Question: Explain why some scholars have called the Ancient Egyptians a "death obsessed" culture. Do you agree?
Thesis: Egyptians are the only culture to preserve, peer into, and honor the death of a particular person; since they are the only culture to do so, scholars have no right to say that Ancient Egyptians are “death obsessed.”
Primary Source #1:
"Thou rollest up into the horizon, thou hast set light over the darkness, thou sendest forth air from thy plumes, and thou floodest the Two Lands like the Disk at daybreak. Thy crown penetrateth the height of heaven, thou art the companion of the stars, and the guide of every god. Thou art beneficent in decree and speech, the favoured one of the Great Company of the Gods, and the beloved of the Little Company of the Gods.”
Papyrus of Ani: Egyptian book of the Dead [Budge] 1240 BC
Primary Source #2:
“The third method of embalming, which is practised in the case of the poorer classes, is to clear out the intestines with a clyster, and let the body lie in natrum the seventy days, after which it is at once given to those who come to fetch it away.”
Herodotus: Mummification, from The Histories
Primary Source #3:
“As he (Osiris) lives, this king Unis lives; as he dies not, this king Unis dies not; as he perishes not, this king Unis perishes not” (Pyr. Ut. 219).
Mircea Eliade "From Primitives to Zen": THE DEAD PHARAOH BECOMES OSIRIS
http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/167.html
Explanation of Argument:
In the first source, the quote is explaining that when a person dies, he then proceeds to the gods; he becomes the favorite of the gods. This is the same in most cultures; however, Egyptians preserve a dead person’s body. The second source explains one of the three practices of mummifying a person’s body. Not only do pharaohs become mummies, but every dying person that can afford embalming becomes a mummy as well. The third source explains that even after a person is physically dead, his soul or “ka” is still alive. A dead person’s soul lives forever, unless casted into the underworld. Scholars are not used to this type of preservation; therefore, they call it obsessed, when really, it’s tradition.
Question: Do you think Alexander honestly felt like he was avenging Persian wrongs? Or was that just propaganda to mask his goal of conquest?
Thesis: While avenging the Persians for killing his father, Philip, Alexander unexpectedly received praise; however, I do not believe that he planned to use this as a matter of propaganda.
Primary Source #1:
“Alexander spent the rest of 330 putting down a series of revolts which had started in Areia and Arachosia (the easternmost part of Iran and the westernmost part of its neighbour, Afghanistan). Indeed, he would spend three years, from 330 to 327, traversing these mountainous regions and subduing them little by little; these campaigns are mostly in modern Afghanistan, and the southern republics of the former Soviet Union (Uzbekistan and Tadzikhistan); as always with Alexander, the foundation of new cities in the conquered regions played an important role.”
Greek History
Primary Source #2:
“This early bravery made Philip so fond of him, that nothing pleased him more than to hear his subjects call himself their general and Alexander their king.”
Plutarch Alexander 9-10
Primary Source #3:
“The conquests of Alexander the Great would have been impossible without the military power bequeathed him by his almost equally great father.”
Justin (3rd Cent CE): The Beginning of Philip of Macedon's Reign, c. 359-352 BCE
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/justin-philip.html
Explanation of Argument:
In the first source, you can see that Alexander did not campaign while he was defeating Persia; his campaigning took place in Afghanistan and the former Soviet Union. In the second primary source, Philip was fond of his son even before he became king; therefore, before Philip was even dead, Alexander was doing deeds to please his father. After his father died, he took matters into in own hands to avenge the Persians. The third source says that it was not only Alexander that conquered, it was his army as well.
Question: How was the Struggle of the Orders influential on later Roman politics during the time of Julius Caesar?
Thesis: When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, the Roman Republic was transformed into an Empire; therefore, the Struggle of Orders influenced the Plebeians to overtake the Patricians.
Primary Source #1:
“Julius Caesar, holding the election as dictator, was himself appointed consul with Publius Servilius; for this was the year in which it was permitted by the laws that he should be chosen consul.”
Julius Caesar's War Commentaries: De bello civili (Civil Wars): Book 3
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Caesar/CaesarCiv03.html
Primary Source #2:
“But a meeting of the senate being appointed, at which it was believed that Caesar would be present, they agreed to make use of that opportunity; for then they might appear all together without suspicion; and, besides, they hoped that all the noblest and leading men of the commonwealth, being then assembled as soon as the great deed was done, would immediately stand forward and assert the common liberty.”
Plutarch: The Assassination of Julius Caesar, from Marcus Brutus (excerpts)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/plutarch-caesar.html
Primary Source #3:
“Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships were held for a temporary crisis. The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompey and of Crassus soon yielded before Caesar; the arms of Lepidus and (Mark) Antony before Augustus; who, when the world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title of ‘Prince.’”
Tacitus: The End of the Republic
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann1a.html
Explanation of Argument:
In the first source, it states that Caesar was a dictator. The Struggle of Orders changed this when the Plebeians overthrew the Patricians. This changed the Roman Republic into an Empire. The second source states that the noblest men were to attend a certain meeting, where Caesar is later to be killed. During the Empire, only the most important people were to attend meetings. The third source says that Rome was ruled by kings at the beginning, but then Augustus changed it to be ruled by dictators and Princes.
Question: Were the Vikings "barbarians"?
Thesis: In the Medieval land of the Norse, uncivilized Vikings plumaged the land, destroying everything that got in their way; therefore, the Vikings are barbarians.
Primary Source #1:
“The Northmen ceased not to take Christian people captive and to kill them, and to destroy churches and houses and burn villages. Through all the streets lay bodies of the clergy, of laymen, nobles, and others, of women, children, and suckling babes. There was no road nor place where the dead did not lie; and all who saw Christian people slaughtered were filled with sorrow and despair.”
Viking Raids in France and the Siege or Paris (882 - 886)
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/vaast.htm
Primary Source #2:
“The Northmen killed many people there and took all the booty they could lay hold of. There was nothing left for the Englishmen now, if they would preserve their lives, but to submit to King Harald; and thus he subdued the country wherever he came.”
Excerpts from the Saga of Harald Hardrade: [pp. 691-716]
“Chained to a beam, they are all eaten by a she-wolf, except Sigmund, Who is saved by a ruse of his sister Signy.”
Mircea Eliade "From Primitives to Zen": INITIATION OF A WARRIOR
The first primary source explains how Vikings killed numerous amounts of people, for they were uncivilized and ignorant. The second primary source explains that King of the Norse, Harald Hardrata, subdued every country in which he entered. He was very barbaric and a Viking as well. The third primary source is from a folktale of the Vikings; this shows that even their folktales were violent and vicious.
Question: Describe the significance of the Battle of Tours.
Thesis: The Battle of Tours was the most significant battle of religions; the Muslims were setting out to destroy the Christian churches in France; however, the Franks won and Christianity kept on flourishing.
Primary Source #1:
“The Muslims planned to go to Tours to destroy the Church of St. Martin, the city, and the whole country.”
Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732: Three Accounts
Primary Source #2:“The Moslems smote their enemies, and passed the river Garonne, and laid waste the country, and took captives without number. And that army went through all places like a desolating storm.”
Anon Arab Chronicler: The Battle of Poitiers, 732
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.html
Primary Source #3:“The chase endured to the gates of Poitiers: there were many slain and beaten down, horse and man, for they of Poitiers closed their gates and would suffer none to enter; wherefore in the street before the gate was horrible murder, men hurt and beaten down....”
Jean Froissart: On The Hundred Years War (1337-1453)
Explanation of Argument: The first primary source states that the Muslims wanted to end Christianity; however, the Franks were victorious, and Christianity continued to reign. The second source says that Muslims killed their enemies and destroyed Tours. The third source says that the Muslims beat down men; they still did not win the battle because Christianity is still alive today.Question: How does Henry VIII maintain power while breaking away from the Catholic Church? (Francesca R., Fort Worth)
Thesis: Although Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, he still maintained power because he established the Church of England.
Primary Source #1:
“But now Sir you may not imagine that this Coronation was before her marriage, for she was married much about saint Paul's day last, as the condition thereof doth well appear by reason she is now somewhat big with child.”
Letter of Thomas Cranmer, 1533
Primary Source #2:“Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations.”
The Act of Supremacy
Primary Source #3:“Under Henry VIII, in the most successful land grab in English history, Henry VIII and his chief minister Thomas Cromwell suppressed the monasteries”
