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.

Thermopylae - Was King Leonidas an moron?

While doing some reading about the Spartans, and especially The Battle of Thermopylae, I came across an interesting point of view concerning the Spartans loss and King Leonidas' skill as a military tactician. The url is here, ( http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/logos7_22.html ) The writer of the article states, "The fact that Leonidas asked for reinforcements when the Persian army was already at close quarters, does not say much for his military abilities. There may be much truth in the statement of the great German historian Julius Beloch (1864-1929) that the death of the three hundred was a mistake: their self-sacrifice did not serve any military purpose, except -of course- the removal of an incompetent commander. On the other hand, it may be that Leonidas' kamikaze had a religious motivation: if the oracle announced that the Spartans would loose their town or their king, it was reasonable to sacrifice a king to save the city." Of course it is interesting that someone believes that King Leonidas was an idiot for going in there very much disadvantaged and unprepared. Someone was bound to bring the decision into question, and for good reason. However, given that he may have wholeheartedly believed what the oracle said, and his loyalty to Sparta, his family and friends, I see where the sacrifice may have made sense to him.

Greek Democracy - A British Spin, Athens, Then and Now

Following the French Revolution, an English scholar wrote an account of Greek history from a mostly political point of view. He apparently was writing with the fear of revolution in mind or was thinking that Great Britain may just decide to become some sort of democracy, which to him was an evil that brought only chaos. It permeated his work. At the time his history of Greece was written, there had not been much of an emphasis on the study of ancient Greece. There was more of a focus on Rome. As far as scholarly works on the subject, there wasn't much competition. So, once it was published, apparently it was widely read. A few years later, an Australian came out with his own history of ancient Greece that was possibly not so anti-democratic and became a more popular and current book. The Englishman's work was not forgotten entirely, but was put on the back burner. Whatever his intention, obviously the world has not forgotten about democracy's origins. It is such a great idea, that even some countries that we would not consider democratic at all have a democratically phrased constitution, such as the former Iraq. Yes, the one under Saddam, the dictator. So pretty language on paper itself doesn't guarantee anything, but democracy has lived on despite those who have not been true in deed as well as in word. Perhaps there is a modern cautionary tale concerning democracy in there?
The idea of the city state, or polis, growing out of defensible positions, such as the Acropolis, is very interesting. I was just in Athens a few months ago, and when you are at the top looking over the city, you can see how the ancient is still the center of the modern there. It is such an amazing sight, and you really do get the sense that it is the center which the city has grown out of. The people are very protective of it and I would say, very proud. Their past is still very much a part of their present, and I can imagine how secure an ancient Athenian would have felt in the shadow of the Acropolis. Then there is the temples and all the activity that would have centered around that area. That security, pride, duty to the polis and the fact that the conquered were not automatically the Athenian's slaves may have contributed to the increasing over-population of Athens. It would have been an interesting time to live in Athens, for sure.