Question Number 6

Question: "Structures, both social and physical are continually improving." Agree or disagree

Thesis: Social and Physical structures are improving in our world today.  

Primary Source #1

Report has also reached us that in the matter of the marriages of serfs, excessive payments are taken. We therefore command that no payments for marriage in any case exceed the sum of one solidus. If they are poor, even less should be given. If they are rich, they are never to pay more than the said solidus. We also desire that the marriage payment be in no way assigned to our accounts, but that it be devoted to the good of the tenants.

Pope Gregory the Great; Payment of a Merchant

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/600Merchet.html

Primary Source #2

Good day, Traveler. I am Samuel and I make my living as a cloth merchant. I live in a town with my lovely wife, Esther, our nine-year-old son, Michael, my journeyman, David, and my apprentice, Jeffrey. I weave fine cloth for the wealthy members of the nobility and I also import silk and velvet from the Far East. Michael is already learning my trade and will one day become a cloth merchant and inherit my business.

The Merchants Realm

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/middleages/contents.html

Primary Source #3

It is clear that the Egyptians were using their knowledge of the stars to assist them in their architectural projects from the beginning of the pharaonic period (c.3100-332 BC), since the ceremony of pedj shes ('stretching the cord'), reliant on astronomical knowledge, is first attested on a granite block of the reign of the Second-Dynasty king Khasekhemwy (c.2650 BC).

Building the Great Pyramid

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/great_pyramid_01.shtml

Explanation of Argument: Social and physical structures are always improving and changing. They have been all throughout history. For example, we do not have organized social classes nowadays. Also, our architecture has changed dramatically. We do not create large pyramids for our deceased. The way the Egyptians built their pyramids and created them so perfected in completely different than how we do it today. They looked at the stars and aligned their buildings perfectly. Now, we uses our mathematic tools for architecture. 

Question Number 5

Question: Were the Vikings "barbarians"?

Thesis: The Vikings were barbarians, they were conquers that didn’t have a true sense of government.

Primary Source #1

 Leif gave his name. "Art thou a son of Eric the Red of Brattahlid?" says he. Leif responded that he was. "It is now my wish," says Leif, "to take you all into my ship, and likewise so much of your possessions as the ship will hold." This offer was accepted, and [with their ship] thus laden they held away to Ericsfirth, and sailed until they arrived at Brattahlid. Having discharged the cargo, Leif invited Thori, with his wife, Gudrid, and three others, to make their home with him, and procured quarters for the other members of the crew, both for his own and Thori's men. Leif rescued fifteen persons from the skerry. He was afterwards called Leif the Lucky. Leif had now goodly store both of property and honor.

The Discovery of North America; The Saga of Eric The Red

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1000Vinland.html

Primary Source #2

845. The Northmen with a hundred ships entered the Seine on the twentieth of March and, after ravaging first one bank and then the other, came without meeting any resistance to Paris. Charles [the Bald] resolved to hold out against them; but seeing the impossibility of gaining a victory, he made with them a certain agreement and by a gift of 7,000 livres he bought them off from advancing farther and persuaded them to return. Euric, king of the Northmen, advanced, with six hundred vessels, along the course of the River Elbe to attack Louis of Germany. The Saxons prepared to meet him, gave battle, and with the aid of our Lord Jesus Christ won the victory. The Northmen returned down the Seine and coming to the ocean pillaged, destroyed, and burned all the regions along the coast.

Sources on the Ravages of the Northmen in Frankland

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/843bertin.html

Primary Source #3

883 - . . . In the spring the Northmen left Condc and sought the country along the sea. Here they dwelt through the summer; they forced the Flemings country with fire and sword. As autumn approached to flee from their lands, and raged everywhere, laying waste the, Carloman, the king, took his station with his army in the canton of Vithman at Miami, opposite Lavier, in order to protect the kingdom. The Northmen at the end of October came to Lavier with cavalry, foot soldiers, and all their baggage. Ships, too, came from the sea up the Somme and forced the king and his whole army to flee and drove them across the river Oise. The invaders went into winter quarters in the city of Amiens and devastated all the land to the Seine and on both sides of the Oise, and no man opposed them; and they burned with fire the monasteries and churches of Christ . . . .

Viking Raids in France

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/vaast.htm

Explanation of Argument: The Vikings killed many people. They conquered a large area of land and nations. They were barbarians. They wanted to conquer more and more. Also, there was not a sense of government. They had one leader but other than that no government at all. One of the most powerful leaders was Leif Ericson. 

Question Number 4

Question: Describe the significance of the Battle of Tours

Thesis: The Battle of Tours was a very significant battle because it kept Christianity alive.

Primary Source #1

All the nations of the Franks trembled at that terrible army, and they betook them to their king Caldus [Charles Martel], and told him of the havoc made by the Moslem horsemen, and bow they rode at their will through all the land of Narbonne, Toulouse, and Bordeaux, and they told the king of the death of their count. Then the king bade them be of good cheer, and offered to aid them. . . . He mounted his horse, and he took with him a host that could not be numbered, and went against the Moslems. And he came upon them at the great city of Tours. And Abderrahman and other prudent cavaliers saw the disorder of the Moslem troops, who were loaded with spoil; but they did not venture to displease the soldiers by ordering them to abandon everything except their arms and war-horses. And Abderrahman trusted in the valour of his soldiers, and in the good fortune which had ever attended him. But such defect of discipline always is fatal to armies. So Abderrabman and his host attacked Tours to gain still more spoil, and they fought against it so fiercely that they stormed the city almost before the eyes of the army that came to save it; and the fury and the cruelty of the Moslems towards the inhabitants of the city were like the fury and cruelty of raging tigers. It was manifest that God's chastisement was sure to follow such excesses; and fortune thereupon turned her back upon the Moslems.

Anon Arab Chronicler: The Battle of Poiters

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.html

Primary Source #2

Musa being returned to Damascus, the Caliph Abd-el Melek asked of him about his conquests, saying "Now tell me about these Franks---what is their nature?"
"They," replied Musa, "are a folk right numerous, and full of might: brave and impetuous in the attack, but cowardly and craven in event of defeat."
"And how has passed the war betwixt them and thyself? Favorably or the reverse?"
"The reverse? No, by Allah and the prophet!" spoke Musa. "Never has a company from my army been beaten. And never have the Moslems hesitated to follow me when I have led them; though they were twoscore to fourscore."

Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Primary Source #3

Truly this battle, the which was near to Poitiers in the fields of Beauvoir and Maupertuis, was right great and perilous, and many deeds of arms there was done the which all came not to knowledge. The fighters on both sides endured much pain: king John with his own hands did that day marvels in arms: he had an axe in his hands wherewith he defended himself and fought in the breaking of the press. Near to the king there was taken the earl of Tancarville, sir Jaques of Bourbon car] of Ponthieu, and the lord John of Artois earl of Eu, and a little above that under the banner of the captal of Buch was taken sir Charles of Artois and divers other knights and squires. The chase endured to the gates of Poitiers: there were many slain and beaten down, horse and man, for they of Poitiers closed their gates and would suffer none to enter; wherefore in the street before the gate was horrible murder, men hurt and beaten down....

Jean Froissart: On the Hundred Years War

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart1.html

Explanation of Argument: The Muslim people attacked the Franks on Frankish land in the city of Tours (Poitiers). The Muslims were defeated. This was a turning point in history. If the Muslim people had won, it would have been the end of Christianity. The Franks stopped the Muslims from destroying a religion. 

Question Number 3

Question:  Do you think Alexander honestly felt like he was avenging Persian wrongs? Or was that just propaganda to mask his goal of conquest?

Thesis: Alexander went out on a mission to avenge Persian wrongs, but it grew to something bigger.

Primary Source #1

[Alexander] was only twenty years old when he succeeded to the crown, and he found the kingdom torn into pieces by dangerous parties and implacable animosities. The barbarous nations, even those that bordered upon Macedonia, could not brook subjection, and they longed for their natural kings... Alexander was of opinion, that the only way to security, and a thorough establishment of his affairs, was to proceed with spirit and magnanimity. For he was persuaded, that if he appeared to abate of his dignity in the least article, he would be universally insulted. He therefore quieted the commotions, and put a stop to the rising wars among the barbarians, by marching with the utmost expediency as far as the Danube, where he fought a great battle...
The barbarians, we are told, lost in this battle twenty thousand foot and two thousand five hundred horse, whereas Alexander had no more than thirty-four men killed, nine of which were the infantry. 

Life of Alexander; Plutarch

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/plutarch-alexander1.html

Primary Source #2

For a man who is a man, work, in my belief, if it is directed to noble ends, has no object beyond itself; none the less, if any of you wish to know what limit may be set to this particular camapaign, let me tell you that the area of country still ahead of us, from here to the Ganges and the Eastern ocean, is comparatively small. You will undoubtedly find that this ocean is connected with the Hyrcanian Sea, for the great Stream of Ocean encircles the earth. Moreover I shall prove to you, my friends, that the Indian and Persian Gulfs and the Hyrcanian Sea are all three connected and continuous. Our ships will sail round from the Persian Gulf to Libya as far as the Pillars of Hercules, whence all Libya to the eastward will soon be ours, and all Asia too, and to this empire there will be no boundaries but what God Himself has made for the whole world.
But if you turn back now, there will remain unconquered many warlike peoples between the Hyphasis and the Eastern Ocean, and many more to the northward and the Hyrcanian Sea, with the Scythians, too, not far away; so that if we withdraw now there is a danger that the territory which we do not yet securely hold may be stirred to revolt by some nation or other we have not yet forced into submission. Should that happen, all that we have done and suffered will have proved fruitless--or we shall be faced with the task of doing it over again from the beginning. Gentlemen of Macedon, and you, my friends and allies, this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave.

The Campaign of Alexander; Arrian

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/arrian-alexander1.htm

Primary Source #3

I remember that years ago (how far away it seems to me now!) I wrote you an absurd and enthusiastic letter on the tomb of Achilles; I was on the threshold of my Persian expedition, and I vowed then that my model for life should be the valiant son of Peleus. I dreamed only of heroism and greatness; I had already won my victory over Thrace, and I thought that I was advancing against Darius at the head of my Macedonians and Hellenes simply to cover myself with laurels worthy of my ancestors. I can say that I did not fall short of my ideal either at Chaeronea or at Granicus; but today I hold a very different view of the political significance of my actions at that time. The sober truth is that our Macedonia was constantly threatened from the north by the Thracian barbarians; they could have attacked us at an unfavorable moment which the Greeks would have used to violate their treaty and break away from Macedonia. It was absolutely necessary to subdue Thrace so that Macedonia should have her flank covered in the event of Greek treachery. It was sheer political necessity, my dear Aristotle; but your pupil did not understand this thoroughly then and gave himself up to dreams of exploits like those of Achilles.

A letter from Alexander to Aristotle

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/alexfake.html

Explanation of Argument: When Alexander was crowned King, he set out to revenge the Persians. He wanted to get back at the Persians for hurting them. Alexander conquered different people as he was going for the Persians. Once he did conquer them in a great battle. Alexander was not done. He wanted to conquer more and more. Alexander originally set out just to get back at the Persians but then wanted to grow his city and conquer the world. 

Question Number 2

Question:  Who is a better model for modern historians: Herodotus or Thucydides? Why?

Thesis: Thucydides is a better model for modern historians than Herodotus because he is easier to understand, and gives a great graphic image in his writings. 

Primary Source #1

Thucydides was not writing the history of a period. His subject was an event-the Peloponnesian War-a war, as he believed, of unequalled importance, alike in its direct results and in its political significance for all time. To his task, thus defined, he brought an intense concentration of all his faculties. He worked with a constant desire to make each successive incident of the war as clear literature more graphic than his description of the plague at Athens, or than the whole narrative of the Sicilian expedition. But the same temper made him resolute in excluding irrelevant topics. The social life of the time, the literature and the art did not belong to his subject.

11^th Brittanica: Thucydides

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/eb11-thucydides.html

Primary Source #2

"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace

Pericles Funeral Oration; Thucydides

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pericles-funeralspeech.html

Primary Source #3

Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he could see the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the quarrel; those who delayed doing so at once having it in contemplation. Indeed this was the greatest movement yet known in history, not only of the Hellenes, but of a large part of the barbarian world- I had almost said of mankind. For though the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more immediately preceded the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained, yet the evidences which an inquiry carried as far back as was practicable leads me to trust, all point to the conclusion that there was nothing on a great scale, either in war or in other matters. 

History of the Peloponnesian War; Thucydides

http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html

Explanation of Argument: Thucydides is a better model for modern historians because he is strong about his point and is quick to get to it.  In all of his writings it is easy to tell what he is talking about and which side of the argument is on. Thucydides writes in a style that is not just the background of the subject but is “graphic”. While reading, it is easy to picture what he is describing. 

Question Number 1

Question: Explain why some scholars have called the Ancient Egyptians a "death obsessed" culture. Do you agree?

Thesis: Life of the Ancient Egyptians revolved around death. 

Primary Source #1

The mode of embalming, according to the most perfect process, is the following:- They take first a crooked piece of iron, and with it draw out the brain through the nostrils, thus getting rid of a portion, while the skull is cleared of the rest by rinsing with drugs; next they make a cut along the flank with a sharp Ethiopian stone, and take out the whole contents of the abdomen, which they then cleanse, washing it thoroughly with palm wine, and again frequently with an infusion of pounded aromatics. After this they fill the cavity with the purest bruised myrrh, with cassia, and every other sort of spicery except frankincense, and sew up the opening. Then the body is placed in natrum for seventy days, and covered entirely over. After the expiration of that space of time, which must not be exceeded, the body is washed, and wrapped round, from head to foot, with bandages of fine linen cloth, smeared over with gum, which is used generally by the Egyptians in the place of glue, and in this state it is given back to the relations, who enclose it in a wooden case which they have had made for the purpose, shaped into the figure of a man. Then fastening the case, they place it in a sepulchral chamber, upright against the wall. 

Herodotus. The Histories

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-mummies.html

Primary Source #2

"Homage to thee, Osiris, Lord of eternity, King of the Gods, whose names are manifold, whose forms are holy, thou being of hidden form in the temples, whose Ka is holy.

Papayrus of Ani; Egyptian Book of the Dead

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html

Primary Source #3

In truth, I now come to you, and I have brought Maat to you,
And I have destroyed wickedness for you.
I have committed no evil upon men.
I have not oppressed the members of my family.
I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth.
I have had no knowledge of useless men.
I have brought about no evil.
I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.
I have not brought my name forward to be praised.
I have not oppressed servants.
I have not scorned any god.
I have not defrauded the poor of their property.
I have not done what the gods abominate.
I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.
I have not caused pain.

The Book of the Dead; The Judgement of the Dead

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM

Explanation of Argument: The Egyptian people were defiantly death obsessed. Death was a part of their everyday life. The Ancient Egyptians wrote about death, prayed to the Gods about death and even sang about death. Once someone died, there was a specific ritual performed to send that person into the afterlife. It was believed that there were three parts to the soul that each had a task to do in the afterlife. When a pharaoh died they were said to be the Osiris, King of the Gods. These people in history were truly death obsessed. 

The Battle of Tours

The Battle of Tours on Prezi

Historians Review

Herodotus- Persian War

Thucydides- Peloponnesian War

Xenophon- History in 5 century time of Socrates

Aristotle- encyclopedia

Plutarch- biographies

Pausanias- Travel Guides 

Code of Hammurabi - Code #2

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.

Code of Hammurabi - Code #7

http://animoto.com/play/EU8CaHzWsVJBTYhTU0oQrQ

Code of Hammurabi - Code #7

http://animoto.com/play/ABLDL6dGgcI1NwS06lnttw#

Is monarchy more or less effective than democracy?

 

            In the world, there are many types of government. The two types of government seen the most are monarchies and democracies. A monarchy government is “governmental system in which the head of state is a single person”. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-monarchy.htm). A democratic government system is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy).  The difference between a monarchy and a democracy is that when the people get more input to the government, they have a greater feeling of being free. In a monarchist government, there is only one person deciding the rules and the people do not get to choose anything. A Monarchy government is not as effective as a democracy when looking at evolution, stability, use of power and control.

            In monarchy government systems, there is only one person that can decide what happens in the nation. The only way for a new person to be in charge is if that person dies. Usually someone in his or her family takes over being in charge. Although it is a completely different person ruling, they would most likely have the same views as the previous head. This makes it hard for monarchies to adapt and evolve in the modern times. In democracies, the people are always choosing new leaders to govern the nation. The leaders work together to fix old and new problems that they are faced with. For example, in the United States, as different men and women were elected for many jobs, rules way of government changed. The Constitution is those rules written “in stone” technically. It was not meant to be changed originally, but once the world changed, it had to too. Those changes are called amendments. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html). In monarchies, there is not much room for dramatic change and evolution. In democracies, change happens every day.

            In governments, laws are made to keep order and control of the people. Monastic governments do keep order and control most of the time, but not necessarily for the good of the people. For example, King Henry VIII abused his power. He wanted a divorce from his wife, because she did not bear a male child for him. The Catholic Church would not allow this, so he used his power to create his own church: The Church of England.  (http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tudorbio.htm). During the same time, Martin Luther was also rebelling against the church. He posted the 95 Theses. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther95.txt). In democracies, unnecessary actions and laws are unlikely to take place. This is because there is not just one person that gets to decide everything. In order for a new law to be made, many people must approve it and pass it along to the next. Democratic governments allow the right amount of laws to be made, and no one person can change things due to their own needs. In monarchies, anything can happen if the king or queen says so.

            Monarchies and democracies are very different styles of government. Monastic governments consist of one leader who governs the entire country. That one person is the sole government. In democratic governments, the people get to choose what happens. They elect leaders who then work together to govern the nation. Democracies are more effective because most of the people are on the government’s side. Most agree with what is happening and support the decisions of the elected officials. The people living in countries with monarchies have no choice to be on the side of the government or not. Overall democracies balance the power between many people and give the average person a chance to input their opinions to the government.

Primary Sources

"The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net." Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Web. 31 May 2010.

FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 09 June 2010. .

Secondary Sources

"Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 01 June 2010. .

"The Life of King Henry VIII (1491-1547). Biography of Henry Tudor, King of England." Luminarium: Anthology of English Literature. Web. 01 June 2010. .

Logic, Your. "What Is a Monarchy?" WiseGEEK: Clear Answers for Common Questions. Web. 01 June 2010. .

Picture From: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg

Is Exploration a 'Good' Thing?

To explore something can mean many different things. A person can explore land, science, literature, and many different topics. Lewis and Clark explored the land we live on today. Rosalind Franklin explored crystallography and eventually discovered the shape of DNA.  Scientists today are exploring the world of genetics trying to find cures for the diseases that have hindered our lives for years.  In history and modern times, exploration is a very good thing.

In 1803, the United States bought a large piece of land from the French. This was called the Louisiana Purchase. Thomas Jefferson, president at the time, wanted to go explore this land. There was so much area to cover; he would not be able to see everything in a day. Jefferson summoned the help from Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to go on this journey together. (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lewis-clark/). The exploration of this new land was very significant to our world today. If it Lewis and Clark did not set out to find new bodies of water or mountain ranges, we would not have the amount of civilization in that area that we do today. It could have taken years after the purchase to view this land, but Lewis and Clark stepped up to the plate. These men were brave enough to journey to the unknown to help the United States of America grow. (http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.toc.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl). Exploration of land is very important, because it can help countries create more metropolitan areas, and people can utilize the new land for their own purposes.

In biology classes around the world, DNA is one of the main subjects. Students explore the shape, function, building blocks and location of DNA. In 1952, most information about DNA was known, except what the actual shape of it was. For years scientists used many tools to view DNA. There was no evidence whether DNA was a circle, square, or triangle until Rosalind Franklin.  Franklin studied DNA at King’s College. She explored crystallography and took a picture that changed biology forever. Franklin took the picture called Photo 51. This picture showed that a DNA strand was in the shape of a double helix. (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.php).

Exploring science helps our society by discovering new things that can help our everyday life. People like Rosalind Franklin who discover something as simple as the shape of our hereditary information, help us become more advanced as a people.

            Today diseases like malaria and AIDS affect people in the world every day. Scientists are exploring ways to treat people and possibly find a cure. A group called HIV Vaccine Trials Network is working very hard to try to create a vaccine for this awful disease. It is hard to find a cure because viruses mutate and there are many different strands. (http://www.hvtn.org/science/strategies.html). If someone could find a cure, places like Africa, where AIDS is one of the main killers, would never be the same. Without the exploration of life-threatening diseases, our world would continue to suffer from them.

            Exploration is most definitely a good thing. People can live in new places if land was explored. People can know more about themselves if someone explored the simple things. People would be able to live longer if exploration of diseases were conducted. With exploration, anything is possible. The world is open for our exploration.

Primary Sources: http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.toc.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl

http://www.hvtn.org/science/strategies.html

Picture From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyphersculpture/2414831352/

Secondary Sources: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lewis-clark/

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.php

How is Renaissance art different than the art in the Middle Ages?

Renaissance art is much different from the art in the Middle Ages. Artists focused more on the human body and experiences in life. Rulers wanted this kind of art, so it was very popular back then. During the time of the Renaissance, artists learned of perspective. Studying perspective gave the art in the Renaissance depth. Art in the Middle Ages was simpler and more focused on religion and royalty. The Renaissance Art had a greater impact on the art painted today.

Picture From: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leonardo_da_Vinci.jpeg

"Renaissance Art." Browse the World at Mrdowling.com. Web. 24 May 2010. .