FINAL EXAM:

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

Thesis: The Egyptians were completely obsessed with death because it is clear from their way of mummification; people would never spend that much time on a task if they weren't obsessed with the matter of it all.

Primary Sources:

1. "The mode of embalming, according to the most perfect process, is the following:- They take first a crooked piece of iron, and with it draw out the brain through the nostrils, thus getting rid of a portion, while the skull is cleared of the rest by rinsing with drugs; next they make a cut along the flank with a sharp Ethiopian stone, and take out the whole contents of the abdomen, which they then cleanse, washing it thoroughly with palm wine, and again frequently with an infusion of pounded aromatics. After this they fill the cavity with the purest bruised myrrh, with cassia, and every other sort of spicery except frankincense, and sew up the opening. Then the body is placed in natrum for seventy days, and covered entirely over. After the expiration of that space of time, which must not be exceeded, the body is washed, and wrapped round, from head to foot, with bandages of fine linen cloth, smeared over with gum, which is used generally by the Egyptians in the place of glue, and in this state it is given back to the relations, who enclose it in a wooden case which they have had made for the purpose, shaped into the figure of a man. Then fastening the case, they place it in a sepulchral chamber, upright against the wall. Such is the most costly way of embalming the dead."

Ancient History Sourcebook: Herodotus: Mummification, from The Histories." FORDHAM.EDU.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-mummies.html

2. "Come," says Thoth, "why have you come?" "I have come and I press forward so that I may be announced." "What now is your condition?" "I am purified from evil things, I am protected from the evil deeds of those who live in their days: I am not among them." "Now I will announce you. But who is he whose heaven is fire, whose walls are cobras, and whose floor is a stream of water? Who is he, I say?" "He is Osiris.""Come forward, then, you will be announced to him.Your cakes will come from the Eye 21 of Ra, your beer from the Eye, your meals of the dead from the Eye.This has been decreed for the Osiris the overseer of the house of the overseer of the seal, Nu, triumphant."

Egyptian Book of the Dead, Chapter 125." Washington State University - Pullman, Washington.

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

3. "If persons wish to avoid expense, and choose the second process, the following is the method pursued:- Syringes are filled with oil made from the cedar-tree, which is then, without any incision or disembowelling, injected into the abdomen. The passage by which it might be likely to return is stopped, and the body laid in natrum the prescribed number of days. At the end of the time the cedar-oil is allowed to make its escape; and such is its power that it brings with it the whole stomach and intestines in a liquid state. The natrum meanwhile has dissolved the flesh, and so nothing is left of the dead body but the skin and the bones. It is returned in this condition to the relatives, without any further trouble being bestowed upon it."

Ancient History Sourcebook: Herodotus: Mummification, from The Histories." FORDHAM.EDU.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-mummies.html

Explanation of Argument:

The process of mummifying the dead is a painstaking, long task and for the Egyptians to do it to every person, they had to be obsessed with death. In the first source, it shows how much time and effort was put into just one mummification. The second source comes from The Book of the Dead. Why would Egyptians take the time to create a book full of ideas and ceremonies that were a part of death if it wasn't an obsession? That's because Egyptians were obsessed with death. Egyptians even gave people the option to choose two other ways of embalming to keep the cost low. If its not obvious that the Egyptians were obsessed with death, then Julius Caesar never died.

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

Thesis: Thucydides is a better model for modern historians because Herodotus has been plagued with accusations of being untrustworthy, untruthful, and he disappeared almost wholly after he turned forty years old, while Thucydides has been providing modern historians bundles of ethical and accurate facts.

Primary Sources:

1. "From this point of his career, when he had reached the age of forty, we lose sight of him almost wholly. He seems to have made but few journeys, one to Crotona, one to Metapontum, and one to Athens (about 430 B.C.) being all that his work indicates. No doubt he was employed mainly, as Pliny testifies, in retouching and elaborating his general history. He may also have composed at Thurii that special work on the history of Assyria to which he twice refers in his first book, and which is quoted by Aristotle. It has been supposed by many that he lived to a great age, and argued that, "the nevertobemistaken fundamental tone of his performance is the quiet talkativeness of a highly cultivated, tolerant, intelligent, old man" (Dahlmann)."

Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Herodotus." FORDHAM.EDU.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/eb11-herodotus.html

2. "It has been questioned, both in ancient and in modern times, whether the history of Herodotus possesses the essential requisite of trustworthiness. Several ancient writers accuse him of intentional untruthfulness. Moderns generally acquit him of this charge; but his severer critics still urge that, from the inherent defects of his character, his credulity, his love of effect and his loose and inaccurate habits of thought, he was unfitted for the historian's office, and has produced a work of but small historical value."

Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Herodotus." FORDHAM.EDU.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/eb11-herodotus.html

3. "Thucydides stands alone among the men of his own days, and has no superior of any age, in the width of mental grasp which could seize the general significance of particular events. The political education of mankind began in Greece, and in the time of Thucydides their political life was still young. Thucydides knew only the smaU citycommonwealth on the one hand, and on the other the vast barbaric kingdom; and yet, as has been well said of him "there is hardly a problem in the science of government which the statesman will not find, if not solved, at any rate handled, in the pages of this universal master."

Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Thucydides." FORDHAM.EDU.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/eb11-thucydides.html

Explanation of Argument:

Herodotus did barely anything to prove he possessed correct and truthful facts. Thucydides has been venerated since his time, while Herodotus has almost fallen into oblivion. In the first and second sources, Herodotus is being accused of so many things that make him look terrible. The the third source, Thucydides is being called a master for his works.

Question: Considering all of the conflict of the first century BCE, was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?

Thesis: Rome was better off as an republic because they already had a specific Roman government system and a Constitution in order; why change what is working and what has been working, no matter what the circumstances?

Primary Sources:

1. "the magistrates should see to it that the republic received no hurt from the mischievous designs of M. Manlius." There upon the consular tribunes and the tribunes of the plebs -- for these latter recognised that the end of liberty would also be the end of their power, and had, therefore, placed themselves under the authority of the senate -- all consulted together as to what were the necessary steps to take.”

"Livy." Internet Archive: Wayback Machine.

http://web.archive.org/web/2002121504/http://www.princeton.edu/~champlin/cla218/livy.htm

2. "When any alliance is concluded, any war ended, or treaty made; to them the conditions are referred, and by them either annulled or ratified. And thus again, from a view of all these circumstances, it might with reason be imagined, that the people had engrossed the largest portion of the government, and that the state was plainly a democracy."

"Ancient History Sourcebook: Polybius : Rome at the End of the Punic Wars [History, Book 6]."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius6.html

3. "Such are the parts of the administration, which are distinctly assigned to each of the three forms of government, that are united in the commonwealth of Rome. It now remains to be considered, in what manner each several form is enabled to counteract the others, or to cooperate with them."

"Ancient History Sourcebook: Polybius : Rome at the End of the Punic Wars [History, Book 6]."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius6.html

Explanation of Argument:

Rome was a better off as a republic because relieved no hurt from the designs of men who tried to change this city. The second source explains, whenever a war, battle, or argument any new form of government seemed to be vetoed and ratified. The people of Rome stayed true to their democracy form of government. Their republic was plainly a democracy because it included like largest portion of the state; its people.

Question: Were the Vikings "barbarians"?

Thesis: The Vikings were barbarians because they conquered every place they could without resist, and without mercy for the souls they slaughtered.

Primary Sources:

1. "The invaders went into winter quarters in the city of Amiens and devastated all the land to the Seine and on both sides of the Oise, and no man opposed them; and they burned with fire the monasteries and churches of Christ . . . ."

Viking Raids in France and the Siege or Paris." De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval Military History.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/vaast.htm

2. "The burning of Tours The Danish pirates, making their way into the country eastward from the city of Nantes, arrived without opposition, November eighth, before Tours. This they burned, together with the church of St. Martin and the neighboring places. But that incursion had been foreseen with certainty and the body of St. Martin had been removed to Cormery, a monastery of that church, and from there to the city of Orleans. The pirates went on to the chateau of Blois[9] and burned it, proposing then to proceed to Orleans and destroy that city in the same fashion."

Sam Houston State University - Texas - Carnegie Doctoral Research Univ.

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

3. "We have abundant means; we have no lack of troops; God be praised, that wherever we touched land, men have joined our ranks. Sverri has now scattered his forces here and there, and has now but few men left with him, and they are enclosed here before us, in the fiord, like sheep in a pen. May God grant such an end to this encounter that we may have peace and freedom from our enemies hereafter, whether we remain alive or die."

"The Battle of Norafiord." De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval Military History.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/sverri1.htm

Explanation of Argument:

The Vikings were barbarians because they merciless beings. They pressed on to conquer even this obstacles in their way. The obstacles were no match for the stacked Vikings. The first source how brutal the vikings were by the way no one opposed them because the people were scared. The third source hints at how the Vikings were stacked with men, who are manly and tough, and weren't concerned if they lived or if they died.

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 and The 100 Year's War changed Europe forever by altering normal life and sending Europeans down a path where they had to find their own way to make peace and ultimately save humankind.

Primary Sources:

1. "...being thoroughly terrified by the things which were happening, and supposing that they would die immediately, did, as was natural, learn respectability for a season by sheer necessity. Therefore as soon as they were rid of the disease and were saved, and already supposed that they were in security, since the curse had moved on to other peoples, then they turned sharply about and reverted once more to their baseness of hearts and now, more than before, they make a display of the inconsistency of their conduct, altogether surpassing themselves in villainy and in lawlessness of every sort."

"Medieval Sourcebook: Procopius: The Plague, 542 A.D. History of the Wars, II.xxii-xxxiii."

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

2. "There was not so hard a heart within the city of Limoges, an if he had anv remembrance of God, but that wept piteously for the great mischief that they saw before their even: for more than three thousand men, women and children were slain and beheaded that day, God have mercy on their souls, for I trow they were martyrs."

Medieval Sourcebook: Jean Froissart: On The Hundred Years War (1337-1453).

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart1.html

3. "The power and authority to govern and to control the public affairs of the said kingdom shall, during our lifetime, be vested in our son, King Henry, with the advice of the nobles and wise men who are obedient to us, and who have consideration for the advancement and honor of the said kingdom...."

Medieval Sourcebook: 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 Black Death and The 100 Year's War was changing Europe, which shaped it into what we know it as today. The first source explains that people died from the disease, but those who didn't lived a life of villainy and lawlessness. Today, the plague is gone because over the years, Europeans conjured up a way to stop the disease from spreading. In the second source, about the 100 Year's War, it tells of city streets that were filled with innocent people who had been slain. The leaders of these battles had felt remorse for their people and needed to find a way to stop the make to make peace. Just like the plague, this war was destroying mankind. They finally created a treaty that left France under appropriate rule that kept Europeans happy for the time being.

Question: How does Henry VIII maintain power while breaking away from the Catholic Church?

Thesis: Henry VIII maintained power by becoming the ruler of his own religion, the Church of England, and keeping his people united.

Primary Sources:

1. "I exhort you, and set forth God's word truly, both by true preaching and giving a good example, or else, I, whom God has appointed his vicar and high minister here, will see these divisions extinct, and these enormities corrected, according to my true duty, or else I am an unprofitable servant and an untrue officer'."

Primary Sources: Henry VIII's Speech before Parliament, 1545.

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/h8speech.html

2. "The effect of the treason was denying the king to be Supreme Head of the Church of England, according to a statute, The Act of Supremacy, made in the last session of Parliament".

"Primary Sources." EnglishHistory.net.

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/1535exec.html

3. "Henry, king not through usurpation but through the holy ordination of God, to Hildebrand, at present not pope but false monk.....I Henry, king by the grace of God, do say unto thee, together with all our bishops: Descend, descend, to be damned throughout the ages."

Medieval Sourcebook: Henry IV: Letter to Gregory VII, Jan 24 1076.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/henry4-to-g7a.html

Explanation of Argument:

King Henry VIII maintains his power by giving his people the choice to be solely under his rule as a king and pope. Obviously, King Henry gave his people no choice. If you opposed, you were exiled or worse, executed. King Henry was king, he possessed all the power. Thomas Moore made the mistake by denying Henry the Head of Supremacy. His final words went something along the lines of, "The King's loyal servant, but God's first." King Henry VIII maintains power because he holds a position of authority over England. His subjects are scared of him and will not speak out because their lives are at stake. At least his people are all united as one, powerful force.

Extra:

Question: Describe the significance of the Battle of Tours.

Thesis: The Battle of Tours is significant because the Franks defeated the Muslims which, for a short amount of time, stopped the spread of Islam.

Primary Sources:

1. "The Europeans, uncertain and fearful, lest they were merely hidden in order to come back [to fall upon them] by ambushments, sent scouting parties everywhere, but to their great amazement found nothing. Then without troubling to pursue the fugitives, they contented themselves with sharing the spoils and returned right gladly to their own country."

"Medieval Sourcebook: Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

2. "And while Abderrahman strove to check their tumult, and to lead them back to battle, the warriors of the Franks came around him, and he was pierced through with many spears, so that he died. Then all the host fled before the enemy, and many died in the flight."

Medieval Sourcebook: Anon Arab Chronicler: The Battle of Poitiers, 732

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.html

3. "Then was he [Charles] first called "Martel," for as a hammer of iron, of steel, and of every other metal, even so he dashed: and smote in the battle all his enemies. And what was the greatest marvel of all, he only lost in that battle 1500 men. The tents and harness [of the enemy] were taken; and whatever else they possessed became a prey to him and his followers. Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine, being now reconciled with Prince Charles Martel, later slew as many of the Saracens as he could find who had escaped from the battle."

Medieval Sourcebook: Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Explanation of Argument:

The Battle of Tours is significant because it paused the spread of Islam for awhile. Charles Martel was victorious in one battle and barely lost any men. The second source describes what he did after he was victorious very well. Even though the Europeans were fearful, they still fought with hopes of conquering the Muslims. The Battle of Tours was a major turning point in history, because it slowed the spread of Islam.

Exam Practice:

What was the 12th Century Renaissance?

Thesis: The 12th Century Renaissance was a rebirth of knowledge that was lost by the Europeans in Europe. (All the knowledge of the ancient times, was stored in the western parts of the Roman Empire. After the fall of the empires, the Muslims gained control. The knowledge was lost from Europe and they fell into an age of darkness, the Dark Ages. The 12th Century Renaissance was what brought folks out of the Dark Ages)

3 Primary Source Quotes:

1. Poetry was rich and thriving during the Renaissance: "Why, even the Old Testament fathers made use of poetry, both heroic song and other kinds." (Petrarch)

2. Genius artists such as Da Vinci were flourishing in the 12th Century. - "This was seen by all mankind in Leonardo da Vinci, in whom, besides a beauty of body never sufficiently extolled, there was an infinite grace in all his actions; and so great was his genius, and such its growth, that to whatever difficulties he turned his mind, he solved them with ease." (Vasari)

3. A great republic in Florence was coming about. - "Founders of monarchies and republics, who were enabled to establish laws suitable for the general good only by keeping for themselves an exclusive authority; but all these are so well known that I will not further refer to them." (Machiavelli)

Is a monarchy more or less effective than a democracy?

Thesis: A democracy has proved to be more effective because a democracy promotes equality and freedom and does not focus on one, solitary leader.

3 Quotes:

1. King's pretended to want anything but money and power. - "Our King does not desire gold or gems or precious metals, but virtue, glory," (Mountjoy)

2. Queen's thought they could lead like a king. - "I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England," (Queen Elizabeth)

3. A democracy include all people, and were united as one. “We the People of the United States…” (The Constitution)

Why do you think the Church and the monasteries became the centers of learning?

Thesis:

3 Quotes:

1.

2.

3.

Works Cited

"About.com: Http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/elizabeth.htm." Medieval History - Life in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Web. 04 June 2010. .

"King Henry VIII: Biography, Portraits, Primary Sources." EnglishHistory.net. Web. 04 June 2010. .

"Medieval Sourcebook: Giorgio Vasari: Life of Leonardo Da Vinci 1550." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 04 June 2010. .

"On the Nature of Poetry." History Department, Hanover College. Web. 04 June 2010. .

"The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net." Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Web. 04 June 2010. .

EXAM REVIEW - GREECE PRIMARY SOURCES: on democracy.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persdemo.html

- Darius is king. He tries to turn Persian territory into a democracy. He wanted everyone to pay him. "Such then were the governments, and such the amounts of tribute at which they were assessed respectively. Persia alone has not been reckoned among the tributaries---and for this reason, because the country of the Persians is altogether exempt from tax. The following peoples paid no settled tribute, but brought gifts to the king: first, the Ethiopians bordering upon Egypt, who were reduced by Cambyses when he made war on the long-lived Ethiopians, and who dwell about the sacred city of Nysa, and have festivals in honour of Bacchus."

http://mccandlessa.people.cofc.edu/Thucydides.htm#The%20Melian%20Dialogue

- The Athenians tried to take over the Melian people and their land. They refused, and just told the Greeks, that they were going to neutral in the war. But the Greeks were putting much military force on them. The Greeks just left some soliders there to guard the land and sea. In the end, the Greeks wiped out all the people and occupied the land with their own people.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pausanias-bk1.html

- Pausanias begins his description of each city with a synopsis of its history followed by an account of the monuments in topographical order. He also discusses local daily life, ceremonial rituals, legend and folklore. His main concentration is on artistic workd from the glories of classical Greece, especially religious art and architecture. That he can be relied on for building and works which have since disappeared is shown by the accuracy of his descriptions of buildings which do survive.

http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/DeptTransls/Solon.html

- Solon instituted a policy eunomia or harmonious government. citizenship! Solon's reforms attempted to address the grievances of the demos by having wealth, not birth, determine the individual's status in the community. The fragments of Solon's poetry, focus on ways in which Solon reflects: (1) the political, economic, and social difficulties of his age, and (2) the new religious and ethical outlook associated with the emergent polis.

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

- This explains what laws were written on. As what kind of issues were laws enforced Solon's laws in general about women are his strangest. Another commendable law of Solon's is that which forbids men to speak evil of the dead. He is likewise much commended for his law concerning wills.

Outline:

1. Introduction
1. Thesis: Based on primary sources and personal accounts of the war, The Persians would have been a world power if the conquered the Greeks in the Persian Wars.
2. Body Paragraph 1
1. Primary Sources:
1. "It is certain that he commanded those who scourged the waters to utter, as they lashed them, these barbarian and wicked words: "Thou bitter water, thy lord lays on thee this punishment because thou hast wronged him without a cause, having suffered no evil at his hands." (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-xerxes.html )
2. Surpporting Text
1. Persians were harsh people. Especially Xerxes. The things he said were harsh and merciless. Since they were fierce, they would have crushed everything in their path.
3. Closing Sentence:
1. Persian would have been a world power because they didn’t let anyone get in their way.
3. Body Paragraph 2
1. Primary Sources:

Xerxes flew into a rage at this, and he commanded that the Hellespont be struck with three hundred strokes of the whip and that a pair of foot-chains be thrown into the sea.

(http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/herodotus.html)

2. Supporting Sentences:
1. The Persians were so powerful. They didn’t back down to people. Although they were defeated by the Greeks, they were still a superpower. Xerxes was a beast like no other.
3. Closing Sentence:
1. Although the Persian's were loosing to the Greeks, they still remained powerful.
4. Body paragraph 3
1. Primary Source:

"By this time the spears of the greater number were all shivered, and with their swords they hewed down the ranks of the Persians; and here, as they strove, Leonidas fell fighting bravely, together with many other famous Spartans, whose names I have taken care to learn on account of their great worthiness, as indeed I have those of all the three hundred. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-xerxes.html)

2. Supporting Sentences:
1. The Persians were being beaten. It was a wonder that they were loosing. They greatly outnumbered the Greeks.
3. Closing Sentence:
1. Even though the Persians were defeated by the Greeks, they still would have a major super power. And possibly could have conquered the world.

Michaelangelo & The Medici Popes Notes:

1501- Florence, home of the Italian Renaissance

• Michaelangelo was a workaholic. He didn't sleep much, and never took his boots off.
• It took him 3 years to create the sculpture of David
• He was adopted by The Medici family and exposed to the world of artistic achievement.
• 1504 - Michaelangelo felt ready to expose his art to the outside world. When he finished David, everybody agreed that Michaelangelo's work was too great to be put on top of the Cathedral because nobody would see it. So they kept it on the ground.
• Pope Julius II was from a powerful family, just like the Medici.
• Leonardo da Vinci carefully studied the human body, nothing was overlooked.
• He was the greatest artist of his time, but Michaelangelo was in a position to take his title.
• 1512 - 1200 foreign soldiers were coming towards Florence. The people prepared for battle, but they were severly outnumbered.
• Niccolo Machiavelli - he was consulted in by the people of Florence on what to do. He was the ruler.
• After the death of Julius II, the cardinals elected Giovanni Medici.
• Giovanni di Lorenzo de Medici was born in Florence, the second son of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
• He became Pope Leo X
• Michaelangelo was forced into painting the Papal Chapel in the Vatican & The Sistine Chapel by Pope Julius II
• The Medici saw power in Michaelangelo's work, They offered him to build tombs of their dead family members.
• Machiavelli was exiled from Florence.
• Conspirators, the cardinals, planned to kill the pope. Pope Leo heard about this and had the conspirators killed instead.
• Pope Leo sold indulgences on a large scale. Selling these indulgences lifted Leo out of debt
• Luther was outraged by what the Church was doing, selling indulgences. He wrote a book about his direct attack on the pope and how indulgences should be damned.
• Leo X was killed by a small winter chill, his cousin Giulio became Pope.
• Pope Clement VII - Charles V attacked Rome while Clement was Pope. SACK OF ROME.
• Pope Clement stood strong to attack Florence.
• Michaelangelo hid in the tombs that he built for the Medici. He was scared of Florence being attacked.
• Clement was near death, he summoned Michaelangelo to create a fresco in the Vatican. It portrayed The Last Judgement.
• Julio Medici died (Pope Clement VII). He was the end of an era. The Medici popes reign was over.
• A new era was born...

My Renaissance Recipe:

How to seeth Shrimps.

Take halfe water and halfe beere or Ale, and some salt good and savery, and set it

on the fire and faire scum it, and when it seetheth a full wallop, put in your Shrimpes faire washed, and seethe them with a quick fire, scum them very clean, and let them have but two walmes, then take them up with a scummer, and lay them upon a fair white cloth, and sprinkle a little white salt upon them.

from: http://jducoeur.org/Cookbook/Cookrye.html

Is a monarchy more or less effective than a democracy

Is a monarchy more or less effective than a democracy? A monarchy is run by a single king or queen. A democracy is run by individuals who are elected by the people. Historically, a monarchy was more effective, especially in the Elizabethan age. In the United States today, our system is a democracy. This system contains checks and balances which suppress the chance of a monarchy. A democracy has proved to be more effective because a democracy promotes equality and freedom and does not focus on one, solitary leader.

In England, King Henry VIII was leading a monarchy that was becoming a very powerful influence, which would eventually fall into devastation. King Henry separated himself and his people from the Roman Catholic faith. He created his own religion, The Church of England. Lord Mountjoy stated, “Our King does not desire gold or gems or precious metals, but virtue, glory, immortality”.(http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/henry8.html) Henry VII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, couldn’t produce a son, and that is why he broke away from the Catholic Church. He needed to divorce his wife, and marry a new one so he could have a son. The pope wasn’t allowing him to do that so he broke away. He was left with two daughters, until he finally had a son with Jane Seymour. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England) This son grew up to become King Edward VI. In a monarchy, sons were more venerated than daughters. Kings always wanted to give birth to sons. In a democracy if a woman was fit to “rule”, they would be elected, vice versa if it was a male. Henry’s reign was putting a damper on the English economy. His obnoxious spending and high taxing method was killing the economy. This is why one person cannot rule a nation. Most of the time, the ruler is all about themselves and only wants money and power.

There seems to be only one account in England during the 1500’s and the 1600’s where the monarchy was actually a success. Elizabeth I was the woman who changed everything. She admired her father greatly. After her father Henry VII died, Edward VI took the throne but he fell ill and passed away. Mary, her older half sister, became queen but her reign was short lived. She, once again, had no son to succeed her. Elizabeth I finally took the crown and inherited a bankrupt nation; a nation that was hanging on by a thread. (http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/eliz1.html) Elizabeth had to pay off all of the debts her country was collapsing under. The monarchy was barely keeping its head above water. In one of her speeches addressing the attack on England she says, "I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field”.(http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/elizabeth.htm) Elizabeth tried her hardest) Elizabeth I tried her hardest to put England on a pedestal. She was successful, but a monarchy still only has diminutive evidence in proving to be successful. In a monarchy, it’s not about what the people want. This is true only in a democracy.

The United States has a democracy. It has proved to be successful since day one. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) From the beginning, Americans wrote their own Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Constitution even begins with “We the People of the United States…” (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble) The people of the United States wanted to be considered, “out of many, one”. In a democracy the people elect who they want to lead the country. If a person doesn’t fit the job, they will not be elected. In a monarchy, if the king or queen is not fit for the throne, it doesn’t matter. They are still king or queen. The only way to get a ruler off the throne is to kill them or make them want to step down. A democracy is obviously more effective because the people, who make up the nation, get to choose who they want to rule. Everybody is equal in a democracy. In a monarchy, no one is.

The current U.S. president is Barrack Obama. In recent news, according to the New York Times, “President Obama signed a health care bill that was the biggest expansion of the safety net in 40 years. And now Congress is in the final stages of a bill that would tighten Wall Street’s rules and probably shrink its profit margins”. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html?hp) This was a big decision for America. If Congress and Representatives didn’t like the idea, they could have overruled the President. The system of checks and balances is essential for a democracy to be successful. This helps the country maintain an equal society. The United States’ success as a country proves that a democracy in better than a monarchy.

A democracy has several advantages while a monarchy barely has any. England wouldn’t have sunken so low into bankruptcy if the people could have oust Henry VIII and elected someone who could’ve brought the nation back to life. It wouldn’t have been a bad idea for all monarchies to switch over to a democracy. The only problem is that individuals in a monarchy were too power hungry. It was all about money and power. In a democracy, it is all about equality and freedom. Equality and freedom is always over money and power.

Works Cited

"About.com: Http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/elizabeth.htm." Medieval History - Life in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Web. 21 May 2010. .

"Democracy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 21 May 2010. .

"Henry VIII of England." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 21 May 2010. .

"King Henry VIII: Biography, Portraits, Primary Sources." EnglishHistory.net. Web. 21 May 2010. .

"Monarchy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 21 May 2010. .

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 21 May 2010. .

"The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net." Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Web. 21 May 2010. .

image from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Ströhl-Regentenkronen-Fig._03.png