Modern History I: "The American Revolution"

Because of my interest in modern history as opposed to ancient history, I move up about a thousand years or so in the timeline, to the late 18th century, where something that would change the world forever happened...

Dissent is brewing in the British-American colonies...

The battle cry for some was "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!", a catchy little phrase that sounds more like a string of syllables than anything that actually makes sense. It was really a protest against taxes set by an English Parliament that refused to give any of the colonies a seat in its houses. (However, the colonists were, in reality, paying much less that most other English citizens.) Formerly profiting British-American merchants and the day-to-day, practical, economical (read: money-minded) colonists didn't see things that way. Some cried democracy, some religon, some something else altogether...
The stage was set- the colonial tea pot had been left on the stove to boil too long, and it was about to blow its lid. Lift the curtain; let the play begin; change the course of history.

Lining Up the Odds

The colonies weren't, as some of the old histories tell us, an association of united, militant patriots heroically fighting against overwhelming odds, but rather a mixed bunch of various, allied groups determined to win on their home ground for their own reasons. So how did they end up winning, anyway?


The Odds:

The Patriots' Top-Five Advantages

1. It was their home ground. The Patriots knew the land better than their opponents; the Loyalists might have known it as well, but the Redcoats were mostly British. They didn't know the colonies, the ground, and the way it could be turned to a fighting advatage as well as the Patriots did.
2. The Redcoats were overconfident. They thought the Patriots could be brought back under control in a few months or a year and didn't plan for a long campaign in unfamiliar terrain. Also, they thought the "average colonist" was on their side, not that of the "Rebels".
3. Supply lines. The Patriots lived next to where they fought, giving them short supply lines. The Redcoats had to have their supplies shipped all the way from England, which could take from two weeks up to more than a month.
4. Support. Your average person was more likely to look the other way if a Patriot "appropriated", say, some corn from their field than they were if a Redcoat did the same thing. Also, the French threw their hats in with the Patriots later in the war. They helped with training, fighting, and so on.
5. And their biggest advantage... The Patriots "invented" a new style of fighting for the Western world- guerrilla war. The Redcoats were used to fighting a battle by marching out onto the field (marching band, polished calvary officers, infantry, and pretty, clean uniforms and all), and beginning the "required" regimen for a battle prior to this time: saluting and being saluted, pacing backwards a certain number of steps, waiting for a saber to drop, and then firing while the other side fires, and each waiting politely for the other side to fire again. Then the battle is joined. In contrast, guerrila tactics actually capitalized on the disorganized nature of the Patriots' forces and on their knowledge of the land.

The Patriots' Top-Five Disadvantages

1. They were unruly and disorganized. These people weren't Americans yet; they were Pennsylvanians, or New Yorkers, or Virginians, or whatever-colonists. They thought of the colony first, and the country second. And, whilesome of them may have fought in the French and Indian War, they weren't professional soldiers. In reality, these people had no training, and were very likely not to have someone to train them.
2. They were overconfident. One estimate for death tolls and monetary costs, by a Patriot, counted on only a six-month war before an easy victory. (That was Thomas Jefferson's count, by the way.)
3. Lack of support. At the height of patriotism, about 33% of the population of the colonies were Patriots; about 33% were Loyalists; and about 34% were undecided, didn't really care one way or the other, or were pacifists like the Quakers of the day.
4. Lack of proper supplies. The colonies weren't really prepared to outfit, clothe, feed, pay, and otherwise provide for an army. Patriots deserted for lack of pay and/or food, died from diseases/cold/hunger, etc., and had a number of other problems.
5. There weren't really very many of them. The Redcoats were the largest, most well-organized (and most undefeated) army in the world at the time. In contrast, the Patriots were lacking in numbers, organization, and any experience at all, let alone experience winning (aside from hunters shooting at animals or borderline patrolers).

The Patriots- the Americans- won, as we know. They were determined, had the home ground, and fought with guerrilla tactics. Now all they had to do was create a country from scratch.


Vocabulary:

• Patriots- Noun. Historically, in the American Revolution, the Patriots were the colonists, the Americans. Linguistically, a patriot is someone who loves their country.
• Loyalist- Noun. In the American Revolution, a colonist who was on the side of the British.
• Rebel- Noun. Degrogatory name for a Patriot, used by the Loyalists or Redcoats
• Tory- Noun. Derogatory name for a Loyalist, used by the Patriots.
• Quakers- Noun. Proper name is "The Society of Friends". A pacifistic religious group dedicated to nonviolence and living peacefully. Singular- Quaker.
• Redcoats / Lobsterbacks- Noun. Derogatory Patriot name for the British soldiers. Given because the British uniform was covered by a bright red long coat, making the soldiers look something like cooked lobsters.
• Guerrilla war / Guerrilla tactics- Strategy where the attacking party fires, fights, and fades back into the surroundings before the attacked party can retaliate. Gives the advantage to the attacking party.
• French and Indian War- War fought just prior to the American Revolution with the British and their few Native American allies versus the French and their larger number of Native American allies. The British won.

Connection to History, Part III

Reference Point:
Toppo, Greg. "10 years later, the real story behind Columbine". USA Today magazine
Find it, read it, and judge for yourself, all here.

This is one of the things I dislike most. Historical events and personas are so often maligned because, sadly, someone started a rumor or just passed one on and on and down through time and memory.


For instance, the much-played up "first Thanksgiving of America" never actually happened. The governor of the colony, William Bradford, wrote Of Plymouth Colony (a portion of which can be found here, although unfortunately not the portion with which we are concerned) and nowhere in the first year or so does he make mention of a great gathering to give thanks- let alone one in peace between the Native Americans and colonists, who coexisted in an uneasy truce.

In the same vein, I have to wonder if Henry Wadsworth Longfellow intended to perpetuate such a falsity or simply attract attention to an overlooked event he believed pertinent to America's people and its history. Paul Revere's Ride (a massively inaccurate, and yet hugely popular, poem from the 1800s, a copy of which can be found here, although if "...on the eighteenth of April in '75..." sounds familiar, you've probably already read it) is so far off-track it isn't even funny. First of all, two other riders rode that night. Second of all, Revere was caught by the British and sent home in disgrace less than halfway through the ride.

To use an example that is unfortunately much closer to our time and more familiar to us, one word: Columbine. Columbine High School and the Columbine shootings have become embedded in the national consciousness, a reminder of what could happen and a symbol of something that had become all-too-common in our society.
Sadly, most of the "facts" we have come to know about the events at Columbine, in the past years are wrong, according to Mr. Toppo. A re-revealing of evidence and more objective studying of the facts, such as the shooters' journals and other forensically conclusive evidence, reveals facts contrary to popular "knowledge", such as:

1. The shooters were actually bullies; not so much the bullied ones.
2. The plan was not to kill specific people using guns; it was a plan to kill as many as possible, possibly over a thousand people, using guns and bombs.
3. The shooters were not righteous victims of a school and parental system gone wrong; one was actually an intelligent, "psychopathic" predator with a megalomaniacal view of the world (Eric Harris, who conceived the plan) and the other was a "suicidal,... lovelorn" individual with a incredible paranoia (Dylan Kleblod).

While the last is surely one of the most horrible tragedies, it truly irritates me that what we as a society accept as "fact" can, in fact, turn out to be so far from the truth it's not even funny any more.

L.P.

Connection to History, Part II

Please note before reading:
REFERENCE MATERIAL USED: Curtis, Diane. "Building Online Learning Communities: A worldwide audience may be the motivation students need to succeed." I.E.: Interactive Educator magazine. SMART Technologies. Vol. 2, No. 2, Autumn 2006. Hardcopy, page23.
Find it online to read and judge for yourself here, in PDF format.
Enter page number 23 at the top, search the PDF, or scroll down until you find it. (You will need a PDF reader, such as the one provided to the public by Adobe Acrobat. If you do not already have a PDF reader installed on your computer, the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader, version 9.1, can be downloaded for free here.)

History, like most relevant disciplines, has many practical applications in other disciplines. History is particularly relevant in integrated technology, and I'm not talking about simply studying the days when computers filled rooms and spilled out into hallways, today's eighth-grade maths was the greatest usage for them, and "debugging" a computer meant getting out a flyswatter and killing some giant moths in-between the foot-across wires. Instead, I find it interesting how far we've come- exactly how "integrated" today's modern world is, especially in the modernist classroom.

Diane Curtis's article in I.E. magazine for Autumn 2006 (see above for full reference information) highlights the use of current- if not cutting-edge- technology in the American classroom, to study everything from English to the maths, from history itself to the modern-day sciences. Curtis also examines the positives and negatives of said use.

There are many positives, she contends. With the rising job turnover, today's students will likely hold "ten or more jobs" in tomorrow's workforce. Being able to interact with technology and teach themselves new concepts easily will be a plus. "Self-directed learning", a education experience wherein students as individuals and classrooms as wholes develop a basic curricula, with minimal input from teachers other than the essential directive, guides this process of self-taught instruction, while keeping students on-track to success.
International exposure, exposing students to the wider audiences of that technology makes available, encourages them to do better work in the first place and think more about what they are doing. Students, Curtis and other involved educators say, tend to think more about what they are writing when it's for more than just their teachers' eyes.
Teachers have begun to use such diverse technological tools as blogs, e-mail, MeneMAC (a program that creates a integrated "school-within-a-school"), chat rooms, podcasts, websites, videoconferencing and Blackboard (an online discussion forum).

However, the educators involved in such programs are also aware of their drawbacks, contends Curtis. Educators must be aware of the content of these programs before committing to them. The content must add to the direction of the class, not detract from it.
Also, a major concern is, as always, security. A program used in such a way must- with great certainty on all parts- be secure, not only for the students. It must be safe enough for teachers, other students, the school and the parents to trust in it.
A third concern for many teachers is the cohesion or lack thereof of the student body, and therefore the classroom in question. Students, they claim, must be a cohesive and coherent whole in the real world before venturing into the virtual one, or the communication of the program among the online community may be lost, as well.

However, says Curtis, the positives of the situation of integrated technology in the modern classrooms of America certainly outweigh the negatives of the situation, if and when said technology in question is used properly.

What is your opinion on integrated technology in the modern, American classroom? Do you agree with Curtis, or disagree? Why do you believe that?

L.P.

Connection to History, Part I

The online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the etymology of the word "history" as:

Etymology:
Middle English histoire, historie, from
Anglo-French estoire,
histoire, from Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histōr, istōr
knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know

Accordingly, history is also what is happening now, as well as what was happening then. Therefore I find it entirely appropriate that I take a quick break from my interpretation of history to chronicle what great discoveries and findings have recently been and are being made in the area of ancient histories.

In this article from the online version of Science Daily from March 20, 2009, a Byzantine church/monastery with elaborate mosaics and inscriptions in Ancient Greek has been discovered by archaeologists working in Israel. This is in keeping with other discoveries in the area and already-formed hypotheses from expert historians around the world. I find the discovery fascinating; although it is not a monumental in the history of excavation, it can teach us about the time, the religious beliefs of said, and its architecture.
Byzantine Church: a branch of the early Roman Catholic Church that broke off due to a difference in imagery beliefs and other questions; based mainly in the Eastern and Middle Eastern parts of the world.

In a different article, this one, from the same Science Daily, but from March 7, 2009 this time, the origins of Pompeii-like artifacts are examined as compared to known Roman artifacts, said artifacts being bronze jugs, plates and ceremonial pans. Researchers hope to learn whether the artifacts in question came from Britain itself (as copies of the Roman) or were imported. Either way, it is my opinion that discovering which will advance our understanding of the period. The use of a technique known as 'neutron analysis' will be used to determine the answer to the currently-ongoing debate.
Neutron analysis: an advanced technique in which rare artifacts of high value are examined in a regular analysis and at the subatomic level for a unique measurement of materials used, what the materials are composed of, and the way the artifact is made.

L.P.

Ancient History, Part IIIa: Ancient Greece

Introduction

Ancient Greece is widely considered to be the first of the democratic societies. While not democratic in the way we consider it today, it is still a great influence on our lives in the modern day.

Western Civilization Checklist: Writing.
The Ancient Greeks' had an alphabet that is still in use today. The word 'alphabet' itself, for example, comes from the first two Greek letters: Alpha (our 'A') and Beta (our 'B'). Their alphabet contained 24 letters. Also, our maths and sciences are filled with Greek- Delta, the Greek 'D', for example, also meaning 'change', is used both in algebra and in chemistry. Addressing their language, the Greek language influences us as well. ('Alphabet' being an example still.)
Because their language and alphabet influences us so, I will mention some of their more familiar letters. You may recognize: Alpha (A), Beta (B), Gamma (G), Delta (D), Omega (O), Pi (P) and Theta (Th).

Western Civilization Checklist: Government.
Ancient Greece has been famous as the country and culture which founded democracy. Unfortunately, for democracy as we think of it in the modern world, that reputation is unfounded.
Greece was divided into a series of city-states (like Mesopotamia), each one called a polis. Each was ruled in their own way. There were: monarchies (ruled by a king), dictatorships (ruled by a tyrant), aristocracies (ruled by nobles), oligarchies (ruled by a rich and powerful few), and democracy (in which a majority of the voting powers ruled).
Athens was the only democracy we know of. Even Athens was a rule by only the voting majority. Only adult, native-born men could vote; there was no naturalization process. Women (who held very little rights at all), slaves (yes, slavery was also in most Greek states, including Athens and slaves had even less rights than women)), foreigners, and convicts could not vote. Only about 1/4- 1/2 of the population in Athens at any given time could actually participate in a process that was considered to encompass an entire situation. In fact, even in Athens, most decisions were made by committees and not the voting majority.
Laws were written in stone in both Greek and Latin and displayed on common surfaces. It was believed that only commonly seen laws would be obeyed.
Another popularly known example of government in Ancient Greece is Sparta. Sparta and Athens were to Ancient Greece what Sumer/Babylonia and Assyria were to Ancient Mesopotamia: rivals. The two usually-most-powerful city-states seemed to be eternal rivals, always trying to one-up one another, possibly because their societal-allowed lifestyles were so different. Sparta trained all boys, under brutal conditions, for the military from birth until- most commonly- death. It was most of their life. Women held an unusual-for-the-time freedom (being societal allowed an interest athleticism, household fiscal policy, and politics, all openly). At one point, Sparta conquered Athens, but that particular situation didn't last long.

Connection to Language
From Sparta's plainness of life and harshness of society, we get the adjective 'spartan' today, meaning "plain, simple, frugal, self-disciplined": "the spartan style of the room"; "the spartan athlete".

L.P.

Ancient History, Part IIb: Ancient Egypt

Note: Post on Ancient Egypt continued from "Ancient History, Part IIa: Ancient Egypt".

Western Civilization Checklist: Religion.
Ancient Egyptians took their religion very seriously. This can be attributed to the fact that they believed their very lives and livelihoods depended upon saying the right thing, to the right god/goddess, at the right time, in the right way. Crops- and food sources- depended upon the Nile River flooding just-enough-but-not-too-much, and Ancient Egyptians believed that the Nile flooding depended entirely upon the gods' will.
This is complicated by the Ancient Egyptians' confusing pantheon of gods/goddesses. For one thing, the pharaoh was considered a god-on-earth, and a 'true god' when he died. (Some historians claim that he even got his own national holiday.) Also, each individual town or area had their own little pantheon of mother, father, and child gods, as well as the 'usual' pantheon of nationally-known gods. For another thing , the gods and goddesses seem to have complicated power plays at times, based entirely on the royal courts' issues at the time.
For instance, originally Re, or Ra, was the chief sun god, and occasionally known as the creator god. When a pharaoh from a particular town with its own god, Amun/Amen/Aman (depending upon which Egyptian vowel appears or doesn't appear) arose, Re/Ra became Amun-Re (and all the spellings variations thereof).
This was not uncommon in Ancient Egyptian mythology- two or more gods becoming one god, or one god becoming two or more gods with a confusing 'supporting' story.
Another aspect of Ancient Egyptian religon is their fear of death. They believed that, if their bodies were preserved properly and they passed some considerable tests, they could live forever in the Underworld/Afterlife. Interestingly and somewhat disturbingly, they often killed animals, wives and servants to take with them.
They also had a tendency to combine gods/goddesses, particularly in the later period. For instance, Isis (goddess of healing and Osiris's wife) at some point absorbed Bastet (goddess of cats) and Hathor (goddess of music, crops, etc.), as well as possibly Nepthys (Isis's sister and the goddess of death). She absorbed their traits and some of what they wore.

Western Civilization Checklist: Learning and Legends.
Ancient Egyptian mythology is confusing, for the simple, stubborn insistence that their gods were once human (or something like it). A sample story, upon which all of Egyptian history is based, goes something like this: Osiris (later god of the dead and the Underworld) was pharaoh, his chief wife being Isis (later a goddess herself, sometimes of healing, and/or women, and/or something else altogether). Osiris's brother, Set/Seth (later the god of Evil and several other things, sometimes including Darkness) wanted to be pharaoh (not an unusual situation in real politics of the time), so he killed Osiris, cut him into pieces, and scattered him throughout Upper and Lower Egypt. Isis, who had given birth to she and Osiris's son Horus in the meantime, raised Horus and travelled all over Egypt to gather up her husband's pieces and put him back together again through her magic. (The timelines I've found are a little sketchy on how she managed both at the same time.) Osiris was later well again (again, the information's a little sketchy on how), but could not return to being pharaoh because he had died (for reasons I, again, can't decipher), so he went to rule the Underworld after Horus killed Seth and took the throne.
Learning was mostly restricted to the men of the upper classes and scribes. Scribes were more likely to know how to read and write the formal and complicated hieroglyphics than some others, but the pharaoh and some others would have been able to do so. Mathmetics and architecture were studied by men of learning as well, contributing to such feats as the building of the pyraminds and the Sphinx.

Conclusion.
Ancient Egyptians were clearly a great Western civilization, if a much different kind of one than we know today.

Ancient History, Part IIa: Ancient Egypt

Introduction

Ancient Egypt is considered by many- experts and laymen alike- to be one of the first truly great civilizations of the world. While extremely backward (by our standards) in some ways, they also made incredible advances in many areas. Ancient Egypt consisted mostly of Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, each area with its own distinct culture and ways. Occasionally the two joined together, or conquered (or were conquered by, and absorbed) other countries/cultures.

Western Civilization Checklist: Writing.

Hieroglyphics have become a famous, if little-understood, form of ancient writing. Ancient Egyptians, like many peoples before the advent of dictionaries, had a curious habit of spellings things depending on A) The way they sounded and B) Their mood at the time. Without a stylized spelling of pretty much anything and a habit of dropping vowels seeming at random, it's not surprising that it took finding the Rosetta Stone to decipher the language.
There were three major forms of Ancient Egyptian writing: hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic. Hieroglyphic is the most famous form, known for its pictographs that form letters, combinations of letters, sounds and/or ideas. Hieratic was a condensed form of the hieroglyphs. Like the evolving Mesopotamian languages previously mentioned, hieratic came from hieroglyphic. When even the more convenient hieratic failed to be a swift, short and easy to write as needed, demotic was developed. Demotic was cursive-like in appearance and easy for scribes (professional writers/secretaries) to use.
The Rosetta Stone, as it is called today, was our key to this puzzle, so to speak. It is a three-sided tablet, inscribed in hieroglyphic (which we did not understand), demotic (which, again, we did not understand), and Ancient Greek (which we did understand). Using one language we did understand, we were able to fairly translate what we did not. From there, we can extrapolate to decipher other elements of the language, including hieratic.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the Ancient Egyptians did not have a set spelling system. It's similar to the way we spelled things before dictionaries: wheat as 'whate', 'wate', 'weat', wheyt', 'wete', and so on. Also unfortunately, Ancient Egyptians often dropped their vowels, depending entirely on the situation.

While it's difficult to imagine, looking at what seems to be a child's chalk-drawing of a sitting man, that it stands for something, let alone is millennia old, it's true.

Western Civilization Checklist: Government
Ancient Egypt government is difficult to understand, due to its being so interwoven with religion. At the pinnacle, the executive head of all life, was the pharaoh. He was the first and last authority on everything.
The pharaoh was considered part god, part human emperor-king, and in complete and utter control of all he surveyed. Intermarriage among the 'royal family' was common due to a desire to keep the so-called godly bloodline pure. This resulted in genetic deformities and illnesses that sometimes proved fatal for the family member. Due to the pharaoh's godly status, he could command his people to do nearly anything and be obeyed, no matter how insane (which was a definite consideration, taking into account the inbreeding). He had advisors and governors, whose job it was to oversee what he could not and carry out his directives. Egyptians also had bureacracy- court scribes recorded many things, from the size of pyramid walls to the current grain harvest.
The royal family was large and varied. The pharaoh had many, many wives, who, in turn, had many, many children. There is a record of one pharaoh having eighty children in one year. However, normal royal women were held to have little practical importance aside from child-bearing and bearing a royal heir (a son in the direct line) was one of the very few ways women could hold an important position at court.
A famous exception to the above was the pharaoh Hapshetsut, the first known female ruler. When it fell to her too-young nephew, Thutmose III, to rule, Hapshetsut had herself declared regent (which was not uncommon). What was uncommon was that she then declared herself Pharaoh of Egypt by right and began to dress and act like a man. Hapshetut ruled over a prosperous time, until Thutmose III eventually overthrew her, obliterated most of her monuments, and returned to male rule.

Ancient History, Part I: Mesopotamia

Introduction
Mesopotamia is one of the oldest known 'civilizations', as we would reckon civilization. It is the site of the oldest examples of cities, of government, of an empire and more.
So I begin with Mesopotamia, around 9,000 - 3,500 years ago, in what is mostly modern-day Iraq, between two rivers, the Euprates and the Tigris. At 7,000 years ago, civilization as we know it- towns, domesticated animals, pottery, permanent or semi-permanent housing- began to spring up here. Sourthern Mesopotamia is first called Sumer, later the Babylonia or Babylon of Biblical fame. To the North, there was Assyria, famed for its knowledge and military might.

Western Civilization Checklist: Writing.
Sumer was one of the first civilizations in the world to develop a system of writing. At first, it was a series of pictographs that represented certain things: a head for 'head', 'first' or 'front', and so on. Over time, this developed into what we call 'cuneiform', meaning 'wedge-shaped', which how such writing looks. Cuneiform was used solely for Sumerian records originally, but it was later adapted to Assyrian and Babylonian. Assyrians also used a language called Aramaic to write with because it had an established alphabet instaed of different signs for sounds. New words could be created in cuneiform writing by combining two older sounds. A similar example in English would be to combine 'bee' and 'leaf' to get 'belief'.

Western Civilization Checklist: Government.
Mesopotamian government and religion were closely intertwined. Mesopotamian kings believed themselves to have been chosen by the gods and, once every year, lay down their kingship to be ceremonially 'chosen'- again- by the god(s), usually the particular patron god of his country. Kings believed the gods wanted them to go to war and conquer more territory, and that they were meant to acquire more knowledge.
Mesopotamia was originally made up of a series of towns. These towns later formed into what we call today 'city-states'. They were ruled by separate rulers and had separate patron gods and goddesses, like individual countries but much smaller. Culture was basically the same, much like separate cities in the same country. Thus we arrive at the name 'city-state'. City-states later got larger and larger as more territory was conquered between them; they eventually took on more attributes of countries. Empires were formed in much the same way.
Sargon of Agade (circa 2334-2279 B.C. or B.C.E.) created the world's first known empire. In 2334 B.C. Sargon became king. He conquered Sumer, Mari, and Ebla. He also founded the city of Agade, which has not yet been found at this time.

Western Civilization Checklist: Religion.
All the Mesopotamian religions we are currently aware of were polytheistic, meaning that they had many gods and/or goddesses. Every city-state had its own patron god and/or goddess, along with a regular pantheon of others. Assyria and Babylonia worshipped the same basic pantheon called by different names. It was believed that everyone, including the royalty, was responsible to this pantheon and its rulers over different things.
Burials give us some clues about how Mesopotamians regarded death. Queen Pu-abi of Ur was buried in great state, with gold, jewels and servants to accompany her. This was typical of a royal burial. Common burials reveal some objects in them, such as tableware, headresses or the like.
Mesopotamians (usually their royalty, who were quick to make sure the gods knew who built them) built temples, called ziggurats, to their gods and godesses. They were huge platforms built on top of one another, like the steppe pyramids of Ancient Egypt. A series of staircases led to the top, where the priests and people gave sacrifices of food and drink.
The modern Biblically famous Tower of Babel is now believed to be the ziggurat of the Babylonian protector god, Marduk.

Western Civilization Checklist: Learning & Legends.
Only wealthy boys went to school. They were royalty (who had their own private tutors), the sons of high officials, scribes or the sons of military officers. Schools were very strict and discipline was extremely harsh. Music, zoology, botany and maths are examples of common subjects. Schools mostly turned out scribes, scholars and civil servants.
Mesopotamians developed many technologies, such as metalworking (bronze and gold were popular), pottery, glassmaking, textile manufacturing (the ability to make clothes how one wants them; here, with linen and later cotton) and leatherworking. Irrigation, flood control, canals, dams, aqueducts, water wheels, water storage/drainage and the ability to move large, heavy objects were also things they knew.
The story of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian king, is one of Mesopotamia's most famous legends. Said to be two-thirds god and one-third human, he sought immortality after his best friend, fellow adventurer and former archenemy, Enkidu, died. Legends say he once held it in his grasp, but then lost it. Later Gilgamesh built a great city, of which there is very little left, to be remembered by forever. His many tales are recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was kept in the libraries of King Ashurbanipal.

Conclusion
Ancient Mesopotamia, and its included city-states, was one of the first examples of Western Civilization as we know it.

L.P.

An Introduction for the Ages

History is a fascinating subject (at least to me). While I have always been particularyly interested in modern American History (the late 18th century and the 19th century, usually, with a focus on the Civil War), I also have a distinct fascination for the Ancient Histories of the World. From these two interests springs, naturally, rather distant, yet necessary, interests in modern World History and Prehistory.

Prehistory, is, however, a massive subject in its own right and considerably out of all but the most dedicated researching scope.

Therefore I leave it entirely alone and begin with the Ancient Histories of the World for my blog- Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, etcetera, so on and so forth. Through these I hope to progress to the Middle Ages and straight on until about World War II.

Out of necessity of time and its constraints and lack of sufficient knowledge to do so, I, unfortunately, cannot and will not cover everything about these amazing periods and eras. Each post will be a short summary of a period, perhaps with a period spilling over onto another post or two. Also, I will follow Western Civilization as best I may, with, perhaps, a few exceptions. Eastern Civilization will show up very little. These basic guidelines will be the ones I will try to typically post by:

1. Posts will get more detailed about time periods as I know about and am interested in said time periods.
2. My own opinions on what I've researched and read will probably slip in there.
3. I will cover only the basic periods, within a kind of timeline. For instance, once North and South America become known to Europe, I will switch from World History to American History. In this my posts will have inconsistencies as I jump in and out of various histories as they effect American History and progress from Ancient History.

L.P.