Wiki Article

Peter the Hermit
This article discusses the involvement of Peter in the First Crusade as a leader and a preacher of the crusade. It begins with his leadership of one of the five sections of the People’s Crusade as they began a pilgrimage toward the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It details various battles he was involved in as he led the people in this pilgrimage. The article traces his life as it is associated with the crusades until his death in 1131.

1. 1,363 words.
2. Search term- Peter the Hermit. Title- Peter the Hermit
3. No disambiguation.
4. The discussion page talks of the scopes of the Wiki project the article falls within, religion, military, biography, middle ages, etc.
5. History of the page shows it has been edited 20 times the first on 5-13-04 and the last on 6-21-08.
6. No external links.
7. One reference.
8. No further readings.


I would recommend this article, but maybe only as additional information. In the body of the article it acknowledges that there are a number of scholars that disagree with some of the information. It would seem important to me to obtain information elsewhere as well.

First Crusaders

It is interesting to read about the first crusades and to realize how important just having a market system for your troops (crusaders) was. This is not something I would have thought could make or break your town when religious crusaders were passing through. The ability for the crusaders following Walter the Penniless to get supplies while en-route to Asia Minor seemed to be a deciding factor in whether the pass through was peaceful or not. It seemed that the crusaders following Peter the Hermit were more likely to haggle over prices and battles were more prevalent than when Walters’ followers went through. I wonder if the people in the towns were more confident because they had held off or bartered with Walters’ followers more successfully? Obviously those that placed the armor of the sixteen men on the walls of the town, in Semlin, were not concerned about the next religious army that would appear.

Frankish Empire?

I am always at a loss when I read about historic leaders with enough foresight to keep their Empires running and growing, yet they do not see far enough into the future to ensure what will happen to it when they are no longer around. Although Louis the Pious was able to further Charlemagne’s, his father, accomplishments he did not see that dividing up the Frankish empire would lead to it’s demise. I feel grateful that even though the system we have in place for our leaders leaves room for improvement, we also have a way to get rid of the “Louis the Fats” and “Charles the Simples”. We are also very fortunate that we have separation of church and state. Can you imagine with the diversity of religions we now have, how much worse our battles might be. I wonder if the main focus was more on gaining land and power, more of an ownership, rather than building an empire to ensure its continuance for the people. Would the Frankish empire have persevered longer?

Islam

The reading I found most interesting this week was Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. I must admit I my knowledge of the Islamic religion is not very strong. It was interesting to read the way the religion started and how it spread. I now understand the basis of this religion. It was also enlightening to read about Benedictine rule and the Rule of St. Francis. I think within each of these belief systems there are some similarities. Most important I see that living an honorable life is a consistent theme. It is distressing to me to read how Islam started and then to realize those on the world stage claim "jihad" and receive such major attention for it, while those that practice Islamic faith and work towards living an honorable life tend to be persecuted for the work of a few corrupt groups. I guess maybe not everyone's idea of honorable is the same, but I would ask, how someone could hurt another in the name of "god"? I know from reading that this has happened in history more than we can probably keep track. I wonder as the world continues to globalize if we will ever see this go into extinction

Few Good Men

The readings this week were full of examples of power hungry men. During this time it was very apparent that Rome lacked men of strong moral values. I'm sure that they existed, but the political and military realms of government were wrought with terror and upended with continous battles for power in and out of the Senate and military. I was left wondering why the Senate didn't exert more power against these "leaders". It seemed that from the moment Tiberius used violence to get what he wanted, it opened the door to forcing individual ideals on the masses with violence in the political realm. That just rolled over into the way the consuls dealt with the Senate. The Senate, in theory was representing the "people", which could have given them more power, but they seemed to be confined to following the constitution and those that challenged them twisted it to benefit the current scheme. Even though Tiberius was working to make Rome more successful by ensuring the veterans were cared for, he resorted to violence which made his concern for those he was fighting for take a backseat. I wonder if he had not resorted to violence if another route would have been taken by Rome in the Civil Wars that followed. Probably not, as there were few good men that followed. They all seemed to be overcome by the greed for power, money, or empire. Augustus seemed to be the only one who was content, and knew how to rule people, without "ruling" them.

The Roman Kingdom

I was intrigued to read about the development of Rome and the evolution that the constitutional system underwent during the change of eras. A continuous theme I saw between the Republic and the Kingdom was the large amount of power given to their officials. The consuls of the republic had power similar to that of the Kings during the Roman Kingdom era.It seems that although they bestowed great power to these people, they perhaps had foresight into the need to have a system of checks and balances. By limiting the powers of the consuls and at the same time granting them imperium. I wondered if this was to keep one person or group from becoming all powerful. If so, then they were using a double edge sword because they were also trying to keep other "lower" classes like the Plebeians from gaining even a small amount of power over their own lives let alone any power over others.

Wikipedia Article Analysis

This article discusses the evolution of Roman constitutional system. The evolution of the Constitution is divided into four different time periods. The Constitution of the Roman Kingdom came first and was followed by the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the Constitution of the Roman Empire and then the Constitution of the late Roman Empire. Within each epoch the constitution changed, but the changes were gradual. The governing "agencies" within the various constitutions were the Senate, the Legislative Assemblies, and the Executive Magistrates. There are present day countries who have used various forms of these constitutions as a model for forming their own constitutions.

1. The word count of this article is 2,237
2. The search term I used was Early Roman Senate. The title is Roman Constitution.
3. There was not a disambiguation.
4. The discussion page has only one entry. It is from an "amateur history buff" informing the reader of a future series of more in depth information.
5. There have been forty changes to this page. The first 10/29/07 and the most recent was on 9/2/08.
6. There are no external links.
7. There are six references.
8. Further readings include twelve other books and articles.

This is a very short article. It gives a good overview of the workings of the Roman Constitutional system. I would recommend this to someone if they just wanted an overview of how it works, but to really understand the system and it's evolution this would only get you started.