The political history of Eastern Europe during the second half of the 20 th century contained a p... more The political history of Eastern Europe during the second half of the 20 th century contained a pair of significant revolutions. These were the communist revolutions following WWII during Soviet occupation and the anticommunist revolutions of 1989. These were two very different revolutions, the first transforming mainly rural communities into a single industrial society and deposing the elite members of society. The revolutions of 1989 saw an acute rise in public displeasure due the failure of the communist system. In turn, there were a series of mostly peaceful revolutions amongst Soviet client states seeking to end their communist state of government. In Timothy Garton Ash's work The Magic Lantern the reader is provided with a first person account of anti-communist events that take place in Poland, Hungary, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. This work provides detailed insight to the public situation that was developing within these countries, which was the growing resentment of their communist providers. Although the revolutions of 1989 and took place rather quickly to the eyes of the West, they were not spontaneous. In actuality, it was the long span of economic failure and social unrest within the Soviet Union and its client states that ultimately led to the 1989 revolutions taking place. These revolutionaries found unity within political parties such as the
The Alexiad and The History of Saladin: a comparison From the 10 th to the 12 th century, acts of... more The Alexiad and The History of Saladin: a comparison From the 10 th to the 12 th century, acts of crusade were prevalent and dominated the territories of the Middle East. These two works provide firsthand accounts from some of the most significant figures of the Crusader Era, although these authors differ in the allegiance they claim, their historical writing together has greatly benefited the study of the Crusades. It is clear through the reading of both of these primary sources that the Byzantines and the Sultanate had a palpable negative disposition to the western Latin Crusaders. Although, it is not accurate to claim that the two powers held any kind of eastern bond as they were both partial to each other as well and were open enemies. The Alexiad was written by Anna Comnena the eldest daughter of the Emperor Alexius I. The Byzantine Emperor was famous for the Komnenian Restoration, these were reformations that were responsible for halting a period of Byzantine Decline. Alexius I was also known for the possibility of catalyzing the Crusades, with his petition to western kings for military aid against the Seljuk Turks and their oppressive war on Byzantium. This primary source was a valuable asset in a historiographical sense for the time period, as it illustrates the images of the Crusade from a different perspective than that of western or Islamic historians. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, written by the Muslim intellectual Ibn Shaddad was another invaluable piece of primary historical writing from the Crusader Era. Ibn
The Roman Empire at its height was the most extensive political and social structure in Western C... more The Roman Empire at its height was the most extensive political and social structure in Western Civilization. By the year 284 AD the Empire had grown too vast to be ruled by a single central authority, this was due to many reasons. Some of the most prominent had to do with communication and military response. Due to the high number of hostile "barbarians" on multiple fronts, executing precise military actions was very difficult. The key strategic frontiers of Parthia, Rhine and Danubia were all a significant distance from Rome. So dividing the Empire into two equal halves with co-emperors seemed to be the most viable option. Two separate armies would defend its borders allowing normal civilian life to continue inside. Although there were undoubtedly economic and social implications that helped spur this division as well. The decision to split the empire was carried out by Emperor Diocletian in 284 A.D. Diocletian split the empire and gave the Western Empire to his peer Maxentius. Ultimately, the decision to split the Empire was done to preserve the Roman tradition and culture, keeping the Empire alive. The arguments that are raised from a historicity stance are did this strategy work and in what sense? How do you define the preservation of the Roman Empire? This essay will present specific evidence to support the argument that the tradition of the Roman Empire was ultimately preserved and existed prominently in Europe as late as the 15 th century.
The political history of Eastern Europe during the second half of the 20 th century contained a p... more The political history of Eastern Europe during the second half of the 20 th century contained a pair of significant revolutions. These were the communist revolutions following WWII during Soviet occupation and the anticommunist revolutions of 1989. These were two very different revolutions, the first transforming mainly rural communities into a single industrial society and deposing the elite members of society. The revolutions of 1989 saw an acute rise in public displeasure due the failure of the communist system. In turn, there were a series of mostly peaceful revolutions amongst Soviet client states seeking to end their communist state of government. In Timothy Garton Ash's work The Magic Lantern the reader is provided with a first person account of anti-communist events that take place in Poland, Hungary, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. This work provides detailed insight to the public situation that was developing within these countries, which was the growing resentment of their communist providers. Although the revolutions of 1989 and took place rather quickly to the eyes of the West, they were not spontaneous. In actuality, it was the long span of economic failure and social unrest within the Soviet Union and its client states that ultimately led to the 1989 revolutions taking place. These revolutionaries found unity within political parties such as the
The Alexiad and The History of Saladin: a comparison From the 10 th to the 12 th century, acts of... more The Alexiad and The History of Saladin: a comparison From the 10 th to the 12 th century, acts of crusade were prevalent and dominated the territories of the Middle East. These two works provide firsthand accounts from some of the most significant figures of the Crusader Era, although these authors differ in the allegiance they claim, their historical writing together has greatly benefited the study of the Crusades. It is clear through the reading of both of these primary sources that the Byzantines and the Sultanate had a palpable negative disposition to the western Latin Crusaders. Although, it is not accurate to claim that the two powers held any kind of eastern bond as they were both partial to each other as well and were open enemies. The Alexiad was written by Anna Comnena the eldest daughter of the Emperor Alexius I. The Byzantine Emperor was famous for the Komnenian Restoration, these were reformations that were responsible for halting a period of Byzantine Decline. Alexius I was also known for the possibility of catalyzing the Crusades, with his petition to western kings for military aid against the Seljuk Turks and their oppressive war on Byzantium. This primary source was a valuable asset in a historiographical sense for the time period, as it illustrates the images of the Crusade from a different perspective than that of western or Islamic historians. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, written by the Muslim intellectual Ibn Shaddad was another invaluable piece of primary historical writing from the Crusader Era. Ibn
The Roman Empire at its height was the most extensive political and social structure in Western C... more The Roman Empire at its height was the most extensive political and social structure in Western Civilization. By the year 284 AD the Empire had grown too vast to be ruled by a single central authority, this was due to many reasons. Some of the most prominent had to do with communication and military response. Due to the high number of hostile "barbarians" on multiple fronts, executing precise military actions was very difficult. The key strategic frontiers of Parthia, Rhine and Danubia were all a significant distance from Rome. So dividing the Empire into two equal halves with co-emperors seemed to be the most viable option. Two separate armies would defend its borders allowing normal civilian life to continue inside. Although there were undoubtedly economic and social implications that helped spur this division as well. The decision to split the empire was carried out by Emperor Diocletian in 284 A.D. Diocletian split the empire and gave the Western Empire to his peer Maxentius. Ultimately, the decision to split the Empire was done to preserve the Roman tradition and culture, keeping the Empire alive. The arguments that are raised from a historicity stance are did this strategy work and in what sense? How do you define the preservation of the Roman Empire? This essay will present specific evidence to support the argument that the tradition of the Roman Empire was ultimately preserved and existed prominently in Europe as late as the 15 th century.
Uploads
Papers by Ian Kemp
Drafts by Ian Kemp