true genius

Yay! I'm glad we got more info on Galileo because I found him to be so interesting in last week's reading. I really didn't know much about him before. I didn't even know there wasn't an accurate measure of time until he came along. Something that we take for granted like a watch (which we pretty much are slaves to now) actually is quite complicated when you really think about it. I'm also amazed that he invented his own telescope where he viewed even the rings of Saturn. And to figure out that the light from the moon is in fact reflection... wow. I also liked getting a more personal look at the man who was Isaac Newton. He looks kinda scary in his picture. I felt really bad for him that he lived such a miserable life, being all secluded and grouchy and tense. Maybe I'm just being stereotypical here, but it seems to me that the more a human looks into their own mind, the more they draw away from those around them. It's like a tipping scale... you take time, effort, and contemplation from having a healthy social life and give it to the broadening of your mind. I've yet to meet a mathematical or scientific genius who isn't a bit awkward socially.

Absolutely Absurd!

I got a kick out of reading the "Crime of Galileo." You can almost hear the "holy office" sputtering in protest at the "absurd" notion that the sun is in fact fixed and that the earth revolves around it. I'm sure that feeling like they were center of the universe was grounds for a lot of the self-righteousness I detected in it. Anything to make his "holiness" feel less significant must have been quite a blow. I was wondering what Galileo's punishment was since he was found guilty of heresy, so I looked it up: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Galileo.html, an interesting read of Galileo's biography. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for life but it ended up just being on house arrest for the rest of his life. What boggles my mind is that it wasn't until 1992 that his name was "half" cleared! Pope John Paul II said that errors had been made by those who convicted him but never actually stated that Galileo had been wrongfully judged. Talk about beating around the bush! What, was he afraid of blatantly saying that "holy men" were wrong? Something I didn't get was where those men in Galileo's day said that what Galileo proposed went against scripture; that the bible said that earth was the center of the universe. Ummm... where? Never heard that one. unless I misunderstood their stance, I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't state "earth is the center of the universe."

Wikipedia #3

Elizabeth I of England
This wikipedia article covers just about anything you would ever want to know about Queen Elizabeth I. It starts with a brief overview of her life, then delves into the more detailed aspects. Along the way it's speckled with fancy speeches made by her and quotes said about her. First starting with her childhood, it then moves into her ascension to Queen and the circumstances that put her there. It then covers her views on religion, or lack of views. She never married and so the next part of the article covers speculations into this and the cult that was established that honored her virginity. Then her foreign policy and issues are covered with Scotland, Spain, France and Ireland. The last part of this article covers her later years, death, and the legacy she left behind.
1. word count: (freakin long) 11,327
2. Searched: Queen Elizabeth I, Got: Elizabeth I of England
3. Disambiguation link:
Queen Elizabeth I of England
Elizabeth I, TV series based on her life
Elisabeth I of Bohemia
Elizabeth I of Russia
Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who is the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland
Queen Elizabeth first of series of steam ships
4. discussion link: really, really long. People asking lots and lots of questions and the host of the article did a great job as far as a saw of responding to them. Whenever there was a change made the host talked about it a lot too. Also mentioned on the discussion page was it's a featured article and one of the best sources for info on Queen Elizabeth.
5. last change: 11/15/08, first change: 1/9/04 changes:127
6. external links: 4
7. references: 173
8. further reading: 5
Yes, I would recommend this to anyone interested in Queen Elizabeth I. If you were writing a paper on her you wouldn't need much else. Also the fact that it is a featured article, hasn't had too many changes, and has such a huge discussion page are good signs that it's a good article. I love wikipedia anyways, no matter how many professors scorn it. In fact, I think this is the first class I've been allowed to use it. Yay Wikipedia. :)

Queen Elizabeth I

I liked reading Queen Elizabeth's speech to her troops when the Spanish were invading. After such a riveting, moving speech it's such a buzz kill that the Spanish never came. It's not very often you hear such a battle speech by a woman. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of a Queen fighting at the front of a battle. Whether or not she actually fought or just put on her armor and rode out in front to give a speech is something I specifically looked for but didn't find. I was kind of put off by the part of the speech where she refers to herself as a "weak and feeble woman" but follows it up with "but I have the heart and stomach of a king." I almost felt like she was saying "because I am a woman I am crap, but look, I can be more like a man." I'm sure she meant it to establish herself as a more powerful ruler but it stinks that she had to do it by putting down the fact that she was a woman. What she could have done is say something like "yes, I am a woman... and look at how much more power I have than you little people!" No, just kidding... that would have probably pissed them off.

Martin Luther

Martin Luther's "Freedom of a Christian" was a bit of an interesting read. He really focused on being a Christian on the inside and not just the outside in what you do . He even went as far as to call those who did all these works in the name of God hypocrites because they didn't have what really mattered: faith. A bit harsh, but he makes sense. It seems like people can get so caught up in what other people see them doing, they can make their religion purely one of "works" and forget what religion is really about. To me Luther was putting the "belief" back in religion, which I can appreciate and agree with. He sure did it in a lot of words, though. :) I was having a hard time keeping my focus because he says a lot of the same stuff, just in a different way. Were people just naturally more wordy back then? I also noticed where Martin said that Christians were above the law and also the part about not getting involved in the world's problems politically or in warfare. I bet that frustrated a bunch of rulers and politics back then. But, hasn't that always been the struggle between church and state that we even deal with today? The real issue being what is above the other: church or state?

Reformers and Anabaptists

After writing for a few weeks about how I think the popes misinterpretted the bible in justification of their power, finally someone agrees with me! It's sad that when the Reformers decided to think for themselves and make their own interpretations of the bible they were punished and often killed for it. I also would have been very disenchanted with the life of luxury and lust for power the popes were living if I had been observing them back then. While I find the Anabaptists to be a bit extreme, I do agree with some elements. I haven't found any scripture saying that babies should be baptized. Baptism should be an informed, adult decision. Jesus himself was baptized this way. I've never understood baby baptism. I also liked their simple, personal approach to faith. I think they got this approach right.

lorenzo's letter to his son

I enjoyed reading Lorenzo De Medici's letter to his son Giovanni who became cardinal at age 14 and later became pope. I especially liked what he said that "All the Christian world would prosper if the cardinals were what they ought to be." So true! In fact, the Christian world would prosper if all their leaders tried a bit harder to be a better example. At least that's what I derived from the weekly reading. It seems like a lot of the rebellion was caused because the people were frustrated that the leaders didn't practice what they preached. Lorenzo actually had some good advice and I hope Giovanni tried to live up to it. He told him to lean away from things like silk and jewels and be more into things like books and antiquities. He also said to exercise regularly and eat plain food. The most interesting advice, which he considered his best advice, was to rise early. The bible encourages this too. I know I feel better when I get up early and get things in order but is it really the most important advice a father would have for a son? Who knows.

So Sad!

I was horrified by what I read of the black plague. I knew that a lot of people died way back when but I'd never read the details. I was shocked by how quickly it spread and the amount of people that died. Thousands everyday and about 1/3 of the population! And the way they died... so horrible. These huge boils that grow on your body until they burst, vomiting blood violently, and shaking uncontrollably... what an awful way to die. And the fact that it's still around freaks me out. Ya, they have a cure for it... but what if it mutates? Viruses do that. We could very well have another outbreak of it or something different. That's why they make thriller horror movies out of it... it freaks us all out. I'm almost as scared of that as I am of drowning or falling to my death. On a positive note, I enjoyed reading about the orgin of universities. It's so ironic that the first university would be established because of a bar fight. :) It's interesting too how old a lot of college traditions, words, and culture are. I think it's great to be part of such a long-lasting experience.

Wikipedia Assignment #2

I came across a beautiful picture of a castle in my search and intrigued, pursued it. It turned out to be an article on Mont-Saint-Michel and its bay. It's an intricate, elaborate, huge castle in France perched on a jumble of rocks in the middle of a bay. At low tide it's surrounded by sand and at high tide, water. It was built in the 6th and 7th century to be an Armorican stronghold of the Romano-Breton. The article covers it's history and various owners, attempts to breach it, and successful attacks and takeovers. The legend of it's birth is covered as well. It's a story of how the archangel Michael told Saint Aubert, bishop of Avranches, to build it. When the bishop wouldn't do it, the archangel burned a hole in his skull with his finger. The castle has been a political prison, inspiration for novels and music, theme park ride inspiration, and even the inspiration for the castle Minas Tirith in the Lord of the Rings movies.
1. 2,509 words
2. Searched under "middle ages" and followed a picture to the article "Mont Saint-Michel"
3. No Disambiguation link
4. The discussion page had lots of questions such as: How high is it? Did WWII do any damage to it? (it didn't) How is the upkeep funded? Where is it on the map?
5. 705 total changes: 1st change: 7/23/03 last change: 10/15/08
6. 2 external links
7. 7 references
8. 3 "further reading"

I would completely and totally recommend this article to anyone. Not only is it the most beautiful castle I have ever seen I am inspired to go see it someday. It's interesting too to read about how historical places and structures have influenced our culture today.

Every Man For Himself

After reading the lectures for this week my thought was "Thank God I didn't live back then." Not only were those claiming to be "Christians" laying waste and plundering cities in their wake, they were murdering those who refused to convert. What a bloodbath. And you couldn't sail the sea without fear of the Muslim Pirates. Yes, Muslim Pirates... I laughed when I read that too. And then there were the Vikings. You see those guys coming and run like hell. I had no idea their conquests ran so far and wide. I think I always imagined them coming from one land, not many. I'm glad that they weren't completely heartless barbarians from the sound of it. I myself am of Scandinavian descent and my family has a lot of traditions like lefse, lutefisk, and other Scandinavian jokes and sayings that only we get. Yes, we get weird looks when we have our private little jokes. Even though they were a bit brutish, I'm glad I can't be totally ashamed of them. They were strong, free, and very capable men and women. I had a good laugh reading about William the Conqueror's funeral. Poor guy... he dies and the servants take all his clothes and furniture so he's found undignified and naked. Then, during his procession the town catches on fire and everyone runs off to fight it, leaving his sad little body. Then, that local man creates a fuss at his funeral about not being paid for the grave plot. Then, his poor arm breaks off and a horrible stench fills the air. Now all we have left of him is a thigh bone and a single slab of stone to remember him by. It probably wasn't that funny then... it's funny now though. :)

interpretation of the bible

I feel the need to point out that there are different interpretations of what is said in the bible. I'm open to all interpretations and will consider them. But, what the popes back in medieval times derived from verses in the bible I have to strongly disagree with. First off, Jesus said "Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18-19). If you read the verses surrounding it, I believe the "rock" is not a literal one. It's referring to the rock or foundation of the belief that Jesus is the son of God and all his teachings are based off this. This was not blessing the future popes to build these massive churches. Second, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which is a little further down. He was speaking about his teachings being the keys of heaven here. He was not handing supreme power and ruling to Peter. In fact, unlike what is claimed by those in power that claim to be descended from Peter, he never did appoint a "ruler" of his church. When asked who would be the greatest in Luke 9:46-48, he brought a child among them and told them to be like a child- humble and meek. Do people think Peter was appointed as ruler because Jesus said "feed my lambs and feed my sheep" (John 21: 15-17)? Jesus asked all his disciples to watch over his flock. I was curious about the documents found supporting Peter as the first bishop and Linus as his successor- what documents are referred to here? Even if Jesus had appointed Peter as the first bishop, I bet many of the bishops to follow had no descendant at all from Peter. They merely used that claim to support their rise to power. And that's what it's all about: power. I find it ironic that the city of Rome boasted of having "ancient Christian lineage" when it's their city that persecuted the apostles of Christ and even put several of them to death. When they found out that having this connection could give them more power, then they had a change of heart. Lastly, Peter was never meant to be a ruler. He was sent out homeless and penniless to freely teach the gospel- a far stretch from what the popes after his time and today interpret their place to be. I know this is a sensitive topic and there are many interpretations- just know I will not belittle you or put you down if you comment and I'd love feedback!

root words

I was interested in the words that are mentioned (vandalism, chapels, hermits) and how they got their meaning today. First off, vandalism: the vandals were going around destroying and sacking all the towns. Chapels: the story of St. Martin tearing his cloak and giving half to the naked beggar. And then hermits: the desert dwellers which were considered holy men. Hermits have such a negative view today so it's interesting that hermits were admired people back then. I also was interested in how colonies, called 'coloni' back then, originally formed. The people were given land to farm, they couldn't be sold, they got protection from the land owner, and they couldn't be separated from their families. The rich noble got free slave labor. Pretty good deal for both sides. I kinda feel like the noble got the better deal though since the family could never leave and the son would have to follow in his father's footsteps. I wonder what happened if they ever tried to leave or if the son decided he didn't want to do what his father did. Are there any accounts or stories of this happening? I looked and couldn't find any.

Women in Rome

I seemed to be drawn a lot in this week's reading to the women in Rome. First off, I noticed that a couple times some very conniving women were placing their sons in power so that they could actually hold the reins. The first one was Julia Maesa and her 15 year old son, Elagabalus (a very colorful character and interesting to read about). At times I wondered if she actually had power over her son or not. At first she did, but then he took some matters into his own hands. His five marriages in three years were definitely his mother's doing though. The second one was called a "Vestal Virgin." I wasn't sure what that was so I looked it up. Here's where i found the info I was looking for:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:vestal+virgin&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
basically it's a chaste woman who spends her whole life tending to the sacred fire of the goddess vesta. How Elagabalus (or I guess his mother would have) scored that one, I don't know. The second mother\son ruling power was Julia Mamaea and her son Severus Alexander. It was mentioned that Julia Maesa helped put Severus into power too, but I thought she had been killed with her son... that was a little confusing. Does anybody have clarity on this? Women ruling through the face of their sons probably happened more than just these two times I mention here, though. For being such strong-willed, conniving women, they are a far cry from what Aristotle mentions in Oikonomikos on what a good wife should be. It reminded me a lot of what the bible says about what a virtuous women is. but, that part of the bible was written after Aristotle... I wonder if they influenced each other at all. It would be hard to know. Just as a closing little tidbit, I really liked the first poem by Sulpicia. I thought it was a beautiful love poem.

Romeo and Juliet

I'm studying Egyptian art in my Art History class right now so the story of Anthony and Cleopatra was of great interest to me. Egypt was a country extremely isolated by desert and water so it went a long time without much influence. For instance, Egyptian art didn't change in 3,000 years. That's amazing. Think of how much American art has changed just in the last 100 years. So I find it interesting that one small thing like a relationship their Pharaoh had with a Roman man would bring it all crashing down. What really freaked people out in Rome was when Anthony was going to name his children with Cleopatra heirs to Rome. She must have been quite the woman to have Anthony and Caesar all enthralled by her. So they run away together but commit suicide separately... I wonder why they didn't just keep running and run off together? The world kept going for all they knew. It wasn't as small as it seems today and a lot easier to hide in. And I wonder why they committed suicide separately? It's all very Romeo and Juliet and tragic but romantic.

Wikipedia Assignment #1

Alexander the Great
This was a very informative, LENGTHY article on Alexander the Great. It starts with a brief overview of his life for those who want basic information. then, it goes into detail. Starting with his early life, it gives us information on things such as his training under Leonidas and talks about the rumor that he was Zeus' son. It also details relationship issues among and with his family. The article then talks about his coming into power and his many conquests. This is the main chunk of the article. Then it talks of his death and goes over things such as his character, influence on the world, and testament.
1. article length: 11,303 words
2. searched for "Alexander the Great" and got article titled "Alexander the Great"
3. disambiguation link showed links to movies and songs written about him, sport players with nicknames of "Alexander the Great", a couple airports named after him, and even a board game based on him
4. discussion link had people claiming to be experts on "all things Alexander", debates on if he really never lost a battle, and talks about how his name was really pronounced in the day.
5. changes- 2,604, 1st change: 1/23/02, last change: 9/12/08
6. external links: 13
7. references: 8
8. further readings: 12

If anyone is as fascinated by Alexander as I am this would be a great read for them. Tons of juicy details and a few fun pictures. If you're looking for basic information, the whole article would be extremely overwhelming. But, conveniently, there's a brief overview at the top. so yes, I would recommend this article to both the interested reader and the bored fact-searcher on Alexander the Great

Rome Politics

As I was reading about the setup of Roman power and politics I was thinking about how much this sounded familiar. The patrician in power seemed to have a high level of power but it was such an illusion. Much like our president, the position was one of representation and symbolism but not true power. The senate was the true power behind the mask of the king. But really, where was the power in the senate? I admit being a little dizzy and confused by the long string of titles within the senate (consuls, proconsuls, quaestors, preator, etc, etc, and so on). In the end I found it to be amusing that the censors became some of the most powerful politicians. since the censors controlled taxes they were the most paid attention to, bribed, and corrupted. I guess taxes have always been a huge deal. :) Since I'm talking about taxes, I have an opinion I'd like to share: taxes are a LOT better to the alternative. The alternative being a place where you don't pay taxes. A place like South Africa where the law doesn't exist and everyone has their own ideas about how things should be run. If someone complains to me about taxes I'd like to send them off to live in a place like that for awhile. Then they'll be glad to write that check when the time rolls around. A little off topic, I know, just thought I'd share. I also had a question about Roman slaves: who were they? Were they people the Romans had conquered? Were they people of color? I find it appalling that humans feel they can judge themselves above another to the point of cruelty. It's barbaric.

contrast of characters

I must admit I was surprisingly intrigued by the story of the rise and fall of cities, leaders, and nations. Like others have mentioned, I too loved the movie 300 and was quite appalled to learn that the facts have been twisted. My thought was: if a story is worth telling, which this definitely is, why does Hollywood feel the need to change it? A good story is a good story and doesn't need to be "Hollyvised" Yes, I make up words to fit what I'm trying to explain. :) Even though I was frustrated by what I believed to be the story and what the story turned out to be, I was inspired by the courage those Spartans showed. To know that you're going to die and still fight with such a passion... As I read further on I was quite amused at the gall of Xerxes. He sits up on his big throne on top of a hill, gazing down at his vast army, expecting a victory. My first thought was "what pride and arrogance." But then my opinion (which wasn't a very good one in the first place) of him went to one of disgust. When he sees that his massive, "invincible" army is losing, he runs away, leaving his comrades to fight on their own. Such a contrast to the Spartans. The true character of a man is revealed when he is staring death in the face.

Democracy takes effort

I found it very interesting that the foundation of democracy taking place in Athens only really lasted for about 70 years. It then turned into a aristocracy under Pericles. It seems that it's hard to maintain this kind of government (democracy) and that societies tend to adopt a government of aristocracy easier. I wonder why that is? Survival of the strongest and fittest? Do we feel most comfortable being ruled by a person we deem to be stronger, smarter, etc. than us? Personally, I consider a government of democracy to be further advanced than aristocracy. So to think that societies would naturally slip into aristocracy makes me think humans are lazy. It takes time and effort to make your voice, the common man, be heard. To step up and not let the biggest among us to decide everything for us. And to organize and arrange a government where huge groups are involved and the common man has a voice takes a lot of effort. Just a thought I had... I hope you all give me your opinions on this matter.