Boom.

I have never really put much thought into the instruments used for warfare. I have viewed a lot of it as oh they both have guns. But, looking at the fall of Constantinople, military technology, even to the smallest degree, really has an impact on how well a state does in a war. Ranging from horses to nuclear bombs, any small advantage someone has against their opponent, even if the opponent is larger and has more supplies can help them to win the war they are fighting.

To the Ottoman’s, that tipping of the scale came from the use of cannons on the battle field. There are many strategic plus sides to a cannon. It does damage from a ranged position and can keep men out of harms way therefore losing less troops on the field of battle. It sends giant rocks sailing towards the opponent which can do many things including smashing a wall clean open or hitting the ground and sending shrapnel in every direction killing two (or more) birds with one stone, per say. Even though the cannon had a large mass to it the Ottoman who created the cannon even had an answer for this predicament. He had the cannon able to break into two separate pieces instead of one large one to allow the armies the capability to move the cannon with more ease than if they had to move this giant metal cylinder the front lines of battle.It seem now that the only issue you have with this new cannon is that you could suffer form hearing loss because of the blast. Now people can go through walls and not over them.

Lawyers or Modern Day Duelers

When looking at a system of judiciary decision making one would think of such words as jury, court, judge, lawyers, defendant, etc. These things and more are the basis of such a system that allow our citizens in this country and other diplomatic countries a humane and fair trail, something that everyone has a right to. It was different in medieval Paris, when a fair judiciary trial consisted of fighting the one who wronged you to death in basically a cage.  Words associated to this include battle, swords, honor, duel, and death, which is way more barbaric than modern associative words.

Though these two things are worlds apart their main focus is quite similar; to allow the two parties involved to get a long awaited outcome to the wrongs caused to them. The lawyers are the modern day duelers that set at one another in the proverbial field of battle, aka the courtroom, to win and prove the cause that they are fighting for. Though in Medieval days the Jury was much larger and much less sifted through, it has the same idea as spectators on a match or law suit, even though they do not have the opportunity to speak out of turn on consequence of death.

Today’s lawyers are the modern  Duelers fighting for a cause each single or team represents. They both are equipped with their armor the knowledge of the law and the ability to build a case, and their weapons; the knowledge of the evidence against them and the witnesses they are allowed to bring to the stand. In a way, this is a metaphorical fight to the death because if their champion,the defendant or the prosecutor, wins or looses the others cause is put down by a dropping of a case or the sentencing of the guilty.

Transitions. Oh, and centaurs.

What interests me most this week are the transitions between empires. These transitions are strangely seamless, or it seems that way.  They might seem that way because of the semi large overview of the transitions that we are looking at seems to smooth out nitty gritty details. Another reason why they seem so smooth might be because of the actual mass of land that each empire takes over as they take over the last empire. One would only really need to take the capital of any such empire to take it over and the land itself it assumed to be under the control of who is in charge. It also seems that within the empire each new take over is in the works as the last happens. Similar to when Rome lost the western portion of their empire, they planned to get it back but had to wait for the right time and their troops to be ready to move over the land.

The  next piece I really enjoy is from the lecture on Wednesday. The piece i am referring to is the piece about the origins of certain mythological beasts. It is interesting to see the imaginations of a past generation. Personally, i think the need for some imagination is need in today’s world. Who today, besides children, would look at an elephants skull and  think oh! that must be from a giant! The number is scarce. I believe the world would be more peaceful if people would allow their minds to wonder just a bit more to keep all possibilities in mind.

The idea of centaurs can be roped into the conversations about stirrups. It can be seen that these nomads might look “one with the horse” because of how tight or what contraptions  early nomadic warriors might have had to make to hold onto their horse to avoid travesty of impaling themselves on there spears while riding across vast terrain.

 

Alexander says…

I first want to talk about the article in and of its self. It was titled “How Rome perceived Alexander’s conquests.” and it only talked about Alexander for around twenty five percent of the article. I just found this semi ironic that seventy five percent of the article was build up to talking about the actual topic in the title of the article. But I digress.

The thing i took most out of this article is the fact that most of the sources for Alexander’s conquests, which Rome saw them as, was Alexander himself. Perhaps not the only sources but some of the main ones that remain today. So Romes, perspective of Alexanders conquests came mostly from stories that stemmed from Alexander himself and the men under his control. You would think that a series of events that covered that much ground and that had such an affect on the future people of Rome and Macedonia that someone or more someones would have documented the event more thoroughly. Which brings into question, how biased were the accounts of the conquests of Alexander? Did Alexander himself filter out some of the popular stories or maybe stories that did not fit into his idea of heroism?

The next topic is the quite humorous idea of the giant ants that Alexander was supposed encounter on his trip east. I guess most people in that day did not really know much other than what they saw on the normal day. It seems like a much better form of gossip than the hurtful things we have to say today.

Old school tablets? Maybe they’re similar to Ipads

These tablets set a very strange set of laws into action. Not nearly as sophisticated as modern iPad’s but they definitely moved many information to many people just like the modern tablets.

It is really interesting how many laws are still being uncovered. What strikes me as the most unique about these tablets is the ability of scholars  to translate these consistently over thousands of years. Languages change over time so how do they know that the translation they have are the ones that mean what they say? Another interesting point of these tablets are the comparisons between laws  of today and the laws that were inscribed on the tablet. The tablets give the impression that an eye for an eye was an okay way to deal with murder or really any crime. That would not go well in this day and Age.

With only five of the original laws inscribed on the original tablets, it’s curious to wonder how many tablets are left to be found. Is there 50-70 laws or 50-70 tablets that have been found? And finding these tablets might point the ruins of many different lost cities of olden age, perhaps even Babylon, what a world to live in.

IS the binding the problem?

When looking at the School in Athens article they are having a major problem with the philosophers work being bounded within the confines of a book. We all know that during the time of Plato and Aristotle the work might have been done papyrus scrolls or just scrolls in general. But, when Raphael painted this portrayal of these philosophers he was accenting the room in which much papal knowledge was being stored. I believe Raphael painted the books, even them being a anachronism (or from the wrong time), because these philosophers had been meaning to add to this information stored in this room.

The binding symbolizes the impact that these great mean have had on the knowledge building of the papal lineage. So, even as the philosophers bound their knowledge within the rise of the papacy, the papacy has one: bounded them in the painting and, two: returned knowledge to them bounded in their time.

Both parties are bounded to knowledge. Without the continuous addition of knowledge, we and them would be lost. The wrong time placement of the bounds of the books is not an anachronism in my opinion. The biggest reason it is there in my opinion is to symbolize the fact that knowledge is what binds us together throughout history. The painting shows the gathering of minds, as we should continue to do.