Psychology of The Black Death

I have always found the origin of things fascinating, often more than the thing itself. So in reading about the origin of the black death, I of course read that it began in the Gobi desert in the late 1320s.I couldn't stop at "no one knows why" so I did a little digging. What I found is new to me, so here it is.
Some believe that the plague actually changed European society, making it more violent. It makes sense that most of the wars that were fought did not bring death into the majority of people's homes, but the plague did. An article I found at "The American Historical Review" at( http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/107.3/ah0302000703.html )states, "...others following Huizinga's lead have argued that society became more violent precisely because of the plague, that the mass mortality cheapened life and thus increased warfare, crime, popular revolt, waves of flagellants, and persecutions against the Jews." The article goes on to point out the post-plague trends of more money being spent on wars, political unrest and revolt in Italy. Oh, by the way the flagellants are the guys who whip themselves as a form of pennance. There is a Ramstein Video - Rosenrot (Rosered) that shows it. The video and story of the song is a bit disturbing...so there's my disclaimer and warning. Notice I don't link to it-I'll leave that up to you to find. Anyway, in England, it was the opposite effect, where there was a time of peace. So it seems that the theory does not seem hold up very consistently throughout , which is one of the points of the article. Instead, it looks like those who were already looking for a reason to persecute, raise prices for food, start a fanatical religious sect or add greater prestige to their occupation (doctors for instance) just used the plague as a self-serving reason to do just that.

Agricultural, PBS and Bees

After reading "The Peasants: Advances in Agricultural Technology, 800-1000", I thought of a show I had seen quite a while back called, "Guns, Germs an Steel" on PBS. It discusses how developments in agriculture, the availability of resources, technology and geography have played huge roles in the ability of civilizations to thrive and survive.
If all your time was spent just trying to grow or raise animals for the food to survive, then you really have no time for technological advancements that will keep your civilization moving forward. I kind of think about is like a family who is living paycheck to paycheck, but never able to really do much. The years pass them by and they may not have too much to show for the time they have spent her on the big blueberry. We live in pretty comfortable conditions and can pretty much get away with that, if we so desire, but just imagine medieval Europe.
If you could grow enough food to not only feed your family, but maybe sell at market and put away a little money, you may just have the start of something. Otherwise, you are just breaking your back, maybe not on even on land that belongs to you.
I guess in some ways, things haven't changed all that much. People are still trying to get ahead at whatever they do.
Another thing that struck me was that most agriculture is still very much subject to the weather patterns and crops are still hampered or destroyed by late springs, early winters and other sudden shifts in climate. We are also dealing with the alleged effects of global warming and how that may effect things. Then there are insect problems, such as the honey bee population dying out, thus forcing farmers to transport them around on trucks to different agricultural centers for pollination of many crops.
It seems sometimes that we have traded old problems for new ones, but when you think of the dirt floors, thatched roofs and lack of simple technologies, (such as the horseshoe or horse collar) I still think I'd take the new ones.

Wikipedia Article #2 - "Peter the Hermit"

This article starts out talking about how Peter tried to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem before 1096, but was stopped by the Turks and was tortured. Apparently he preached in France and encouraged people to join the crusade. He led 40,000 people from France and after three months, and the loss of 10,000 people, arrived in Constantinople. He is credited by some as being the main force behind the first crusade, after a vision of seeing Jesus and being told to preach the crusade. The article gives some other details, but is still fairly empty of real information.
1. This article contains 1,444 words.
2. Search term used: "Peter the Hermit".
Title of article is also "Peter the Hermit".
3. There is not a disambiguation link.
4. The discussion page has a place where you can suggest improvements to article. There are posts, questions, improvement and suggestions.
5. There are 20 edits, the earliest being 13 May 04 and the last being 27 June 08.
6. There are no external links provided.
7. There is one reference provided.
8. There is one entry for further reading listed.

I would not recommend this article, unless only as a starting point for information about Peter the Hermit. I would dig a little deeper, as there is not much here. It is ranked as "start-class", by the military history Wikiproject, but has no other ratings by any of the other categories listed. There was some criticism as to the sources and the date of Peter’s death. It is unfortunate that there are no real external links for further reading. All links are to other wiki-articles about related subjects.

The Pope and the Monarchy

In the letter of Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius, the pope's tone and aire of supremacy is not only arrogant, but condescending. You wouldn't think that anyone would speak that way to an emperor, but obviously he wouldn't do it unless he thought he could get away with it. The amount of power and influence the Catholic church had, and especially the Pope, is pretty amazing. It is easy to see how some rulers saw the church as a threat. In his letter, the Pope lets it be known that he holds the keys to eternal salvation and redemption. He uses that as a weapon to show that the power of the church is supreme to the monarchy and that they better not forget it.

The Franciscans and Dominicans

It is ironic that the Franciscan and Dominican orders, which were apparently responsible for fulfilling the pastoral need in the cities to everyday people, also ended up being the inquisitors of those people. I don't know if there were some major changes in the order, but poverty was a main virtue for them. It is hard to believe that throughout the changes in positions that obviously meant increased prestige and power, they truly held to that belief in poverty. Even if they didn't, there is something to be said for them, as they still are around today.