Question: Why do you think so many conspiracy theories surround the pyramids and the megaliths?
Thesis: No one knows why the Megaliths were made or who made them and the pyramids are so large that no one could possibly believe that humans made that with the little technology that they had. I think that there are so many conspiracies because no one can except the fact that they were built by people from so long ago.
Primary Source #1: "The Step Pyramid Complex of Djoser (also spelled Zozer) was built during the Third Dynasty (ca. 2800 B.C.) in what is now Saqqara, Egypt. Djoser's Step Pyramid is generally considered the first tomb in Egypt to be built entirely of stone." All the Egyptians had were stone and limestone 2800 B.C and that was a very long time ago. Just to think that a civilization that was derived that long ago being smart enough to think of a new technology without wires and screens is amazing. The Egyptians built there pyramids for their Pharaohs and buried them with all of their belongings and pets. It was built for the burial of Pharaoh Djoser by his vizier Imhotep, during the 27th century BC.
Primary Source #2: "The oldest archaeological monuments in Ireland are megalithic (large-stone) tombs, in which the remains of our remote ancestors were buried together with pottery and items of flint, stone and bone." Megaliths are often tombs in which people are buried with their belongings exactly like how pyramids were tombs. They are a misterious structure and they often resemble the First life on EARTH.
Primary Source #3: "The true pyramid is a natural development and improvement on the step pyramid. The first true pyramids were introduced in at the beginning of the 4th Dynasty." The Egyptians would continue to improve their pyramids and make them so they can last longer and be bigger in such a way that they would all be able to wear and tear while still having enough stone to preserve the tombs and mummies.
Explanation of Argument:
The whole world is wondering how these magnificent structures were born and made into these beautiful works of art and into massive tombs. The megaliths are so old that no one knows exactly who built them but the pyramids were build by man power and it was that an power that is making us question if we have even advanced in technology since then.
Question:
Considering all of the conflict of the first century BCE, was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?
Thesis: The Roman Empire which was all powerful eventually fell because they did not focus on the people but more on the Soldiers and the generals. As a democracy they led their lives through the peoples vote which was a lot easier than power through the army and rich.
Primary Source #1:
| TABLE I | Procedure: for courts and trials |
| TABLE II | Trials, continued. |
| TABLE III | Debt |
| TABLE IV | Rights of fathers (paterfamilias) over the family |
| TABLE V | Legal guardianship and inheritance laws |
| TABLE VI | Acquisition and possession |
| TABLE VII | Land rights |
| TABLE VIII | Torts and delicts (Laws of injury) |
| TABLE IX | Public law |
| TABLE X | Sacred law |
| TABLE XI | Supplement I |
| TABLE XII | Supplement II |
The Twelve Tables give the student of Roman culture a chance to look into the workings of a society which is still quite agrarian in outlook and operations, and in which the main bonds which hold the society together
Primary Source #2:
Monarchical
Aristocratic
Democratic
2 Consuls
+ other magistrates
+ other magistrates
Senate
Assembly of Tribes
Tribune
Directed government and armyActed as judgesCould issue edicts
Acted as chief priest
Controlled state budgetCould pass laws
Approved/rejected lawsDecided on War
Tribune could veto actions of magistrate
Acted as final court
Basis of power:possess imperium, the right to rule
need for leadership
Basis of power:members were richest men in Rome.
Basis of power:provided most of the soldiers
Limits on power:one year term
each could veto
Limits on power:could not control army
needed majority as soldiers.
Limits on power:Could not suggest laws
often paid as clients by the elite
This is the Way the Romans lived their lives in the different forms of governments and the easiest way to live was probably the democracy.
Primary Source #3:
"The Dictator kept his army permanently encamped, fully expecting that the senate would declare war against those peoples. A much greater trouble at home, however, necessitated his recall." The Empire was more of a dictatorship then an Empire and when this happens the people become unhappy than restless. The people should come first in any form of government and when they do it is a democracy.
Explanation of Argument:
The Empire was good until the power and the army ran out, they were getting defeated and the city became unsafe. But if the Empire was never in existence than the democracy would never have formed. The Democracy did accomplish more things and that is why they were better off as one.
Question:
Describe the importance of water in the ancient world.
Thesis: Water was used for transporting cleaning and making foods that need to be boiled pretty much the same uses as there is today.
Primary Source #1:
ON this primary source there is pictures of paintings from the neolithic ages. These paintings had water in them. Water had to be put together with burning ashes to create the paint that they used to draw these paintings. That i what gives them the dark lack coloring.
Primary Source #2:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021202035113/campus.northpark.edu/history/classes/Sources/CatalHuyuk.htmlThere is also a picture on this primary source; this picture is of CATAL HUYAK which was an ancient city of around 5,500 people living inside. The clay that they used to make these houses were mixed with water to be more flexible so that they could make the brick needed for the houses.
This painting in a cave was eroded by water and painted by the Water and ash mixture. Although this was done much more recent than the other one we now know that it is authentic because of the eroded lines that are in it.
Primary Source #3:
Explanation of Argument:
Water was used for many purposes and those purposes were not just to drink it but to use it for irrigation systems and paint. Without water no one on this planet would be living. God gave us water for those purposes and those purposes describe why we use it still today.
Question:
Were the Vikings "barbarians"?
Thesis: The Vikings when looked at all seem as though they are barbarians in the way hey act but not how they live. they all we ruthless but they had some of the smartest minds and were high up in the standards of technology.
Primary Source #1:
"Pirates of the Northmen's race came to Nantes, killed the bishop and many of the clergy and laymen, both men and women, and pillaged the city. Thence they set out to plunder the lands of lower Aquitaine. At length they arrived at a certain island[2] and carried materials thither from the mainland to build themselves houses; and they settled there for the winter, as if that were to be their permanent dwelling-place." They vikings got into wars and battles but as you can see they lived together with a society and were calm when not attacking.
Primary Source #2: "
In the spring the Northmen left Condc and sought the country along the sea. Here they dwelt through the summer; they forced the Flemings to flee from their lands, and raged everywhere, laying waste the country with fire and sword." Once again the vikings would attack but they got to the Islands on the boats that they handcrafted to fit different journeys and make longer and smoother voyages across rough seas. These boats could easily be better crafted than the one that fishermen use today.
Primary Source #3: "
When Haraldr arrived in England together with the aforementioned Tostig, they made the territory of Northumbria subject to their rule. King Harold of England had at that time gone to Normandy;2but when he heard of the arrival of enemies, he made speedy return to England, assembled a huge army and took the invaders unawares." The Battle of Stamford Bridge was a well-known battle in the year of 1066 in which the Vikings and the British fought to their death. This was a large battle in which both sides became barbaric.
Explanation of Argument: Not only the viking were barbaric and not only the British were civilized. Everyone got into wars and everyone killed others. It's just they way that the vikings did so that made them seem so ruthless and powerful. They gave NO MERCY.
Question:
Describe the significance of the Battle of Tours.
Thesis: The Battle of Tours was a major battle between the Franks and the Muslims. The Battle was necessary to keep the Muslim invaders out so that the Franks could stay in power and continue conquering areas so that their high development could be spread.
Primary Source #1:
"Then Abderrahman, [the Muslim emir] seeing the land filled with the multitude of his army, crossed the Pyrenees, and traversed the defiles [in the mountains] and the plains, so that he penetrated ravaging and slaying clear into the lands of the Franks. He gave battle to Duke Eudes (of Aquitaine) beyond the Garonne and the Dordogne, and put him to flight---so utterly [was he beaten] that God alone knew the number of the slain and wounded."
The defeat of the Saracen invaders of Frankish lands at Tours (more properly Poitiers) in 732 A.D. was a turning point in history. It is not likely the Muslims, if victorious, would have penetrated, at least at once, far into the north, but they would surely have seized South Gaul, and thence readily have crushed the weak Christian powers of Italy.
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. Prosperity made those warriors insatiable."
From 711 Muslim forces crossed the Straits of Gibraltar, conquered the Visigothic Kingdom, and in less than a decade crossed the Pyrenees. In 732, under the command of Abd-er- rahman, they were decisively defeated by Charles Martel and the Franks at the Battle of Tours.
Primary Source #3:
"Remember that if you suffer a few moments in patience, you will afterward enjoy supreme delight. Do not imagine that your fate can be separated from mine, and rest assured that if you fall, I shall perish with you, or avenge you." This is the speech given to Tarik's soldiers by Tarik to make it seem like he will go and die with them o that they will go and fight for him.
Explanation of Argument:
The Battle of Tours was a great battle in which The Franks took out the Muslim army and without this defeat we could be Muslim instead of Christian and the way of government in Islam would be he same here. Every action and reaction made influences the future and if one thing was different it would be a different future.
No comments:
Post a Comment