Monday, February 21, 2011
Napoleon's Tactics
Napoleon Bonaparte was the first modern general using a combination of assaults from cavalry and infantry on weak points in the enemy's army rather than traditional maneuvering and frontal assaults.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Reflection
Napoleon was a military genius. Europe had not seen the likes of one since Hannibal annihilated the Romans at Cannae. He gave birth to modern military tactics. The American Civil War used the same tactics. It is amazing what a man of determination can do if he puts his mind to it.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Egypt/French Revolution
1. - both were corrupt
- unwise with money
- go to war, at great cost to their nations
- Hosni was a president turned dictator
- Louis was an absolute monarch
- Honsi had to be elected
- Mubarak had merit, and was an accomplished air force pilot
- Louis was ruler because of birth right
- Hosni survived assassination attempts
- Louis drew his funds from the poor
2. The people of France protested Louis because they were sick of his taxes. They also did not like that he exempted the upper class from taxes. Mubarak faced protests because he had turned from a president into a corrupt dictator. (Forham.edu, NY Times)
3. In the French Revolution, a large group of women got together to protest at Versailles. Their rights were soon taken away. In Egypt, women played the same role as men, as protesters.
4. Those who had wealth in both situations were at most risk. However, in Egypt, they only had their land, and money to lose. In France, they were at risk to lose their everything, even their heads.
5. In France, everyone protested, and the poor became the people who ran the country, and did away with the wealthy. In Egypt, the people are hosting massive protests, rallies, and demonstrations
6. Reporters are describing Cairo as a war zone, with at least 100 people dead, and 1500 protesters injured, as well as 700 men in the police force
7. Twitter is overloading with feedback. Many of those posting with joyous tones. Most people are excited at the future, but some fear that they may be replacing one tyranny, with another.
8. Egypt has definitely gotten rid of the bad guy. It is a wonder why the people did not protest and force him out of office sooner. The only thing to worry about is whether or not they will replace one tyranny, with another. In France, the absolute monarchy was destroyed. The oppression was not over. Robespierre came with the Terror. The tyranny was replaced with sheer terror.
- unwise with money
- go to war, at great cost to their nations
- Hosni was a president turned dictator
- Louis was an absolute monarch
- Honsi had to be elected
- Mubarak had merit, and was an accomplished air force pilot
- Louis was ruler because of birth right
- Hosni survived assassination attempts
- Louis drew his funds from the poor
2. The people of France protested Louis because they were sick of his taxes. They also did not like that he exempted the upper class from taxes. Mubarak faced protests because he had turned from a president into a corrupt dictator. (Forham.edu, NY Times)
3. In the French Revolution, a large group of women got together to protest at Versailles. Their rights were soon taken away. In Egypt, women played the same role as men, as protesters.
4. Those who had wealth in both situations were at most risk. However, in Egypt, they only had their land, and money to lose. In France, they were at risk to lose their everything, even their heads.
5. In France, everyone protested, and the poor became the people who ran the country, and did away with the wealthy. In Egypt, the people are hosting massive protests, rallies, and demonstrations
6. Reporters are describing Cairo as a war zone, with at least 100 people dead, and 1500 protesters injured, as well as 700 men in the police force
7. Twitter is overloading with feedback. Many of those posting with joyous tones. Most people are excited at the future, but some fear that they may be replacing one tyranny, with another.
8. Egypt has definitely gotten rid of the bad guy. It is a wonder why the people did not protest and force him out of office sooner. The only thing to worry about is whether or not they will replace one tyranny, with another. In France, the absolute monarchy was destroyed. The oppression was not over. Robespierre came with the Terror. The tyranny was replaced with sheer terror.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
2/10 DBQ
The Great Terror of France began during the French Revolution after the death of King Louis XVI. The man responsible for the terror was a lawyer who identified with the people named Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre used the Terror to quell any thought of a counter Revolution within the people. He used this strategy to destroy the monarchy that had destroyed France, but in doing so, became a dictator. The Terror put down any thought of a counter Revolution, and putting a king on the throne, but caused much unrest, and the general population lived in fear.
Throughout the year the Terror lasted, at least 14,000 people were executed for ideas about counter revolution, or "crimes" committed against the state (doc 3). Robespierre took away all rights of those who were arrested, so people could be executed for simply being accused. The Terror was not just in Paris, it took place in all of France, with some regions executing more than 500 people (doc 1). The Terror was not limited to just those who had oppressed the people. Everyone could be a potential victim. Everyone's lives were in danger. If anyone had different ideas, or opposed Robespierre, they were given the death sentence (doc2).
Sentencing everyone who opposed Robespierre to the guillotine had advantages. His opposition was destroyed. The people agreed that in order for peace to be restored to France, those within its borders who opposed the revolution had to be put down (doc 9). The general opinion of the soldiers fighting for France during the revolution was the same. Their leaders saw it as an easier way to execute a traitor than a firing squad, and that it could execute many without the expense (doc 5). Robespierre had his own advantages by using methods such as the Terror. Should anyone oppose him, or disagree with him, they saw the guillotine.
There were more disadvantages to the Terror than there were advantages. Robespierre went too far with his ideas, and he was arrested, and then killed. Robespierre was also betrayed by those who had supported him. However, many of those that he had executed were former allies (doc 6). The Revolution quickly lost its credibility. It became a revolution of either one is with them, or one dies (doc 13). After much time, the public was starting to become aware of what is going on. They begin to realize that is one is accuses, he is dead. Too many innocent French patriots were being put to death for nothing (doc10).
Overall, the Terror had more flaws then benefits. The only benefit of the Terror was that Robespierre's enemies were out of the picture. Flaws included; people living in constant fear, innocent people dying, and people dying for their social status, or not backing the Revolution. The French people lost many of their rights during the Terror. They can no longer gather publicly, and they could not defend themselves, and were taken immediately to the guillotine. b
Throughout the year the Terror lasted, at least 14,000 people were executed for ideas about counter revolution, or "crimes" committed against the state (doc 3). Robespierre took away all rights of those who were arrested, so people could be executed for simply being accused. The Terror was not just in Paris, it took place in all of France, with some regions executing more than 500 people (doc 1). The Terror was not limited to just those who had oppressed the people. Everyone could be a potential victim. Everyone's lives were in danger. If anyone had different ideas, or opposed Robespierre, they were given the death sentence (doc2).
Sentencing everyone who opposed Robespierre to the guillotine had advantages. His opposition was destroyed. The people agreed that in order for peace to be restored to France, those within its borders who opposed the revolution had to be put down (doc 9). The general opinion of the soldiers fighting for France during the revolution was the same. Their leaders saw it as an easier way to execute a traitor than a firing squad, and that it could execute many without the expense (doc 5). Robespierre had his own advantages by using methods such as the Terror. Should anyone oppose him, or disagree with him, they saw the guillotine.
There were more disadvantages to the Terror than there were advantages. Robespierre went too far with his ideas, and he was arrested, and then killed. Robespierre was also betrayed by those who had supported him. However, many of those that he had executed were former allies (doc 6). The Revolution quickly lost its credibility. It became a revolution of either one is with them, or one dies (doc 13). After much time, the public was starting to become aware of what is going on. They begin to realize that is one is accuses, he is dead. Too many innocent French patriots were being put to death for nothing (doc10).
Overall, the Terror had more flaws then benefits. The only benefit of the Terror was that Robespierre's enemies were out of the picture. Flaws included; people living in constant fear, innocent people dying, and people dying for their social status, or not backing the Revolution. The French people lost many of their rights during the Terror. They can no longer gather publicly, and they could not defend themselves, and were taken immediately to the guillotine. b
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Candide Outline
I. Thesis: Martin's pessimism has to be preferred over Pangloss's optimism, even though it is good to have an optimistic view of things because one cannot be happy with the unfortunate events Candide had to go through.
A.Voltaire's entire purpose of writing Candide was to implicate the faults of Liebnitz's optimistic philosophies
B. Liebnitz's optimism said that everything that happened, no matter how unfortunate was the best case scenario.
II. There are two sides to this optimism pointed out in Candide; Martin's pessimism and Pangloss's optimism
A) Martin believes that the worst will always happen, he believes in Murphy's law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
B) Pangloss is Liebnitz in Candide, teaching him that anything that happen must be the best case scenario, no matter how terrible
C) "It is clear, said he, that things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end. Observe: noses were made to support spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs, as anyone can plainly see, were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches. . . . Consequently, those who say everything is well are uttering mere stupidities; they should say everything is for the best." Pangloss' explanation for his optimism
III. Martin's pessimism is better to believe in that Liebntz's optimism
A) Martin is more realistic in his approach to life.
1) he believes that the worst will always happen, and has a negative outlook on his own life
2) however, he is overcome with joy when a fortunate event takes place
B) He questions why bad things have to happen, and can attempt to make them better, when Candide believes they are the best that they can ever be.
1) when the ship sank and most of the people aboard drowned, he believed God was punishing them
2)"You see, said Candide to Martin, crime is punished sometimes; this scoundrel of a Dutch merchant has met the fate he deserved. —Yes, said Martin; but did the passengers aboard his ship have to perish too? God punished the scoundrel, the devil drowned the others."
IV. Pangloss's optimism is not good to believe in because terrible things are never the best, everything can always get better.
A) He believes nothing can possibly be better than it is, and that there is no room for improvement.
B) If he fails, or is robed he is happy because he believes something worse would have happened.
C) At the end, Pangloss shows exactly why a life of optimism is not ideal. "—Let’s work without speculating, said Martin; it’s the only way of rendering life bearable. The whole little group entered into this laudable scheme; each one began to exercise his talents. The little plot yielded fine crops . . . and Pangloss sometimes used to say to Candide: —All events are linked together in the best of possible worlds; for, after all, if you had not been driven from a fine castle by being kicked in the backside for love of Miss Cunégonde, if you hadn’t been sent before the Inquisition, if you hadn’t traveled across America on foot, if you hadn’t given a good sword thrust to the baron, if you hadn’t lost all your sheep from the good land of Eldorado, you wouldn’t be sitting here eating candied citron and pistachios.
—That is very well put, said Candide, but we must go and work our garden"
D) "A hundred times I wanted to kill myself, but always I loved life more. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our worst instincts; is anything more stupid than choosing to carry a burden that really one wants to cast on the ground? to hold existence in horror, and yet to cling to it? to fondle the serpent which devours us till it has eaten out our heart?" And old woman explaining her take after unfortunate events happened to her.
V. Both philosophies are flawed, but Martin's is more realistic
A) there will always be unfortunate events, but there is room for improvement.
B) Nothing is ever the best it can be, there is always a better option.
C) At the end, there is peace between the group, but not happiness. They determine they must make the best of what they have. "It’s a hard question, said Candide. These words gave rise to new reflections, and Martin in particular concluded that man was bound to live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom."
A.Voltaire's entire purpose of writing Candide was to implicate the faults of Liebnitz's optimistic philosophies
B. Liebnitz's optimism said that everything that happened, no matter how unfortunate was the best case scenario.
II. There are two sides to this optimism pointed out in Candide; Martin's pessimism and Pangloss's optimism
A) Martin believes that the worst will always happen, he believes in Murphy's law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
B) Pangloss is Liebnitz in Candide, teaching him that anything that happen must be the best case scenario, no matter how terrible
C) "It is clear, said he, that things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end. Observe: noses were made to support spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs, as anyone can plainly see, were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches. . . . Consequently, those who say everything is well are uttering mere stupidities; they should say everything is for the best." Pangloss' explanation for his optimism
III. Martin's pessimism is better to believe in that Liebntz's optimism
A) Martin is more realistic in his approach to life.
1) he believes that the worst will always happen, and has a negative outlook on his own life
2) however, he is overcome with joy when a fortunate event takes place
B) He questions why bad things have to happen, and can attempt to make them better, when Candide believes they are the best that they can ever be.
1) when the ship sank and most of the people aboard drowned, he believed God was punishing them
2)"You see, said Candide to Martin, crime is punished sometimes; this scoundrel of a Dutch merchant has met the fate he deserved. —Yes, said Martin; but did the passengers aboard his ship have to perish too? God punished the scoundrel, the devil drowned the others."
IV. Pangloss's optimism is not good to believe in because terrible things are never the best, everything can always get better.
A) He believes nothing can possibly be better than it is, and that there is no room for improvement.
B) If he fails, or is robed he is happy because he believes something worse would have happened.
C) At the end, Pangloss shows exactly why a life of optimism is not ideal. "—Let’s work without speculating, said Martin; it’s the only way of rendering life bearable. The whole little group entered into this laudable scheme; each one began to exercise his talents. The little plot yielded fine crops . . . and Pangloss sometimes used to say to Candide: —All events are linked together in the best of possible worlds; for, after all, if you had not been driven from a fine castle by being kicked in the backside for love of Miss Cunégonde, if you hadn’t been sent before the Inquisition, if you hadn’t traveled across America on foot, if you hadn’t given a good sword thrust to the baron, if you hadn’t lost all your sheep from the good land of Eldorado, you wouldn’t be sitting here eating candied citron and pistachios.
—That is very well put, said Candide, but we must go and work our garden"
D) "A hundred times I wanted to kill myself, but always I loved life more. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our worst instincts; is anything more stupid than choosing to carry a burden that really one wants to cast on the ground? to hold existence in horror, and yet to cling to it? to fondle the serpent which devours us till it has eaten out our heart?" And old woman explaining her take after unfortunate events happened to her.
V. Both philosophies are flawed, but Martin's is more realistic
A) there will always be unfortunate events, but there is room for improvement.
B) Nothing is ever the best it can be, there is always a better option.
C) At the end, there is peace between the group, but not happiness. They determine they must make the best of what they have. "It’s a hard question, said Candide. These words gave rise to new reflections, and Martin in particular concluded that man was bound to live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)