History

Martin Luther’s thoughts challenged the teachings of the church. His questions led to him breaking from the Catholic Chruch. His words made others take another look at what the Catholic Church was offering. Looking for answers made Luther and others question the doctrines, authority, and traditions. Martin Luther was troubled by his beliefs and sacrifice. He was not raised to go into the church. Religion was through an experience that he had. He took the vow to become a monk seriously in exchange for living through the thunderstorm. Luther lived the monastic life to the best of his abilities. He worried about being saved by God and how the choice was made. As time passed, Luther questioned the effectiveness of traditions and their role in forgiveness, the existence of hell, and the importance of the good choices of people. He became more aggravated with the sale of indulgences. This service provided a reduction of sins if a person paid. The payment went towards the building of St. Peter’s. Martin Luther opposed this service. It took away the value of a person’s faith. Since Luther wanted everyone to have access to the Bible, he translated it into German. Through this, he recommended that people consider the Bible the only source of religious authority. Luther was not trying to create a new religion. Instead, he wanted to reform the Chruch. However, the Church condemned his movement for improvement, and he was excommunicated. During this time, he had gained followers. He continued to teach and share his thoughts. Even though his intent was not to break from the Church, his actions led to the Protestant Reformation.

Martin Luther’s historical time was in the 1500s. Western Christianity was dominated by the Catholic Church. The church held not only religious power but also political power. At this time, there were no alternative religions accessible. The only church was the Catholic Church. To go against the Chruch and its teachings was considered heresy. While it appears that Martin Luther was pioneering a new religion, this was not the case. He truly wanted to improve the Catholic Church. He posted his 95 Theses in 1517. He was hoping to make the necessary changes within the Church. He saw the corrupt practices, such as indulgences. We need to remember that Luther was a devout Catholic monk who wanted the Church to go back to its biblical roots. Martin Luther wanted the Church to acknowledge that being saved by God was through faith. Unfortunately, the questions he was asking were considered challenging. These questions seemed to threaten the authority of the Church. He emphasized that God saves people through their faith. People could look to scriptures to learn how to be good Christians and not rely on the authority figures the church provided. These thoughts led to the breaking off of the Catholic Church and the formation of Protestantism. Luther never stopped believing in the core of Christian values; he broke away from traditions and the authority of leaders within the church. He thought that the Chuch had broken away from its core values listed in the Gospel. The Church excommunicated Luther, and he still refused to take back his words. These effects of these actions produced new branches of Christianity.

We have all heard of Leonardo da Vinci, but not to the extent that this week’s sources provide. Giorgio Vasari was an artist himself. He believed that being an artist gave him an insight that others could not understand. His writing about Leonardo da Vinci suggests that he was in awe of the talent that da Vinci possessed. Leonardo had the capabilities of learning and doing many things. However, Leonardo would learn skills such as math and music, but then would quickly move on to something else. One talent he did not stop was drawing. His father recognized this talent. Leonardo’s father connected him to Andrea del Verrocchio to see if Leonardo’s drawings would amount to something for his future. Andrea was very impressed. He encouraged Leonardo to extend his drawings into sculpture and architecture. Leonardo was not one to be rushed. An example of this is with his artwork of The Last Supper. Vasari discusses the amazement at how Leonardo is able to capture the emotion of faces. An area that was a struggle with this piece was displaying the emotion of Jesus. Leonardo da Vinci was not satisfied with his work. His trait of perfectionism took over. The Prior wanted the piece completed and complained to the Duke, hoping his complaint would hurry Leonardo along. Once Leonardo heard this, he used humor to win over the Duke, explaining that he might use the Prior’s likeness as Judas. One of Leonardo da Vinci’s famous paintings is Mona Lisa. This artwork is considered so desirable due to its lifelike expressions. Vasari suggests that Leonardo kept his subjects entertained and relaxed. The smile of Mona Lisa still wows people today.

Machiavelli was present at the beginning of the Renaissance, a time of change in culture and politics. Cities in Italy, Florence, Venice, and Milan, were competing for ultimate power. These areas wanted to be superior in the new way of life, with the objective of rebirth during this period. This intense rivalry gave way to conflict and war. Those in charge needed to access all of their resources to outsmart others while protecting and serving their subjects. Machiavelli believed that the way to “found” a republic was through the leadership of one who made the decisions. The power was consolidated to establish strong groupings. He believed that violence was necessary. This was not for the personal gain of the leader but for the good of all. Once a system was in place, then the power could be distributed among the ranks to ensure stability and lasting honor to the cause. When looking at America’s “founding” of a republic in the Middle East, Machiavelli would say some areas are lacking. The ideas from Machiavelli conflict with the American attempt. Machiavelli would think the challenges were because there was not a single leader who secured the system. The American approach, a democracy, was introduced to have not one in charge but a collaborative approach to decision-making. The Machiavelli approach would argue that the US approach did not succeed because it lacked internal power that could not bring people together, which led to unstable control. A single leader could motivate and show the vision of the future to strengthen the governing structure. Some would argue the Machiavelli way was not honest, but deceitful. Machiavelli would counter that if this way of leading were used, there would be a greater opportunity for long-term success, no matter what means were used. 

Charlemagne contributed to Western Civilization. His reign began shortly after his father, Pepin the Short, died. During this time of heredity, land was distributed to the sons of the deceased. The land was divided between Charlemagne and his brother Caloman. Due to his brother’s death, Charlemagne ruled the entire kingdom; he was crowned Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III. He ruled as a man of the Empire. He dressed like the typical dress of the people. Charlemagne did not act empowered or better than others. He displayed a concern for all the classes of people in his kingdom. Charlemagne ensured that governors were not taking advantage of people. He was present for the talk even while he was dressing. Charlemagne had many accomplishments during his reign; one was educational reform. Charlemagne’s drive was curiosity. He had the gift of expressing himself. His way of speaking provided him with the demeanor of a teacher. Interestingly, Charlemagne did not have an education at a young age. He struggled to form letters in writing, but eventually met this goal. He wanted boys and girls educated in the liberal arts. The expansion of schools brought about communication in the diverse empire, which led to more trade and understood laws. The military was thriving under his leadership. He expanded the Empire through battle, rewarding those who followed him. Charlemagne differentiated himself as a ruler by following traditions and bringing new ideas to the culture. He was active in his life, exercising and eating healthily. Charlemagne’s family was essential to him. He kept his children close to him. The reign of Charlemagne brought about advances in law, education, religion, and the military. These advancements continued to influence Western civilization for many years, and the Carolingian Renaissance was deemed the name of this period.

The Testament of St. Francis is an example of a man who, in his last days, wanted to keep the order of his work. The testament is an example that is relatable in everyday life. When people are close to death, they want to get all the information needed out to relatives and friends. St. Francis knew he had little time left; he tried to summarize his work, and his words were instructions passed on to others. Francis had faith in religion, but there was no guidebook instructing him. The testament demonstrates that St. Francis did not consider himself highly intelligent. Even with this thought, he was passionate about his commitment to Christ and the church. He wanted those left not to see this as a new rule but as a narrative to express his pride. When anyone puts their beliefs into a mission, they would not want their death to lessen the efforts made. While St. Francis stated this was not another rule, he wanted his brothers to remember the promise to God. St. Francis’ words are from someone anxious about what would come to the order. As much as Francis acknowledges he could always learn more, he does emphasize that his word is correct and should be followed. This forceful way of sharing his ideas did not sit well with the leaders. The intentions of Francis’s writing are not clear. Tensions were building in the Church that Francis was aware of. The Church was moving towards more progressive ways, not the ways of Francis. His last testament could have been a last attempt at motivating all to follow his words and beliefs. In the end, his testament was not a legal document; the Church was growing, and changes were made without the limits of his testament.

This week’s readings ask, “What is spirituality?” Depending on who you are talking to, this question can have a different meaning. Many look at spirituality to provide them with a purpose. We have to let go of ourselves to accept something “higher.” Throughout history, spirituality has given people a sense of belonging and guidance. Ignatius’s Letter to the Romans and the Didache helped me understand early Christianity. This information clarified early Christian churches and the foundation of early Christianity. I recognized that early Christianity is as complicated as today’s religious views. In the letter, Ignatius expresses his devotion to God. He did not fear martyrdom. He did not want anyone to try to stop his persecution. While traveling to Rome for his execution, many Christians showed their support. Ignatius sends the followers back to their churches but with letters. The purpose of these letters was to strengthen the belief in Christianity. This display shows the commitment and power that early Christianity had.  

The Didache was a guide on how to be a good Christian. It gave examples of how to live a life for God. Many we still see today love thy neighbor, confessing our sins. If we follow this path, we will have a good life. However, there is the other path, the road to death. Examples provided are not being fooled by a false prophet and do not steal, to name a few. The Didache provided the first book of morals for early Christianity. Moving from Judaism into Christianity, a section of the Didachec discusses baptism with the removal of circumcision. It ends with chapter 16. Instilling that the return of the Lord will come.  These teachings of the Didache provided the structure to educate on early Christian spirituality. The Didache was the foundation of Christian spirituality that would continue to evolve and flourish into the centuries to come.

The Rape of Lucretia was the tipping point of the Roman Revolution. As we learned in our sources for this week, Romans had values and honors that reflected traits essential to the Roman Empire. This story was written in 509 B.C. It is unclear how accurate this retelling is. It should be noted that the author, Livy, favored the Roman Empire. The story of the Rape of Lucretia occurred hundreds of years before it was retold by Livy. This can make the truth of his writings questionable. Livy emphasizes the need for a change from the rulings of a king with the retelling of this historical event. In Rome at this time, there was order/rules of personal life that weaved into public life. Men held power as the heads of each family. Women were considered less, and the men had control over them. Lucretia was known for her beauty and moral actions. She was the wife of Collatinus. Tarquinius was the son of King Tarquin. In a check-in on the wives, it was noted that Lucretia was the most honorable. Tarquinius returns to the home of Collatinus and Lucretia. She was an honorable woman. She allowed him in her home with respect. He took advantage of this. On his return, Tarquinius threatened Lucretia by saying he would dishonor her. The act of rape was not only a sexual violation but also an abuse of power. The power that kings and rulers had over commoners. This act made Lucretia feel she could not go on. She was a woman without honor. She contacted her father and her husband, Collatinus. They arrived along with Brutus, her uncle. She asked for them to kill him. They agreed. Sadly, Lucretia took out a knife and killed herself. She did not want her story to be someone else’s excuse for dishonor. Brutus took it upon himself to rid Rome of the king, his wife, and children. He proclaimed that he would never tolerate kings in Rome. The people of Rome were angered at the actions of the king’s son. This turn of events is the movement from a monarchy to a republic government. 

Primary sources are when you hear firsthand from someone who has listened to what happened firsthand. They describe the event to you based on what happened to them. And they can tell in more detail what happened to them and the events. Also, most of the time, their stories are more accurate and rare. Secondary sources are when you learn about an event through history books or the news channel. You do not “buy into the first experience people experience. It is like the telephone game. People hear from story to story, which might cause a mix-up on what should happen. It also may not be 100% truthful because of this accidental word mix-up.

Why is it important to study history?

It is essential to study history because it allows us to look at past events and stories. We work on projects that we can continue working on and discover how the past was, which is a fascinating tool to which we have access. We find out what happened 500 years ago and can develop and understand what our ancestors did in their day-to-day lives. We learn about significant events, how they occur, and why they happen. This way of thinking is essential because it allows us not to make the same mistake twice. Studying history will enable us to see mistakes before they happen and know how to prepare.

We have history books that tell us we can use the information. We can continue picking them up like we never left them with someone else’s idea. It makes many almost impossible achievements in one lifetime possible and has happened many times. That is a very fascinating thing in today’s world. We can use people’s work to help us with solutions from the 1800s; that information is still relevant and helps us incredibly even in the 21st century.