Medieval cities were smelly and filled with dung and pestilence. Today's cities are generally much more sanitary

Download 17.43 Kb.
Size17.43 Kb.
1. Both medieval cities and modern cities are the places for many population gathered. In medieval cities, the center of culture and politics is around church and the operations of the whole cities influenced by the church. Religious aspects played a so important role in medieval cities.  In modern cities, the center of culture and politics is located on the luxuriant areas or business areas. In my opinion, the poor is a common problem exists both in medieval cities and in modern cities. In medieval cities, the poor don’t have power and status in the society, and if you have lots of money, you could get higher authority in the society. It looks same in the modern cities today. The rich have more power and status than the poor in the society, and there are still have many poor people in the modern world and the gap between the rich and the poor still exists. In my opinion, modern cities still have great effects on culture and society, but not have great effects on religion as medieval cities did. Because in modern cities, the church don’t play an important role to society, and people don’t pay attention on the different religions.
Medieval cities were smelly and filled with dung and pestilence. Today's cities are generally much more sanitary.

Everything else is very similar. Cities then and now are a gathering places of economic focus, education such as universities, centers of religion, and a collection of artistic abilities. Both modern and Medieval cities influence culture, religion, and society in similar ways. 

I think that the modern world’s cities are somewhat similar to medieval cities in the since that they are both center the cities on business and religion. Although I feel like medieval cities were more centered on church than business and modern cities are more centered on business than church. Both cities have some problems with religions/ cultures not getting along. When there is more than one religion or culture in an area there is bound to be so disputes.

A problem that I think has stayed with cities through medieval and modern cities is crime. Crime has been a problem throughout time and continues to be a problem now. The difference is the way we deal with the crimes and what is being done.

I feel as though modern cities do not have the same influence on religion as medieval cities did. Medieval cities were centered on religion and that caused them to have a strong impact on how it was run. I do not think that today’s cities have such an impact on religion, everyone just stick to the religion they know and life isn’t centered around it/  
Medieval cities were commonly ridden of poverty and filth. Depending where you live in the world, this can still be the case. So this problem has lived on. Modern day cities have a great influence on culture, religion, and society. Even more so today due to technology and the internet being able to connect people around the world. 
I think that medieval cities do have some similarities to towns in the modern world. Some similarities involve the creation and use of businesses being in central locations in towns, and also the influence of the church. I think this is less influential today, but was certainly a larger influence around 100 years ago. Many people were more religious and the church was an influential part of their community. Some issues that medieval cities had that we are currently exposed to such as pollution and crime. These two aspects are common most everywhere, but most common in towns and cities. I think that modern cities do influence culture, religion and society. I do think that religion is less impacted today as it would be during medieval times, but I feel that society and culture are still very influenced by certain cities. Such as Paris, New York, London and Chicago. You go to each of these places and you are exposed to several different cultures- and each are uniquely their own.
2. The black plague was by far of the most devastating in Europe. 1/3 to 2/3rd of the people died. The church was deeply effected by this loss and lead to weaker church leadership and set the way for the protestant movement. The loss of people greatly delayed culture and production which weakened the countries. The Spanish flu was similar in devastating and leading to great loss of life as well as fear of disease. The numbers of Aids victims in the last 30 years especially in Africa are similar in the devastation to  generations of people and the loss of their benefits to society as a whole. 
I believe that the Black Death was the fourteenth century’s most devastating societal problem. In six years the Black Death was able to wipe out about a third of the population in Europe, and no one at the time knew the cause.  Although nothing is truly comparable to the black death in the modern society, I believe the best thing to put it up against is AIDS. AIDS is a disease in modern society that is killing a lot of people that carry the disease. It has already killed around 25 million people, which like the Black Death is a large number of deaths from a disease. I think we are a little better equipped for the challenge of dealing with AIDS due to all the modern medicine we have to try and find a cure for it. 
I feel that the most devastating crisis of the fourteenth century was the Plague, also known at the Black Death. This spread quickly across large areas, which were not prepared for this large epidemic. The exact number of the population who died from the disease is unknown as there were not really any records kept in the majority of the areas, however it is projected about half of the population was affected by the Plague.

I cannot think of any medical conditions that would be comparable to the Plague, but there are some other devastating events that have occurred in the past one hundred years. These events include World War II and the Great Depression, and in more current news there is the one hundredth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Both of these events resulted in at least one million deaths. Unlike the Plague, these modern crises were because of social differences and the cruelty of people.

We are better equipped with medicine and continuously evolving technology, which will prevent any type of plague to be spread such as the Black Death. The only comparable diseases I can think of are any type of STD/HIV/AIDS and Ebola. All of these diseases have some type of treatment, and we are able to find ways to prevent them from spreading.
When thinking of the 14th century, one thing that has always been taught in my history classes is the bubonic black, otherwise known as the black plague. This plague started in the east, traveling its way across trade routes at a exponentially greater rate the closer it got to Europe. Once in Europe the plague rapidly grew out of control with the close living quarters, killing around 50 million people in total. The only event in the past century that compares to the black plague in my mind is the Holocaust. This is arguably more tragic as it was a mans desire to carry out the extermination of a fellow man's race. I think we are in a more accepting generation so this could make us more equipped to deal with such a situation.
I believe that easily, the Black Death, or The Plague was the most devastating to European society. Due to the fast spread of the disease, many people were unprepared for the reality of the death count that they would be facing. The disease went through and killed over one-third of the population of Europe. The decrease in population led to limited workers available for working, which led to an economic downturn. There were less farmers to maintain crops, less sellers to provide goods and services to those needing it, and there were also many people from the churches killed. The one "stable" institute had been impacted as well and people were unsure where to turn.

I think the only comparable thing would be World War I and the economic crisis that followed. So many people were killed during the war, not just soldiers, but civilians as well. With these deaths, there were less men and women able to work in the jobs that desperately needed people. There was also the issue of a slumped economy. With inflation and such economic uncertainty, people were unsure about their futures. I feel that this is related to the Black Death because everyone was so scared and unsure of what was going to become of them and their world.

We are better equipped with modern medicine that wards off the spread of such diseases along with banking regulations that control our inflation and consumer spending that impacts our economic environment.

3. The Renaissance was a time of rejuvenation, enthusiasm, and experimentation. I think Machiavelli sort of reflected and distorted the spirit of this through his morality/ political attempts. He seemed as though he showed enthusiasm in getting what he wanted and experimented with the way he got what he wanted. In itself it seems like that kind of reflects the Renaissances spirit while also distorting it. I also think he kind of distorts the virtues of the Renaissance. Politicians today still somewhat apply his lessons in their ideas. He seemed to think that authority and power are essentially coequals, and that is how I feel a lot of politicians are today. With authority they believe they hold power. I do not believe it is a necessary thing, but I do believe that society will not change the way that it is. 

Machiavelli showed the ruthlessness of those people that want power. He did not distort as opposed to put light on the determination and lack of scruples needed to succeed in the world of politics in Italian city states. His statements are a comment on those that desire power in that way. That has not changed as we enter the 21st century. Evil is what is it is from the viewpoint of the common good. However the moral position is an individual viewpoint of what they operate under.
Machiavelli was able to both reflect and distort the spirit of the Renaissance through his various writings, including “The Prince”, as well as through his political power. He put a new perspective on the search for perfection in the Renaissance. While some of his writings led to people believing cunning and ruthless, politicians still use today about any away they can to move ahead. I do not feel that this is a necessary evil, but I also do not feel that it could be amended. Corruption and cunningness has been used in politics for years, and it is always going to happen.
Machiavelli was a renaissance man. He used what he have available to his advantage. His ability to keep the prince in power and maintain effectiveness proves so. I think it is morally questionable, but that is very common in politics so I would call it regular behavior. I definitely think it is used. It is a necessary evil to the politicians themselves, but is not necessary for the good in any way. 
I think Machiavelli took some liberties with his position to gain personal favor, but at the same time, I don't think he went above and beyond what others would have done in the same circumstance. While he may not have had the cleanest morals, I don't think he did anything too terribly wrong. Politicians today would be called honest by Machiavelli's standards, if only they were as moral. Corruption and personal gain have greatly increased, but I do think Machiavelli definitely started some of that in motion even though it was so long ago. Everything starts somewhere and in this case it has compounded.

Download 17.43 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright © 2023
send message

    Main page