History Channel part 2

A. Having viewed more of the HC documentary, how would you use this source if you were researching a specific event within the Middle Ages?

I personally would use this as either a "cause and effect" source, or a contextual source. This documentary gives a good big picture of historical facts, while giving a lot of detail, but not enough for one specific event. When researching a topic, this would make the time a little easier to grasp in my mind,

  B. What would you say are the limitations of this source of information about the historical past?

Above all, this must be seen as an interpretation, not a primary source of the exact events. Along with that, we also must remember that the facts of the past have been filtered, and all of the facts have not been included.

The Confessions

What do we expect of an autobiography today, and how may we need to broaden our understanding of this form of writing to appreciate the Confessions?

In an autobiography today, we expect a story of someone's life from their view, and the great things they may have accomplished. In order to appreciate the Confessions, we may need to see this work as more of a personal journal of growth. Rather than it being a "rags to riches" type story, it is more likely to be a struggle with truth, and knowing God. I expect this book to be more of a discovery of the nature of God than the knowledge of one person's life.

History Chanel

A. Based on your viewing of the HC so far, how would you classify it as (a) historical source(s) and why?

I would say this is a secondary source. This piece of work is a group's interpretation of the historical past based off of the historical facts given to us through primary source texts. Evidence of this comes straight from the video with personal comments from the historians themselves, and there references to historical texts. Along with this, it is also a reenactment of the interpreted past from the historians' views.


B. How reliable do you consider it to be? Why?

I would consider this to be fairly reliable, but not enough so that I can watch it without filtering the facts from biases. Yes, most of the important facts of the historical past I feel are covered thoroughly through narration, reenactment, historian reviews, and the showing of primary sources, but there also seems to be some, not many, but some superstitions and biases in the presentation of this time period.

Western Civilizations chapter 10

What caused the Black Death? In what sense can it be seen as a product of the new world system that began with the Mongol conquest?

The Black Death was started in China by a Chinese microbe called Yersiniapestis. From there, it expanded rapidly through trade routes, expanding over nearly all of the known world. This can be seen as a product of the new world system that began with the Mongol conquest, because it was the new trade system that allowed it to travel so fast. Trade routes had increased due to the conquest, and therefore increasing infection radius of the Black Death.

               We live in a world in which the global circulation of people, information, goods, and bacteria is rapid. How does the medieval system compare to ours? What features seem familiar?

The medieval system seems to be a slower version than ours today. While bacteria may only be able to travel about two miles a day back then, one could probably travel to the other side of the world in under two days. That being said, most countries have checks for known diseased, or carriers of disease, and therefore bacteria are hindered at many modern day ports. That being said, the possibility of bad being sent with good seems equally possible as back then with so many people, information, goods, and bacteria being shipped hundreds of miles per day.

Western Civilizations chapter 9

How did the meaning and purposes of crusading change in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries?

In the twelfth century, crusading was mainly for gaining land and increasing the empire. Then, a spiritual scam was made to the people, and they began to join in crusading, killing unbelievers, and terrorizing people who weren't in the empire for that reason, making them go for the ruler to increase wealth and control. this sent crusading from public empire to personal gain

               The growth of towns and monarchies, and the Church increased the degree of control that those in power could exercise; but this growth also increased access to education and new forms of social mobility. Is this a paradox, or are these two phenomena related?

Let’s think of this as a bank next to a library. The bank representing the increased control of the people, as you need money to buy books, but the library is access to those books and social mobility, books coming and going out of the library. While these two have a relation, they are completely different “businesses” in the world, and one does not necessarily directly related to the other. That being said, if there were an increase in one, it is likely that the other would benefit.

Western Civilizations Chapter 8

The reforming movement with the church changed the relationship between the papacy and the secular rulers of Christendom. Explain why.


IN the church, the papacy gained much power. With this, they tried to exercise their supremacy over the other secular rulers, which they didn't like. This made them have to defend their positions, and have problems with the papacy, forever changing their relationship.




Based on what we have learned about the relationship between political power and religious power in previous chapters, would you say the clash between papacy and the Holy Roman Empire was inevitable?

The papacy did not have to exercise their power over the empire, but became too greedy to hold back their actions, and that led to big trouble with the Holy Roman Empire. I personally would have to say that the answer does not lie in a defined relationship between political and religious power, but instead lies more in human nature. For some reason, people who start in some sort of powerful position, and are given more power tend to become irrational, and personal about it. They only see what more they can gain, and will use all of the people they have crushed to get to where they are in order to get higher. This being said, the only thing they will do is reach their peak, and send themselves over the cliff, tumbling to the bottom. However, one who starts at the bottom, knows where they’ve come from, and are able to use that instead of other people in order to raise themselves to positions where they can help the general community without sinking tend to make people less mad, and lead the world into a new age of much fruit. IF you have that, and a God who has that planned for you, you can do some real damage to the culture you live in, and use the broken pieces to create something truly remarkable.

Western Civilizations Chapter 7

Byzantine culture was distinctive in many ways, what are some of its important features?

Byzantine culture was able to hold an effective and stable government and judicial system for nearly a millennia. This was probably the most important characteristic, seeing how this was what lead the Byzantines for a long time. Another important part of the Byzantine culture was their religion. The Byzantines were Orthodox, and had many churches in their part of the empire. Lastly, chariot racing was a major sport for the Byzantines. This sport was similarly as important as gladiatorial battles for the Romans.

               Arguably each of these three civilizations could claim the mantle of the Roman Empire. In your view, which one had the strongest claim to carry forward the legacies of the classical past?

In my opinion, I’d have to say the Byzantines had the strongest claim to carry forward the classical past. There are two main holds the Byzantines had for their past. The first is lineage. Byzantium was a Roman Heir, taking a third of the empire, meaning his lineage should lead back to strong Roman roots. The second is culture. The Byzantine’s culture directly paralleled that of Romans in many ways. They had chariot racing, paralleling the gladiatorial battles. They had a lot of trade, paralleling the Tiber River, bringing much trade to Rome over the years. Lastly, the distribution of power, while it wasn’t directly related to that of Rome’s, was still relatively close, and I’d say more of an improvement from that of Rome’s, being more stable for a much longer time.