Renaissance Art

The Renaissance was a term originally from a French word that means “rebirth”. This rebirth occurred mostly in the art of the time. “About 1450, European scholars became more interested in studying the world around them. Their art became more true to life” (Source) This change was in their paintings and architecture. The artists were very important to this change and improvement of the art, many of them are still very well known today as in: Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, Titian, Masaccio, and Brunelleschi. (Source) (Source)(Source, Google Books)

This new movement started in northern Italy and spread quickly through Europe. “The Renaissance patrons wanted art that showed joy in human beauty and life’s pleasures. Renaissance art is more lifelike than in the art of the Middle Ages. Renaissance artists studied perspective, or the differences in the way things look when they are close to something or far away. The artists painted in a way that showed these differences. As a result, their paintings seem to have depth.” (source) Giotto was the first to start this phase of art; he put real emotion into his paintings. This period of the Renaissance was where the impressionism and realism really prevailed into art. Examples of the paintings of this time are the, Mona Lisa, the Last Super, the Birth of Venus, the Marriage at Canon and many others. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

The architecture of the Renaissance of also flourished. Churches were a major focus for the architects of the time the created what was called the gothic style. The most common feature of the era was the dome. Cathedrals would also have many different colors and often times the magnificent buildings would be accompanied by great paintings on the dome (the ceiling), the walls, just as the Sistine Chapel. It is also present in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and the Duomo of Florence. This style originated from the Greeks and Romans, but was further enhanced and started in Florence, Italy. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)


The artist and architects were not just good at what they did; they did it with passion and poise. The phrase, the Sistine Chapel wasn’t built in a day, is very true because these artists put long hours into their work and it took multiple days and months. These artists did not just make art; they were shapers of their time and History. Various artists were Leonardo da Vinci, Titian, Botticelli, Giotto, Donatello, Tintoretto, Veronese, Raphael, and many others. These people did not only make art they created something much more, they created timeless and priceless pieces of treasure with great meaning. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

The Renaissance Art and Architecture started a new progression of History, it started impressionism, realism, Gothic architecture, and much more. “It influenced painting, sculpture, and architecture. Paintings became more realistic and focused less often on religious topics. Rich families became patrons and commissioned great art. Artists advanced the Renaissance style of showing nature and depicting the feelings of people. ” (source) The passion and dedication of the artists’ work is clearly seen through everything they did. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

The most successful crusades were the first four, however there were numerous crusades following the first four. In fact, the Crusades went on until approximately 1300. The later crusades were not at all successful. The decline of the papacy also brought the decline of the European unity and power. This separation of the European powers was a great reason why the later crusades were unsuccessful. (source) (source)

To start, the Children’s Crusade was a complete failure. Despite the name there were not many children going on this crusade, in fact they used this name to refer to adults that had not yet grown up. However, to this day the legend is that thousands of young children under the age of 12 went on a crusade to try and recover the Holy Land. These adults did not at all succeed in completing their mission. On there was to the Holy Land they dropped off like flies. Many of those that traveled by boat were shipwrecked and died, the other crusaders that traveled by boat were taken to North Africa, were they were sold into slavery. Those on foot, settled on their way to the Holy Land. (source) (source)

The fifth and six crusades cam after this, but were no more helpful in taking back Jerusalem. The fifth crusade took 10 years to complete and still they did not have any different result in their efforts. At the start the main expeditions were to Egypt. Frederick II then made efforts to the Holy Land and succeeded in a treaty; however after being excommunicated he lost Jerusalem again, in 1244. The sixth crusade did not turnout much better; Frederick made very good efforts that led no where. By this time, the decline of the papacy’s power was evident. Part of the reason why the crusades kept becoming less successful was because only one power would go and fight, Europe was no longer united under the crusades. (source) (source) (source) (source, Google Books)

The seventh crusade was called the shepherd’s crusade and was an effort by Louis IX of France. This failed when he was captured in Egypt, after problems were caused by the Knights Templar. However the peasant movement still went on after their leader was captured. After causing many troubles however, the crusaders were excommunicated. The 8th crusade was again led by Louis IX of France, however this effort was much better organized than the last. Despite their better efforts, there were again defeated in Mansura, right were the crusaders had been defeated in the fifth crusade. The ninth crusade which ended all the others was deemed a complete failure on the efforts against the Baibars. (source) (source) (source, Google Books) (source, Google Books)

After this, the Crusaders and Europeans were attacked ruthlessly. The Middle Eastern people massacred many of their big cities killing all those that could not leave in time. The Crusaders were unable to fight back. The Crusades, if anything only slightly delayed the efforts of the Muslims. Of the numerous efforts by the crusaders, only one or two were “successful” and you can see through the numerous failures that the last crusades were not deemed “successful”. (source) (source)

4th Crusade

After the third crusade they had diverted from the Holy Land and had other plans. This specific crusade was encouraged by Pope Innocent III. The forth crusade was and effort to attack Egypt, the center of the Muslim world at the time. However the biggest effect this crusade had was on the city of Constantinople. However their efforts were not strong enough and did not bring much difference in the long run. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

The fourth crusade is a great piece of interest to many historians and scholars. The crusaders’ first mission was to go into Egypt and essentially take out the source. The Christians while preparing for this attack went to the Venetians for assistance in transportation and supplies. The Venetians had agreed under the condition that they would first capture Zara, so they did and then were planning to go to Egypt after completing the Venetians task. However their plans changed when Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus called on the crusaders for help to recover Constantinople. Agreeing to this the crusaders prepared to then take back the center of the Byzantine Empire. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

The Venetians agreed also to help them with this also. In fact they liked this idea a lot more because the Venetians were business men and having possession of Constantinople would increase trade throughout the Mediterranean. The Crusaders with the Venetians had cover the Naval aspect of the capturing the city and on land was Alexius and his men along with some French knights. Despite the pope’s thought on the subject the Crusaders ransacked the city of Constantinople in 1204. The manner of attack was not the shining moment of the Crusades for Christians. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

There was not a very exact account of what exactly happened when the crusaders sacked Constantinople, which makes historians and scholars interested in the event. One story is as this account says for example, “They burned down a great part of it; they slaughtered the inhabitants; they wantonly destroyed monuments, statues, paintings, and manuscripts - the accumulation of a thousand years. Much of the movable wealth they carried away. Never, declared an eye-witness of the scene, had there been such plunder since the world began.” (Source) However another account is this: “Meantime, Alexius had a assembled a large army for a counter-attack against the Franks. For some reason, however, his nerve failed him and he never made the attack. The Venetians in the meantime withdrew from the section of wall they had held, for they could not keep it without a victory on the Frankish side as well. Despite the fact that the Crusader assault had only partially succeeded, that night Alexius grabbed what wealth he could and fled the city with his daughter.” (Source) Each view of the battle can be different but yet the same dependent on the view. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

The ending effect was not great, years later the city was still captured. It had declined in faith from numerous barbarians picking away at it. Even when it did finally fall to the Turks, the down fall was blamed on the Venetians and the French for they only wanted the economic value of the city and did not look at its politics and military for the future. While although most of the crusades are not seen as a win per say they had a lasting and important effect on our history. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books)

3rd Crusade

“The Third Crusade, spanning the years 1187-92, was the most interesting of them all. It was the largest military endeavor of the middle Ages and it brought a fury of the entire Crusading movement to its zenith. Perhaps most important it brought two of the most remarkable and fascinating figures of the last millennium into conflict.”(Source)The Third Crusade had reason for being started, just as the first two crusades. This particular movement happened during the years of 1189 to 1192 and started because of the capturing of Jerusalem by Saladin. This specific crusade had many important figures to history which is very important to the foundation of Europe and eventually the Americas. (Source) (Source) (Source; Google Books)


Upon hearing that Jerusalem had been captured the Christians immediately went on another crusade. It was the first time that the Europeans united with each having strong leaders and strong armies. Richard the Lionhearted was successful in raising money for the Crusade, he went to the major extremes just to provide. In fact, “When some one expostulated with him on the means employed to raise money, he declared that "he would sell the city of London, if he could find a purchaser."” (Source) The first to die of the great leaders in this crusade was Frederick Barbarossa, the German Emperor. At the age of 72 this great leader with his army went on yet another Crusade. They fought through the Turks in Asia Minor and other many hardships, but many of these men, including Frederick drowned while crossing a river. The others were heartbroken from losing their fearless leader. (Source) (Source) (Source; Google Books)

The Siege of Arce was the first and strongest victory during this Crusade, and it was by far the leading achievement during this expedition. The English and the French put together their efforts and arranged approximately 600,000 men. These numbers were outstanding and defeated the siege, despite Saladin’s strong efforts. The two leaders of this great victory were King Phillip from France and King Richard the Lionhearted from England. They combined created an unstoppable duo; however quarrels stood in the way of future successes. King Phillip went home as a result, and left King Richard in charge of the Crusade from then on; this was the time that Richard had to show his skills. (Source) (Source) (Source; Google Books)


King Richard the Lion-hearted conducted himself with greatness while fighting in the Holy Land. “The knightly adventures and chivalrous exploits which mark the career of Richard in the Holy Land read like a romance.” (Source) At the battle of Arsouf, September 7, 1191 King Richard was able to show his great tactical knowledge. Saladin had set and ambush to end the battles but King Richard had already pre-pared for this. Saladin now had greater respect for King Richard and decided never to pull a direct attack again. As a result of lack of supplies and the winter chill Richard was unable to put a siege on the Jerusalem and was in terrible circumstances. However a treaty was made between Saladin and King Richard and after this the Crusaders went home. “Both Richard and Saladin emerged from the Third Crusade with enhanced reputations, Saladin as the best of the infidels, and an honorable enemy, Richard as one of the great generals, and as a heroic knight.” (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source; Google Books)


The big question that needs to be answered is, was it a successful Crusade? Well although Europe’s main goal of taking back Jerusalem was not completed the English and French captured Arce. Not to mention that every crusade slowed the progression of the Islamic movement. The Crusade also brought trade routes and new supplies to the European scene. “All in all, the 3rd crusade could be described as a successful crusade.” (Source) The Crusades are fascinating to look at, to see how old Europe interacted and what were the values of the people back then. It is seen that the values are much different now. The interaction during battles and the chivalry that knights had back then are all different from the interactions we experience now. The Crusades however still directly had an impact on what happened in the future. Source) (Source) (Source; Google Books)

2nd Crusade

The Second Crusade was relatively pointless because their efforts were wasted on an unsuccessful voyage. Their motive how ever was good and with every Crusade the Europeans delayed the very aggressive Muslim movement. As a result of the higher archy system of the time leaders and the papacy had great influence on the Crusades. There were many different missions that were attached to the whole of the Second Crusade and despite the fact it was unsuccessful it did leave and impact. (Source) (Source) (Source, Google Books) (Source Google Books)

The launching of the Second Crusade was by urging the Cistercian Pope Eugenius by St Bernard of Clairvaux. Their main reason for launching the Crusade was because the Muslims had sacked Edessa in 1144 and their leader Nur al-Din was then forth advancing to Jerusalem. The first Royalty joined this Crusade which was why it was one of the most remembered Crusades. “It included the first Royal Crusaders - Holy Roman Emperor Conrad III, French King Louis VII and his then Queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine” (Source) 300 women and some children also accompanied the Crusaders on their mission and to many of these people this Second Crusade was more of a voyage and pilgrimage than a war. (Source) (Source, Google Books)(Source, Google Books)

“The Crusade was a shambles which ended in a humiliating retreat. Bernard unfairly copped the blame for this situation, the real villains being the royal incompetents, some unhelpful politicking and strategy decisions by Eleanor, and the fact that for the first time they were up against a competent Moslem military commander.” (Source) “Of the great host that set out from Europe, only a few thousands escaped annihilation in Asia Minor at the hands of the Turks. Louis and Conrad, with the remnants of their armies, made a joint attack on Damascus, but had to raise the siege after a few days. This closed the crusade.” (Source) Both of these quote show just how unsuccessful the European efforts were on this second crusade, it seemed that anything the fought for failed. It was a terrible fight for the Europeans. (Source, Google Books)

The other factor that effected the European loss is the factor of disease and famine when forming a siege. This can lead to the idea that the Europeans that came over did not have the preparedness they thought they did. The French and the Germans were the most upset by their numerous losses, in addition to their leader. (Source)

The intentions of the European empires were good and purposeful; however their plan did not fall through as they thought. The win of the 1^st Crusade did not come again in the 2^nd Crusade. Part of this might have been the unprepairdness, this cause famine and disease to kill many people. The Europeans did however at least slow the progression of the Muslims to and extent.

1st Crusade

The Crusades are not understood well. Many people go by the idea the world tells, that the European Christians attacked the defenseless Muslims. This however is extremely wrong. The very first crusade was directed to save the city of Jerusalem, which had been captured by the Muslims. It was called upon by the Emperor Alexus I of Constantinople on November 27, 1095 and supported by Pope Urban II. The Crusades are not often described as a win, lose situation; so depending on that for a resultant is not good. In order to define the result you have to look at the effects and military stance as a result. (source)(source) (source,Google Books) (source, Google Books)

“The massacre of 3000 Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem prompted the first crusade” (source) This disproves the idea that people have saying that the Europeans have no right in going to fight against the Muslims. Through this quote it is seen that the Muslims took their expansions too far by killing cold bloodedly. The Muslims had taken over the city and were converting many Christians and Jews to their religion. Those that did not convert then lived in very hard conditions and were forced to pay numerous taxes to the Muslims. (source) (source,Google Books)

People in the first crusade were very important in the result of the first Crusade. “Emperor Alexus I of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks.” (source) Many important people were involved in the Crusades such as: “Count Raymond of Toulouse headed a band of volunteers from Provence in southern France. Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin commanded a force of French and Germans from the Rhinelands. Normandy sent Robert, William the Conqueror's eldest son. The Normans from Italy and Sicily were led by Bohemond, a son of Robert Guiscard, and his nephew Tancred.” (source)Many normal people also involved themselves in the crusade because they were told fighting in this would grant them eternal glory in the eyes of God. (source)

“The first assault made by the Christians upon the walls of the city was repulsed; but the second was successful, and the city was in the hands of the crusaders by July 1099. Godfrey of Bouillon and Tancred were among the first to mount the ramparts. Once inside the city, the crusaders massacred their enemies without mercy. A terrible slaughter of the infidels took place. For seven days the carnage went on, at the end of which time scarcely any of the Moslem faith were left alive.“(source) The Christians succeeded eventually and while they had the right to kill the Muslims because they had first killed. However, despite the justification the Christians should probably not have acted the way they did once inside the city. This crusade has a lot of connection to the way we have acted in the war on Iraq. (source)

“The First Crusade was the most successful from a military point of view.” (source, Google Books) The Crusaders succeeded in taking back the city therefore making it successful. “In this Crusade united Feudalism and Papacy won their greatest triumph.” (source, Google Books) One of the reasons why this Crusade was one of the strongest is because Europe was more so united in fighting and were not as caught up in fighting each other. (source)

This Crusade was very successful, a factor of this was because of the importance of this presented by the leaders of the European society. The leaders became more upset with the Muslims and their military expansions; they felt that the Muslims were very forceful in their actions. The intentions were correct, however not all the actions were good once inside the city of Jerusalem. The Crusade was pretty effective in stalling the Muslim expansions. (source, Google Books)(source, Google Books)(source)(source)(source)

The Investiture controversy was a time when the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Empire had differences in the way of territory and authority. The involvement between both sides were intermixed, the Laymen of the Western Roman Empire were involved in the Investiture Ceremony for the Bishops and Archbishops and vice-versa. These distentions of Investiture lead to many problems such as the Investiture controversy.(source) (source Google Books) (source)

An Investiture is a formal appointment of a person in to a special rank or role. This is often put into a ceremony, to mark this inauguration. This insignia was very important during the Middle Ages it was the one thing that inducted a person into a position. However this appointment of positions were challenged by the Roman Empire, the secular leaders and Religious ones were not clarified on the job positions and more often then not their job descriptions would cross over into each others. This involvement of each of the Imperial powers started with Charlemagne and the Pope crowning him Emperor, up until the 11th and 12th centuries this was not a problem. However when in came out the effects of it were great, it was the most significant conflict between the church and state in Medieval History. It had great impact on the Western Roman Empire. This alone led to over 50 years of civil war in Germany, not to mention other struggles in France. (source) (source) (source) (source Google Books)

The Popes acted in an offensive manner, challenging the European monarchy and as a result setting in place Bishops and Abbots to be in control. This challenging on the Popes side was the fight to establish political legitimacy. The popes of the Holy Roman thought that the European Monarchy was wrong because no man should have that authority that belongs to God. (source) (source Google Books) (source)

This fighting led to a compromise known as the Concordat of worms it stated that the secular leaders would have a place in the appointing ceremony. It also concluded that the monarchy power was broken and the localized lords would take charge. The Papacy gained much control for these efforts and then set the stage for the Crusades in the 12th century, which some say is why the efforts of this controversy ended. Some think it is because they needed to come together again and fight against the Muslims. Both are legitimate endings to these efforts. (source Google Books) (source)

The results of this time are huge; the impact on Germany alone took till the 19th century to recover. This fight was very effective on the Holy Roman Catholic Church side and established more power for the Pope. With out this power the Crusades may not have had the out come it did and the Crusades might have been a failure which would render many different consequences then we have today. This Controversy also had a great effect on the formation of the Protestant church. Throughout history there are so many interlinked effects and causes that all have an effect on each situation. (source Google Books) (source) (source)

Crusades: Truths vs. Lies

There are many depictions of the Crusades in modern times. These assumptions are primarily made through the idea that it was a war based upon conflicting religions. Many people are taught today that the Crusades are the “mean Christians” from Europe coming over and killing the Muslims. There is so much to this idea that is wrong that, anybody that says this has obviously never studied or looked at the Crusades. Another depiction of the Crusades is that the Christians went up against the Muslims because they believed it was their “duty”, to fight in the name of God. The other portrayal of the Crusades can be that the Muslim involvement of Jihad was not a factor in the Crusades, this idea is also false. (source) (source ,Google Books)

Concerning the thought that the Christians came over, fighting against the helpless Muslims is quite ridicules. Separating the truth from what the definition of the Crusades has become is quite difficult to explain, the modern day deception has become so ridicules that it is so far from the truth. In reality the Crusades were a defensive maneuver on the European Christian side. The Europeans were being pushed back and attacked by the Muslims. This caused them to either do one of two things, either surrender or fight back. This had no correlation with a religious effort on their part. (source)

Next step is to dispel the false accusations of the Christians out weighing the Muslims. This is a pretty easy thing to do because during this time Arabian Peninsula was considered a wealthy area of the world and the Europeans were the poorer people of the time. This was a result of the good trade routes and use of water through the Muslims. Up until the Crusades the Muslims had already conquered most of the area around the Mediterranean Sea. As the Muslims continued to push their empire into Europe they had their first set back. Through the fact that the Muslims had an economic and militarily advantage against the Europeans, this war was not the depiction of the mean Europeans fighting against the helpless Muslims. (source) (source ,Google Books)

The conniption most people have with the Crusades is that the Christians only fought back to save their religion. This assumption is wrong, the European Christians fought back for the reason that the Muslims had gone to far with their tradition of Jihad. They had killed many people in the fight for conversion. The Muslims had used very threatening tactics in these advances and in common sense and defensive manner these actions should not have gone on. The effort was to save peoples lives not to convert people to Christianity. The other aspect of this is that the people can obviously not deny the fact that the Islamic tradition of Jihad was a factor in the Crusades. (source) (source) (source ,Google Books)

In reality the Crusades did not have that big of an impact on the Muslims and their efforts for expansion. The fight from the Europeans however did set them back and probably made them realize that actions have consequences and that every now and then people will fight back. The biggest thing the Crusades did do was buy time for the Europeans. These efforts also had minor delays on the economic status of both cultures. (source) (source ,Google Books)


The modern day depictions of the Crusades are so far from the truth. The truths can be seen if people today only looked at the Crusades. Connecting the ideas of Just War and Jihad have and impact on the correlation of the Crusades. They show what the efforts of both sides were and what they accomplished through their actions and efforts. In the end the Crusades did not leave a huge impact and these efforts just died off over time. (source) (source)
(source , Google Books)

Steps Toward the Crusades

“The popular misconceptions about the crusades are that these were aggressive wars of expansion fought by religious fanatics in order to evict Muslims from their homeland, and force conversions to Christianity. However the historical record does not support those assertions.” (source)

The Crusades to most people are seen as the mean European Christians trying to convert and remove the Muslims. However, this view is wrong just as the quote expresses; in reality the Muslims had used their tradition of jihad to convert many people which includes violence towards the innocent civilians. This is breaking the idea of Just War and as a defensive move the Europeans retaliated. (source) (source Google Books) (source Google Books)

“It was, moreover, the successful exploitation of the Jihad ideal which removed the alien presence of the Crusaders from Muslim soil” (source Google Books)

This explains the efforts of the Muslims. There are various situations that show how the Muslims were misusing their traditions of Jihad. They had already forcefully converted two thirds of the Christian world. They had kidnapped many other Christians in Caesarea and killed others from Amoriem. In 789, the Muslims beheaded the monk in Bethlehem and in 937 they went on a rampage on Palm Sunday setting fires to many Christian churches. As you can see the Christians and Jews were living under numerous threats for years and years because of the Jihad tradition. (source) (source)

“The crusaders were reacting to over four centuries of relentless Islamic Jihad, which had wiped out over 50% of all the Christians in the world and conquered over 60% of all the Christian lands on earth – before the crusades even began .“ (source)

The Crusades were in an effort for Just War. The odds were completely in opposite for the Europeans, some even say it was the different of David and Goliath. The Europeans were so offended by the attacks made to their religion that the felt it was needed to stop or at least prolong the massacres. The effort of just war on the European side is evident because they were not expected to “win” and they went in to the war on a basis of defensive efforts. (source) (source) (source Google Books)

The definition of who “won” the Crusades is essentially non-existent. The efforts of the European were to make the Muslims become in a defensive mode and not and attacking one. This goal was accomplished. While the Muslims did not lose the Crusades because there was not a definite win. (source) (source Google Books)

The Crusades were a defensive measure. This defense was a result of the misuse on the Muslim part of the tradition of Jihad. They Muslims had killed, tortured, and destroyed people and cities. This was not keeping the theory of Just War and the Europeans kept this theory and retaliated in an effort to prevent the efforts of Jihad.“Without the Crusades it is questionable whether Europe or American would even exist.” (source) (source Google Books)

Just War vs. Jihad

The Just War theory is accepted my many people today; however one instance where it is not is in the Islamic tradition of Jihad. These two ideas are essentially a huge contradiction. Throughout history the two being a contradiction at often times come into play, for instance like the Crusades, 9/11, and many others.

Just War is a theory created by St. Augustine of Hippo. He came to the conclusion that while yes there will always be war with man on the earth, the war should have certain guidelines. The theory is made up of three distinct parts the first is Jus ad Bellum, the second is Jus in Bello, and the third Jus post Bellum. The first one includes just cause, comparative justice, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality. The second part is made up of different actions the countries must take while in war which includes distinction (combat only toward enemy soldiers, and not civilians), proportionality (anticipation on what the outcome will be), and military necessity (the limitation of excessive combat). Lastly the third concept is of ending the war properly. This includes just cause that you completed the mission, right intention good conditions and no revenge, public declaration (it is known), discrimination the truth is more important, and proportionality the allowance of human and country rights bust be kept. (source) (source)(Mattox)

The Islamic tradition of Jihad on the other hand is the exact opposite of this Just War theory. The Jihad in Arabic is a struggle and effort to strive and fight. This particular type of Jihad is the external form not internal. This Jihad is first referred to in the Qur’an and Muhammad, “suggests a war of conquest or conversion against all unbelievers.” The tradition of Jihad is often conveyed as and effort for the Muslims to have world control. This is a tradition of the Muslims and it is considered their duty to complete it. The Jihad over time has become unbelievably ruthless in the sense they attack everyone and through the idea of the Jihad can justify their actions, this meaning their actions are not just but trough this they can rationalize them. Through this many people have been affected by the aftermath of a Jihad attack. (source) (Spencer)

During the Medieval times there was an effort to stop the brutal expansion of Islamic religion through the efforts of the Jihad. Many times the Crusades are looked at as the mean Christians going up against the poor Muslims, but it was really not. It did not even have much effect on the Muslims. It is just like the current issue we have today in Iraq, it is not us Americans terrorizing them but it is us defending our self because they first made the attack on 9/11 killing many civilians and hurting thousands of innocent families. This is not and just way of condoning and attack according to the Just War theory but was justified by the Muslims because of their tradition of Jihad. The same concept goes with saying that during the medieval time the Muslims were not being right in their actions but they justified them. To all others their actions and justification of killing many were psychotic and to cruel so in retaliation we have the Crusades and the War in Iraq.

Throughout the last couple of weeks I have learned a lot about the two concepts of Just War and Jihad and have come to the conclusion that the two are at odds with each other and will always be. Throughout history there has been many wars just because of this conflict and as long as man is still on the earth there will be. While most of the world follows the concepts of the Just War the Muslims do not and when they cross the line in their actions others retaliate, this is seen in both the medieval Crusades and the modern day War in
Iraq


Book Sources:

Spencer, Robert. The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion. Robert Spencer; Massachusetts, 2006.

Mattox, John Mark. Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War. Continuum: New York;
2006.

The Jihad

The Jihad is Arabic for a struggle, and an effort to strive, and to fight. Many others, in mostly the west have the idea of the Jihad as considered an Islamic Holy War. The idea of what the Jihad is and how it is played out has been difficult to distinguish, because it has been often changing since the beginning of the religion and the writings in the Qur’an. The tradition of the Jihad is very important to the Muslims according to some it is the 6th pillar of Islam. However, the point to the Jihad is not easily understood some say it is to spread the Muslim faith and others say it is to gain world control for the Muslims. (source) (source) (Kepel) (Spencer)

Originally the Qur’an did reference a form of the Jihad but this was the internal struggle and effort. However, besides this, some people explain that the first Jihad occurred when Muhammad was frustrated that he had very few followers. He immediately set out to get more, during this time he was writing the Qur’an and the contents started including a reference to qital (Jihad). The Qur’an was referencing this to “suggest a war of conquest or conversion against all unbelievers.” This seems a bit extreme to us looking into a different religion. The use of the Jihad had now morphed to be very extreme in some cases. An example of it today is the attack on 9/11. The Islamic belief is that when they attack few the many will learn. Meaning that if a Muslim woman were to not follow their laws she would be stoned of killed but this would teach others not to do as she did. It is an extreme way to get what you want and it brakes all moral codes. (source) (source) (source) (Spencer)

An example of how extreme this is and how determined the Muslims are, is this quote from Osoma bin Laden (1998):
“The ruling to kill the Americans and their Allies—civilians and military—is and individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in and country in which in is possible to do it… to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim uleme, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them.” (source)


You maybe thinking well this person was just a radical, and that is completely valid! However, many people followed along with him and intend to carry out what he wished. Some see it as the 6th pillar of Islam (5 pillars of Islam) but they are incorrect. However, “Still, "jihad" is considered to be every Muslim's duty--be it the struggle to improve society, preventing the exploitation of the poor or vulnerable, or improving oneself before the Day of Judgment.” (source) This thought is scary that to the Muslims it is a duty to kill people in order to get what you want. (source) (Spencer)

“The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.” (source)
We have seen that through the growth of the Jihad the meaning of it has morphed. This quote explains in and essence what the purpose of the Jihad is today.

The effects of this effort have become unbelievable. Over 2 million people have been killed in this effort and there has been the dislocation of at least 4 million has taken place, and this is only in Sudan. “Making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.” (source)The attack on 9/11 is also considered a form of the Jihad and over 2,500 were killed in that attack. The effects are numerous along with the deaths. (source) (source) (source) (Kepel)


The Jihad is summed up today to mean a struggle and effort. In one sense it is in the mind but in another it is to revolutionize the world to be Muslim. The Muslims justify their actions in war through the Jihad. They live by it and consider it a duty to God (Allah). This responsibility has however morphed through the years and has now become to mean world domination. To you and I this is very strange and intense but to the Muslims they can justify their actions and think it is right. (source) (source) (Kepel)


Book Sources:

Spencer, Robert. The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion. Robert Spencer; Massachusetts, 2006.

Kepel, Gilles. Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. I.B. Tauris: U.K., 2006.

Augustine's Just War Theory

Just War is a theory and at most times a universal code that all countries live by when concerning war. It is still being used today often. This theory has been an extremely controversial issue especially with the war in Iraq. While although St. Augustine is accredited to creating and introducing the theory of Just War he was not the main contributor, Thomas Aquinas continued the theory to make it into a formula and to specify the criteria in concordance with military tactics. (source) (source)


Saint Augustine’s view of war was stated in his writings.

“Notice that there can be no life without pain, but no pain without some kind of life. In t he same way that there can be peace without any kind of war, but no war that does not suppose some kind of peace. This does not mean that war as war involves peace; but war, in so far as those who wage it or have it waged upon them are being with organic means to be ordered and, therefore, to be, in some sense, at peace ”(Augustine 457)

While although Augustine did not deny that war was always going to occur, his idea was that there would be a certain way in conducting it. This idea would be that the fight for a war would be in effort to reach peace, instead of fighting to just kill. The people declaring war and the people having war declared upon them both need to follow these certain rules. Augustine was under the opinion that war was always an effort for man and this was from the fact that man has a sinful nature. He figured that war is inevitable. (source) (Augustine)


From one source we can see a series of eight conditions that Augustine included in his idea of just war. “1.) A punitive concept of war, 2.) assessment of the evil of war in terms of the moral evil of attitudes and desires, (3) a search for authorization for the use of violence, (4) a dualistic epistemology which gives priority to spiritual goods, (5) interpretation of evangelical norms in terms of inner attitudes,(6) passive attitude to authority and social change, (7) use of Biblical texts to legitimate participation in war, and (8) an analogical conception of peace.” (source)


To clarify and put in simpler terms the Just War theory is made up of three distinct parts the first is Jus ad Bellum, the second is Jus in Bello, and the third Jus post Bellum. The first one includes just cause, comparative justice, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality. The second part is made up of different actions the countries must take while in war which includes distinction (combat only toward enemy soldiers, and not civilians), proportionality (anticipation on what the outcome will be), and military necessity (the limitation of excessive combat). Lastly the third concept is of ending the war properly. This includes just cause that you completed the mission, right intention good conditions and no revenge, public declaration, it is known, discrimination the truth is more important, and proportionality the allowance of human and country rights bust be kept. (source) (Mattox)


Each country when being created needs to base its concept of war on this in order to make this theory work, even St. Augustine agreed with this when he said in his book City of God: “This explains why a father must apply certain regulations of civil law to the governance of his home, so as to make it accord with the peace of the whole community.” (Augustine) (Elshtain)


Its incredible that after all these years our world still uses this theory in fact, many of the big and meaningful ideas we use today were created back in history before the technology it makes you think that maybe the technology is not as helpful as we think. These ideas and concepts that Augustine created are very useful and true today these are needed to have at least somewhat of an ordered world.



Book Sources:


Augustine. City of God. Doubleday: New York; 1958.


Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a
Violent World. Basics Books: New York; 2003


Mattox, John Mark. Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War. Continuum: New York;
2006.

Questions for Test

(162) Antony and ________ were in love. (Cleopatra VAA)

(166) “Pax Romana” is:
A.) Roman politics
B.) a ruler
C.) a period of Roman peace

(172) The History of Rome is written by:
A.) Livy
B.) Horace
C.) Virgil

(167) Which ruler gave citizenship to everybody:
A.) Nero
B.) Diocletian
C.) Caracalla

(177) Boys were to learn by _________ their teacher (imitating)

(184) Gospel means:
A.) good news
B.) God’s story
C.) God’s news

(185) The clergy were:
A.) the bishops and priests
B.) the church
C.) non-Christians

(185) First Christian emperor was ___________. (Constantine)

(184) Jesus was:
A.) The son of God
B.) an apostle
C.) an emperor

(185) ________ began the persecutions of the Christians (Nero)

(230) Ramadan is:
A.) a holy month
B.) a voyage
C.) a place

(226) _____________ created the Islamic religion. (Muhammad)


(228) Islam is:
A.) mono-theistic
B.) poly-theistic

(230) Jihad is:
A.) a place
B.) a holy war
C.) a custom

(170) Latin Literature emerged in the ________ century B.C. (third)

Last Blog

Over all my first year in high school has helped me finalize my path in what I want to do for my life. Especially in the subject of History, it showed me my love for architecture and by starting at the beginning I was able to see how each major empire and civilization helped shape architecture and added to it. A major life skill that History has helped me develop through the year is test taking, which is a very important skill.

I enjoyed learning of the ancient architecture and thought is was important because it showed me where my passion is. Throughout the year we have mainly focused on three different types of ancient empires and civilization, the first one is the ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome. All three added to the History of architecture in there own way. The start to architecture is like watching a baby grown into a child and to become an adult with every part of their life they improve and become different. They have their high points and lows but everything that happens to them shapes them and makes them what they are today and this is how history is. source

The Egyptian architecture was the biggest start; its biggest focal point was on its pyramids. The Egyptian pyramids were so well built that they still stand today. Often the Egyptians would carve whole temples and statues into the sides of mountains this took great skill and time. When the Greeks made their mark on Architecture they changed the style from the Egyptian architecture they went into using pillars and stone. In the Greek architecture there were about three different styles of architecture. They were the Doric style which was the plainest and simplest style an example is the temple of Paestum and the Pantheon, the Corinthian which was the most elaborate with leaves; however it was the least used because of the great detail in it, and the Ionic which was somewhere in between the two, it had a scroll like manner in it and it was used in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. All though each empire can connect in many ways there are many differences in the way architecture is progressed. The Roman architecture has similar to the Greeks but the Romans added the Roman Arch and they were also well known for their mass use of concrete and circular buildings. Take the Coliseum for example it uses many arches and is built in a circular manner. The Romans also used the pillars just as the Greeks did but this idea was not their original idea, it came from the Greeks. However, the Romans were the first to uses the systems of public baths and the aqueducts which was a way to get thousands of gallons of fresh water. source source source

Test taking skills is something that you need and is a good quality and a necessity to have in life. Although I have not become an expert at it my skills for analyzing and deciphering the questions put before me, I have become better. This life skill is necessary for us to succeed and I feel that it is an important part of your learning experience in high school. Test taking is a virtue I intend to work on and improve as the years go on.

The first year of high school is over and I thought that not only do I feel more secure about many things because of it but I feel that this growing experience has given me many life lessons to learn from. I believe that although being book smart is something that you need to succeed on paper but that it is not always the most important thing you learn in the long run. The ideas I learned on architecture have stuck with me and have given me a passion and motivation that can only be initiated by your self. Connecting through history has also given me a motive to succeed in this class. Test taking is important and I feel that I have gotten better but yet still need to improve. This is what overall history has showed me.

Current Events

There is not a day where the world rests and where nothing new happens. Our world moves so fast now-a-days we can here about stuff going on in the other side of the world while it is happening without being there, but with all the technology it can sometimes end up in a horrible mess when in the hands of stupid people. On one side of the nation we have a rushing fire coming down to a halt as of May 9, 2009. But on the other side of the nation we have a very dense guy that risked many lives. Our world does not rest. source source


This week on the west coast there was another major fire in Santa Barbra called the Jesusita. The fire started in Cathedral Peak and then spread, the last count of burned homes was 80 and approximately 8700 acres. There was 30000 people evacuated with only 13 injuries overall and thankfully no deaths. So far the fire did cause a lot of damage, approximately $4.3 million. source


However today with the weathers help of less wind and a greater amount of humidity the fire slowed down and is now under greater containment. This good news is giving people the ability to go back home. With the fire still going there is no absolutes in damages but with it settling it gives people reassurance and a greater peace. Many of the people that live there are calmer about this fire than the others that have hit this area and all of this was possible because of all the firefighters and volunteers help of 4000 people also with the many resources on hand, such as 15 helicopters and14 air tankers. source


On the other side of the coast in Boston there was a trolley accident. The accident took place on the Friday night of May 9, 2009, at 7:18 pm. The location was between Park and Government Center stations. The parked two-car trolley was waiting to go into the Park station when the second two-car trolley hit the parked one. This accident involved around 100 people 50 of which were injured and taken to a nearby hospital, however thankfully none of the injuries appear to be life threatening. The most injured person was the trolley driver that at the time was texting. The 24-year-old driver later admitted to the police that he was texting when he looked up and saw the brake lights of the parked trolley in front of him, but by that time there was no way to stop. The police that found this out were furious, how could someone do such a stupid thing. source


What a crazy week in the U.S. from coast to coast we see things happen some stupid and some mysterious but all affects the way we live, think or act. Knowing what is going on around us is good so that we can learn either from peoples mistakes or where not to go but understanding what is happening is always a good thing to know.

Pompeii and mt Vesuvius

Vesuvius is a very well known volcano located near the town of Pompeii in modern day Italy. This town and the town of Herculaneum where awfully effected by the first known eruption in 79 A.D. This upsurge of the volcano was written about by the eyewitness of Pliny the Younger which gave us a very detailed account with great insight. This town is also said to be in great danger of another eruption. source(Roberts)




The eruption of Vesuvius started years before its actual explosion date. It started on February 5, 62 A.D. with a huge and roaring earthquake that went on for a whole day in unpredictable intervals. When 17 years came around the corner the people near the vicinities of MT. Vesuvius did not connect the two together so therefore did not know that the earthquake was a form of a warning. Another warning occurred about a little less than a month before the explosion is was when many of the wells dried up and there were more earthquakes but they were more insignificant. When the eruption of Vesuvius took place an eyewitness took an account of what he saw over 18 miles away across the bay, this eyewitness was Pliny the Younger. Although Pliny the Older thought that he should explore what was happening closer Pliny the Younger stayed back and watch the whole thing happen. His account of this volcanic eruption was the first account of a volcanic explosion. The account was two letters that were extremely descriptive in what he saw. Part of what he said while looking at the eruption take place was: source (Roberts)



“Its general appearance can best be expressed as being like a pine tree. It rose to a great height on a sort of trunk and then split off into branches. I imagine it was thrust upwards by the first blast . . . Broad sheets of fire and leaping flames blazed at several points. . . . The buildings were now shaking with violent shocks and seemed to be swaying to and fro as if they were torn from their foundations”. source


The result of the explosion was extreme. The city of Pompeii was hit the hardest because it was directly downwind of the volcano, Vesuvius which means that the majority of ash-cloud fell on Pompeii. Although the explosion contained great amounts of ash, rock, burning stones, flames, and mud the greater desolation that affect most the lives were the mephitic vapors that accompanied the debris. The vapors would first cause deliriousness and then would cause suffocation. Some people were able to escape the tragedy but others were not which did help the death numbers because some did leave. The approximate deaths were 3,600. The city of Pompeii itself was covered in debris more than 30 feet tall. The neighboring town of Herculaneum was also covered buy debris of about 17 feet tall. This was a shocking and terrifying experience for these people and so the people started to rebuild the city. source (Kaplan)


Today MT. Vesuvius is obviously still there and has been silent since 1944 but many researchers agree that it is not a matter of if it will erupt like the explosion in 79 A.D. but more of a matter of when. Now there are about 3 million people that live near the volcano so having it explode and kill all the people would not be good, this is why the Italian government offered 30,000 euros to who ever will move out of the area. Another explosion like the first would be catastrophic in the eyes of the government. source


Vesuvius’ explosion in 79 A.D. was a huge one that included the destruction of two towns and it included many deaths. Not knowing about the first explosion would cause us to not think much about the volcano of to be worried but because of the account given to us by Pliny the Younger we are able to know what we are to expect. This would cause many problems for the future. This leads us to believe that the History of an event affects the future. source (Kaplan)


Book sources:


Roberts, Russell. Mt. Vesuvius and the Destruction of Pompeii, A.D. 79. Mitchell Lane Publishers: U.S.A.; 2006.
Kaplan, Sarah Pitt. Pompeii: City Of Ashes. Children’s Press: New York; 2005.

stoicism

The stoic philosophy was created by Zeno of Citium in Athens, Greece. Its philosophy is related only to the nature and universe. Even though the philosophy was stared in the 300’s B.C. it did not hit its popularity height until the 100’s B.C. and A.D. It reached its height here because people made more of an effort of to teach it and “talk it up”. source (Inwood, Copleston)

The Stoic philosophy is about how the universe is god-like. They believe that if you act according to nature’s plan you will be filled with goodness but if you do not then destruction will occur. Nature’s plan is what they also consider your conscience and virtue. This would not make being successful a necessity which would give this philosophy more likeable. source (Copleston)

The height of the Stoic philosophy was during the Roman age because of three people. The first person is Panaetius of Rhodes he put the philosophy in Rome where it was most popular and most successful in having a lasting effect. The second person is Epictetus who was the teacher of stoicism in Rome. With him Seneca popularized stoicism in Rome. These two even started an Academy for followers of the philosophy with out them this philosophy would not have been accepted as well. source (Inwood)

The stoic philosophy is a lot like our current system because its all about what you want and feel is best for you. Everything is subjective and relative in our world. This means that there are no universals or objective truths. This is all about what you feel is good and right for you. If you do what you feel like you should then you are right and you will get rewarded for it. source (Copleston)

This philosophy was obviously a big affect on our world if it has stayed with us. The stoic philosophy probably would not have probably been in our current society without the people that helped form it. Zeno had a great effect on our world that he probably did not think about when he created stoic. source (Inwood)

Book Sources:

Inwood, Brad. Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford University: Oxford; May 11, 2008.

Copleston, Fredrick Charles. A History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome vl 1.Paulist Press: New York; June 1976.

The Romans affect on the Early Christians

The early Christians where certainly effected by the Roman Empire greatly. In some ways the Roman Empire made it easier to travel from place to place to evangelize to the different towns. However the Christians were also persecuted by the Romans in the beginning but stuck through and I believe this made them stronger. In the end however, the Roman Empire did not just affect Christianity but it was also vise-versa. Rome before the spread of Christianity had a major pagan view but because of this spread they accepted this religion and with it many of their morals. source (Rives)


The Roman Empire was an extremely big and well designed empire which was quite helpful to the early Christians in their travels to witness to the people. This was a special help to the apostle Paul, who used the Roman roads to get from place to place for his travels. In this they were able to reach the big cities that needed it most. Paul mainly kept in the area known best as Greece and the city of Rome, we see this in the Bible and his letters to the different cities he had visited. source


The hard beginning did not stop the early Christians from persevering on which in the end paid off. But in the middle it must have been really hard they were threatened to be killed and some were, they also were not in the best place with money. But these men looked to God and said that they will not crumble in times of distress. The Roman government looked very poorly at the time to Christianity and along with the Jews were blamed for anything that went wrong and many were persecuted for it. This I believe only made the Christians have more faith and more fire to witness to everyone. Intern the this made to Romans more interested in what was so special about that religion. source (Rives)


Not only did the Roman Empire affect the witnessing of the early Christians but Christianity affected the religion in the Roman Empire. Before the birth of Christianity Rome was mainly a pagan empire but Christianity became more popular in the Romans eyes and they changed greatly because of this religion. Not only did they accept it but many also changed their morals to fit the bill. Instead of gladiator fights and tiger wrestling you would every now and then see the apostle Paul and many others speak the message of Christianity, many Romans also turned from their very sinful ways. source (Glover)


So we see that the Roman Empire helped in both good and bad ways. We also see that not only did the Roman Empire affect the early years of Christianity but that Christianity also affected the Roman Empire. Both sides of this connection left their mark on history and have been made a huge part of the present. source (Glover)




Book Sources:


Glover, T. R. The Religion of the Roman Empire. Kessinger Publishing. New York; December 30, 2005.


Rives, J.B. Religion in the Roman Empire. Blackwell Pub. Oxford; June 19, 2006.



Image 1:

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/maps/romanempire.jpg

contrast between greek and roman religion

In the early Roman time their religion was greatly influenced by the former Greek pantheon. In turn the Roman and Greek pantheon have a lot in common; in fact practically the only difference between them is that the gods have different names. But in the later Roman age the religion of Christianity came up and became a bigger religion as the Roman Empire adopted it. source


The earlier Roman religion was that of a pagan religion. The Romans acquired a lot of things from the Greek and religion was one of them. In the Greek religion there are many gods just as in the Roman. However the Greek gods names are very different from the Roman gods names despite this their roles and what they do are the same. source (Lanciani)


The Roman and Greek had many things in common so much so that they even did many of the same practices and traditions in how to worship and honor their gods. A major part in practicing the Roman religion were the Vestal Virgins and they were required to do many things for the religion but were very honored for it. However the Roman pagan religion started showing signs of being broken up and at this time a new religion came on the scene in which the Romans were very affected by. source (Lanciani)


This new religion was of Christianity. It was not extremely well liked by the Romans but definitely affected them. During the reign of Nero the Christians were awfully persecuted and blamed for the horrible things. But later the Bishop of Rome gained authority over all Roman religion and this is where the Romans had officially adopted Christianity, even though the Roman Empire fell less than 200 years later. source (Chadwick)


The Roman and Greek pantheon were very the same in the beginning but as time went on other religions affected the Romans in what they believe. Even though the Greek affected Rome in the beginning others had more of an influence in the end. This transition happens to many societies through-out history. source (Chadwick)


Books:
Lanciani, Rodolfo. Wandering Through Ancient Roman Churches. Kessinger pub co;
Chicago:2003


Chadwick, Henry. The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great.
Oxford University Press; USA: 2003

The Art of Ancient Rome

Ancient Rome's art was influenced by mostly the Greeks whose high point was before the Roman era, and this is why the Ancient Greek's Art influenced them most. The Romans used their mosaics and most of their art to show their love and respect for their gods. Romans had many different art forms some of the more major ones would be: mosaics, arches, murals, portraits, and statues. The more minor forms of Roman art would be poetry, paintings, tombstones, domes and vaults. source


In Ancient Rome they had to make their own materials to make their portraits, murals, or paintings. The Romans would use shaped wood or ivory as writing utensils. The paint brushes would be made of twigs, wood, reeds, or rushes. But how they made to paint was very interesting and special, they were only made of natural substances. source


Mosaics were one of the Roman’s more major field of Art, which were originally part of the ancient Greek’s art. The mosaics were mostly pictures of their gods, figures from books, nature, or everyday life. Most mosaics were on the floor but they were also on walls and ceilings. Mosaics were made with small pieces of tile, glass, or stone and glued together with mortar. source


Murals were very well liked by the Romans, we often see that murals would be painted on the wall of their Emperor’s palace. This alone must indicate that having murals was a sign of wealth to the Romans. Other very popular aspects of Roman art were statues and portraits. Statues were often made to portray a life-like view of gods, goddesses, emperors, or important figures. Many of the statues only show the chest and head and these are called portraits. These portraits were so popular that any citizen that could afford it would get one of themselves. source(Wheeler)


A huge part of the Roman art was their architecture they built the most amazing buildings. Examples of this are the Pantheon and the Coliseum, even today when people look at the Pantheon they do not know how in the world they built it. But one of their most notable architectural creations was the Roman arch. It can be seen all over the ancient Roman Empire. Many times the Romans would use the arch to signify freedom or conquering. The arch was a universal design it was used decoratively, in bridges, and buildings. source (Ramage, Wheeler)


The Roman art was at its biggest from 750 B.C. to 450 A.D. and has stood sound through the years, and although the History of Rome can just be read or studied what they left behind, their buildings, bridges, paintings, statues, portraits, and murals can seen and looked at. What the Romans created effect the generations to come, when you see an arch in a house that derived from the Romans. source (Ramage)



Book Sources:


Ramage, Nancy H. Roman Art. Prentice Hall; New York: 2008


Wheeler, Mortimer. Roman Art and Architecture. Thames & Hudson; New York: 1985