Final Exam

Section A:

Question: Explain why some scholars have called the Ancient Egyptians a "death obsessed" culture. Do you agree?

Thesis: Egyptian life was based on doing good works in order to get you to the after-life, meaning that they lived in a "death obsessed" culture.

Primary Source #1:

"Hail, gods, who dwell in the house of the Two Truths.

I know you and I know your names.

Let me not fall under your slaughter-knives,

And do not bring my wickedness to Osiris the god you serve.

Let no evil come to me from you.

Declare me right and true in the presence of Osiris,

Because I have done what is right and true in Egypt.

I have not cursed a god.

I have not suffered evil through the king who ruled my day"

The Book of the Dead

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM

Primary Source #2:

"Ho! king Neferkere (Pepi II)! How beautiful is this! How beautiful is this, which thy father Osiris has done for thee ! He has given thee his throne, thou rulest those of the hidden places (the dead), thou leadest their august ones, all the glorious ones follow thee"

Pyramid Texts

http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/167.html

Primary Source #3:

"Now are you a king's son, a prince,

as long as your soul exists, so long will your heart be with you."

Coffin Texts

http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/168.html

Explanation of Argument:

In the first source cited, they are saying how they had not done anything to insult the gods and that they deserved entrance into the afterlife. The second source tells that a Pharaoh has been given a throne in the afterlife. The final source says that the heart travels with the soul, implying that all the good and bad deeds stay with you.

Section B:

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: Alexander did not care about avenging Persian wrongs; he wanted to rule the world.

Primary Source #1:

"full of splendid furniture and quantities of gold and silver, they reserved for Alexander himself"

Plutarch: Alexander

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html

Primary Source #2:

"Was, then, Alexander ill-advised and precipitate in setting forth with such humble resources to acquire so vast an empire? By no means. For who has ever put forth with greater or fairer equipment than he: greatness of soul, keen intelligence, self-restraint, and manly courage, with which Philosophy herself provided him for his campaign? Yes, the equipment that he had from Aristotle his teacher when he crossed over into Asia was more than what he had from his father Philip. But although we believe those who record that Alexander once said that the Iliad and the Odyssey accompanied him as equipment for his campaigns"

Plutarch: On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Fortuna_Alexandri*/1.html

Primary Source #3:

"they were an object of general hatred, as was manifest from the fact that all the Greeks had bound themselves by an oath to demolish Thebes"

Marcus Junianus Justinus: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus

http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/trans11.html

Explanation of Argument:

The first primary source tells how they gave Alexander all of the gold and silver they found at one of the places they conquered. The second source says that he attacked an empire without the required resources. This shows that he was only interested to becoming stronger, and not the lives of his soldiers. The final primary source says that he had an oath to demolish Thebes.

Question: Who is a better model for modern historians: Herodotus or Thucydides? Why?

Thesis: Based on their written texts, Thucydides is a better model for modern historians.

Primary Source #1:

"Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it."

Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War

http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html

Primary Source #2:

"These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds. According to the Persians best informed in history, the Phoenicians began to quarrel."

Herodotus: The Histories

http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.1.i.html

Primary Source #3:

"After the second invasion of the Peloponnesians there had been a change in the spirit of the Athenians. Their land had been twice devastated, and they had to contend with the war and the plague at the same time. Now they began to blame Pericles for having persuaded them to go to war and to hold him responsible for all the misfortunes which had overtaken them"

Thucydides: Pericles' Last Speech

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/thuc-sp.html

Explanation of Argument:

In the first source, Thucydides says that he is writing because of the greatness of the war. In the second one, Herodotus writes that he has taken down all of the stories so that lives will not be forgotten. Historians should write based on circumstances, not on remembrance of lives. In the final source, Thucydides mentions the people of the time.

Section C:

Question: Were the Vikings "barbarians"?

Thesis: The Vikings were ruthless when attacking, but they also had reasons for attacking in such a way.

Primary Source #1:

"The Northmen with a hundred ships entered the Seine on the twentieth of March and, after ravaging first one bank and then the other, came without meeting any resistance to Paris. Charles[4] resolved to hold out against them; but seeing the impossibility of gaining a victory, he made with them a certain agreement and by a gift of 7,000 livres he bought them off from advancing farther and persuaded them to return. Euric, king of the Northmen, advanced, with six hundred vessels, along the course of the River Elbe to attack Louis of Germany[5] The Saxons prepared to meet him, gave battle, and with the aid of our Lord Jesus Christ won the victory. The Northmen returned [from Paris] down the Seine and coming to the ocean pillaged, destroyed, and burned all the regions along the coast"

The Earlier Ravages of the Northmen

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Northmen.html

Primary Source #2:

"They went without shields, and were mad as dogs or wolves, and bit on their shields, and were as strong as bears or bulls; men they slew, and neither fire nor steel would deal with them; and this is what is called the fury of the berserker."

Mircea Eliade "From Primitives to Zen": INITIATION OF A WARRIOR

http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/145.html

Primary Source #3:

"The Northmen came to Paris with 700 sailing ships, not counting those of smaller size which are commonly called barques. At one stretch the Seine was lined with the vessels for more than two leagues, so that one might ask in astonishment in what cavern the river had been swallowed up, since it was not to be seen. The second day after the fleet of the Northmen arrived under the walls of the city, Siegfried, who was then king only in name but who was in command of the expedition, came to the dwelling of the illustrious bishop. He bowed his head and said: "Gauzelin, have compassion on yourself and on your flock. We beseech you to listen to us, in order that you may escape death. Allow us only the freedom of the city. We will do no harm and we will see to it that whatever belongs either to you or to Odo shall be strictly respected"

Abbo's Wars of Count Odo with the Northmen in the Reign of Charles the Fat

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/843bertin.html#abbo

Explanation of Argument:

The first source shows how fierce they are when in battle. The second shows that not all of the soldiers were considered "berserkers". It also only says that they were fierce while in battle. The final source says that they tried to give them time to escape from them and that they did not necessarily want to kill them.

Question: What was the significance of the Black Death and the 100 Years' War to the development of Europe as we know it today?

Thesis: The Black Death set forth a movement in the medical field while the 100 Years' War brought Europe together.

Primary Source #1:

"Now some of the physicians who were at a loss because the symptoms were not understood, supposing that the disease centred in the bubonic swellings, decided to investigate the bodies of the dead. And upon opening some of the swellings, they found a strange sort of carbuncle that had grown inside them."

Procopius: The Plague

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/542procopius-plague.html

Primary Source #2:

"[It is agreed] that the two kingdoms shall be governed from the time that our said son, or any of his heirs shall assume the crown, not divided between different kings at the same time, but under one person who shall be king and sovereign lord of both kingdoms; observing all pledges and all other things to each kingdom its rights, liberties or customs, usages and laws, not submitting in any manner one kingdom to the other."

Hundred Years War: Treaty of Troyes, 1420 and Conditions in France in 1422

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1420troyes.html

Primary Source #3:

"In consideration of the frightf

said Dauphin, it is agreed that we, our son Henry, and also our very dear son Philip, duke of Burgundy, will never treat for peace or amity with the said Charles"

Hundred Years War: Treaty of Troyes, 1420 and Conditions in France in 1422

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1420troyes.html

Explanation of Argument:

The first source says that they started opening bodies, something that had never been done before. The second and third sources talk about how they made treaties to stop fighting.