascist leader of Yugoslavia during the 2nd World War who recognised Macedonians as a distinct nationality with their own language and customs. *The claims by Bulgaria that Macedonians are of Bulgarian ethnicity are entirely false due to the facts that the Tatars a people from the east who invaded the balkans during Byzantine times mixed with the Gypsies and Turks in the Balkans and 2004-01-13T21:34:12-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Macedonia-through-the-hystory-5400.aspx Macedonia through the hystory THE PROPAGANDA *Macedonians should not be recognised as Macedonians as they have been of Greek nationality since 2000BC. *Macedonians whose language belongs to the Slavic family, must not call themselves Macedonians as 4000 years ago they spoke Greek and today still speak nothing but Greek. *Macedonia has no right to call itself by this name as Macedonia has always been a region and is today a region of Greece. *The Serbs believe that Macedonians are misguided country cousins who belong in a Greater Serbia. (Yugoslavia) THE FACTS *Macedonia was never a region of Greece. On the contrary, Greece was often subject to Macedonia. In 1913, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria divided Macedonia into three parts. (BALKAN WARS) *Ancient Macedonians were a distinct European people and proud of their nationality, their customs, their language and their name. The same applies to their descendants today. *Ancient Macedonians regarded Greeks as neighbours not as kinsmen. The Greeks treated the Macedonians as foreigners ("barbarians") whose native language was Macedonian not Greek. *Macedonians claimed kinship with the Illyrians, Thracians and Phrygians, not with Greeks. *Greeks said Macedonians were "barbarians" (a word which means non-Greek) *Demosthenes, the great Athenian statesman and orator, spoke of the Macedonian King Phillip2 of Macedon as: Quote, "...Not only not Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from anyplace that can be named with honours, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave."[Third Phillipic, 31] *The Macedonian "barbarian’ defeated Greece at the Battle Of Chaeronea in August 338BC. The date is known as the end of Greek history or as The Macedonian Era. *Alexander The Great spoke Macedonian and was proud of his ethnicity. However the Macedonian language then was not used as a literacy idiom. The first native written language in Macedonia is the idiom called Macedonian or Old Church Slavonic (Cyrillic Alphabet) and is the basis of all Cyrillic alphabets today. *Alexander won his empire with 35,000 Macedonians and only 7,600 Greeks and called it the Macedonian Empire not the Greek Empire. *Today’s republic was created by Josip Broz Tito the anti-fascist leader of Yugoslavia during the 2nd World War who recognised Macedonians as a distinct nationality with their own language and customs. *The claims by Bulgaria that Macedonians are of Bulgarian ethnicity are entirely false due to the facts that the Tatars a people from the east who invaded the balkans during Byzantine times mixed with the Gypsies and Turks in the Balkans and 2004-01-13T21:31:42-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Macedonia-through-the-hystory-5399.aspx Should Napoleon Bonaparte Be Considered A Hero? What is a hero? A hero can be defined as a common man who rises to greatness on the basis of sheer talent. Should Napoleon Bonaparte be considered as a hero? Many would argue that Napoleon is a hero as his heroic nature provided France with the institutions and sense of national identity they needed. Others would argue Napoleon is not a hero, as his use of propaganda made the French public believe he was their savior. I believe Napoleon Bonaparte was a hero, as his many accomplishments modified the French society and ultimately the civilized world. Not only did he better France through his domestic policy, he also expanded the territory of France with many battles won through strategic warfare. He as well gave the citizens of France the sense of national identity and pride they needed. Napoleon’s domestic policy, “was his greatest legacy to France” (Mitchner, pg 57). His domestic policies had such an immense impact on the way of life in France that they are used today in the civilized world. Through his domestic policy, Napoleon created the Bank of France. By creating the Bank of France Napoleon stabilized the French economy where the previous leaders of France had failed and made the franc the highest currency in all of Europe. Napoleon claimed “Equality must be the first element in education” (Mitchner, pg 59). This was the basis of the educating system Napoleon strived for. The Education reforms which Napoleon introduced in 1802 called lycees allowed this equality to occur and enhanced the way of learning for all of the citizens. Finally the serious rift with the Roman Catholic Church (which was created during the French revolution) was healed when The Concordat was introduced by Napoleon. Mending the rift between the Church and State allowed freedom of religion and rejuvenated the beliefs within the people of France. This contribution to France ended in French domestic tranquility. Napoleon was not only a great leader, he also was a military genius. As a military genius, Napoleon won many battles to expand France and was always welcomed back to France as a hero. His use of strategic warfare throughout many battles allowed him to be seen as a hero not only in France but all of Europe. Although his army was outnumbered by the Russians and Austrians in December 2, 1805, Napoleon’ brilliant strategies resulted in a defeat of the opposing 2002-11-13T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Should-Napoleon-Bonaparte-Be-Considered-A-Hero-5152.aspx English Revolution The history of the English Revolution from 1649 to 1660 can be briefly told. Cromwell’s shooting of the Levellers at Burford made a restoration of monarchy and lords ultimately inevitable, for the breach of big bourgeoisie and gentry with the popular forces meant that their government could only be maintained either by an army (which in the long ran proved crushingly expensive as well as difficult to control) or by a compromise with the surviving representatives of the old order. But first there were still tasks to be done. (1) There was the conquest of Ireland, the expropriation of its landowners and peasantry - the first big triumph of English imperialism and the first big defeat of English democracy. For the petty bourgeoisie of the Army, despite the warnings of many of the Leveller leaders, allowed themselves to be distracted from establishing their own liberties in England and, deluded by religious slogans, to destroy those of the Irish. Many of them set up as landed proprietors in Ireland. (The Leveller revolt of 1649 had been occasioned by the refusal of many of the rank and file to leave for Ireland, for that meant violating their Engagement of 1647 not to divide until the liberties of England were secure.) (2) There was the conquest of Scotland, necessary to prevent a restoration of the old order thence; Scotland was opened up to English traders by political union. (3) A forward commercial policy was undertaken with the Navigation Act of 1651, the basis of England’s commercial prosperity in the next century. This aimed at winning the carrying trade of Europe for English ships, and at excluding all rivals from trade with England’s colonies. It led to a war with the Dutch, who had monopolised the carrying trade of the world in the first half of the seventeenth century. For in that period the royal policy had frustrated all attempts of the bourgeoisie to throw the resources of England into an effective struggle for this trade. In this war, thanks to Blake’s fleet and the economic strength the Republican Government was able to mobilise, England was victorious. (4) An imperialist policy needed the strong Navy which Charles had failed to build up, and under Blake the Commonwealth began to rule the waves to some purpose; war in alliance with France against Spain brought Jamaica and Dunkirk to England. (5) The abolition of feudal tenures meant 2002-10-27T13:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/English-Revolution-5080.aspx Clash Of Neighbours: The History Behind Northern Ireland Tensions Although it is clearly established that the people of Europe hold a firm understanding and connection to their cultural and historical roots, few Europeans do to such a degree as the Irish. And to the people of British Northern Ireland, this history plays a part of their every day lives; the political, class, culture and ethnic divisions run every bit as strong today as throughout Irish history. But why have these divisions hardened over time? Many European states manage religious and ethnic differences with tensions to a minimum. I propose that these tensions are the consequence of suppression of the Roman Catholic majority of a Protestant ruling elite for several centuries, which has left lasting implications on the modern class structure. Ever since the Norman English first made contact with the Irish in the early centuries of this millennium there has been a mutual sense of doubt of each other’s intentions. There still remained a relatively peaceful isolated relationship. The real catalyst of tensions occurred in the seventeenth century when English and Scottish settlers began emigrating to relatively under populated Ulster, in Northern Ireland. There was a concurrent situation of overpopulation in Scotland, and sending Scottish labour to cultivate Ulster was an ideal solution.1 The Gaelic clans of Northern Ireland were quickly suppressed which led to more emigration to central and west Ulster. The peak of this influx from the British Island didn’t occur until well into the seventeenth century.2 These settlers were known as Anglo-Irish, and Ulster Scots. They were not a cohesive unit, religious differences between them also were an issue, as the English crown at first looked upon the Scottish Presbyterians in the same disdain as the Irish Catholics. Northern Ireland remained a quiet area until 1641, when the Irish Gaelic clans organized a rebellion to expel the settlers from their land. Open warfare broke out, with the Irish led by Rory O’More. His forces succeeded in driving the settlers out of central and west Ulster. Not until when the Scottish army, in 1642 was sent, could the Anglo-Irish and the Ulster Scots return. At the same time external political issues were brewing elsewhere in Europe. King Charles’ attempt to rule England as an absolute monarch had precipitated a civil war in 1642. Although a protestant, Charles had a very lenient view on Catholics: a stance, which endeared him to many Irish Catholics and drew their support 2002-10-22T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Clash-Of-Neighbours-The-History-Behind-Northern-Ireland-Tensions-5068.aspx How Humanism Contributed to Rennaisance Ideals Through the groundwork laid by the 2002-09-16T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/How-Humanism-Contributed-to-Rennaisance-Ideals-4992.aspx Expression of Renaissance Ideals throught the Art of the Period The humanist and secularist beliefs of religion, individuality, and antiquity were evident in the style and illustration of Italian paintings and sculptures in the High Renaissance era. A deep sense of piety, Greek and Roman philosophy, and secularism, can be found in nearly all Renaissance paintings and sculptures, and the school of thought in Renaissance society that regarded the artist as genius contributed to all of these items. Historically, religion is the defining factor of nearly all paintings in modern and medieval European history. The Last Supper by Leonardo, The School of Athens by Raphael, Michelangelo’s huge sculpture of the ancient Hebrew king David, Giotto’s paintings of the Virgin Mary and Saint Francis of Assisi, and Masaccio’s The Holy Trinity serve as an infinitesimally small sample of the vast selection of religiously inspired paintings, frescos, sculptures, and architectural endeavors created by Renaissance artists. The School of Athens by Raphael is an artistic representation of the beliefs and interpretations of the Renaissance humanist philosophers such as Petrarch and Drusus. Great classical mathematicians such as Pythagoras stand under the statue of the Greek goddess of reason, Athena, while intellectuals such as Socrates teach on the right, under the statue of the Greek patron of poetry, Apollo. This fresco also illustrates the existence of an intellectual community of painters, sculptors, and leaders such as Michelangelo and Leonardo, who exist in the painting as Greek philosopher Heraclitus and Plato, respectively. This select group of individuals was in fact the majority of the thinking power of the Italian Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci represents most strongly the secularist style in Renaissance art. His painting of The Last Supper shows the very strained emotions of Jesus’ apostles when he informs them that he is to be betrayed. The lines of emotion and the expressions on the apostle’s faces clearly depict the secularist real, the non-exaggerative, worldly style of secularism exhibited through the writings of Boccaccio and Lorenzo Valla. Michelangelo’s dome for Saint Peter’s Basilica and the roof of the Sistine Chapel display the secularist attitude the Roman Catholic Church adopted in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The fact that the Catholic Church, the wealthiest institution in the world, sponsored this art shows the elitist status that artists must have assumed in the Renaissance, and how the church supported the belief that the hand of God worked through the hands of the artists. The genius and alleged divinity of Italian Renaissance 2002-09-16T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Expression-of-Renaissance-Ideals-throught-the-Art-of-the-Period-4993.aspx What difficulties were experienced by the German economies in the 1920’s The German economies were beset with difficulties throughout the whole of the 1920s. The huge expenditure of the First World War had exhausted Germanys economic strength. The need for manpower had reduced industrial production along with grain production. Outputs in all areas were severely reduced. The subsequent loss of the war resulted in demands for reparations by the victors. These demands were harsh to say the least and the problems Germany faced in paying it contributed to what was arguably the most difficult period in the decade, the “great inflation”. The governments attempt at resolving this led to radical reforms in the economy. This led to what some have called the “golden years”. However this only lasted four years and precipitated the Great Depression. In the aftermath of the First World War, Germany lost under the Versailles Peace Treaty ten per cent of her population and thirteen and a half per cent of her pre war territories, in particularly, Upper Silesia and Lorraine as heavy industry and coal and iron ore deposits lay there. The allies also demanded ninety per cent of her merchant navy, all her military navy and armament materials whilst also paying for the cost of all occupied troops in Germany. Also due to the end of the war 10 million soldiers were flooding the labour market looking for work in a time when agricultural and industrial production had been reduced. This had a detrimental effect on the economy. One of the main problems that were affecting the economy was the reparation demanded by the allies. After a lot of indecision the Allied reparations Reparation Committee in April 1921 decided on the sum of 132 thousand million marks (roughly 33 billion dollars) to be shared out in differing amounts to the allies. This figure had a six per cent interest charge and the initial payments were set at two billion marks per annum along with twenty six per cent of the value of her exports. This amount was mammoth and experts such as John Maynard Keynes suggested it was an unfeasible sum. At the end of the 1921 the German government realised it was unable to meet the instalments and asked for a reduction, which they received in March 22 and were also given a suspension for six months. The problem for Germany, was the difficulty of paying goods, imports far exceeded exports. To raise the value of the reparation 2002-03-21T13:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/What-difficulties-were-experienced-by-the-German-economies-in-the-1920’s-4569.aspx Why was Northern Italy so much in the forefront of urban self-government? There were various reasons for the ability of certain towns in Italy to establish a certain amount of self-government. The location of the maritime cities such as Genoa was able to benefit from the crusades making them powerful. This resulted in a knock on effect to the main inland towns and cities in the north due to increase in trade. This caused prosperity and growth, because of this and also because of certain socio-economic changes originating in the countryside, the cities and towns started to break away from the old feudal systems and look to a new order more beneficial to the newly formed city classes. Their ability to consolidate this new government was due in part to the political upheaval which existed between state and church. This can be seen within the conflict of Henry IV and Gregory VII. The concept of self-government showed a major change in power within the Northern towns of Italy. The traditional feudal system was replaced by a “commune”, where all orders would share al rights and powers in common. This was implemented by an elected consul, where as before Kings such as the Lombard’s installed governors to rule, or at other times a powerful Archbishop would be the ruling power. This can be seen in the rule of Archbishop Ansperte 868-81, (Ella Noyles p16) By the time of the 12th century, cities such as Milan had a government loosely based on the old Roman regime. This was a three tier system consisting of Captains – the higher nobility and clergy; the vassals- the lower nobility and an increasing middle class formed of merchants and land leasers; and the common people such as the artisans and peasants. A consul was elected to govern the commune and was re-elected every year. This consul was elected by all three orders not just the elite. This is what existed for self-government in the eleventh and twelfth century. The existence of self-government in the Northern Italian towns and cities was possible due to various reasons. In part it was location. The first crusades brought huge amounts of people and wealth into the maritime cities such as Genoa Pisa and also Venice. In consequence a great amount of trade was stimulated throughout Northern Italy and toward the inland towns and cities of Milan, Florence Ravenna and Pad ova to name a few. This also caused growth of people and trade. Other 2002-03-15T13:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-was-Northern-Italy-so-much-in-the-forefront-of-urban-self-government-4539.aspx Victorian Social Reform in Britain When considering the changes brought about in the social policy of Great Britain, in the decades immediately either side of 1900, one must look at the nation `s industrial history. The position as the world` s premier industrial nation had been cemented by the mid nineteenth century, achieved in part, as it was the first nation to industrialise. However, the headlong embrace of laissez- faire capitalism ignored the social infrastructure, and the emigration from the depressed agricultural areas to the industrial areas caused immense strain on the poorly-planned towns and cities. At the dawn of industrialisation, there were those who expressed concern about the health and hygiene of the dense industrial areas, notably Freidrich Engels, whose study of Manchester and London in 1844 collated in “Conditions of The Working Class in England” painted a truly dismal picture of urban squalor and hopelessness. “ Such is the Old Town of Manchester, and on re-reading my description, I am forced to admit that instead of being exaggerated, it is far from black enough to convey a true impression of the filth, ruin, and uninhabitableness, the defiance of all considerations of cleanliness, ventilation, and health which characterise the construction of this single district, containing at least twenty to thirty thousand inhabitants. And such a district exists in the heart of the second city of England, the first manufacturing city of the world. If any one wishes to see in how little space a human being can move, how little air - and such air! - he can breathe, how little of civilisation he may share and yet live, it is only necessary to travel hither.” (Engels.F. 1844 p.84 ) The publication, in 1842, of the” Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain” elicited, and perhaps foresaw, the protests of disbelief. Edwin Chadwick was responsible for the report and also invoked the image of the “unknown country” as Henry Mayhew later did to bring to public attention the abysmal conditions with which the labouring poor had to contend. His principal concern appeared to be with “the miasma” emanating from decaying matter “the poisonous exhalations” which were the source of their physical, moral and mental deterioration. At the height of the cholera epidemic, the flushing of the sewers in order to dissipate the miasma, actually aggravated the problem by further contamination of the water supply, in the face of the advice which 2002-02-24T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Victorian-Social-Reform-in-Britain-4440.aspx Romanticism in Germany Romanticism was a European cultural revolt against authority, tradition, and Classical order (the Enlightenment); this movement permeated Western Civilization over a period that approximately dated from the late 18th to the mid-19th century. In general, Romanticism is that attitude or state of mind that focuses on the individual, the subjective, the irrational, the creative, and the emotional. These characteristics of Romanticism most often took form in subject matters such as history, national endeavor, and the sublime beauties of nature. According to historians, the mind-set of the Romantics was completely contradictory to the straightforwardness, impartiality, and serenity of 18th century Classicism. By the 19th century, Romanticism and Classicism had clearly been established and recognized as a major split in art. Masses of Europeans found the concepts of Romanticism appealing and the engagement of these concepts resulted in the reshaping of nineteenth century Germany. The Romantic Movement played a significant role in intellectual life, influencing the country’s nationalistic fervor. Nationalism was born with the French Revolution. Nationalism refers to the belief that the state and the nation should coincide as a single entity. It is best described in the equation ‘people = nation = state.’ In 1789 the people of France, defined themselves as the nation, took control of the state and the nation state was created. The sense of nationhood was intensified by the internal attempts to overthrow the revolution and by the experience of the war. Victories abroad instilled a feeling of national pride and of national duty. At first the fraternal wish was to free other subject peoples. Then later to civilize Europe by the export of French ideas and by the further control of foreign territory, which was an aim particularly, associated with the Napoleonic Era (1799-1815). Napoleon claimed that the sole purpose of regulating alien territory was to free Germans and Italians, but whilst he reconstructed the frontiers of the European states, he did very little to encourage nationalism directly. Nationalism developed as a reaction to French rule in the geographical areas of Germany. A general feeling of humiliation blanketed the populace of Germany after the invasion and people began to rise up against the empire of Napoleon I. The spirit of nationalism took a stronghold in Germany. Writers began to expound common culture, heritage and language that defined Germans. Works from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), one of the earlier well respected German philosophers and writers of the time played 2002-02-15T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Romanticism-in-Germany-4381.aspx Edward's War King Edward III's military tactics were the sole reason for the English victory at Crecy in 1346. Not only that, he was the reason for English success overall in the early stages of The Hundred Years War. The war was started because of a feudal dynastic struggle over the Duchy of Aquitaine, and also the French throne. The first major battle was dominated by Edward, it took place at Sluys in 1340. It was a naval battle, that despite his inexperience as an admiral, Edward took the reigns and led his country to a glorious victory over the French navy. After gaining complete access to France through the English Channel Edward led his men into France, and a battle that is placed among the greatest victories of all time. The battle of Crecy took place on August 26th 1346, Edward placed his men in defensive positions in between the towns of Crecy and Wadicourt. He then waited while the Massive French army of nearly 25,000 prepared for battle. The English men, 11,000 strong watched as the first line of French began their attack, they continued to watch as they were driven away by a rain of arrows. This was the theme of the battle. Edward's strategy was perfect, and the English suffered minor casualties. In the end, Crecy left the French questioning themselves. The Hundred Years War shifted to the favour of the English, at least during the first third of the war, in what most call, Edward's war. The English inheritance of the Duchy of Aquitaine began when Eleanor of Aquitaine married King Henry II in 1152. Edward III inherited it when he became king in 1327. Edward also had the right to lay claim to the French throne when King Charles IV died in 1328. Charles was the last remaining son of Phillip IV, all three of Phillip's sons died without producing a male heir to the throne. Since Edward III was the son of Isabella, Phillip IV's daughter, he lay in direct bloodline of the French King. Although " King Edward III was a more direct descendent, he at first conceded the throne to the favourite among the French nobility, Phillip of Valois." He did this under the circumstances that he would maintain ownership of the Duchy of Aquitaine. Phillip of Valois was son to Count Charles of Valois, and nephew to Phillip IV. Edward eventually decided that 2001-12-14T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Edward-s-War-4167.aspx British Entrepreneurs and the decline of the British economy <H2>Was the British entrepreneur the most important single reason for the relative decline of the British economy in the late nineteenth century?</H2> Despite a continued growth of production and wealth in absolute terms, the economy of "the first industrial nation" began to decelerate after 1870, in comparison with that of her closest competitors. This so called "decline" was caused by a number of factors not merely one as the question suggests, indeed Supple` s foreword (1) asks, "Are we to be concerned with the rate of growth of total income or of manufacturing output? Above all, by what standards do we assess `failure` or `success`?" Derek Aldcroft` s article, `The Entrepreneur and the British economy, 1870-1914 published in 1964 spearheaded the broad indictment of the British entrepreneur…(2)……. A/ They failed to adopt the best available techniques of production in many industries, ranging from ring-spinning and automatic weaving in cotton to the mechanical cutter and electrification of mines in coal. B/ They underestimated the growing importance of science, investing little in laboratories and technical personnel for research or for the effective exploitation of foreign research. C/ They over-invested in the old staple export industries such as cotton and iron, and were slow to move to the industries of the future such as chemicals, automobiles, and electrical engineering. D/ They were bad salesmen, especially abroad. E/ They were insufficiently aggressive in organising cartels to extract monopoly profits from the world a t large. I intend to investigate these areas, in addition to labour relations, education and the class system, as I feel that they have a distinct bearing on the late Victorian economic climate. The "technological retardist" theories are strongest in considering the erosion of “King Cotton` s” pre eminence, due in part to America` s competition and, the critics suggest, the British cotton manager` s lack of judgement. It is said that the slow adoption of the ring spindle in spinning, and the low uptake of the automatic loom in weaving seriously hampered those industries` competitive edge. The principle advantage of the ring spindle was it` s operation by unskilled female staff, whereas the traditional mule required skilled (mostly male) operatives, thus saving on labour costs. The disadvantage was that the ring needed more expensive cotton to make a given `fineness` or `count`. Given this information, replacement of old existing technology should only be undertaken if the total cost of the new technology is less than the variable cost 2001-12-10T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/British-Entrepreneurs-and-the-decline-of-the-British-economy-4128.aspx Who was to Blame for the Cold War? I GOT AN A STAR AT GCSE LEVEL FOR THIS ESSAY, ENGLISH SPELLING... HOPE U LIKE... Everyone’s opinion is different, some say one thing, some say another but the big question is, who was to blame for the Cold War? The United States of America? The Soviet Union? Maybe it was inevitable and bound to happen, but maybe it was partly both of their faults. Could the Cold War have been prevented? There are many points that can argue and back up all of the above opinions. I will be examining different sources and viewpoints in this essay and conclude it with my own and other historian’s opinions. There are three divisions of western historians when it comes to their opinion on the Cold War, the Traditionalists, the Revisionists and the Post-Revisionists. Each party have their own opinion on who was actually to blame for the Cold War. Traditionalists are historians who believe that the Soviet Union were to blame, Revisionists, who believe that the United States were to blame and Post-Revisionists believe that both the USA and the Soviets were to blame. Each group has reasons for believing what they believe and they will all be argued within this essay. There are many points that may have triggered the Cold War. Firstly, the history of mistrust between the USA and the Soviet Union that formed after their alliance in World War II. The USSR were scared that their Communist system was under threat from the Capitalists, but the Capitalists thought the same thing about the Communists. Both systems believed that they were doing the right thing. The USSR believed that the West were hostile towards them because of a few points. <ul><li>1919 – USA, Britain and France sent troops across to help the USSR’s opponents. <li>1938 – Stalin believed that there was an indication of Western support to Hitler after the two European countries, Britain and France turned down an Anti-Hitler alliance. <li>USSR believed that the British policy of appeasement was a plan to help Hitler. <li>1941 – Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, afterwards, the USA, Britain, France and the Soviet Union fought in an alliance. Stalin urged his allies to launch a second front. The other three countries were not ready to launch such an attack until June 1944v (D-Day.) Stalin thought that the other countries were deliberately waiting for Germany to weaken the Soviet Union before the front was launched. <li>The Soviets were not invited 2001-12-08T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Who-was-to-Blame-for-the-Cold-War-4105.aspx Why Was There Relative Stability in the Balkans, In the Period 1890-1908? Between the years of 1890 and 1908 there was a period of relative stability in the Balkan area. Whilst, in this essay, it is my primary objective to look at what factors caused this, it is first important to understand that the climate was only stable in comparison to the years before it – when there was great tension, argument and conflict. It would be naïve to assume that after 1890 there was none of the aforementioned; the importance of the word ‘relative’ should not be overlooked. Take, for example, the infamous Armenian massacres of 1894 and 1896. At that time there were about a million Armenians under Turkish rule. They were a badly oppressed minority, discriminated against in just about every conceivable way. When the Armenian people began to press for improved rights and independence, the Turkish reaction was to silence them through acts of murder. This is clearly not an act usually associated with stability. Another prime example that the stability in the Balkans was only ever relative is the crisis of 1903. The Serbian King was assassinated in a military coup and replaced by King Peter, who belonged to a different dynasty. He was pro-Russian which angered Austria-Hungary, who had been allied with Serbia. Austria-Hungary placed economic sanctions on the Serbs in the hope of forcing them back into an alliance, but this only succeeded in worsening relations between the two and pushing Serbia into Russian hands. That said, there is no doubt that the climate surrounding the Balkans was far more relaxed and stable between 1890 and 1908 than it had been for many decades beforehand. There were several factors that contributed to this, the primary reason being (in my opinion) the change in Russian foreign policy. Before 1890, Russian was often the root cause of tension and conflict, because of her foreign policy objectives – she had two principle objectives: to unite the Slav people of the Balkans, in order to create a ‘Greater Motherland’, and also to gain greater access to The Straits. This was most evident in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877, where Russia had emerged victorious, and attempted to create a ‘Bigger Bulgaria’ of Slav people in the (eventually) abortive treaty of San Stefano. After 1890 Russia felt that if they continued to pursue their interests in the Balkans, it was a lot of trouble for possibly no gain, so instead she began looking to 2001-11-17T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-Was-There-Relative-Stability-in-the-Balkans,-In-the-Period-1890-1908-4058.aspx Imperialism in India British imperialism on India had many positive and negative affects on both the mother country, Britain and the colony, India. Many people would argue which effects were more prominent in these countries and some would agree that they were equal. But in both cases there were actually both. In India the British colonization had more positive affects than negative. For Instance, When the British colonized India they built 40,000 miles of railroad and 70,000 miles of paved roadway. As a result the British made it much easier to travel across India. Another good affect that the British had on India was the jump in agriculture, through large scale irrigation works. About 30 million acres were put into cultivation. Industrialization had also begun. Because of all these reasons almost no famine existed in British colonial India. The English also built many institutions in India and setup a productive government. “They have framed wise laws and have established courts of justice”(The Economic History Of India Under Early British Rule). In addition to all these positive affects, Britain also linked India to the modern world through modern science and modern thought. However, where the is good there has to be bad. British colonization of India had it’s drawbacks. As the great Mohandas Gahndi once said “ You English committed one supreme crime against my people. For a hundred years you have done everything for us. You have given us no responsibility for our own government.” At first glance this may seem like a positive effect but Ghandi did not intend it to be. Because even though it was a good thing that England setup a government in India they turned it into a burden because they did not let any natives into the important positions. They “mommied” the Indians if you will. Another negative effect England had on India was the breaking up of traditional industries. Prior to Britain colonizing India there were many more divers skilled labors. Such as shipbuilding, metalwork, glassblowing, and paper making. With the break up there was a noticeable rise in the unemployment India. India was not the only country affected by the annex to the British empire though. This annexation affected Great Britain as well. Although the effects were not as devastating they still caused some change. But overall Britain definitely benefited from the colony of India. They got more raw materials and they also got more land. On 2001-11-13T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Imperialism-in-India-4046.aspx The Enlightenment The Age of Enlightenment saw many great changes in Western Europe. It was an age of reason and philosophes. During this age, changes the likes of which had not been seen since ancient times took place. Such change affected evert pore of Western European society. Many might argue that the Enlightenment really did not bring any real change, however, there exists and overwhelming amount of facts which prove, without question, that the spirit of the Enlightenment was one of change—specifically change which went against the previous teachings of the Catholic Church. Such change is apparent in the ideas, questions, and philosophies of the time, in the study of science, and throughout the monarchial system. Previously, the Catholic Church had professed to the entire medieval world that faith in God was absolute. Indeed, the medieval world was truly an age of faith. As such, ideas that went against the teachings of God were ignored and their preachers subsequently murdered. After the Crusades brought back old Aristotelian learning from the middle east, all this changed. Advances in Geography were made with the introduction of Ptolemaic Geography. More importantly than the rediscovery of ancient geography was the beginning of skepticism in Western Europe. No longer would the Church’s word be taken on faith. The idea that the physical world could be understood through the use of empiricism—analytical thought—was also introduced. René Descartes even began to doubt his own existence until coming to the conclusion: “I think, therefore, I am.” In this age we see the rise of deism. No longer is a priest’s cryptic and dogmatic preachings the sole explanation for weather, personal failure, and scientific phenomena such as electricity. With deism, religion now merely server a spiritual purpose and science is free to begin exploring the world. The Catholic Church, when confronted with the reintroduction of the Ptolemaic Universe proclaimed that it was in accordance with the Bible as it put a “scientific” twist to the Church’s main beliefs: that God had created the Universe for man and man alone and that, as such, the Earth was at the centre of the Universe. During the Pre-Enlightenment and Enlightenment periods, man began to question that model of the Universe. Copernicus’ revolutionary model of the Universe placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe. Though Copernicus’ ideas were only allowed to b e published as he was on his deathbed, the Church grudgingly agreed to 2001-11-08T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Enlightenment-4003.aspx 2001: A Peace Odyssey? <b>Introduction</b> When I was in Ireland in 1997, I learned one important thing within few days: Do not ask, talk or enter into discussions about the contentious issues of politics and religion, and so I did not. However, it is impossible to touch Irish ground without also touching the fringes of what is popular referred to as the ‘Irish Question’. I noticed armed soldiers guarding the polling place at a by-election in county Armagh, a lorry driver vehemently expressed his disgust at the Irish tricolour and an elderly gentleman passionately told the history of Ireland. Naturally he focused on the events that have caused Irish nationalists grieving for centuries, e.g. Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland, King William of Orange’s defeat of James II, the confiscation of the land of Catholics and their degradation to tenant farmers. He did not mention the Rebellion in 1641 or the Siege of Derry. To outsiders, the logic of this conflict is difficult to understand. Although King William’s seizure of the throne was the foundation of democracy and the end to monarchical dominion over the British Isles, the Glorious Revolution is hardly remembered in England. However, “Orangemen see the victory [over James II] as an historic triumph for civil and religious liberty.” This is what they celebrate every year in July, and is of course what offends Catholics. Their perception of the parades is one of Protestants showing off their ultimate defeat of Catholicism. Misunderstandings, lack of communication and refusal to understand the others’ standpoint seem to be the root of the conflict. A wind of change blew over Northern Ireland in 1998. An overwhelming majority endorsed The Good Friday Agreement leaving hope for the future. But recently the peace process has slowed down. The compromises made in the Agreement were obviously easier to write down than to implement. One side has been accused of not keeping their promises, and the other has, as a result of this, been reluctant to continue the process. The former are Sinn Féin and the IRA, the latter are Protestants and unionists. Since the Troubles started in the late 1960s, Protestants have been split regarding the peace process. The majority wants peace. However, there is an extremely different perception of the price at which it should be bought. In the following sections, the differences between and the reasons for the Protestant attitudes to the peace process will be examined. <b>The Peace Agreements – 2001-11-04T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/2001-A-Peace-Odyssey-3968.aspx Problems of Medieval Europe The setting: Medieval Europe. The problem: the pope is living in Avignon, under strict control from the French King. The plague is ravaging Europe, leaving behind whole cities of corpses. Sanitation is very poor, there are no sewer systems, and more often than not, one could find human and animal feces lining the streets. The standard of living is very low, and much of this is blamed on religion. Many people would like to see the pope dead. Solutions are virtually non-existent. The pope is looking for a way to restore his power, and improve the life of Europeans. The main problem facing the pope was, of course, the plague. Nearly twenty-five million people had died of this highly infectious disease already, and it didn’t appear to be slowing. Medieval physicians had developed a number of “cures,” some as absurd as placing live chickens on the wounds of the infected. Due to the primitive technology at that time, there were very few actual cures. Many of the practices of the doctors were invented simply to deceive the populous into believing that they had cures, and that all was not lost. The pope, in his quarters at Avignon, sat between two large fires. They thought that this would purify the “bad air” which most blamed for the spread of the plague. Although there was no bad air, the fires actually did prevent the plague, killing off the bubonic bacteria. This was an example of what some people call “accidental science,” or a discovery made from superstition, or by accident. From the viewpoint of a medieval doctor, there were few things you could do. Most medicine at that time was based on the four humors, and the four qualities. The four humors were phlegm, blood, bile, and black bile. Illness would occur when these humors were imbalanced. Doctors often let blood, attempting to restore balance. There were also four qualities; heat, cold, moistness, dryness. Diseases were often deemed to have two qualities, i.e. hot and dry. If a person had a disease that was hot and dry, they would be administered a plant that was considered cold and moist. Basically what I have tried to say in the previous two chapters is that there was no medicinal cure for the plague in medieval times. If they had antibiotics, however, there would have been very few fatalities. The other large problem that the pope had 2001-10-27T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Problems-of-Medieval-Europe-3930.aspx Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine In the year 1122, soon to be Duke William X of Aquitaine was informed that his bride of one year, Aenor, daughter of the Viscount Aimery, had bore him a daughter. She was christened Alia-Aenor, or Eleanor. Since Aquitaine consisted of more than a third of the entire land of France, she was a heiress of some esteem. Soon after, Aenor gave birth to another daughter, Aelith (Petronella) and then to the heir that William so desired, William Aigret. Unfortunately, when Eleanor was eight, both her mother and brother died, leaving her heiress to the whole of Aquitaine. Eleanor’s close childhood friends were her uncle Raymond, who was only eight years older than herself, and her sister. She was influenced by the great heroines in her family, like her grandmother, who sacrificed her place as a Viscountess, for love. When Eleanor was fifteen, her father went on a pilgrimage. On the way, he encountered food poisoning. He left Eleanor in the charge of King Louis the Fat, to marry her off. King Louis married her to his own son, and made her Queen of France upon his death, some days after the wedding. Louis Capet, Eleanor’s new husband, was only sixteen when they wed. The second son, he had grown up in a monastery, preparing for a life in the service of the Lord. However, when his older brother fell off his horse and broke his neck, Louis became heir to the throne of France. Louis was a quiet, deeply religious man, eager to show off for his new, rich and beautiful wife. Eleanor dreamed of a warrior for a husband, and Louis, despite his shyness, desperately wished to fill that part. Quickly he went to war, against his vassals and anyone else that would oppose him. When Petronella was married to Count Ralph of Vermandois, his first wife’s family–who he had divorced to marry Petronella–quickly took up arms against him. Louis jumped in to protect his sister-in-law’s interests. Even so, Louis’s war was badly planned and his army ended up burning an entire village who had taken refuge in a church. The experience left him virtually destroyed, he who had been so in God’s favour. The King and Queen went to a respected and feared Abbot, Abbot Bernard. Louis wished to repent for his sins and Eleanor wished to bear Louis a child. By the time they left, Louis was 2001-10-25T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Eleanor,-Duchess-of-Aquitaine-3923.aspx Albert Speer - Differing Historical Interpretations They are many factors influencing the different historical interpretations of Albert Speer. The most influential was Speer’s own character construction of himself in his defence at the Nuremberg trials. This view was held by a majority of historians until Matthias Schmidt found holes in Speer’s story. A large blow was dealt to Speer’s own construction of his role in Nazi Germany when the Walters’ chronicles were released containing various incriminating evidence. There are still a number of historians who prefer to view Albert Speer as the Good Nazi, even though most historians now believe that the image created by Speer of himself was self-serving and false. Speer’s well structured and thought out defence shaped historical interpretation for years to come. At Nuremberg he presented himself as a pure technician and not involved in the politics or ideology of the party. He also claimed collective responsibility for crimes against Jews but also his ignorance of the Nazi intentions. As he stated at a later time: “I just stood aside and said to myself that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me. My toleration for the anti Semitic campaign made me responsible for it.” This admission of guilt won a fair amount of sympathy from the court. The reasons he gave for being with the Nazi party was that he was taken by Hitler’s personality and also realised that if he was to achieve his dream as an architect he will have to sell his soul to the party. This image of Speer was to be accepted for a while by most historians and was given little attention. This was probably because Speer was a little less ‘spectacular’ than Hitler’s other henchmen. There were however some suspicions. John Galbraith, a member of the US team that debriefed Speer before the Nuremberg trial, said in Life magazine 1945 that Speer’s claims contained “elements of fantasy”. He also believed that Speer’s confession was a part of his “well developed strategy of self vindication and survival.” Most historians believed in Speer’s testimonies until Wolters’ Chronicles were released. W Shirer The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960), A Bullock Hitler a Study in Tyranny (1962), and Joachim Fest The Face on the Third Reich (1970) all portray Speer as the good Nazi, the apolitical technocrat and a repentant German. Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of the 2001-08-06T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Albert-Speer-Differing-Historical-Interpretations-3612.aspx Revolution in France: Who Benefited Most From The Collapse Of The Ancien Regime? The Ancien Regime (French for Old Order) was the way society was run, in a period in French history occurring before the French Revolution (1789 – 1799). France was ruled by an absolute monarchy (a system where the king was classed as divine – an infallible role) King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The French society was separated into classes or Estates. The first Estate was the Clergy who were extremely rich. There were about 100,000 of these people. They had control over censorship of the press and of educational institutions Their wealth came from the Roman Catholic Church, which was made up of the upper and lower Estates. The upper, Bishops and Abbots who had the authority and the lower, Priests and Monks who had a modest income and had no say in church affairs. The Second Estate was the Aristocracy or Nobility, which was made up of about 400,000 people. They owned 20% of all the land in France and paid no taxes. They were very wealthy and enjoyed a carefree life. Their only grievance was the power that the First Estate held. The Second Estate were the men who held positions in the government. They were also exempt from taxes. The special concern of the Second Estate was to see that the King did not introduce tax reform. They wanted more political power to make sure events like this did not happen. While they denounced the monarchy’s absolutism they wanted to set up their own form of it. The third and largest Estate was made up of the Bourgeoisie (educated and privileged middle class) and the Serfs (peasants). The King and the Aristocracy enjoyed parties, banquets and tax exemptions, while the Bourgeoisie and serfs had to pay heavy taxes. Many of the serfs died from starvation and the living suffered under enormous financial hardships. The Third Estate had no success in voting because of the differing opinions about the tax system between them and the Second Estate. The Third Estate despised the privileges of the Second Estate and hated the tax system, which involved only themselves, the majority, paying the heavy taxes. There was a huge need amongst the Third Estate, who represented the ‘people’ of France for tax reform. The Second Estate worsened this situation because they were determined not to give up their tax concessions. This was a big problem for Louis and his advisors. King Louis and his 2001-07-29T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Revolution-in-France-Who-Benefited-Most-From-The-Collapse-Of-The-Ancien-Regime-3593.aspx Industrial Change in Britain <center><b>Industrial Change in Britain:'There was frequent and widespread discontent’ How accurate is this statement?</b></center> The Industrial Revolution is a term describing the many changes that transformed Great Britain from approximately 1760 and 1830. The main feature was the change to the factory system that depended on power driven machinery instead of manpower and the rapid growth of the cotton industry. The Industrial Revolution occurred because the scientists and inventors used their imaginations to develop new products and to exploit the opportunities of booming markets. Examples of this occurred in the textile, pottery and iron industries. The development of mining, particularly of the widespread use of coal, road improvements due to the road tolls, the building of canals, the growth of coastal shipping and the later rise of the railways were all crucial in the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain meant that the country could import cotton, woollen goods, iron and steel, machinery, hardware and coal on a huge scale. Other countries were not so industrialised therefore Great Britain had a strong advantage over them. Factory owners were able to move their products around the country more quickly, more cheaply and with greater safety than previously. For example, Britain’s main fuel was coal. As the towns grew they needed more coal. The coal was heavy and difficult to transport by road. During this time many canals were built and soon a canal network made transporting coal, merchandise and communicating a lot easier. During the Industrial Revolution, the cotton industry rapidly increased with the invention of an improved spinning wheel powered by water. These machines were quickly mass-produced for factory use. Factories could be built in the towns and employ many workers. The cotton industry saw rapid growth and needed many workers to keep it going. The increase in factories and employment meant that there was a huge amount of work to do. Many children obtained work in the factories instead of attending school. Before the Industrial Revolution, families worked hard but could also rest when they could not work. In the factories, children and adults alike were expected to work very long hours and hardly ever had free time at home. In some cases, children worked from 3am to 10pm. Children could easily be trained to work in the textile industries because it was made up of simple tasks. Sunday was a day of rest, yet in some factories, the children 2001-07-29T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Industrial-Change-in-Britain-3594.aspx Liberal Governments - life for the working <center><b>With what success did the Liberal Governments attempt to improve the quality of life of the working?</b></center> The 1906 election, and subsequent landslide victory for the Liberals, was the first step toward the introduction of a welfare state. The Conservatives who were in power up to 1906 had basically ignored the concept of social reform; this had led to them losing the worker's vote and had also led to a decline in the standards of living for the working class. The New Liberals argued for more government intervention to help impoverished society and therefore created the first movements of a social reform. However, the new legislation was only a mediocre success in improving the quality of life for working class people. "New Liberalism", differing slightly to Gladstonian Liberalism, was essentially state intervention in order to reduce poverty and therefore improve living and working conditions for the working classes. Up until the turn of the century, it was believed that poverty was self-inflicted, and extremely easy to eradicate if the people concerned just tried a little harder. However by the 1906 election, studies on poverty had been completed by Booth and Rowntree, and ideas on the origins of poverty were beginning to change. These studies provided evidence to suggest that no matter how hard certain people tried, they could not lift themselves out of poverty, and needed assistance in the form of state benefits and legislations. As New Liberalism involved more government intervention, people were wary of it as it was a new concept, and the previous Conservative governments had been unconcerned with most aspects of helping the people. At this time people were scared of change, and many did not understand the benefits of schemes like the National Insurance Act of 1911, where there wasn't a guaranteed payoff and people did not understand why, or to whom, they were paying money. However, as the idea of "deserving" poor and "undeserving" poor still existed even with New Liberalism, not all groups of people received aid. Therefore the new legislation and reforms were not quite as successful as they could have been. This was partly because the Liberals were more concerned with their political status than increasing legislation for the good of the people. The Liberals were in fear of a potential threat from the newly-formed Labour Party, who relied on votes from the working-class population. The Liberals were also reliant upon the support of 2001-07-09T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Liberal-Governments-life-for-the-working-3570.aspx Why Did The Church Have So Much Power? It was very difficult for kings to control the church. The church was very powerful. It could make people scared and tell them they’re going to hell. They could even tell the king they were going to hell. One man who got power off of the church was Henry VIII. He did so by closing down all catholic churches and creating the Church of England. One good example of kings not getting power of the church is King Henry II and Thomas Beckett. Henry asked Thomas Beckett to become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1161. Beckett accepted in 1162. Henry hoped that by Beckett being Archbishop, he would get control of the church. He was wrong. Beckett had a new master – GOD. Another example of the power of the church is monks could murder someone and be sent to the church courts and get away with it. Nothing more would be said. Another example of power is the church saying who could be buried at the church and who couldn’t. People who had committed suicide were not allowed to be buried in holy ground. But why was the church so powerful? The answer to that is William, Duke of Normandy (William I). When William became the King of the whole of England, he brought over a system that was used in Normandy – the feudal system. This system told everyone how powerful he or she was, and the church was very powerful. They wanted a share of Williams land and from then on they became high and mighty. After Henry VIII, the church became weaker and weaker and parliament became top dog. Parliament made lots of decisions from the country and even took power from the king once. During Mary I reign, she burnt prosatants. She even burnt archbishops. She wanted everyone to be Catholics. Archbishops were burnt, nobles and of course peasants. Sometimes peasants were burnt for not knowing the Lord’s Prayer. Mary believed that anyone who didn’t follow the Catholic ways would burn in front of the gates of hell. These people were known as heretics. They had to repent before they died. During this time the church didn’t have much power. It is difficult for us to now realize how powerful the church was. It had control of the minds and lives of all the people. They had a lot of influence. But after lots of arguments the church has lost a lot of 2001-06-27T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-Did-The-Church-Have-So-Much-Power-3546.aspx Henry VII & Richard III Richard the Third had just recently become King of England. But he did not know that soon he would not Henry Tudor was from Wales. His surname was really spelt ‘Tewdwr.’ It was changed to the English way though when 2001-06-27T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Henry-VII-Richard-III-3547.aspx Renaisance Education: Values and Purposes The Renaissance was a time of change. It began in Italy during the 14th century, and spread throughout the North. People all over Europe were affected, for the better and for the worse. Some people finally had a chance to control their own fate. Others, like upper class women, lost their social status. The values and purposes of Renaissance education were to improve the society, increase the economy, and restore the religious beliefs. The social lives of people were greatly influenced by advancements in education during the Renaissance. More people then ever before were send to schools and educated. Schools for girls were built, and they were taught sewing, reading, writing, and dancing. Some of these schools even had teachers for singing and playing instruments. Upper class women were taught language, philosophy, theology and mathematics. But their education only prepared them for social life at home. Women lost political power, access to property and their role in shaping society. People were taught to understand and judge the writings of others. Courtiers, aristocrats and nobles were able to write poetry and text. By being well educated, having good penmanship, knowing how to ride, play, dance, sing, and dress well, men of high status gained respect and reputation. These skills also helped attain preference and support among princes. Nevertheless, the school system did not teach youth how to behave in daily life situations. They spent too much time on Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. Those studies that were realistic, enlightened men’s minds, and prepared them for life, were reserved for the Universities. Therefore, students had a slight understanding of the meaning and the true use of knowledge. They were only able to write Latin, which no one of judgement would want to read, and when they went to universities, they wasted their friends’ money and their own time. Afterwards, they would return home again, as unsophisticated and uneducated as they were before. In addition, many individuals thought that having to many schools was a terrible thing. They believed that only a minority of men should study literature, because more farmers were needed than judges, more soldiers than priests, more merchants than philosophers, and more hard working groups than dreamy and thoughtful individuals. Italian humanist Piccolomini, who himself was educated, believed that philosophy and literature, should be taught to every individual, because these studies reveal the truths about the past, the reality of the 2001-06-10T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Renaisance-Education-Values-and-Purposes-3478.aspx The French Revolution Gradually after the American Revolution, France had it’s own Revolution in 1789. The French were very unhappy with their current status, jobs, and living conditions. They saw what the Americans did to achieve liberty, and how successful they were. Many of them had also read the writings of the philosophers and believed that change was necessary. Nevertheless, the main problems that led to the French Revolution were deep debt, competition between social classes, and the unlawful conduct of the king. Debt was one of the problems that led France toward a Revolution. France was badly in debt after participating in the American Revolution and after Kings Louis XIV’s and Louis XVI’s enormous expenses. In order to save France from bankruptcy, Louis XVI called on the Estates General for help. The Estates General was made up of the First (clergy), Second (nobility), and Third (everyone else) Estate. However there was a lot of conflict within the Third Estate, because it was made up of everyone who was not part of the royal family, clergy, or nobility. The Third Estate was very unsatisfied because although it contained over 80 percent of the population, it still had the same one vote as the other two Estates with fewer people. Thus it re-named itself the National Assembly in June of 1789 and claimed itself the representative body of the people. The Assembly did not aid the King in his financial troubles, yet it demanded many changes to France’s absolute monarchy and legislative system. Many of the laws that were passed in France had also become extremely burdensome to the common people because they excluded the clergy and nobility from paying taxes. Louis XVI tried to help the economy, by raising taxes in 1786. But this only made matters worse, because peasants were unable to pay. Harvest was also poor and food very expensive. People were enraged of hearing stories of lavish parties at the fine houses and palaces, where a lot of food was served, which was either wasted or given to the dogs afterwards. The demand for manufactured goods fell, and many artisans, traders and farmers were without work. People were angry and began to revolt. In July of 1789, they stormed the Bastille killing many people, and in October of 1789 angry middleclass women marched to Versailles demanding that the royal family move to Paris and action be taken to help feed the people. 2001-06-04T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-French-Revolution-3452.aspx Pan-Slavism In the early nineteenth century, Slavic peoples from multiple empires in eastern and southern Europe began to pursue a movement to protect and organize Slavic culture. In 1848, this movement became more political. It gained a reputation and an attempt was made to unify all Slavic peoples. This movement became known as Pan-Slavism. Pan-Slavism appealed to many Slavs who felt nationalism towards their race. However among the Slavs, there were many different opinions. Some believed that there was a cultural, ethnic, and political connection among all Slavs. Others argued that there was no place for Pan-Slavic goals in the present empires. Above all, the cultural and political issues in the debate over Pan-Slavism were nationalism for ones race and a quest for power. In 1871 Slavs occupied most of eastern and southern Europe. The Slavs came from many nations. They populated the Austro-Hungarian, German, Russian, and the Balkan Areas of the Ottoman Empires. However as a result of their geographic diversity, there was no single language or literature for the Slavic population. Slavs were so disunited that although they shared a common nationality, there was ignorance, hatred, and oppression of each other. Slavic nationalists wanted to unify and form a free and content Pan-Slavic Empire. They believed that all Slavic peoples should maintain a close connection to one another. They were unhappy that among the Slavs, nationality came after humanity, while the opposite of this was true for other nations. In a lecture given by Bronislaw Trentowski in 1848, he stated that if he were ever a tsar, he would destroy the Ottoman and Austrian Empires, thus liberating the Slavic peoples and hence gaining their support. He would free Poland, along with every other Slav occupied country. Some people saw Pan-Slavism as the freeing of non-Russian Slavs from their Ottoman, German, and Austro-Hungarian rulers. Not everyone agreed with the intentions of Pan-Slavism. Some people did not think that that the Slavs were one nation. Karel Havlicek, a Czech journalist shared this belief. He believed that nationality was not only determined by language, but also by customs, religion, government, and way of education. In 1848, he published an article called “Slav and Czech”, in which he stated that the name Slav is and should always remain a geographical name. Bulgarian poet, Christo Boter, who strongly believed that only small federations of Slavs, in accordance to location should be built, shared a similar yet different 2001-06-04T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Pan-Slavism-3453.aspx Richelieu's Great Success Machiavelli, More, and Richelieu all at one point or another occupied a high post in their respective governments: Italy, England, and France; from such a vantage point, or rather in the case of Machiavelli after descending from office, each identified the ills existent in his given state and derived his own remedy for such ills. However, the efforts of Machiavelli and More proved less fruitful in the short run than did Richelieu’s; while Richelieu raised the state of France under Louis XIII to a condition of greatness through the elimination of internal strife and discord which had for so long plagued the nation and through the advocacy of increased involvement in the international realm, his two predecessors in their renowned works, The Prince, Discourses on Livy, and Utopia, made a number of espousals concerning certain desirous reforms which would prove extremely influential in the future and throughout the world, but which would fail to be adopted as remedies for the immediate concerns which fostered them. Italy, and Florence itself, the birthplace and residence of Niccolo Machiavelli had endured violent political and social upheavals throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. In the 1440’s the social balance which had permitted the germination of much of Renaissance thought a few decades prior was already beginning to fall into decay as a result of heavy wartime taxation; Florence had been forced to keep Spanish held Naples and Milan at bay for years and consequently found herself lacking in funds to continue such a defense. The Florentine military was composed primarily of mercenaries who proved both a costly and not necessarily loyal force. The increasing costs incurred by warfare inevitably led to a centralized state led by the Medicis that could more readily generate and amass the necessary revenues; however, the outward trappings of a republican form of government were preserved. The Medici maintained their dominance of the Florentine Republic until1494 when Piero d’ Medici was ousted from office. The ostracization of Piero by his Florentine counterparts was in direct correlation to the invasion and capture of Naples from Spanish control by the French King Charles VIII. In 1494 on route to Naples the French took Pisa, Florence, and Rome without conflict; however, Piero’s surrender of Pisa, which left Florence vulnerable, provoked a fierce rebellion in Florence putting an end to Medici rule there for the time being. Despite such unrest the Dominican Friar Girolamo Savonarola 2001-04-30T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Richelieu-s-Great-Success-3279.aspx Black Death Since the reign of Emperor Justinian in 542 A.D., man has one unwelcome organism along for the ride, Yersinia pestis. This is the bacterium more commonly know as the Black Death, the plague. Plague is divided into three biotypes, each associated with one of three major pandemics occurring in history. Each of these biotypes are then divided into three distinct types, classified by method of infection. The most widely know is bubonic, an infection of plague that resides in the lymph nodes, causing them to swell. The Black Death of the 14th century was mainly of this type. Bubonic plague is commonly spread through fleas that have made a meal from an infected Rattus rattus. The most dangerous type of plague is pneumonic. It can be spread through aerosol droplets released through coughs, sneezes, or through fluid contact. It may also become a secondary result of a case of untreated bubonic or septicemic plague. Although not as common as the bubonic strain, it is more deadly. It has an untreated mortality rate on nearly 100%, as compared to 50% untreated mortality for bubonic plague. It attacks the respiratory track, furthering the cycle. The third type of plague is septemic. It is spread by direct bodily fluid contact. It may also develop as a secondary result of untreated bubonic or pneumonic plague. A LITTLE HISTORY As mentioned before, the most known incidence of bubonic plague was in 14th century Europe. In 1346 reports of a terrible pestilence in China, spreading through Mesopotamia and Asia Minor had reached Europe, but caused no concern until two years later. In January of 1348 the plague had reached Marseille in France and Tunis in Africa. By the end of the next year the plague had reached as far as Norway, Scotland, Prussia, Iceland, and Italy. In 1351 the infection had spread to include Russia. The plague was an equal opportunity killer. In Avignon nine bishops were killed, King Alfonso XI of Castile succumbed, and peasants died wherever they lay. Though the plague had, for the most part, ceased less than ten years after it started, it killed nearly one third of the European population. In many towns the dead outnumbered the living. Bodies piled in the streets faster than nuns, monks, and relatives could bury them. Many bodies were interred in mass graves, overflowing with dead, or dumped into nearby rivers. Domesticated cats and dogs, along with wolves, dug dead 2001-04-22T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Black-Death-3240.aspx Feudalsim During the Middle Ages, countries fought and argued for land and pride. The main goal of the leaders of these countries was global domination. With several countries fighting for one cause, there was no chance they would resolve their differences peacefully, often leading to wars and conflicts. Feudalism was the staple of European government. Although it served medieval statesmen well, the social structure was incredibly unbalanced, which was the main reason for its downfall. The creation of this form of government is believed by scientists to have been back in the ninth century, A... the institutions of feudalism gained accelerated organization in the ninth century ...@ (Bunsen 179). This states that the most influential countries and regions began to form during this time. AIts origins, however, were traced to the break up of centralization of the Roman Empire ...@ (Bunsen 179). This means that even before the feudal provinces began to develop, evidence of feudal societies was being thought up. When the Roman empire fell, it left many wealthy landowners spread throughout the European landscape. For every wealthy landowner there were many poorer, less prominent ex-roman citizens. AThey decided therefore to commend themselves to landlords, surrendering to a lord in return for safety and the right to farm the properties@ (Bunsen 179). This was the beginning of the feudal nations. Other provinces would evolve, but for the most part these were the more prominent countries. The children of the men who owned the land would inherit the land as well as any other property owned by their fathers. This tradition kept rich people rich and poor people poor. People who exchanged their land for protection were shielded from opposing enemies by knights, infantrymen and horsemen. “The vassal rendered to his lord certain services in addition to supplying his quota of armed knights “ (Bishop 110). The primary defense for a lord was his knight. AThe knights formed the core of the lord=s household; many of them lived permanently within the castle walls and were fed and housed by him@ (Barbara 269). Knights that were given homage by their lords did not really need any land but were still paid in fiefs, which were stretches of land paid to whomever. AThese household knights did not need a grant of land on which to live, though they often received it all the same@ (Barbara 269). This showed the favoritism the lords and kings felt and 2001-04-10T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Feudalsim-3186.aspx French Revolution <center><b>Essay: What were the reasons and results of the French revolution?</b></center> In 1789 financial times were hard in France. The peasants were upset that the nobles were living lavish lives collecting taxes, while they suffered. The prices on food were rising and the people were starving. The French social system was outdated and consisted of three classes. The first class consisted of the clergy. They paid no taxes and led the best lives. The second estate was the nobles. These were people who held top jobs in the government. The third and largest estate was the peasants. The people paid the most taxes and suffered the most. These people paid for Frances deficit spending. Deficit spending is when the country spends more money than is coming in. Louis XIV left France deeply in debt. Through out the 1700 taxes gradually rose to help repay this debt. By 1789 half its taxes went to paying the interest on this debt. This frustration led to revolt. On August 4th peasants attacked the Bastille. The peasants raided the Bastille but found no arms. This lead to a massive change in the government. The French government, in late August issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The Document was modeled in part of the American Declaration of Independence. In it stated that all men are born and remain free. Man also had the right to enjoy natural right or the right to property, security and resistance to oppression. It also said there are no different in man except his virtues and talents. It also granted freedom of religion and called for taxes to be levied according to ones pay. But this was still not enough for some. Working class citizens called sans-culottes pushed the revolution into some more radical action. By 1791 many sans-culottes demanded France become a republic. They also wanted the government to guarantee the government gives them living wages. Wars waged over France between those who supported the republic and those who opposed it. The Jacobins wanted this for the government. Others wanted the government to become a democracy. It was feuds such as these that didn’t help France. The people tried to unite but it failed. Although they managed to gain some rights, they were unsuccessful. And by the nobles living lavish lifestyles they did not help the people in any way. And they led their life at the expense of the peasants, 2001-04-05T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/French-Revolution-3136.aspx Feudalism <center><b>Essay: Explain the reasons and process of Feudalism.</b></center> Feudalism came to as a government containing kings, vassals, knights, lords, lesser lords, and peasants. Feudalism is a loosely organized system of rule in which powerful local lords divided their lands among lesser lords in exchange for military services and pledged loyalty. It came to as a need for control over peasants and protection from the Muslims and the Magyars. The relationship between lords and vassals was established by customs and traditions. A lord granted his vassal fief or land, which ranged from a few hundred acres to a square mile in which it included peasants to work the land. The vassal pledged loyalty and military service to his lord. Besides granting an estate, Lords also promised to protect their vassals in return vassals pledged 40 days military service each year and certain money payments in advance each year. Everyone had a place in a feudal society. Below the Monarchs were the most powerful lords-Dukes and Counts- who held the largest fiefs. Each of these lords had vassals in turn they had their own vassals. Sometimes a lord was also a vassal to a more powerful lord but had less powerful ones below him. Because vassals often held fiefs from more than one lord feudal relationships grew very complex. A vassal who pledged loyalty to several lords could have serious problems if his lords quarreled with one and other. The manor was the heart of a lord’s estate. On this land the peasants worked to farm crops. Most manors included more than one village. Most peasants who worked the manor were serfs, who were bound to the land. Serfs were not slave but were not free. They could not leave the manor without the lord’s permission and if the manor was granted to a new lord the serfs went with it. Mutual rights and responsibilities tied peasants and their lords together. Peasants had to work seven days a week farming the lord’s domain. They also repaired roadways, bridges and fences. And when peasants married they paid their lord. Since money had largely disappeared from medieval Europe, the lord was paid in eggs and in chickens. Peasants went to church weekly and attended prayer. Beside this peasants lead mostly simple lives. Feudalism was a government that tried to treat each separate relationship between lords and vassals as their own country governing themselves. Although it was popular and widely used 2001-04-05T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Feudalism-3137.aspx Industrialization - Economic Change and Effect Since the 19th century, industrialization has had positive and negative effects on the live of workers. Industrialization is the process of modernization and mass production of most goods. This also includes but not limited to mining and the forging of iron. An area where industrialization had a massive effect was in Eastern Europe. It emerged as a need to modernize and unify Europe. Although Britain led industrialization at first, it quickly exploded from Spain all the way through Russia. Early in the industrial revolution Britain stood alone as the world’s industrial giant. To protect its head start Britain placed strict laws monitoring the exportation of inventions. Then in 1807 a British mechanic William Cockerill, opened factories in Belgium for the manufacturing of spinning and weaving machines. Belgium thus became the first European nation to industrialize. By the mid 1800s, other nations had joined the race, and several newcomers were challenging Britain’s industrial supremacy. The effects of industrialization were especially obvious in Germany. By the late 1800’s Germany had setup a standard for chemical and electric companies worldwide. Germany was second only to Britain among the European powers. Germany spectacular growth was due to the ample amount of iron and coal resources in the area. A disciplined and educated work force also helped the economy, while a rapid growing population provided a huge home market and a highly skilled work force. It almost eliminated the poverty factor in Germany due to the vast availability of employment. But along with the attributions of industrialization also came the bad. Poor work place conditions lead to work place abuses. Workers were forced to work long hours for little pay and even children were abuses during this time. Some of the abuses were children as young as 7 could be seen in work places, sexual discrimination was present. Women were often hired in factories because they could be paid less then men. And pollution was also a serious problem. These were among the most common problems of the time and these were too often seen in most if not all the work places. Workers were outraged by these abuses and how the government, at the time, did nothing to help. Workers established unions and won the right to bargain with employers for better wages and hours. And eventually the government passed laws regulating the employment of children and set safety regulations in the work place. Although this would be 2001-04-05T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Industrialization-Economic-Change-and-Effect-3139.aspx Spanish and French Monarchial Beliefs - The Escorial and Versailles The palace of Versailles was built by Louis XIV of France (1643-1715), and the Escorial was built by Philip II of Spain (1556-1598). By examining the aerial and frontal facades of these two palaces, it may be seen that there were many similarities and differences between the two kings’ perception and practice of monarchy. Each king set his own goals for his life, and concluded as to how a monarch ought to behave. Both Louis XIV and Philip II had religious duties to pay attention to, organized the distribution of power in their respective kingdoms, communicated with other countries and entities through war and diplomacy, raised militaries, and made plans for the expansion of their own beliefs, thoughts and practices. Aside from these aspects of the two kings’ beliefs and practices of monarchy, the architecture of their palaces reflected their ideals, or personal beliefs, and the interpretation made by the painters of the palaces reflects the attitudes of the two kings toward life. The role of the king to the public during the reigns of Louis XIV of France and Philip II of Spain were not predetermined, so each king created for himself what he thought monarchy ought to be. Louis XIV and Philip II were both absolutists, and believed that they should be the supreme rulers of France and Spain, respectively. However, Louis XIV did not want to be a national symbol serving no legitimate purpose. He wished to control the military, economy, foreign affairs, and the administration of the kingdom and of justice. He believed that the king of France should be the best that France has to offer- being served by even the most powerful lords of France. Conversely, Philip II thought of himself as Catholic first, and king of Spain second. Opposite to Louis XIV, Philip II preferred to sit in the Escorial and pray, pour over records, and live more as a monk than as Louis XIV’s conception of a king. Philip II never wanted to take much of an active part in the administration of his kingdom, except for the times when he wanted to use some of his various powers. However, after he had used it for a while (waging war, raising taxes, etceteras) he would let it lay dormant and return to his documents. Nor did Philip II ever wish to control most of the Spanish economy. The parts that he did control 2001-03-26T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Spanish-and-French-Monarchial-Beliefs-The-Escorial-and-Versailles-3093.aspx To what extent did Solidarity contribute to undermining Communism in Poland? Communism in Poland was self-consciously the workers-state, largely responsible for creating the modern Polish working class through industrialization and raising expectations of equality and of higher living standards. It is widely believed that Solidarity undermined Communism in Poland, partly by disrupting the Communist program of production through strikes, but more by transferring the trust and loyalty of the Polish people from Communism to itself. The supposed "adversaries" of Polish workers - the church, the officer class, the national leadership - were in fact combined by Solidarity as allies of the workers to "break the resistance" of Communism to reform. What the state never appreciated in Poland was that it was seen as Russian, oppressive, and corrupt, having created the working class they then, in line with Marx's prediction, demonstrated their control of the means of production (strikes) and undermined Communism in Poland. However, one cannot ignore the pull of the capitalist west in displacing communism in the eyes of the people. In this essay I plan to show the extent to which Solidarity was responsible for undermining communism and also to question how far other factors, such as the Poles hatred of Russians, their strong allegiance to the Catholic church, and the raging Cold War, displaced communism in the eyes, and from the hearts of the people. Solidarity weakened Polish Communism providing a vehicle of transmission for years of grievances against a government out of touch with the ideals of the Polish people. This is shown below in the picture taken from: "http://encarta.msn.com/find/MediaMax.asp." Solidarity took workers grievances, and grafted onto them more general national grievances (Russian dictatorship, suppression of the church etc.). Photographs of Solidarity led demonstrations show how they united people to challenge what they believed to be wrong. The challenge to the government's principles undermined it as a unit, lost any credibility, and weakened it in the eyes and minds of the people. Solidarity not only weakened Communism by providing an organized channel for grievances, but also gave people new ideas, as seen in the "1980 Gdansk Agreement", article 4, issued by Solidarity: "To re-establish the rights...of all students who have been excluded from...higher education because of their opinions" This idea of free speech and thought was new as Communists devoted mass energies to suppressing this. The Church also received active support, where it had been oppressed by the government, turning the masses towards Solidarity, and against the present government, 2001-03-16T13:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/To-what-extent-did-Solidarity-contribute-to-undermining-Communism-in-Poland-3053.aspx The Industrial Revolution <center><b>Examine in detail the History of the Industrial Revolution. Discuss why Britain led the way in the Industrial Revolution and also explain in detail the effects of industrialization on society.</b></center> Had it not been for the industrial revolution, I would doubt very much that we would enjoy the technology we have in the year 2000. The reason we have this technology is that between the years 1750 and 1914 a great change in the world’s history was made. People started to discover faster methods of producing goods, which increased their economy. These people were mainly British and French, but after a few years the French were distracted by their revolution, and the British continued to industrialize. However you must not think this industrialization had no effects on society because it did. So in this essay I am going to talk about the history of the industrial revolution, discuss why Britain led the way in the industrial revolution and also I am going to explain to you in detail the effects of industrialization on society. In the midevel ages people were living in total darkness, and they did not know what was going on in the world around them. Happily the medieval ages were followed by the renaissance. Then came the year 1750, the year of the agricultural revolution in Britain which led away to a revolution in industry. Charles Townshend for example was one of the people who made the agricultural revolution possible. He suggested rotating the crops every year or two, to help the soil get enriched with vitamins and nutrition’s. The America’s then introduced potatoes to Great Britain. New farm machines were invented, for example Jethro Tull developed a seed drill which planted seeds in straight rows and farmers began using new iron plows in place of inofitiant wooden plows. In addition to that, the enclosure movement brought wealthy people to farm larger amounts of land, which was very good for the agricultural revolution. This revolution improved peoples diet and health leading to an increased population, which demanded healthy food, clothing and employment. Since many farmers were seeking jobs, they found it now in the textile industry, which created a new demand for laborers. You shall notice now that the mechanical inventions were so rapid and each one triggered another new one. A few examples of these inventions are the flying shuttle by John Kay, the spinning jenny by James 2001-02-24T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Industrial-Revolution-2912.aspx A Critical Evaluation of Charles De Gaulle's Handling of the Algerian Insurrection The 1950s was not a particularly good decade for France. The Fourth Republic, which had been established in the aftermath of the Second World War, remained unstable and lurched from crisis to crisis. Between 1946 and 1954, there had been a war in French Indo-China, between a nationalist force under Ho Chi Minh and the French. The war was long and bitter and towards the end, the French suffered the ignominy of losing the major fortress of Dien Bien Phu to the guerrillas on 7 May 1954. An armistice was sought with Ho Chi Minh, and the nations of North and South Vietnam emerged from the ashes of the colony. It is entirely likely that the success of the guerrillas influenced the Algerian insurrectionists, the National Liberation Front(FLN), in tactics and in the idea that the time was ripe to strike. It is clear that the FLN employed similar methods to those developed by the nationalists under Ho Chi Minh.1 For several months, France was at peace. The insurrection began on 1 November 1954. The insurrection precipitated the fall of the Fourth Republic. Charles de Gaulle, hero of the Second World War, became President of France in 1958, and was intent on securing a political solution to the insurrection, rather than one based on force. His efforts were largely successful in avoiding a civil war in France, and ending the insurgency - although it took four years to do so. It has been estimated that more than a million Algerians died in the insurrection.2 Before 1954, Algeria was not considered to be a French colony - rather it was seen as an integral part of France. The region was composed of departments, like those of the mainland. There were over a million white French nationals living in Algeria at the time and around eight million Muslims.3 This was a greater proportion of French nationals than in the other major North African colonies of France - Morocco, and Tunisia.4 Although there were benefits to remaining with France, the colonial administration was heavily weighed against the Muslims - particularly with regards to voting rights. In 1936, for instance, the Popular Front Government of Blum introduced legislation to the Assembly proposing to extend French citizenship to over twenty thousand Algerian Muslims.5 The initiative failed when all the European mayors of Algerian towns resigned in protest. After the First World War, a number of Algerian political parties 2001-02-01T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Critical-Evaluation-of-Charles-De-Gaulle-s-Handling-of-the-Algerian-Insurrection-2809.aspx Thomas Becket vs Henry II The High Middle Ages was a time of power struggles between the Church and the State. Increases in royal power and expeditions like the Crusades symbolized the teeter-totter of the balance of power between the two foundations, and a prime example of the fight for power is the conflict of Henry II, King of England, and Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry II gained his throne thanks to the efforts of his mother, who fought to maintain her family's stature in the royal family tree. Thomas Becket was the son of a wealthy London merchant, and lived a life of no worries. Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, recognized Becket's intelligence, and he was put under Theobald's church tree. There, Becket gained experience and serious attention from his great successes as the Archbishop's trusty servant, and King Henry II laid an eye on him also. Seeing Becket's potential intelligence, Henry II appointed Becket to the position of Chancellor of England. In England, the Chancellor was second-in-command only to the King. Any man of this stature was given great power, and any man placed in this position must be able to match his expectations. Henry's instincts were accurate, and Becket performed amazingly at his new position. He revolutionized how England's government was run, and turned the quiet castle into a busy place of work. Becket's fame rose instantly, gaining attention from all over England, and quickly gained the reputation of being Henry's greatest loyal worker. Becket, aside from being Henry's most trustworthy servant, also became Henry's greatest friend. Henry frequently visited Becket for dinner, and the two would discuss issues and exchange ideas almost every night. Henry was able to derive one conclusion from their dinner sessions Ð Thomas Becket was the most intelligent man in all of England. At this point in time, the Church and State of England fought mainly for power over the judicial system of England. Henry II wanted to enforce common law in his country, a system of justice with a jury that accuses suspects and royal judges that determine the sentence on the criminals. The Church, headed by the archbishop of Canterbury, wanted to keep their traditional system of canon law. The huge flaw in canon law was apparent to all of England, but the church was not willing to back down to the State. In the church's court system, the two greatest concerns 2001-01-06T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Thomas-Becket-vs-Henry-II-2742.aspx The Four Humors Medieval doctors had quite an understanding of the human anatomy, considering their lack of equipment and knowledge. Most doctors in medieval times were philosophers more than actual medical doctors as most people know them today. Much of the knowledge they did acquire may have only been speculation, but quite a bit of it was due to concentrated observation. Many scientists studied wounds and diseases intensely and one scientist in particular, Empedocles, came to the conclusion that that body consists of four main fluids, or humors. These humors were yellow bile, black bile, phlegm and blood. If one of these components was out of proportion in the body, disease occurred. The imbalance was called isonomia, an idea which was also proposed by the Greek scientist Empedocles. Empedocles followed the Pythagorean school of natural philosophers rather than the Hippocratic school as most other physicians in the time did. He felt people must use their senses, even though they are not thoroughly reliable at all times. The other schools preferred more mystic ideas as opposed to natural ones. He also hypothesized that all substances and objects were made up of air, fire, water, and earth in different proportions. His proposal of the four humors of the body was later accepted by the Hippocratic school. Each of Empedocles’ four humors was connected to one of the four seasons. Black bile was considered to be a part of autumn, blood was associated with spring, phlegm with winter and summer with yellow bile. Each humor was identified with its corresponding season due to the belief that each humor contained certain qualities. These qualities were closely related to the conditions of the seasons. Thus yellow bile was thought of as hot and dry like summer. Its opposite, phlegm was cold and moist like winter. Black Bile was cold and dry, while its opposite, blood, was hot and moist, like their counterparts, autumn and spring. As well as being connected with seasons, the four humors were also linked to four elements of nature. Black bile was associated with Earth, blood with air, fire with yellow bile and phlegm with water. This theory of nature and the body being interrelated was also proposed by Empedocles. Also each of these was also connected with the type of personality one presented. Too much earth made a person melancholic, which meant they were very depressed and saddened often. Too much air was 2001-01-02T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Four-Humors-2722.aspx The Black Plague “No pestilence had ever been so fatal, or so hideous. Blood was its Avatar and its seal—the redness and horror of blood.” (Edgar Allen Poe The Masque of the Red Death.) Many thought the Black Plague was a curse from God; punishment for the sins the infected had committed. Those that survived were the chosen people, the ones who abided by the laws of the Church. Scientists know now that the devastating disease was not a result of sins or spiritual inadequacy, but the terrible illness was caused by a strain of bacteria called Yersinia pestis. The bacteria were carried by fleas on rats, which were quite abundant in Medieval towns due to unsanitary conditions and overpopulation. The fleas would bite the rats and become infected with the diseased blood. The fleas would then jump from the rats onto people, thus infecting the host. Because the plague was spread easily, through sneezing and coughing as well as the fleas, the infection spread like wildfire. By the end of the 1300s over one third of the populations of Europe, Asia and Africa were completely annihilated. The Black Death was by far the most deadly disease ever known to man. It spread and killed with such a virulence that the course of human history was forever changed. Little known to the average person, three forms of the Black Death existed. All were caused by the same bacteria, but they each were comprised of very different symptoms. The three forms, though not equally as deadly, viciously killed millions of people during the Middle Ages. The most common and well-known strain of the Black Death was the bubonic plague. Victims were subject to enlarged and inflamed lymph nodes, a characteristic known as bubo, thus the reason for receiving the name the bubonic plague. The lymph nodes would swell to enormous capacities until they burst. Other symptoms included headaches, nausea, joint aches, a high fever and vomiting. Symptoms usually took about a week to appear and the mortality rate was around 30-75%. The second form of the Black Death was the pneumonic plague. It was the next most commonly seen form of the illness, although it was not as prevalent as the bubonic plague. Many of the victims died before they could infect others. This form of the plague attacked the lungs. Slimy mucus tinted with blood was spewed from the mouth and as the 2001-01-02T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Black-Plague-2724.aspx The Industrial Revolutions: The effects on Europe and the World The Industrial Revolution affected life in Europe during the 19th century very greatly. Cities in Great Britain were growing rapidly, this was known as urbanization. Many cities such as Glasgow and Berlin more than doubled 2000-12-10T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Industrial-Revolutions-The-effects-on-Europe-and-the-World-2661.aspx Crisis of the French Revolution - Notes Creating a new Society 14 July 1789 to 9 Thermidor II,(27 July 1794) (snapshot Napoleonic France 1804) According to Joseph Weber, foster brother of Queen Antoinette, there were three primary causes of the French revolution 'the disorder of the finances, the state of mind, and the war in America.' The 'disorder in the finances' acknowledged that the bankruptcy of the monarchy opened the doors to defiance of the King's authority. The greatest single cause of the revolution was the economic crisis, which forced the King to recall the redundant Estates General which had not been called since 1614, which opened the debate for people to make complaints with the current system through the cahiers of the three Estates. The 'state of mind' largely attributed to the philosophes of the Enlightenment who challenged the very foundations that the Ancien Regime was based on. Another contributing factor to the crisis was a plight of millions of peasants, and the even more critical situation of the landless vagrants and the unemployed masses in the towns. Between 1715 and 1789 the population in France had increased from 18 million to 26 million. Land was a fixed resource, and thousands could not work in rural regions. As a result peasants were forced into the towns. Their situation was exacerbated by the bad harvest of 1788, which saw inflation of basic commodities such as bread, widespread unemployment and destitution accentuated the crisis. *** Original revolutionary goals*** Original ideology: Enlightened Document: Declaration of Rights of Man The August decrees cleared the way for the erection of a constitution, but first they decided to lay down the principles on which it was based. It is a curious mixture of enlightenment theory and bourgeois aspirations. The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen , passed into law by the National Assembly on the 26 August 1789, It condemned the practices of the Ancien Regime and expressed the broad agreement which was to be found in the cahiers of all three orders. 1. Men are born free and equal in their rights 3. The fundamental source of all sovereignty resides in the nation - an application of Rousseau's principle of the 'general will' 7. No man may be accused, arrested, or detained except in cases determined by the law 13, General taxation is indispensable for the upkeep of the public force and for the expenses of 2000-11-19T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Crisis-of-the-French-Revolution-Notes-2546.aspx France Section 1770 - 1789 - Crisis in the old regime <b>The causes of tensions and conflicts generated in the old regime that contributed to the outbreak of revolution</b> The composition of society was a major contributing factor to the tensions and conflicts generated under the old regime. Society was divided into Three Estates, the first Estate comprised of the clergy (1%), the nobility, and rest of the population was classified as the Third Estate. Not only was the Third Estate heterogeneous, comprising of the bourgeoise (lawyers, doctors, intellectuals, businessman, the traders, merchants, factory owners), peasants, and beggars, but all three Estates. Their were many distinguishing factors that set the three Estates apart. The first two Estates were associated with the monarchy and avoided or paid little taxes, whilst at the same time earning the most money. The Third Estate paid the highest taxes and earnt the least. Lefebvre saw the bourgeoisie as becoming stronger economically but still maintaining the same legal status as that of the poorest peasant. The bourgeois resented their nobles, who were simply 'born' into their position of wealth. They nobles believed that their noble birth' set them apart from the rest of society.' However, the nobility were also dissatisfied under the ancien regime, where they had little, yet still more then the bourgeois, influence in politics. Although the upper clergy enjoyed many privileges, including being exempt from paying taxes, owned about 10 per cent of the land, and received their wealth from the land they owned and the collection of the tithes. Yet, the lower clergy did not enjoy these same privileges, while the 'Bishop plays the great nobleman and spends scandalous sums on hounds, horses, furniture, servants, food and carriages, the parish priest does not have the wherewithal to buy himself a new cassock…the bishops treat their priests , not as honest footman, but as stable-boys.' It is clear that social unrest was felt by the whole population. Prior to 1780s the people of France blindly accepted the foudations of the Ancien Regime. The period known as the Enlightenment or 'Age of Reason' saw philosophes such as Voltaire and Rousseau attack the Church, and the absolute power of the King and the inequitable social composition of society. For the first time people were questioning the society in which they lived. It became the fashionable conversation of the times, and this propoganda took place in salons, cafes and even educational institutions such as the museum of Paris. 2000-11-13T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/France-Section-1770-1789-Crisis-in-the-old-regime-2482.aspx Louis xiv Louis XIV gained power for himself and his national government through absolutism. Absolutism is unlimited power in government and society. In government to be an absolutist the king would have unlimited power in all forms of the government such as the legislative, judicial, executive, and revenues. As an absolutist Louis would have unlimited power in the society by controlling the economy and church. To control the church he would follow the divine right of kings, which goes along with absolutism, and be a figure to the people that is spoken through by God. That way the people would follow the king, believe what he says, and consider him sacred. Thomas Hobbes worded best what would happen if absolutism did not come into effect in his book ‘The Leviation'. Louis perfected the machinery of government of which he imposed his will on France and made himself the subject of his subjects' loyalty. To accomplish this he organized civil services, reorganized the military, improved the economy, and greatly expressed his power. Louis' first step was to expand the civil services. He staffed his government with men who would obey him w/out question. Instead of filling the position with nobles, he appointed advisors drawn largely from the middle class. This way the people only had claim to what the king gave them and could take away. He kept the reins of he government firmly in his own hands and didn't let the nobles get a chance to overpower him. He made it so that all the decisions made were his decisions. Louis proposed to expand the activities of the central government. He in practice and theory became the master of his kingdom. The number of state servants grew enormously. The amount of state servants that used to be at 600, in the beginning of his reign, grew to 10,000. A new kind of royal officials appeared. They were called intendants; they gathered information for the king and supervised the enforcement of his decisions. They brought a new kind of order to France. One of the most significant features of the new order was the reorganization of the French army. Michel le Tellier and his son the Marquis de Louvois were responsible for the reorganization. The two men created not only a fighting force bigger than that of any other country in Europe, but also a military establishment with a pyramidal structure of responsibility 2000-10-16T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Louis-xiv-2380.aspx Theology in the Middle Ages Who were some of the outstanding theologians of the High Middle Ages and what were their ideas? Why was theology so important in the Middle Ages? For about the first 1000 years after the death of Christ, paganism, propoganda and superstition were popular beliefs. The thoughts of two theologians of the time period, Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas, would change this belief system forever. Peter Abelard applied logic and reasoning in a systematic fashion to church doctrines, and greatly furthered the development of scholasticism in the middle ages. Abelard studied under Anselm of Laon in northern France. He looked down upon his teachers and viewed them as insignificant, and took up the teaching of theology in Paris. He became known for the force with which he threw himself into arguments with fellow intellectuals. In Abelard's most famous work, Sic et Non (Yes and No), he listed Scripture passages and quotes from Church fathers that contradicted each other, then stressed the need to reconcile the contradictions with reasoning or logic. He accurately summed up his thinking when he said, "By doubting we come to enquiry, through enquiry to the truth" Most of Abelard's documents were not highly regarded by the Church. In fact, he was persecuted under the charge of going against church teachings. However, Abelard was not a man who wanted to overthrow established doctrines. He simply believed that reason or logic must be used to defend doctrines, since many churchmen disagreed on several fundamental points of theology. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, greatly influenced another theologian of the time period, Thomas Aquinas. Many attempted to reconcile the Christian thinking of the time and the works of Aristotle, but none was more famous than the work of Aquinas. Aquinas studied at the University of Naples, then became a monk in 1244. He studied theology under the teachings of Magnus, one of the prominent theologians of the age. Aquinas taught at Naples and Paris, and it is believed that here he completed his famous masterpiece, Summa Theologica. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas attempts to integrate faith and reason. He attempted to prove that the two truths could never be in conflict. He believed that the natural mind could find truths concerning the physical attributes of the universe, but without faith, reason couldn't grasp spritiual thruths such as the Trinity, or even God Himself for that matter: "Therefore all beings other than God are not their own being, but are beings by 2000-10-06T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Theology-in-the-Middle-Ages-2292.aspx Why the Nazis and not the Communists? <center><b>Why, by 1934, had the Nazis benefited more than the Communists from the shortcomings of the Weimar Republic?</b></center> Adolf Hitler, head of the NSDAP, became Chancellor of Germany on the 30th January 1933. Following the ’legal revolution’ of the following months and President Hindenburg’s death on the 2nd August 1934, Hitler made himself Führer and Reichskanzler. The Nazi revolution was complete and Germany was subject to a dictatorship of the extreme political right. As Ian Kershaw explains, the Weimar Republic was failing: "the survival chances of Weimar democracy might be regarded as fairly poor by the end of 1929, very low by the end of 1930, remote by the middle of 1931 and as good as zero by Spring 1932." In a period of Depression and when unity and firm government was essential, Müller’s Grand Coalition broke up in March 1930. Logically, there were several political alternatives other than Hitler and the Nazis. There could have been a return to parliamentary Party politics. There were some signs to show that democracy may have been revived. During the continuous utilisation of Article 48 to govern, the Reichstag gave their vote of no confidence in challenging the executive use of it. Also, a section of the public appeared to still support the Republic; the Centre Party and SPD continued to have steady support until 1932. However, it seems that any chances of democracy were ruled out. The political Parties were still inclined to pursue their own political interests when a united, broad and moderate front was needed. Two moderate Parties even defected to Hitler after the offensive from the right and Hindenburg made little effort to restore the influence of the Reichstag. Alternatively, Germany could have become a presidential dictatorship backed by the army as von Schleicher or von Papen would have preferred. In order to do this, the authoritarian regime would have had to adapt slightly from what it was in 1932. The long-term use of Article 48, the emergency decree, would have been impractical and impossible. Perhaps the conservative elites were looking to Hitler for a new identity as they couldn’t return to the days of the Second Reich as well as thinking they could control his power. A military regime would have meant that there was no dominance from the extreme right or left of politics. Judging by the situation of Germany at that time, it was quite possible that this may have 2000-10-03T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-the-Nazis-and-not-the-Communists-2288.aspx How And Why Rugby has Developed from a Traditional form to its Modern day Equivalent <b>Introduction</b> Rugby, also known as Rugger, is a football game played with an oval ball by two teams of either 15(Rugby Union) or 13(Rugby League) players each. The object of the game is to score as many points as possible by carrying, passing, kicking and grounding an oval ball in the scoring zone at the far end of the field -- called the in-goal area. Grounding the ball, which must be done with downward pressure, results in a try (worth 5 points). After a try a conversion may be attempted by place kick or drop kick. If the ball passes over the bar and between the goal posts the conversion is successful and results in a further 2 points. Points may also be scored from a drop kick in general play (worth 3 points) and a penalty kick (worth 3 points). The ball may not be passed forward (though it may be kicked forward) and players may not receive the ball in an offside position, nor may they wait in such a position. Players may not be tackled without the ball. Play only stops when a try is scored, or the ball goes out of play, or an infringement occurs. When the ball goes out it is thrown back in at a line-out where the opposing "forwards" line up and jump for the ball. Infringements result in a penalty, or free kick, or scrum. In a scrum the opposing forwards bind together in a unit and push against the other forwards, trying to win the ball with their feet. The above is stating the basic game of today but when rugby originated back in the later part of the 19 century then the idea of the game was distinctly different to its modern form <b>History</b> Whether in legend or in fact, rugby is said to have originated in 1823 at the Rugby School in England. To this day, a stone marker at the gates of the school commemorates the event when "William Webb Ellis ... with fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time, first took the ball in his arms and ran with it." Ellis and the rest of the world never looked back. The new sport grew in private schools and universities throughout the United Kingdom, and in 1871 the first Rugby Union was founded in London. Rules for the game were set out based on the 2000-08-29T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/How-And-Why-Rugby-has-Developed-from-a-Traditional-form-to-its-Modern-day-Equivalent-2207.aspx In what ways was Napoleon a warrior overloard in his Treatment of his subjects? The question asks what was Napoleons treatment of his European subjects. However first we need to learn what these subjects were and distinguish the differences between them. The states of the Grand Empire fell into one of two categories - lands annexed directly to France, or satallite states under French control but allegedly enjoying a ‘modicum’ of independence. The extent of Napoleon’s influence varied, depending on the length of time a particular country remained under his authority. Examples of annexed territories are; Nice,Savoy, Belguim and the Germanlands west of the Rhine. These were annexed early (pre 1800) and had were quickly incorporated into the French administrative system, however these states were mainly divided into divisions for recruitment purposes. By the time of the Brumaire fuedalism as in France had been abolished in these territories. Also land belonging to the nobility or church were either confiscated or sold. All the annexed states were ruled from Paris and were regarded as extensions of the ‘old France’. All new French policies were introduced like the civil code and the judicial process of civil and ccriminal courts. A semi circle of nominally independent satellite states, were mainly run by Napoleons relatives, formed a ‘buffer zone’ around France. These states protected the boarders of the French empire from any attack. Some examples of satellite states are; Switzerland, Spain, Naples and Italy. These satellite states, allegedly independent, infact had little frredom of action. Their rulers were strictley supervised and tutored by Napoleon in the way they should go. The satellite states was very different. They were never allowed to forget that they existed only to serve the intrests of France. Napoleonwanted them to fullfill a number of other valuable functions in Napoleon’s imperial enterprise. They were first and foremost military vassal states and Napoleon’s relationship with themwas eventually wery like that of a ‘warrior-overlord’, extracting the advantage from them for the minimum return. These states raised about a third of the troops for the Grand Armee. The distribution of crowns among Napoleons relatives served two purposes for him. One of the two was that they would remain loyal to him no matter what. Also, with such a large number of Bonaparte sovereigns available he could expect in due course to arrange useful marriage alliances with older royal houses and give his successors the dynastic respectability the family presently lacked. The third group of countries that I have not previously mentioned were 2000-07-10T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/In-what-ways-was-Napoleon-a-warrior-overloard-in-his-Treatment-of-his-subjects-2150.aspx Maharaja Dalip Singh (daleep) Maharaja DALIP SINGH, the youngest son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who was born in Lahore, on Feb. 1837, to mother Maharani Jind Kaur. His date of birth is disputed by some and alternately suggested as Sept. 4, 1838. Many foreign journalists have wrongly named him as Dhalip Singh and Duleep Singh. However, it should be noted that his correct name is Maharaja Dalip Singh. He assumed the Punjab throne as a child, after Maharaja Sher Singh, on Sept. 18, 1843. During his reign several wars were fought with the British. Unfortunately, he was surrounded by corrupt advisors as illustrated by the following quote. "Among the Sikh barons who stood around the throne of the young Maharaja Dalip Singh, there was not one, who honestly labored for his country, or who have made the smallest sacrifice to save her." - The Punjab Chiefs by L.H. Griffin The agreement of March 9, 1846, after the first Sikh war with the British, included the following conditions: 1) There shall be peace and friendship among Maharaja Dalip Singh and the British government. 2) Lahore darbar would have to relinquish control of the region between Satluj and Bias. 3) War compensation of one and a half crore rupees to be paid by Lahore darbar. Since this amount was beyond the capabilities of Lahore Darbar at that time, Kashmir region was offered for 75 lakhs. However, Maharaja Gulab Singh stepped forward and paid this amount to buy back this region from the British. 4) Maharaja Dalip Singh's forces were restricted to 50 platoons and 12,000 horse-back soldiers. 5) No foreigner from Britain, Europe, or America could be employed in Lahore Darbar without explicit permission of the British government. 6) British government shall refrain from interference in the internal affairs of the Lahore Darbar. However, towards the end of this year, another set of arrangements were made, under which a council was established to run the Punjab affairs. This council was headed by a British Resident. Further, British forces were brought in to maintain peace in the country. Lahore darbar was charged 22 lakh annually for the maintenance and upkeep of such forces. However, this arrangement did not last for too long. As in April of 1848, a war erupted among the Sikhs and British. At the end of this war, Sikh kingdom was annexed and Maharaja Dalip Singh was sent out of Punjab to FatehGadh (Uttar Pradesh, dist. Karrukhsbad) under the care of Sir John Spencer Login. Maharaja 2000-06-27T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Maharaja-Dalip-Singh-daleep-2128.aspx Honor and Dueling A duel was a prearranged combat with lethal weapons between two people, usually taking place under formal arrangements. Each side had a witness, called seconds. The usual cause of a duel is an insult given by one person to the other or over a question of honor. The challenged person has the right to set the place, time, and weapons. Duels have generally been fought early in the morning in secluded places. (Encarta “Duel”) Dueling to avenge one’s honor has never been legal, dueling has been marked by laws opposing it. The practice became popular in Europe after the famous challenge between King Charles V of Spain and Francis I of France. When war was declared on Spain in 1528 by Francis, he annulled the treaty between the two countries, Francis was challenged to a duel after being accused of ungentlemanly conduct by the Spanish ruler. The duel never did take place because making arrangements was to difficult, but this incident influenced the manners of Europeans so that gentlemen everywhere thought they were entitled to avenge slights on their honor by having similar challenges. (Encarta “Duel”) Duels involving honor were so prevalent in France that Charles IX issued an ordinance in 1566 that was death to anyone participating in a duel. This became a model for later edicts against dueling. Dueling however did survive longer than monarchy in France. Dueling became a technique for resolving political disputes. (Britannica “Duel) The duel was intensely popular in England, during Restoration. Legislation during the 17th century had little effect on suppressing the practice. The English Common Law declares that killing in a duel to be held as murder, but juries rarely convicted in cases of dueling until the custom had ceased to be popular during the reign of Queen Victoria. (Encarta “Duel”) The earliest form of dueling was the judicial duel or trial by battle. The judicial duel was established because solemn affirmation, or swearing of oaths, in legal arguments had led to extensive perjury and the ordeal has too much of a chance of being manipulated by the priests. If one man declares before a judge that his opponent was guilty of a crime and the accused said that his accuser is lying, the judge would order the two to meet in a duel. The judge then stipulated the conditions as to the place, time, and weapons. The combatants had to guarantee their participation by 2000-05-22T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Honor-and-Dueling-1989.aspx The Effects of Industrialization on Society Had it not been for the industrial revolution, I would doubt very much that we would enjoy the technology we have in the year 2000. The reason we have this technology is that between the years 1750 and 1914 a great change in the world’s history was made. People started to discover faster methods of producing goods, which increased their economy. These people were mainly British and French, but after a few years the French were distracted by their revolution, and the British continued to industrialize. However you must not think this industrialization had no effects on society because it did. So in this essay I am going to talk about the history of the industrial revolution, discuss why Britain led the way in the industrial revolution and also I am going to explain to you in detail the effects of industrialization on society. In the midevel ages people were living in total darkness, and they did not know what was going on in the world around them. Happily the medieval ages were followed by the renaissance. Then came the year 1750, the year of the agricultural revolution in Britain which led away to a revolution in industry. Charles Townshend for example was one of the people who made the agricultural revolution possible. He suggested rotating the crops every year or two, to help the soil get enriched with vitamins and nutrition’s. The America’s then introduced potatoes to Great Britain. New farm machines were invented, for example Jethro Tull developed a seed drill which planted seeds in straight rows and farmers began using new iron plows in place of inofitiant wooden plows. In addition to that, the enclosure movement brought wealthy people to farm larger amounts of land, which was very good for the agricultural revolution. This revolution improved peoples diet and health leading to an increased population, which demanded healthy food, clothing and employment. Since many farmers were seeking jobs, they found it now in the textile industry, which created a new demand for laborers. You shall notice now that the mechanical inventions were so rapid and each one triggered another new one. A few examples of these inventions are the flying shuttle by John Kay, the spinning jenny by James Hargraves, the water frame by Richard Akriwght, the power loom by Edward Cartwight, Samuel Cromptons spinning mule, and Eli Whitney’s cotton gin. All these inventions gave the British cotton 2000-05-22T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Effects-of-Industrialization-on-Society-2001.aspx Eighteenth Century Philosophers: A Comparison The "Enlightenment" or the "Age of Realization" was an age of great advancement and reform for all of Europe and beyond. Great advancements were being made in the fields of science, philosophy, mathematics, and logic. Most people attribute these achievements to the social critics of that time, also known as the philosophes. These philosophes were controversial thinkers and pioneered the intellectual movements of the 1700's. They stood up for what they believed in, although they were constantly criticized and censured by many other people. Such philosophers include Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Voltaire. Although their beliefs violently contradicted, they were all working to change what they thought was wrong with their present government. They were four men who disagreed about almost everything, and yet they were working towards a common goal. This is how the Age of Enlightenment became a reality. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. He was born in La Haye, France (now called Descartes) in 1595. Unlike some other Enlightenment thinkers, he relied on logic and math in his reasoning. He was educated at the Jesuit College of La Fleche. It is thought that his most important influence was a man named Isaac Beeckman. It was with this man that Descartes discussed math, philosophy, and physics. This man was his friend and trusted colleague. In 1618 Descartes served in the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau. It was Descartes theory that stated, "the discovery of proper method is the key to furthering scientific advancement." Descartes was responsible for a number of very influential works including Rules for the Direction of Mind, Le Monde (The World), Discourse on Method, Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (Meditations on the First Philosophy), The Principles of Philosophy, and Les Passions de l'ame (Passions of the Soul.) He coined the phrase, "Cogito Ergo Sum," in English meaning, "I Think Therefore I Am." Although Descartes died in Stockholm in1650, his words have lived on for many centuries and will survive through many more. Thomas Hobbes was born in London, England in 1588. He was educated at Oxford University in England where he studied the classics. In 1651, Hobbes wrote his most famous book, Leviathan. In this book he argued that most people were born evil and could not be trusted to govern themselves. He thought that a ruler needed to have complete control over his people to govern efficiently. His idea was to have 2000-05-04T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Eighteenth-Century-Philosophers-A-Comparison-1926.aspx The French Revolution During the late 1700’s, France followed in America’s footsteps towards their own revolution. A major shift in power would be seen within the short time period of 1789-1799, and with it a large advancement away from the absolutist government of France. During the late 1700’s France was the most powerful estate in the world. The effects of the country’s revolution would soon spread from France to the rest of Europe and finally result in a continental war. The French Revolution was based mostly on the Third Estate’s desire to obtain liberty and equality. France’s social system was set up in such a way that it was only a matter of time before a revolution took place. The economic classes of France were set in three estates. The first estate was the church, or clergy, the second estate was the nobles, and the third estate consisted of peasants and the uneducated. France’s economic system allowed for the highest taxation of the third estate while the clergy members were exempt from taxes, and the nobles paid little or no taxes at all. People who are starving and can barely afford to survive can only pay so much before they refuse to pay anymore. It is not suprising that the third estate was driven to immediate action with Louis XVI’s demand for higher taxes. Ideas of liberty and equality sprang up with the onset of the American Revolution and paved a way for the third estate to change France’s system of government. Philosophes such as Voltaire spread ideas of reform that excited the peasants to believe there was a chance for a better life. Along with the social causes of the revolution, economic and political events brought about the desire for change as well. Economic conditions such as poor harvests made the price of food rise to such high prices that half a worker’s wages were spent on trying to feed the family alone. The taxation system took money from the peasants, yet they did not reap any of the benefits that were supposed to come from their money. For Example, King Louis XVI lived such and extravagant life that three percent of the nation’s GNP was spent on royal family lifestyle. Wars also played a major role in depleting the nation’s funds. The cost of maintaining a standing army exceeded half of France’s expenditures. The taxes were not used however to improve infrastructure, 2000-04-10T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-French-Revolution-1843.aspx The involvement of the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War On the 18 July 1936, leading Generals of the Spanish Army led a revolt against the democratically elected Popular Front government of Spain. Within days the country was plunged into civil war with the Republicans fighting the insurgent Nationalists for control of the country. The various democracies of the world turned their backs on Spain’s plight and even hindered the Republicans by supporting non-intervention in the conflict. However, many people came to help the Republic. Las Brigades Internacionales, the International Brigades, would eventually include almost 40,000 men and women from 53 different countries, from all around the world. The International Brigades began as an idea in July and August of 1936, but soon its formation became the main work of the Comintern (the body with the responsibility of fostering the world-wide spread of Communism). Each Communist party was instructed to raise volunteers who would be sent to Spain by train or boat. Around 60% of the volunteers were Communists, but non-Communists were also welcomed. The first group of recruits came to Spain by train from Paris, and arrived at their base in Albacete, halfway between Madrid and Valencia, on the 14th of October. It was there that the 500 French, German and Polish recruits began training. The theme of the recruitment propaganda was based on the slogan that Spain should be “The grave of European Fascism”, and with this in mind volunteers continued to flow into Spain from France. One of the organisers of recruits in Paris was the future Marshal Tito - Joseph Broz. In Albacete the volunteers were organised into language groups and the base was put under the command of Andre Marty. The Brigades were to be led by General Emilio Kleber and intensive training was to take place in the base before going to the front. The International Brigades baptism of fire came on the 8th of November 1936, when the XIth and XIIth Brigades went to the Madrid front. They numbered about 3,500 men altogether, and were extremely important to the defence of Madrid. The fighting in Madrid eventually reached stalemate and the Brigades were transferred to other fronts. The XI, XIII and XV Brigades fought at the Brunete offensive of July 1937, where losses were very high, and where Oliver Law, the Afro- American commander of the Lincoln Battalion was killed. The Brigades also played a major part in the Aragon offensive of August 1937, and 2000-03-16T13:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-involvement-of-the-International-Brigades-in-the-Spanish-Civil-War-1761.aspx Hattin: Trapping a Victory On June 26, 1187, the Muslim Sultan Saladin crossed the river Jordan with 20,000 of his followers – an army consisting of roughly 12,000 light horsemen and a number of footmen to a location south of the Sea of Galilee where he and his men encamped. They had been ravaging the nearby countryside in hopes of provoking a Christian attack, but had been unsuccessful. The Frankish Christians led by King Guy in Jerusalem had also mobilized their own army and camped at the spring at Saffuriyah . Marshall W. Baldwin says that the Franks too had an army 20,000 strong, but it was different in composition. The “Latins”, as they are called, were a cavalry of 1,200 heavily armored knights, 3,500 lightly armored, mounted sergeants, several thousand foot soldiers, as well as a large number of native auxiliaries as mounted bowmen . Between the two great forces (the largest memorable, Christian gathering in years) lay an arid terrain; the hot summer sun made travel extremely difficult, especially for large numbers. One could easily expect fatigue, dehydration, and low morale when venturing to the east of Saffuriyah until reaching the Sea of Galilee. Strategists of each side knew the consequences of traveling across the region and so, “the waiting game” was played to see who would be the one to be provoked into a trap through the valleys. Although Saladin had unified large sections of the Muslim world, his army was still not a standing one. The crusaders counted on the fact that Saladin would have trouble holding his army together for a long period of time because his soldiers were not full-time warriors. Many were also tradesmen or farmers that easily disbanded when there was no action to get back home . Saladin knew his situation and continually harassed the area of Tiberias in failed attempts to provoke the Christians into leaving Saffuriyah, until he decided on July, 2 to besiege the city itself. He moved the majority of his troops to the high ground west of Tiberias. From this location, the Muslims could block entrance to the city while still accessing water supplies from the Sea of Galilee through the eastern side of the ridge. Tiberias was poorly fortified and Saladin’s well – supplied forces had no trouble entering its walls. Residents of the city took refuge in the citadel, including the wife of Count Raymond of Tripoli who urgently sent west 2000-02-29T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Hattin-Trapping-a-Victory-1700.aspx Urban and the Council of Clermont There are many accounts of that day in November, 1095. Some were written by monks, others by bishops, and even a few by warriors themselves. Historians are constantly asking, "What exactly did Pope Urban II say at the council of Clermont to persuade Christians to set forth on such a difficult venture as the Crusades?" One man, an early 12th century cleric named Fulcher of Chartres wrote perhaps the best historical chronicle of the events at Clermont and the speech of Urban II. Fulcher begins his account with a prologue that states how blessed the journeymen of the Crusades were to take up such a conquest. He follows this by speaking on the Council of Clermont. Fulcher describes Pope Urban II and what he heard was happening to the Christians in the east. What comes next in Flucher’s writing is a long speech, allegedly quoted from Urban II himself. In the speech, Urban first lectures his fellow clergymen regarding problems in the church, saying that they should "set [themselves] right before [they] do others"1 Fulcher, 51. Urban II next, as according to Fulcher, declares the doctrine of the church and re-instates the idea of the "Truce"2 McGinty, 52. He also discussed various crimes for which the criminal would be excommunicated from the Church. In Fulcher’s third section, Urban speaks of the "evils" in the east. He says, "there is work to do, you must help your brothers living in the Orient, who need your aid for which they have cried out many times"3 Fulcher, 52. He gives word that these "brothers" (Christians) are being threatened by the Turks who must be pushed back to Persia. Urban will grant remission of sins for their services. In closing, Fulcher tells how Urban II presses on to say, " Let no delay postpone the journey"4 Fulcher, 53. Fulcher of Chartres’ account of what happened at the Council of Clermont is a great piece, full of detail. Fulcher obviously held Pope Urban II in high regard. Throughout his chronicle, he douses him with compliments saying that he is " a man distinguished in life and character."5 Fulcher, 49. It might not seem like much now to put the Church’s interests before all others; however, in the Middle Ages people were extremely religious. The better Christian one was, the better man he was. Urban II speaks to his clergy about the problems in the Church and as Fulcher tells the 2000-02-29T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Urban-and-the-Council-of-Clermont-1704.aspx The Effects of The Black Death on the Economic and Social Life of Europe The Black Death is the name later given to the epidemic of plague that ravaged Europe between 1347 and 1351. The disaster affected all aspects of life. Depopulation and shortage of labor hastened changes already inherent in the rural economy; the substitution of wages for labor services was accelerated, and social stratification became less rigid. Psychological morbidity affected the arts; in religion, the lack of educated personnel among the clergy gravely reduced the intellectual vigor of the church. "In less than four years the disease carved a path of death through Asia, Italy, France, North Africa, Spain and Normandy, made its way over the Alps into Switzerland, and continued eastward into Hungary" (Microsoft Bookshelf, page 1). After a brief respite, the plague resumed, crossing the channel into England, Scotland, and Ireland, and eventually made its way into the northern countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and even as far north as Greenland. In other words, the plague touched almost the entire known world. So much death could not help but tear economic and social structures apart. Lack of peasants and laborers sent wages soaring, and the value of land plummeted. For the first time in history the scales tipped against wealthy landlords as peasants and serfs gained more bargaining power. Without architects, masons and artisans, great cathedrals and castles remained unfinished for hundreds of years. Governments, lacking officials, floundered in their attempts to create order out of chaos. The living lost all sense of morality and justice, and a new attitude toward the church emerged. Medieval people could find no Divine reason for the four-year nightmare, and dissatisfaction with the church gave impetus to reform movements that eventually broke apart the unity of the Catholic Church. The plague itself was disastrous enough, especially in the appearance of more than one form during the same epidemic. But coming when it did was as catastrophic as its form. The middle 14th century was not a good time for Europe. The European economy was already in difficulties. It was approaching the limits of expansion, both on its frontiers and in reclaiming land from forest and swamp. The arrival of the Mongols and the Ottomans had disrupted trade routes, and certain areas of Europe were edging into depression. "The Church was in poor shape as well. The popes resided at Avignon, not at Rome, to the scandal of many. Heresy could be found in England and Bohemia 2000-02-26T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Effects-of-The-Black-Death-on-the-Economic-and-Social-Life-of-Europe-1682.aspx The Italian Renaissance "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!" Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2 Modern art critics regard renaissance art as graphic narratives of political and social events that occurred in the 14th through 16th century Europe. Scholars believe that the renaissance expressed a cultural revival of classical antiquity. And then there are others who doubt the concept of 'renaissance' entirely. Gundersheimer argues that Wallace K. Ferguson's concept of de-emphasizing the idea of renaissance to favor a view of "Europe in transition" was an ideal point that should be explored. This observation by Gundersheimer based on Ferguson's idea may become influential. The 'problem with renaissance' was that some interests and activities may also be found in earlier periods and are not bound to the renaissance years exclusively. And the rate of change was more similar to that of a highly influential widespread culture based transition. During the medieval era there were many contributions to the arts. The renaissance scholar Matteo Palmieri, writing in Florence in the 1430's considers the 100 years of the medieval era to be dark because of the lack of enlightenment in those years, in comparison of the "rebirth" and "renewal" of the renaissance. I think that the labeling of the medieval era as the dark ages helps to romanticize the achievements of the renaissance. Innovations during the medieval era were useful and unglamorous and easily forgotten. The renaissance was one of the few eras in our history that emanated the true intellect of man. Genius developed from the advances in art, science, philosophy and mathematics. Never has there since been such a time in which an individual is given ample opportunity and time to perfect and master his craft above all other societal pursuits and obligations. According to a source in the Encarta Encyclopedia, "The term renaissance was coined by the French historian Jules Michelet in 1855, to mean 'rebirth.' It refers to the 'discovery of the world of man' in the 16th century." (Encarta Renaissance 1) The renaissance period in art history corresponds to the beginning of the great western age of discovery and exploration, when a general desire and curiosity developed to examine all aspects of nature and the world. The artists of 2000-01-09T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Italian-Renaissance-1569.aspx The General Strike of 1926 <center><b><I>Why did the General Strike of 1926 fail and what were the effects the strike had upon industrial relations in Britain?</center></b></I> The General Strike of 1926 lasted only nine days and directly involved around 1.8 million workers. It was the short but ultimate outbreak of a much longer conflict in the mining industry, which lasted from the privatisation of the mines after the First World War until their renewed nationalisation after the Second. The roots of the General Strike in Britain, unlike in France or other continental countries, did not lie in ideological conceptions such as syndicalism but in the slowly changing character of trade union organisation and tactics. On the one hand, unskilled and other unapprenticed workers had been organised into national unions since the 1880s to combat sectionalism and to strengthen their bargaining power and the effectiveness of the strike weapon. On the other hand, at the same time and for the same reason trade unions had developed the tactic of industry-wide and 'sympathetic' strikes. Later during the pre-war labour unrest these two forms of strike action, 'national' and 'sympathetic', were more often used together which in an extreme case could have meant a general strike. The symbol of this new strategy was the triple alliance, formed in 1914, which was a loose, informal agreement between railwaymen, transport workers and miners to support each other in case of industrial disputes and strikes. As G.A. Phillips summarised: <blockquote>The General Strike was in origin, therefore, the tactical product of a pattern of in-dustrial conflict and union organisation which had developed over the past twenty-five years or so in industries where unionism had been introduced only with difficulty, among rapidly expanding labour forces traditionally resistant to organisation, or against strong opposition from employers. </blockquote> Therefore, a large majority of the British Labour movement saw a general strike along the traditional 'labourist' view, which emphasised the separation of the political and the industrial sphere, as a purely industrial act. This notion was supported the developments in the 1920s when the depression and the employers offensive weakened the militant and revolutionary forces , whereas the success of the Labour Party and the reorganisation of the TUC General Council further strengthened these 'labourist' forces. The government's and the employer's view, of course, was a different one. Since the French syndicalists in 1906 had drawn up the Charter of Amiens, reaffirming their belief in direct political action and 1999-10-19T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-General-Strike-of-1926-1063.aspx The Renaissance In the 1400's, the feudal system became weak and national governments became stronger. People put more emphasis on humanism than on the church. This period was called the Renaissance. I believe that this period led directly to the Age of Exploration. During this time, technology became more advanced. Martin Luther started the Reformation against the Catholic church. As the effect of the Reformation, a middle class emerged making it possible for people to travel more. During the Renaissance, technology became more advanced and more available to the common public. The printing press was invented during this time. This invention made it possible for books to be published, not hand written. Ideas of the Renaissance were spread in some of these books and common people could own a copy of the bible. Some other inventions were the astrolabe, the quadrant, and the compass. These devices were used in sailing. The astrolabe and the quadrant told a person where they were at a direct point and the compass told which direction was north. Two faster, larger ships were also invented during this time. They were called the carrack and the caravel. The weakening of the Roman Catholic Church, brought about by the Protestant Reformation, changed the way people felt about the church and it's importance in their life. Then, because the church was not so dominating, people felt free to learn about new lands. People started learning about Rome and Greece. They learned about these two countries' culture and art. This also helped the Age of Exploration to begin because the Catholic church wanted more souls. They thought they could go to America and convert Native Americans. As trade grew, a wealthy middle class of doctors, bankers and lawyers emerged. These people had more money so they became more educated and more self-sufficient. They didn't have to rely on the feudal system anymore and national government became more powerful. With more money, the middle class could fund trips across the ocean. They could also buy books, paintings and other classical things. The Age of Exploration was caused by the Renaissance period. Technology became more advanced, the Catholic church was reformed and a middle class emerged. These new ideas encouraged people to explore and discover new things. In present life, we have a very strong middle class, religious freedom and a lot of advances in technology. If the Renaissance period wouldn't have happened, it's 1999-09-14T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Renaissance-920.aspx French Literature in the Age of Reason The Age of Reason, or the Enlightenment, was a period in France during the 1700's following the classical age. Within this time, philosophers placed the emphasis on reason as the best method for learning. It explored issues in education, law philosophy, and politics. It attacked tyranny, social injustice, superstition, and ignorance. This time produced advances in such areas as anatomy, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. These were the ideals taken up for both the American and French revolutions. A significant amount of the literature produced was philosophical, and written by important thinkers such as Voltaire, Denis Diderot, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Of the above, Voltaire was the most well-known literary figure of the time. He fought against intolerance and bigotry, and worked to promote rationalism through his literary skills. His most famous work is the novel Candide (1759). As well, Voltaire wrote tragedies influenced by the works of William Shakespeare. Through his many works on European and world history, he helped develop the principles of historical writing for modern times. Denis Diderot is most famously known for editing one of the great intellectual achievements of the Enlightenment, the French Encylopédie (1751-1772). The Encylopédie is a collection of articles written by many writers in several fields. The purpose of the book was to try and rationally explain recent scientific discoveries while attacking religous authority, economic inequality, and abuses of justice. In his novel The New Heloise (1761), Jean Jacques Rousseau suggested changes in French society, and in Emile (1762) put forward the idea of change in education. The autobiography Confessions (published in 1782 and 1789 after his death) helped to create the modern works that provoke self-analysis. Rousseau, with his sensitivity to nature, brought a more lyrical and meditative sensation back to French literature. An example of this can be found in Reveries of the Solitary Stroller (1782). There are several other major writers and works that helped contribute to the literary expression during the Age of Reason. There was Montesquieu, who wrote wittingly about social critisism in Persian Letters (1721). The well-known satirical novel Gil Blas (1715-1735) written by Alain René Lesage. Manon Lescaut (1731), a sentimental novel written by Abbé Prévost. Novels of middle-class society, and problems of falling in love from a woman's perspective created by Pierre Marivaux. Pierre Beaumarchais' plays of satirical comedy, such as The Barber of Seville (1775) and The Marriage of Figaro (1784). All of the 1999-09-14T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/French-Literature-in-the-Age-of-Reason-925.aspx Victorian England The Victorian era, from the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1837 until her death in 1901, was an era of several unsettling social developments that forced writers more than ever before to take positions on the immediate issues animating the rest of society. Thus, although romantic forms of expression in poetry and prose continued to dominate English literature throughout much of the century, the attention of many writers was directed, sometimes passionately, to such issues as the growth of English democracy, the education of the masses, the progress of industrial enterprise and the consequent rise of a materialistic philosophy, and the plight of the newly industrialized worker. In addition, the unsettling of religious belief by new advances in science, particularly the theory of evolution and the historical study of the Bible, drew other writers away from the immemorial subjects of literature into considerations of problems of faith and truth. <b>Nonfiction </b> The historian Thomas Babington Macaulay, in his History of England (5 volumes, 1848-1861) and even more in his Critical and Historical Essays (1843), expressed the complacency of the English middle classes over their new prosperity and growing political power. The clarity and balance of Macaulay's style, which reflects his practical familiarity with parliamentary debate, stands in contrast to the sensitivity and beauty of the prose of John Henry Newman. Newman's main effort, unlike Macaulay's, was to draw people away from the materialism and skepticism of the age back to a purified Christian faith. His most famous work, Apologia pro vita sua (Apology for His Life, 1864), describes with psychological subtlety and charm the basis of his religious opinions and the reasons for his change from the Anglican to the Roman Catholic church. Similarly alienated by the materialism and commercialism of the period, Thomas Carlyle, another of the great Victorians, advanced a heroic philosophy of work, courage, and the cultivation of the godlike in human beings, by means of which life might recover its true worth and nobility. This view, borrowed in part from German idealist philosophy, Carlyle expressed in a vehement, idiosyncratic style in such works as Sartor resartus (The Tailor Retailored, 1833-1834) and On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1841). Other answers to social problems were presented by two fine Victorian prose writers of a different stamp. The social criticism of the art critic John Ruskin looked to the curing of the ills of industrial society and capitalism as 1999-09-14T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Victorian-England-930.aspx Stone Henge Man has always been interested in mystery. Stonehenge is one of the most mysterious places that man has been interested in. Construction began on Stonehenge at about 2200 B.C. (Abels 9). The origin and uses of Stonehenge are still a great mystery. Stonehenge is a ruin of a stone building. Stonehenge is the oldest pre-historic structure in western Europe. The name "Stonehenge" is Saxon in origin and means hanging stones. Stonehenge is visible from around one to two miles (Chippindale 12). It has a plain structure and at first glance Stonehenge appears to be a large pile of rocks. But when looked at more closely, it is a structure of great mystery. (Abels 5). Stonehenge contains close to one hundred and sixty-five stones. All of the stones are arranged in a plain and simple manner. Stonehenge is not very large. It is only about thirty five paces or eighty feet wide. Stonehenge is three hundred and thirty feet above sea level and is eighty miles west of London. Stonehenge is located in Wiltshire in south central England. The closest town to Stonehenge is Amesbury. It is in the center of Salisbury Plains (Chippindale 10). The pillars at Stonehenge are extraordinary. All of the stones appear gray in color, but their natural colors vary from mostly orange to brown or blue. Many lichens grow all over the stones. About one half of the original stone pillars are missing today. All of the joints that join the stone pillars together are dry stone joints. There was no wet sand or clay used to join the pillars together (Chippindale 12). At Stonehenge there are five different types of stone circles. The five types are: outer sarsen circle, outer bluestone circles, inner sarsen trilithons, inner blue horseshoe, and the altar stone. The outer sarsen circle is one hundred feet in diameter. Each stone is about thirteen and a half feet tall and seven feet wide. The space between each of the stones is approximately four feet apart (Chippindale 12). The outer bluestone circle is close to seventy-five feet in diameter. Most of the stones height are six and a half feet or taller. The stones width are between three and four feet. The stones color is blue. Only six of the original sixty stones still remain standing straight. The others either lean or lie on their side. The inner sarsen trilithons lie just inside 1999-09-14T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Stone-Henge-969.aspx Medieval Siege Weapons This is a brief paragraph or two on each of the major siege weapons. For the not just the besiegers but also the defenders. Please note most of these weapons were not used alone and often had many different versions of the same weapon. <b>KNIGHT</b> At age seven a son of a noble family was sent to a nobleman or lord, often who was a relative. Here he was a page and taught how to ride a horse, and his manners. At the age of fourteen he was apprenticed to a knight. As the squire to the knight he would take care of his horse, help him put the knights armor on and keep it clean. In turn he was taught how to use a bow, carve meat, and other knightly skills. The squire would have to go into battle with the knight to help him when he was wounded or unhorsed. If the squire was successful he would be knighted at the age of 21. When there wasn't a war going on knight would have to practice, practice, and practice some more. They would wrestle, fight with blunt swords, do acrobatics, and also do sports like javelin and putting which is throwing a heavy stone as far as you can. Experienced knights would participate in tournaments held by the king. The winner would usually just get bragging rights and sometimes a sum of money. The most common event was jousting. Jousting is a sport where to fully armored knights ride at each other on horses while aiming a long wooden lance at the each other. With speeds reaching 60 miles per hour sometimes there could be fatal accidents. If the person was knocked off the other was victorious. <b>CATAPULTS</b> The catapult, was invented by the Romans, and plays a large role in the siege of any castle. Besiegers could fire 100-200 pound stones up to 1,000 feet. The catapult was used to destroy buildings and walls inside and outside of the castle walls, it could also destroy an enemies moral by throwing severed heads of comrades, they could spread disease by throwing shit and dead animals in, and they could destroy wooden building by throwing bundles of fire in. Earlier models just used a large weight on one end of a pivoting arm. The arm was pulled back the missile was placed and then let go. The weight went down the arm went 1999-09-14T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Medieval-Siege-Weapons-976.aspx The French and English Revolutions <b>THE FRENCH REVOLUTION</b> The French Revolution was effected and caused by many things and people. Some people that had to do with the French Revolution were, Louis XVI, and, Marie Antoinette. Marie played an active role in the Revolution but suffered for her royalist sympathies. King Louis XVI also played an important role in the Revolution, seeing as how he was the king and all. When Louis XVI came to be King, he inherited a France in debt, and he was left with no choice but to raise taxes even though they were already high enough. This had made the people of France very angry. Paris had become furious and chose to make a big scene. This was also one of the causes of the French Revolution. Some believe that the MAIN reason for the Revolution was all based on, Louis, being too young and inexperienced to run an ENTIRE country by himself. He was only when he got married to Marie and he was only 20 when he officially became king of France. As the people of France grew more and more angry with Louis, it had started removing French Officials, such as, Tax collectors, and changing all of the kings appointed men to intendants. Pretty soon there were oaths and things for Louis to sign everywhere. Oaths such as the "Tennis Court Oath", and the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen", and the "Constitution of 1791." Two effects of the Revolution were, change the voting by head, giving the third estate an advantage because they had as many people as the first and second estates, and the beheading of King Louis XVI. This section has shown how the French Revolution was effected and caused by many things and people. <b>THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION</b> The English revolution was also effected by many people and things, just like the French Revolution. Some people having to do with the Revolution were King Charles II, and King James II. Charles and James both were kings of England for their own share of time, influencing the country and its motives. After a short bit, Charles died unexpectedly from natural causes at the age of 55. Then James, brother of Charles, became King. This was a reason for the Revolution in some people's eyes. The change of Charles to James was a stutter in the economy. It caused a major uproar, not against James, but just a 1999-04-08T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-French-and-English-Revolutions-641.aspx The French Revolution <b>Thesis:<i> The French Revolution was a crucial event in Western History, and possibly the single most crucial influence on British intellectual, philosophical, and political life in the nineteenth century.</i></b> The French Revolution was a crucial event in Western History, and possibly the single most crucial influence on British intellectual, philosophical, and political life in the nineteenth century. It presented itself as a triumph in its early stages but later proved to be a revolution of senseless revenge. With a mob composed of mainly animals, like Madame Defarge, the French Revolution is one of the most barbaric periods recorded in history. The French Revolution began in 1789 when the States General met May 5. June the seventeenth the National Assembly was declared. Then a gang of angry, mistreated peasants stormed the Bastille and murdered numerous aristocrats. As a precaution, Louis XVI and the Royal Family were removed from Versailles to Paris. The King attempted, but failed, to flee Paris for Varennes in June 1791; he was captured. The Legislative Assembly sat from October 1791 until September 1792, when, in the face of the advance of allied armies, it was replaced by the National Convention, and the National Convention proclaimed the Republic. The King was brought to trial, found guilty, and executed on January 21, 1793. In February, war was declared against Britain, Holland and Spain. The Revolution heightened. After the execution of the King, the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal were created. The most horrific time was still to come. The reign of terror, during which the ruling faction ruthlessly exterminated all potential enemies, began in September and lasted until the fall of Robesoierre on July 27. During the last six weeks of the terror, nearly fourteen hundred people were murdered in the guillotine. On October 16, Marie Antoinette was executed, and many others followed her. The revolution began to invade people's lives deeper and deeper. In November of 1793, the worship of God was abolished and the cult of Reason took its place. Battle followed battle; the Revolution raged on devouring everyone in its path. Things finally came to a halt when Napoleon Buoneparte became Emperor on May of 1804. The French Revolution was possibly the most crucial event in recorded history. It was a time that was filled with hate, murder, despair, tyranny, and lies. We can look back to these events and learn how selfishness and prejudice can 1999-04-02T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-French-Revolution-639.aspx Feudalism - How it Worked Feudalism began between the 8th and 9th centuries. It was first recognized in France, and later spread to most countries of western Europe. When Charlemagne died there was no strong ruler to take his place. That was when feudalism was established as the main system of government and way of life in 1999-03-31T14:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Feudalism-How-it-Worked-628.aspx Who Really Ruled Italy in 1926-40? Mussolini is considered as one of the most important European dictators of the twenties century. If he is a dictator he would be the absolute ruler of Italy, but a man can not do everything himself. So how important were the other protagonists: the fascist party and the establishment? Their strength would be measured in power. Mussolini through his political situation was the most powerful man in Italy. He was Prime Minister and held up to 8 ministries at once. The parliament had very restrained powers, Mussolini decided and the parliament could only agree as the members all belonged to Mussolini's party. It was used as a security valve. He would give tasks to the independent members such as Farinacci to keep them occupied and on is side. Even if the members of the parliament and of the government were members of the fascist party their influence and power was limited. Not only was Mussolini the leader of the country he was also from 1926 the chairman of the Fascist party. This meant that he had much more power over the party than he had before when he was representing the party in the Government. Mussolini was also able to appoint people whilst before for candidates to take posts the party had to vote for them. Mussolini by being the chairman absorbed a main part of the fascist party power. The symbiosis of the Mussolini's power as Prime minister and as leader of the Fascist party diminished the influence of all other powers. Unlike Russia, the party did not take the state over. It was Mussolini who took over the country and the fascist party almost followed him. Mussolini was chosen Prime Minister and by his reforms he increased the importance of the Fascist political party. The party was still Mussolini accessory. Mussolini over-centralised Italy in Rome to limit the power and independence of the raj. Mussolini acted like a 17th century king; he kept everyone under his eyes. Mussolini wanted to be able to rule the whole of Italy from Rome. This increased his importance in the towns of Italy. It was almost as if he was the mayor of each town. The corporate State increased his control of the workers and employers. Mussolini was aware that even if he had banned all trade unions strikes were possible. His solution was to install twenty-two corporations, which acted as mediator between the workers, 1999-03-19T13:00:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Who-Really-Ruled-Italy-in-1926-40-614.aspx Cyprus - History Of The Conflict Cyprus, an island in the Eastern Mediterranean, at the cross-roads of three continents - Europe, Asia and Africa - has one of the oldest histories of the world, dating back 9000 years. Its strategic position, its wealth in forests and mineral deposits, as well as its skilled craftsmen, made it the prized possession of the powers of the day. Cultural influences came from all directions - all major regional civilisations left their mark on the island, contributing to the development of a very rich and diverse cultural heritage. <b>ANCIENT TIMES</b> <i>The Stone Age</i> The first signs of human life on the island date back to c. 8500 BC during the Palaeolithic period. Evidence of human activity was found in cave dwellings near Liopetri, though it is not known whether they were just hunting parties passing through or permanent settlers. The first undisputed settlements are believed to have been established towards the end of the 8th millennium BC. Vestiges of such early communities are found all over the island, such as at Khirokitia, Kalavasos-Tenta, Apostolos Andreas-Kastros, Phrenaros, Petra tou Limniti. Neolithic Cypriots built circular houses with small undressed stones for the lower structures and sun-dried mudbricks and clay for the middle and superstructure. The Khirokitia neolithic settlement in Larnaca district stands out as a striking example of prehistoric architecture. <i>The Bronze/ Copper Age</i> Large copper deposits brought fame and wealth to the island and may have even given it its name. It has been documented that during the bronze age Cyprus had intense commercial relations with the main commercial and cultural centres of that time. During this period metallurgy and pottery flourished while close relations developed, particularly with Crete, which are also expressed in the Cypro-Minoan script which appeared in Cyprus around 1500 BC. Of special significance for the future of Cyprus was its colonisation around 1200 BC by Mycenaean and Achaean Greeks, a migration process that lasted for more than a century. They brought with them to the island the Hellenic language, culture and religion. Legend has it that the first Hellenes who settled in Cyprus were heroes of the Trojan war. The arrival of the Achaeans greatly influenced town planning, architecture, and pottery. Since then Cyprus has remained predominantly Greek in culture, language and population despite influences resulting from successive occupations. <i>Iron Age</i> More and more people from the Greek world came to live in Cyprus. They built city along the lines of the Greek ones. 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Cyprus-History-Of-The-Conflict-330.aspx Church Reform The Reformation of European religion in the 16th century cannot be generally attributed to the secular spirit of the Italian Renaissance. Although the peasants saw bishops and abbots as part of a wealthy and oppressive ruling class and rebelled against the Roman Catholic Church for reasons primarily pertaining to the lavish adornments used by those aforementioned, their power was not great enough, nor did their reasons carry enough clout to start a reformation movement throughout Europe: that job was accomplished by those already having some, however small, social or religious power, such as the monk Martin Luther, the accomplished priest and lawyer Jean Cauvin, and King Henry VIII of England. The Lutheran and Calvinist Reformations were very similar in principle, although the Lutheran Reformation was less widespread. Luther and Calvin held that not mere abuses of the Roman Catholic Church needed correcting, but that the Catholic Church itself was wrong in principle. Luther's cause for reformation of 16th century European religion came from his unnatural paranoia that he was damned. He had problems convincing himself that his spirit was pure and that he would go to heaven; internal distress raged within him about the awful omnipotence of God, his own insignificant existence in comparison, and his apprehensiveness of the devil. His personal problems would not yield to the existing manners of assuring oneself that he/she was headed for heaven such as sacraments, alms, prayer attendance at Mass, and assorted "good works." Luther solved the problem, however, by believing that good works were the consequence and external evidence of an inner grace, but in no way the cause of this grace. He felt that if one had faith in themselves, the religion, and God, then good works would manifest themselves because of it. This was Luther's doctrine of justification by faith. Luther was then involved in various events that provided for the spreading of Lutheranism, albeit sometimes indirectly. The agitation that Lutheranism was creating throughout Europe had revolutionary side effects where the reforming religious spirit was mistaken for that of a social and economic one, especially in Germany in the 1520s. A league of imperial knights, adopting Lutheranism, attacked their neighbors, the church-states of the Rhineland, hoping by annexations to enlarge their own meager territories. In 1524, the peasants of a large part of Germany revolted due to thoughts stirred up by preachers that took Luther's ideas a little too far: 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Church-Reform-331.aspx Burial Practices of the Ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman Cultures Ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman practices of preparing the dead for the next cradle of humanity are very intriguing. These two cultures differ in a multitude of ways yet similarities can be noted in the domain of funerary services. In the realm of Egyptian afterlife, The Book of the Dead can provide one with vital information concerning ritual entombment practices and myths of the afterlife. The additional handouts I received from Timothy Stoker also proved to be useful in trying uncover vital information regarding the transition into another life. Regarding the burial practices of Greece and Rome, parts of Homer's Odyssey are useful in the analysis of proper interment methods. One particular method used by the Egyptians was an intricate process known as mummification. It was undoubtedly a very involved process spanning seventy days in some cases. First, all the internal organs were removed with one exception, the heart. If the body was not already West of the Nile it was transported across it, but not before the drying process was initiated. Natron (a special salt) was extracted from the banks of the Nile and was placed under the corpse, on the sides, on top, and bags of the substance were placed inside the body cavity to facilitate the process of dehydration. After thirty-five days the ancient embalmers would anoint the body with oil and wrap it in fine linen. If the deceased was wealthy enough a priest donning a mask of Anubis would preside over the ceremonies to ensure proper passage into the next realm. One of the practices overseen by the priest was the placing of a special funerary amulet over the heart. This was done in behest to secure a successful union with Osiris and their kas. The amulet made sure the heart did not speak out against the individual at the scale of the goddess of justice and divine order, Maat. The priest also made use of a "peculiar ritual instrument, a sort of chisel, with which he literally opened the mouth of the deceased." This was done to ensure that the deceased was able to speak during their journeys in Duat. Another practice used by the Egyptians to aid the departed soul involved mass human sacrifice. Many times if a prominent person passed away the family and servants would willfully ingest poison to continue their servitude in the next world. The family members and religious figureheads of the community 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Burial-Practices-of-the-Ancient-Egyptian-and-Greco-Roman-Cultures-333.aspx Causes and Effects of the French Revolution Revolution? The major cause of the French Revolution was the disputes between the different types of social classes in French society. The French Revolution of 1789-1799 was one of the most important events in the history of the world. The Revolution led to many changes in France, which at the time of the Revolution, was the most powerful state in Europe. The Revolution led to the development of new political forces such as democracy and nationalism. It questioned the authority of kings, priests, and nobles. The Revolution also gave new meanings and new ideas to the political ideas of the people. The French Revolution was spread over the ten year period between 1789 and 1799. The primary cause of the revolution was the disputes over the peoples' differing ideas of reform. Before the beginning of the Revolution, only moderate reforms were wanted by the people. An example of why they wanted this was because of king Louis XIV's actions. At the end of the seventeenth century, King Louis XIV's wars began decreasing the royal finances dramatically. This worsened during the eighteenth century. The use of the money by Louis XIV angered the people and they wanted a new system of government. The writings of the philosophes such as Voltaire and Diderot, were critical of the government. They said that not one official in power was corrupt, but that the whole system of government needed some change. Eventually, when the royal finances were expended in the 1780's, there began a time of greater criticism. This sparked the peasants notion of wanting change. Under the Old Regime in France, the king was the absolute monarch. Louis XIV had centralized power in the royal bureaucracy, the government departments which administered his policies. Together, Louis XIV and the bureaucracy worked to preserve royal authority and to maintain the social structure of the Old Regime. At this time in French history, the social classes played an important role in the lives of the people. The social structure of France was divided among three groups: the First Estate, the Second Estate, and the Third Estate. Each social group had a varied type of people within their structure, which presented the different views of the people. The First Estate was the Church. During the ancien regime, the church was equal in terms of its social, economic, and spiritual power. The First Estate owned nearly 10 per cent of all land in 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Causes-and-Effects-of-the-French-Revolution-334.aspx Functions of festivals in Early Modern Europe <b><i>'What were the functions of popular festivals, etc. in Early Modern Europe? And why did the authorities, civil and ecclesiastical seek to control or suppress them?'</b></i> In Early Modern Europe festivals were the setting for heroes and their stories, to be celebrated by the populace. They posed a change from their everyday life. In those days people lived in remembrance of one festival and in expectance of the next. Different kinds of festivals were celebrated in different ways. There were festivals that marked an individual occasion and weren't part of the festival calendar, like family festivals such as weddings and christenings. Some took place at the same time every year and were for everyone, like community festivals like the different saints' days. Pilgrimages took place all year round. Annuals festivals like Christmas and Midsummer always took place on the same day every year. In those days the average village in Western Europe celebrated at least 17 festivals annually, not counting family occasions and saints' days. Some festivals, such as Carnival, lasted several days or sometimes even several weeks. In the Netherlands Carnival started every year at the 11th of November (St. Martin) and culminated in a big festival of 'Dranck, pleijsier ende vrouwen' (Drink, fun and women) at the end of the Carnival period, preceding the period of Lent. Festivals were meant to take the minds of the people off their everyday life , off the hard times and their work. Everyday life in Early Modern Europe was filled with rituals, both religious and secular. Songs and stories played an important role in their lives, although they sometimes adjusted the details of the legends and stories to fit the way they thought a certain festival should take place. Popular culture was mixed with ecclesiastical culture in many ways. The story of St. John the Baptist is a good example of this. The ancient ritual of bathing and lighting fires during Midsummer's Eve was a remnant of a ritual from the pre-Christian period. Fire and water, symbols of purification, could be seen as the tools of St. John the Baptist, and therefore a combination of the two elements of popular and ecclesiastical culture was obvious. It looks as if the Medieval Church took over the festival and made it theirs. The same thing happened to the Midwinter Festival, which became linked with the birth of Christ, on 25 December. There are many more 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Functions-of-festivals-in-Early-Modern-Europe-335.aspx The Enlightenment The Enlightenment is a name given by historians to an intellectual movement that was predominant in the Western world during the 18th century. Strongly influenced by the rise of modern science and by the aftermath of the long religious conflict that followed the Reformation, the thinkers of the Enlightenment (called philosophes in France) were committed to secular views based on reason or human understanding only, which they hoped would provide a basis for beneficial changes affecting every area of life and thought. The more extreme and radical philosophes-Denis Diderot, Claude Adrien Helvetius, Baron d'Holbach, the Marquis de Condorcet, and Julien Offroy de La Mettrie (1709-51)--advocated a philosophical rationalism deriving its methods from science and natural philosophy that would replace religion as the means of knowing nature and destiny of humanity; these men were materialists, pantheists, or atheists. Other enlightened thinkers, such as Pierre Bayle, Voltaire, David Hume, Jean Le Rond D'alembert, and Immanuel Kant, opposed fanaticism, but were either agnostic or left room for some kind of religious faith. All of the philosophes saw themselves as continuing the work of the great 17th century pioneers-Francis Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Leibnitz, Isaac Newton, and John Locke-who had developed fruitful methods of rational and empirical inquiry and had demonstrated the possibility of a world remade by the application of knowledge for human benefit. The philosophes believed that science could reveal nature as it truly is and show how it could be controlled and manipulated. This belief provided an incentive to extend scientific methods into every field of inquiry, thus laying the groundwork for the development of the modern social sciences. The enlightened understanding of human nature was one that emphasized the right to self-expression and human fulfillment, the right to think freely and express one's views publicly without censorship or fear of repression. Voltaire admired the freedom he found in England and fostered the spread of English ideas on the Continent. He and his followers opposed the intolerance of the established Christian churches of their day, as well as the European governments that controlled and suppressed dissenting opinions. For example, the social disease which Pangloss caught from Paquette was traced to a "very learned Franciscan" and later to a Jesuit. Also, Candide reminisces that his passion for Cunegonde first developed at a Mass. More conservative enlightened thinkers, concerned primarily with efficiency and administrative order, favored the "enlightened despotism" of such monarchs as Emperor Joseph II, Frederick 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Enlightenment-336.aspx England: The City of Today Glorious, glorious England. As the Empire spreads some say "so does its glory"; others mumble of the price which we pay for our greatness. Many of us Londoners have read, if not discussed, the intriguing debate transpiring between Sir Andrew Ure and Sir James Phillips Kay. Are the cities of great England truly representative of the jewels in Her Majesty's Crown? Or are they the stain of exploitation and abuse that some have proclaimed? Sir James Phillips Kay, an M.D. at Edinburgh and the Secretary to the Manchester Board of Health, has recently published a work titled, "The Moral And Physical Conditions of the Working-Class Employed in Cotton Manufacturing in Manchester." (Kay/Ure Debate, Handout) He argues quite persuasively about those poor wretches living in the most hideous of conditions. Half the blame he attributes to the Irish and the other half to the environment of an industrialised city. The Irish immigrants have brought to Manchester a system called "cottier farming". Sir James argues that this system is responsible for the "demoralisation and barbarism" of the working-class. If that is not bad enough, the potato has been introduced as a main article of food. Influenced by the Irish subsistence living, the working-class are abandoning those values which promote increasing comfort. They seemingly have given up the hope of betterment and adopted hopelessness. Sir James does well in his description of the living conditions of the working class is living in. The mere thought of such suffering and misery is shocking to the soul. The problem Kay argues, is caused by combinations of poor living and working conditions, lack of education, influence by a lesser culture and the presence of great immorality. This recently published work is a plea to the Capitalist, to convince him to concern himself with his workers. Andrew Mearns, another prominent fellow on these matters goes into even greater detail in his work, "The Bitter Cry of Outcast London". Making a study of our city, he has reported, with astonishing detail, that the filth present in Manchester can be found in this city! Mr. Mearns makes his argument to the church in his call to unite and fight this growing misery together. He cites examples of immorality, poverty and heart-breaking misery. His call also addresses the need for the state to intervene on the behalf of the organisations trying to elevate the working-classes' misery. What can be done for the motherless children, diseased 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/England-The-City-of-Today-337.aspx Social Classes Of Mid-Victorian England In the Mid-Victorian period in English history there were distinct class differences in its society. There were three classes in England. These were the Aristocracy, the Middle-Class (or Factory owners) and the working class. Each class had specific characteristics that defined its behavior. These characteristics were best seen in four areas of British society. During the time-period known by most historians as the Industrial Revolution, a great change overtook British culture. Aside from the political and economic change which occurred, a profound social alteration transpired. The populace seeking to better their lives, sought employment in newly-formed industries. Many of the workers which included women and children, labored through 12 hour work shifts, with poor nutrition, poor living conditions and completing tedious tasks1. These factors, accompanied by various ideological precepts by Britain's intellectual community, and those concepts imported from France, provoke a crucial social evolution. Though no government was overthrown, a distinct transformation took place causing rebellious behavior to erupt among the working class. This essay will address the questions of how and why this behavior was expressed by the lower order of British society. It will also discuss methods the ruling class used in suppressing and controlling the rebellious behavior exhibited by the working class. The middle class held to two basic ideologies that served in the exploitation of the lower order of the British society. Richard Atlick identified them as Utilitarianism (or Benthamism) and Evangelicalism. Both served the self-interested inclinations of the middle class. Utilitarianism created the need to fulfill a principle of pleasure while minimalization pain. In the context of the "industrial revolution" this meant that the pleasure extracted from life would be at the working classes' expense. This provided a perfect justification for the middle class to capitalize on. The working class of Britain, throughout the industrial revolution and through the Victorian age, acted in a defiant manner toward both the aristocracy and middle class. This behavior extended from the everyday activities of the workers to radical anarchist movements that categorized the underground. The middle class seemed to be just as familiar with the inverse of Benthamism as they were with its normal application. The pleasure principle was measured in terms of minimalization of pain. If the sum of pain, in a given situation, is less than the sum of pleasure, than it should be deemed pleasurable. The inverse principle applied to the working class was how pain (work) 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Social-Classes-Of-Mid-Victorian-England-338.aspx King Arthur There has been a lot 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/King-Arthur-340.aspx The Situation In Ireland <i>"But who are we that we should hesitate to die for Ireland. Are not the claims of Ireland greater on us than any personal ones? Is it fear that deters us from such an enterprise? Away with such fears. Cowards die many times, the brave only die once."</i> Padraic Pearse (rebellion leader), 1916 (The New Republic, 34) Pearse's words, spoken just before the Easter rebellion, summarizes many Irish feelings toward rebellion for independence. In order to gain freedom from the British, revolutionaries were willing to sacrifice anything, even their lives. For centuries, the Irish had been part of the vast British empire and for most of that time, they struggled to obtain their sovereignty. Numerous events sparked this discontent in Ireland in the early 20th century. At the top of their list of grievances was the political treatment of the Irish. The Irish parliament was highly inadequate and inefficient with no real power to represent the people (The Outlook, pg 116). Additionally, Britain governed Ireland in the same manner that it governed all of its territories; it ruled according to what would best serve Great Britain, not the territory. For example, Ireland's commerce was discouraged and their manufacturing was paralyzed by British legislation (The Outlook, pg 116). Religious treatment of Roman Catholics also angered the Irish. A large number of Irish were (and still are) Catholic and were repressed in many ways by English legislature. They were expected to pay taxes to support the Established Church of England, which gave Catholics no services. Furthermore, Britain forbade Catholics from providing education for their own children. Catholics could not be teachers and parents could not send their children abroad for education without forfeiture of their property and citizenship (The Outlook, pg 117). Although these actions by the British government infuriated the Irish, the new wave of rebellion actually began again in 1914 with the British government's repeal of the recently enacted Home Rule Bill, which gave the Irish some measure of political autonomy. These feelings came to a peak on Easter Monday, April 24, 1916 in the Irish capital of Dublin when approximately 1500 men, led by Pearse, seized the post office and other strategic points. These men were members of the Citizen Army, an illegal force of Dublin citizens organized by labor leader Jim Larkin and socialist James Connolly. From here, they established themselves in military fashion by erecting barricades of sandbags 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Situation-In-Ireland-341.aspx Germany: The answer to an old Question <b>Thesis:<i> This paper will argue that Germany needs to secure itself as both the economic and political hegemon of Europe inside of the European Union; until its present condition and effectiveness in the global politics changes, instability in the European Union, as well as, basic fear of will always be present.</i></b> I. Introduction II. Historical Perspective-The two negative factors A. Fear - twice in one century 1) Bismarck/Frederick II 2) Hitler B. Foolishness 1) WWI 2) WWII III. Reunification - The Key A. Economic realities 1) E. Germany's status 2) Infrastructure B. The significance of one Germany 1) Future 2) Politics IV. European Union-The means to and end A. European "check and balance system" 1) Hope for the future 2) Provisions for success B. The answer to a disturbing question 1) Can Germany be strong and peaceful? 2) France and England V. Conclusion The formation of a state can be both a beautiful and terrifying event . As a national you now have a home and place to live with people of a common culture and heritage, an identity. If you are a founder of the new state, there would be a sense of accomplishment of having achieved the fulfillment of a lifetime goal. Other states which deemed this new state as legitimate and recognized it as a self-determined equal, have created a potential ally or enemy. The downside, the premature recognition and the actual struggle for that status, usually entails conflict, loss of life, revolution and even war. A state was formed and recognized in 1871 in the center of Europe. This event has had an enormous impact since its inception. It has been both the salvation of Europe through economic depressions and hard times, as well as, the cause for two world wars and the near decimation of Europe. Its people have been back and forth between rags and riches, democracy and dictatorships, united, broken and then reunited. This state is known as Germany. Modern Germany has been reunified after almost 50 years of separation during the cold war. Once again German power and influence is on the rise. The world watches because Germany has not been able to successfully retain both total sovereignty over its territory and be an economic world power, for a substantial period of time; without plunging the world into an unavoidable conflict. The question of Germany and its position in world politics is one which has plagued statesmen since Germany's formation. This paper will argue that the answer lies within the state. Germany needs to secure itself 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Germany-The-answer-to-an-old-Question-342.aspx French and Russian revolutions Both the French and Russian revolutions occurred because of two main reasons. Both of these revolutions were the direct results of bad leadership and a bad economy. These two reasons along with other factors caused both of these revolutions. Although they were both similar, they also had differences. A difference between the two is that the Russians had an unsuccessful "pre-revolution" in 1905. Another difference between these two revolutions is the fact that the French turned towards a democracy while the Russian government became communist. In 1905 , Russia had a prerevolution that was put down of the Czar. Instead of learning from this prerevolution, Czar Nicholas II, made a very big mistake by in not introducing some reforms to correct the problems. So because of his actions, the situation grew worse. In 1917, the Russians were fighting in World War I. A good majority of the Russian people were weary and uncontent with the way the war was going and with the Czar's rule. This uncontent along with economic hardships caused riots and demonstrations to break out. The Czar called for the army to put down the revolution as they did in 1905. But the army joined the revolt and the Czar was kicked out of power soon afterwards. A temporary government was set up to decide on what kind of government Russia was gonna set up. Two political parties were set up. The Bolsheviks were one of the two. The leader of the Bolshevik party was a man named Lenin. Lenin was a firm believer of the theories and ideas of Karl Marx. So with his slogan of "Bread, Peace and Land", Lenin gained the support of the peasants and gained control of Russia and setup a communist state. The French revolution was also caused by a bad ruler and a bad economy. During the early 1780's a big percent of annual budget went towards king Louis XVI's lavish estate at Versailles. France also had no central bank, no paper currency, no ways of getting more money, and an out-dated tax system which only taxed the poor who had no money to begin with. Signs of revolution first appeared when the peasants stormed the fortress known as the Bastille looking for gun powder. The Bastille incident set off revolts all over France and Louis was soon deposed afterwards.A democratic goverment was setup in place of the old monarcy. A doctrine called 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/French-and-Russian-revolutions-343.aspx The Renaissance The Renaissance was a period of European history, considered by modern scholars as that between 1300 and 1600. Many dramatic changes happend during the Renaissance. The Renaissance was a period of new inventions and beliefs. The Renaissance was drastically different from the Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages the church held most of the power and it's economy was agriculturaly based. Exploration and learning was almost put to a stop. During the Renaissance society was transformed into a society increasingly dominated by central political institutions with an urban commercial attitude. Also, people's curiosity overcame thier fear and many people started to venture out and explore. New schools and colleges became more and more common. The Renaissance was started by many rich Italian cities, such as Florence, Ferrara, Milan ,and Venice. Because these cities were very wealthy, many merchants started to spend money on different things, such as painting, learning, new banking techniques, and new systems of government. These things gave rise to a new type of scholar, the humanist. Humanism was subjects concerned with humankind and culture. They stutied various things such as Latin, Greek language, literature and philosophy. Music and mathmatics were also studied as well. The Renaissance gave way to new forms of painting , art and sculpture. During the Renaissance, artist were no longer regarded as mere artisans, as they had been to the medieval past, but for the first time emerged as independent personalities, compared to poets and writers. Many artisans merged mathmatics with art , in order to become more precise in their measurements and to make sure an object was supported both rationally and porportionally. As a result painters tried and often suceeded into making their painting a window into the world. Artists also studied the way light hits objects and the way our eyes percieve light. A new kind of paint called oil paint was used. This allowed the artist to create texture , mix colors, and allow more time for corrections before it dried. The printing press was probaly the most important advance in technology. Europeans first used movable metal type to print a book. On small pieces of metal they engraved single letters of the alphabet. These could then be arranged and rearranged to form words and sentences. Johan Gutenberg is usually given credit for the first book printed, a copy of the Bible. By the 1500's printing presses where fairly 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Renaissance-345.aspx Film Review: Spartacus <b>What is clearly justified by the historical sources</b> In Stanley Kubrick's film of Spartacus, many events that are documented in the historical sources are accurately portrayed. In the film, we see Spartacus and other slaves seize kitchen implements from the cookhouse in which they are eating and attack the guards. This is clearly justified by Plutarch in Fall of the Roman Empire; "seventy-eight, who realised this, managed to act in time and get away, armed with choppers and spits which they seized from some cookhouse". The film shows that in the summer of 73 BC, "about seventy slaves escaped from Batiatus's training school at Capua and established a defensible position on Mount Vesuvius some thirty kilometres away. " This is clearly justified by the historical sources and is accurately portrayed in the film. The film also correclty portrays the Cilicians pulling out of an agreement with Spartacus, in which they were going to transport slaves to Sicily. The Cilicians are bribed by the Romans to pull out of the agreement, so that they can quell the slave revolt. This left the slaves trapped near Rhegium in the Peninsula of Brittium, and with armies marching towards them from north and east, Spartacus was left with no choice but to turn and face Crassus... <b>What is contradicted by the historical sources</b> In the film, Spartacus says that he was a slave from birth and that his father before him was also a slave. However, this is contradicted by accounts of Spartacus' life. It is said that he had once served with the military service with the Romans and was then later sold as a slave. The next contradiction is when, in the film, Spartacus leads the slaves to cross the Alps where they would disperse and go to their homes. However, Plutarch claims that the slaves had not agreed with Spartacus' plan: "His men however, would not listen to him. They were strong in numbers and full of confidence, and they went about Italy ravaging everything in their way.1" One of the most incorrectly portrayed events in the film is when spartacus dies. In the film, Spartacus is crucified after being forced to have a gladiatorial fight with his close friend. However, it is documented that Spartacus actually died in battle, when he ran at Crassus: "Though he did not reach Crassus, he cut down two centurions who fell on him together." <b>What has been added in</b> In the film, 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Film-Review-Spartacus-348.aspx Spanish Settlement of the West International borders have always been centers of conflict, and the U.S.-Mexican border is no exception. With the European colonizing the New World, it was a matter of time before the powers collided. The Spanish settled what is today Mexico, while the English settled what is to day the United States. When the two colonial powers did meet what is today the United States' Southwest, it was not England and Spain. Rather the two powers were the United States and Mexico. Both Counties had broken off from their mother countries. The conflict that erupted between the two countries where a direct result of different nation policies. The United States had a policy of westward expansion, while Mexico had a policy of self protection. The Americans never had a written policy of expansion. What they had was the idea of "Manifest Destiny." Manifest Destiny was the belief that the United States had the right to expand westward to the Pacific ocean. On the other hand, Mexico was a new country wanting to protect itself from outside powers. Evidence of U.S. expansion is seen with the independence of Texas from Mexico. The strongest evidence of U.S. expansion goals is with the Mexican-American War. From the beginning, the war was conceived as an opportunity for land expansion. Mexico feared the United States expansion goals. During the 16th century, the Spanish began to settle the region. The Spanish had all ready conquered and settled Central Mexico. Now they wanted to expand their land holdings north. The first expedition into the region, that is today the United States Southwest, was with Corando. Corando reported a region rich in resources, soon after people started to settle the region. The driving force behind the settlement was silver in the region. The Spanish settled the region through three major corridors; central, western and eastern. The first settlements were mainly through the central corridor. The Spanish went thorough what is now the modern Mexican state of Chihuahua into the U.S. state of New Mexico. Eventually the Spanish established the city of Santa Fe in 1689. The eastern corridor was through modern day Texas and led to the establishment of San Antonio. The eastern expansion was caused by the French expansion into modern day Louisiana. The Spanish crown wanted a buffer between the French in Louisiana and central Mexico. The last corridor of expansion was in the west, through the sea, which 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Spanish-Settlement-of-the-West-350.aspx The Solidarity movement in Poland The Solidarity movement in Poland was one of the most dramatic developments in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. It was not a movement that began in 1980, but rather a continuation of a working class and Polish intelligentsia movement that began in 1956, and continued in two other risings, in 1970 and 1976. The most significant of these risings began in the shipyards of the 'Triple City', Gdansk, Sopot and Gdynia in 1970. The first and by far the most violent and bloody of the workers revolts came in June of 1956, when at least 75 people died in the industrial city of Poznan. The third uprising took place in 1976 with workers striking in Warsaw, and rioting in the city of Radom. What made the Solidarity movement peaceful and far more successful in comparison to that of the previous three? The Solidarity movement originated in the working class, but unlike the previous three risings it also worked with and was involved with the Polish intellectual community. Was this the reason behind its success? Or was it instead the result of the U.S.S.R. losing it's hold in the Eastern bloc, and the fledgling economy of Poland that made such a movement inevitable? While everyone of these points was a factor, the strongest and most compelling argument can be made for the unification and working together of Poland's most influential social classes, the Polish intelligentsia, the workers, and the Church. This strategy eventually led to the infamous 'roundtable' talks, and the collapse of communism itself in Poland. <b>The Beginnings of a Movement</b> The 'Polish October' of 1956 did not begin with Stalin's death in 1953, in fact Poland was quite calm, in stark contrast with other Eastern bloc countries. While demonstrations took place in Plzen, Czechoslovakia, and a revolt was taking place in East Germany in mid-June, Poland was slow to follow the 'New Course' that was being offered by neighboring countries. This was a result of a much slower relaxation than the other countries experienced. Regardless, social and intellectual unrest began building up, with collectivization being slackened and censorship showing cracks, the nation had a sense that a new start must be made. The Polish intelligentsia was one of the most important groups to emerge during this period. The Polish intelligentsia is, and remains, a distinct social class that is composed of those with a higher education, or those who at 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Solidarity-movement-in-Poland-351.aspx The Rebellion Against Victorianism The 1890's was in time for transformation for the English society. After Queen Victoria died the heart of the Victorian culture seemed to fade. England was beginning to experience economic competition from other states and a gradual decline from its former pinnacle of power. Politically, the Parliament experienced some fundamental power shifts after the turn of the century. This essay will address the climate of change in the English culture and its expressions. The changes occurred in two separate and distinct time periods. These time periods are the turn of the century from 1890's to World War II. The second period is WWII to 1970's. The new century brought about an end to the old and stuffy Victorian life-styles. The social stigmas of women and their behavior was challenged and change by the rise of feminism in 1910. Women began to protest against the system for women 's suffrage. One instance these "violent women" ran around in the city smashing store windows to get notoriety for their cause. Books such as the Odd Women, featured a fictional representation of "professional women". They were classified in two categories, both an attack on the social institution of marriage. The first of these new women were out only for fun. The second was the concept of an asexual being who did not need a man. These women owned their own flats and had various jobs usually secretarial in nature.. The book expressed an uncomfortable period of transformation. Working women were not completely accepted by English society at this time. The book portrayed different lives and how they coped with their situations.1 The male character was also in a state of change. This change brought about the term "new men". These new men were classified by a "sexual anarchy". This movement was predominantly a middle class, liberal expression. Many were young male artisans who were homosexual . The word homosexuality was created by an amendment to criminal law which had declared all acts of sodomy as illegal. Previous to this amendment the act of homosexuality was punishable by hanging. Doctors and scientist had seen homosexuality as a disease, thus the need developed for a "cure". Sexuality became all inclusive. There was a large aesthetic movement which was also inherent in this "new" culture. This movement classified art as being done for art's sake. Art was now being viewed as separate from society. This meant that art could 1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Rebellion-Against-Victorianism-354.aspx