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.

Architecture of the Italian Renaissance

The Italian Renaissance theories and examples were based off of Roman example. The renewal of the Roman era was viable in architecture but just as much so in literature as well. 

“Renaissance Men”

As children, we are taught that there is a period called the Renaissance where there was a rebirth of culture that started in Italy and was spread throughout the rest of Europe. We are also taught that there are these extraordinary men who were able to do anything from astronomy to painting murals on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Architecture of the Italian Renaissance

There are many different buildings and pieces of art work that are left from the renaissance era that will show reference back to the roman age. They started to make more and more building that had pillars and the triangle top roofing on them also. There was also creation of domes, to show there ways of roman architecture. For a large part of this Italian Renaissance era they were not familiar to the was of creating concrete. This lead them to make a lot of there new monuments and buildings out of brick and mason. They constructed one of the largest domes every created during this time out of brick, took many and many of years but they finally finished it. There was a strong resemblance to the way of the roman empire due to the way the buildings looked. They have staid like this for hundreds of years.

Now some of the buildings that look “roman” were just really the Italian architecture. They are very similar but some argue that there was never really a change to the way things were. Just a couple of buildings and monuments were built to bring back the architecture from the roman era.

Was Leonardo Da Vinci Really a Renaissance Man?

Historians and people have always said that Leonardo Da Vinci was a true Renaissance man, but is this actually the case? Was he just someone who was really talented in the arts and sciences or was he truly changing the views of the people? 

Italian Renaissance Architecture

Although there was a pilgrimage back to Rome for many artist and architects to call it a renaissance was a bit far reaching.

Renaissance Man

One of our weekly readings was a document supposedly traced back to the famous 14th century scholar and poet Francis Petrarch. In the document you get a unique perspective from one of history’s ‘Renaissance Men’. One thing that struck me was that Petrarch first and foremost did not think of himself as an ‘enlightened’ person who was a master in the realms of literature, philosophy etc. Instead he repeatedly says that the amount of respect he got from the nobility he was undeserving of.

The greatest kings of this age have loved and courted me. They may know why; I certainly do not.

Regardless of what Petrarch thought of himself, you get a pretty good snapshot of the type of man he was and the type of life that he lived. He was certainly an ambitious man and had a desire to expand his knowledge of the world, and also was very fond of travel. Being an intelligent and well liked person he was taken in and befriended some of the more powerful nobility in northern Italy at the time. Due to this his name carried with it a lot of clout and people listened to him.

This is the type of person I believe people are referring to when they speak of the renaissance. However, as we discussed in class, the vast majority of people at this time were not actively participating in a social and cultural revolution, they were merely common folk or peasants. So, if there was an actual ‘Renaissance’ it most certainty involved people of status, or people who were able to befriend and acquaint themselves with the nobility, and through this were given license to travel throughout Europe. Petrarch is the perfect example of this. He was well off, intelligent, well-schooled, and liked. Such people were most likely responsible for the spreading of ideas and culture throughout Italy, sparking the ‘Renaissance’.

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.

To The Death

The fences surrounding the trial by combat arenas were meant for much more than to simply mark the designated arena space. These perhaps symbolized something much greater.

Medieval Justice

In our weekly reading of ‘The Last Duel’, it struck me how meticulous the preparations and ceremony was for medieval events such as the joust between Le Gris and Carrouges, and how a person disturbing the event with yelling or any other distractions was subject to very harsh punishment. Some of these included having an ear or tongue cut off. The records from the time are filled with harsh punishments, many of them capital, for things as simple as stealing food. Animals were not exempt from punishment either, and were often tried and punished. This usually occurred when an animal had injured a person or damaged property.

Many trials were dictated by the Lords’ inherent right of property. Lords could always put an end to personal feuds, bring lawsuits to a close, and in doing so, stop the course of law within his own personal sphere of influence, usually determined by a set circumference of his residence. Anybody who infringed upon a Lord’s ban was subject to his court, and would often have to pay a fine.

For severe crimes, such as murder, rape, or heresy there were torture devices that are truly unfathomable. The Spanish inquisition is probably the most prominent example of this in the middle ages. The entire premise of ‘The Last Duel’ is essentially a story of cruel and unusual punishment handed down upon Jean de Carrouges and Jacques Le Gris, by the king of France. Instead of a criminal investigation, and fair trial for both, which you would see today, ‘justice’ came in the form of a death match. As far as who was truly guilty or innocent goes, that was put entirely on God and his divine judgement.