Enclave and exclave, assignment: San Marino

San Marino is possibly one of the most famous enclaves in the world. It's told that is also the oldest enclave in existence due that is also believed that it was founded in 301 during the Roman Empire.

Like most of the enclaves, its area is very small (only about 61.2 km^2. They speak Italian so their communication with their neighbors (the “regioni” of Emilia Romagna and Marche).

Even though that San Marino (also known as the Most Serene Republic of San Marino) have just a few km of are, San Marino is considered to have a highly stable economy, with one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe, no national debt and a budget surplus.

Klemens von Metternich & Charles Maurice de Talleyrand's Essay

Klemens von Metternich & Charles Maurice de Talleyrand are probably the 2 most famous people when we talk about the congress of Vienna. They both share some characteristics (for example; they are controversial characters) and obviously, they are also different in some aspects (Charles supported Napoleon, at least for some time, and Klemens hated the French revolution for personal reasons). Because of this, I’m going to write an essay comparing these two characters in history.

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand:

His ascent to the power as one of the most important person’s in the “Napoleonic Era” was very complex. He first started as a priest and then, during the French revolution, he started his politic career by being one of the church representatives that accepted the values of the French Revolution. Nonetheless, he was still part of the Constitution Committee of the National Assembly, actually he wrote the 6^th article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen that states:

“Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.”

He was also ambassador of France in England, one of his biggest achievements is to get the neutrality of England for France, that historically talking, is a big achievement.

He tried to avoid “the Terror” from Robespierre in England, but a decree of accusation against him make him go to USA till Robespierre falls in France.

Once Robespierre falls, he sees an opportunity to get more power in a young person called: Napoleon Bonaparte. He support him so he can get to the power, but as the time passed him (Charles) didn’t though that the expansionism was a very good idea. He demitted, but he didn’t quitted his titles.

Time passes and he conspires against the emperor with Fouché. Napoleon suspects something’s wrong so he convenes a trial against Charles. Talleyrand with his exceptional argumentative abilities, humiliates Napoleon which (not very happy by the way) insults Talleyrand, Charles responds:

“What a pity that so great a man should have such bad manners.”

With the fall of Napoleon in 1815, Europe calls for a meeting in Vienna. Originally, so they can decide what punishment should get France and guard the continental hegemony for the rest of the countries.

In this meeting (known as the Congress of Vienna). France was originally not invited, but Talleyrand moved some influences and ask for some favors to be in that congress.

Not only he got in the congress, but also got that the punishment for France was minimum, this obviously using the differences of the other countries in his favor. Using the history and the old allies that France used to have. And with this he built a European balance that lasted about half a century.

In 1834 he retired from politics and in one of his memories states that he “never betrayed a government which had not betrayed itself first”.

He died the 17^th May 1838.

Klemens von Metternich:

Metternich's family was directly affected by both the Revolution and the fighting. After an early education by a series of private tutors, Metternich chose to attend the university at Strasbourg, a city which at various times has been part of either France or Germany (Fortunately, Metternich spoke French and German fluently). Arriving there a year before the French Revolution began, he quickly witnessed one side effect of the coming turmoil; when a mob of Strasbourg citizens attacked the city hall, a repelled Metternich described it as:

"A drunken mob which considers itself to be the people."

Transferring his university studies to the German city of Mainz, he met members of the French nobility fleeing the Revolution who insisted that the insurrection would quickly fail, and he believed them. But when advancing French armies destroyed much of their property and occupied their lands, Metternich and his family were forced to flee to the Austrian capital city of Vienna. He came to view revolutionaries as tyrants who used the word freedom to justify violence. He wrote that:

“The word freedom has for me never had the character of a point of a departure, but a goal…. Order alone can produce freedom. Without order, the appeal to freedom will always in practice lead to tyranny."

Once Metternich was back in Vienna, his career as a statesman and politician advanced rapidly. He married Eleonore von Kaunitz, granddaughter of the Austrian state chancellor, gave him access to the highest social and political circles in the Austrian Empire.

After serving as Austrian ambassador to Berlin and Dresden, Metternich was appointed ambassador to France in 1806.

During his time in France, he tried to study Napoleon (which in that time he considered him as the Conquer of the World), he was not overawed due that what he saw was a short, squat figure with a "negligent" appearance. He appealed to the French emperor's vanity by marrying Napoleon to Marie Louise, daughter of the Austrian emperor Francis I.

He sent such optimistic reports back to Vienna that the Austrian government went to war against France and lost. Yet when Metternich gained favorable peace terms from Napoleon, he was rewarded by being appointed the Austrian minister of foreign affairs in October 1809. In 1813, he was given the hereditary title of prince.

The year 1815 saw Metternich at the peak of his power and popularity in Austria. In 1810, Napoleon had been master of much of Europe, and Austria had been a virtual puppet of French foreign policy; five years later, Metternich had become a key leader in the coalition of countries which defeated the French emperor twice. Now the victors held the fate of Europe in their hands.

When the victorious countries agreed to hold a diplomatic conference at Vienna (the Congress of Vienna), Metternich saw it as a personal triumph. He believed that since Austria was at the center of the European Continent, it was the logical place to "lay the foundations for a new European order."

"I have," he wrote, "for a long time regarded Europe (rather than just Austria) as my homeland."

At the congress, Metternich's mastery of diplomatic maneuvering earned him the title of "the coachman of Europe." More than any other single leader, he seemed to determine the future direction of the Continent. One observer described him as "not a genius but a great talent; cold, calm, imperturbable, and a supreme calculator." Metternich's main goal at the congress was to promote the idea of the "Concert of Europe": if all the great powers acted together or in "concert," they would be able to prevent the outbreak of any large European war like the Napoleonic Wars. They might also be able to see that "the foundations of a lasting peace are secured as much as possible."

Some rulers, such as Tsar Alexander, wanted the congress to create an international "police system" to prevent future revolutions and block the emergence of new Napoleons. Metternich sympathized with this aim, but he also wanted to discourage any Russian interest in expanding into Europe. He also was determined to frustrate Austria's main rival in Germany, Prussia.

After 1815, Metternich devoted increasing amounts of his time to Austria's severe internal problems. The Austrian Empire was a conglomeration of 11 nationalities which had been forced under the rule of the Habsburg family by military conquests in the 17th century. The French Revolution had proved to be a threat to the multinational Habsburg Empire, since it fanned the nationalism of some groups in the Empire, such as the Hungarians. Metternich saw nationalism and liberalism as serious threats to the survival of the Austrian Empire and tried to suppress both. At the Congress of Vienna, he also worked to create confederations in both Germany (where he succeeded) and Italy (where he failed). 

When ultimately unsuccessful revolutions broke out in the Austrian Empire in 1848, Metternich, the "last great master of the principle of balance," became the target of angry mobs. Forced to resign, he went into exile in England before returning to Vienna in 1858. He died there a year later.

Like we can see in this essay is that both of these person used their diplomatic abilities to try to get something out for someone in the congress of Vienna.

For example; Charles was the representative of France (Which originally wasn’t invited to the congress) and reduced the punishment of France from the other countries by using the difference between the other countries and old allies.

Metternich used his diplomatic abilities to unite the other countries in favor of Austria so his country could get more power and respect from them.

And of course they had their differences:

Charles wanted the good of France and supported Napoleon during some time

Metternich hated the French revolution and wanted the good of all Europe (but mostly for Austria).

In conclusion, we’re analyzing the most 2 successful representatives of the Congress of Vienna, not only for the things that they got from it, but also for the position that they had before the congress and after the congress.

Bibliography:

Biography. (12 de Octubre de 2007). Obtenido de Biograpy.yourdictionary.com: http://biography.yourdictionary.com/klemens-von-metternich

Biografias y Vidas. (2 de Abril de 2004). Obtenido de biografiasyvidas.com: http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/t/talleyrand.htm

Marí, F. (23 de Octubre de 2011). Napoleon Bonaparte. Obtenido de Napoleonbonaparte.es: http://www.napoleonbonaparte.es/biografias/4-politicos-napoleonicos/740-charles-maurice-de-talleyrand.html

Kissinger, Henry A. A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace, 1812-1822. Houghton, 1957.

Kraehe, E. E., ed. The Metternich Controversy. Krieger Publishing, 1977.

May, Arthur J. The Age of Metternich, 1814-1848. H. Holt, 1933.

Milne, Andrew. Metternich. Rowman & Littlefield, 1975.

Palmer, Alan. Metternich. Harper, 1972.

de Sauvigny, G. B. Metternich and His Times. Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1962.

Schroeder, Paul W. Metternich's Diplomacy at Its Zenith, 1820-1823. University of Texas Press, 1962.

Schwarz, H. F. Metternich, the Coachman of Europe: Statesman or Evil Genius? Heath, 1962.

von Metternich, Klemens. Memoirs of Prince Metternich, 1773-1815. Edited by Prince Richard Metternich. Translated by Mrs. Alexander Napier. Scribner, 1880.

Wikipedia. (14 de Octubre de 2008). Obtenido de Wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurice_de_Talleyrand

The House of Hanover

The House of Hanover,  refers to the succesion line of:

• George I
• George II
• George III
• George IV

In the video, we only see the succesion to the throne of George I and George II.

The King George I came to the throne thanks that he was a protestant. He was the number 51 (approx.) and all the others 50 before him were catholic, the British Empire didn't wanted a catholic king.

George I was from Germany originally, and he actually never learned how to speak english, he just knew a few words. Obviously a few people were against his crowning (more specifically the Tories).

The Tories thought that the decision of making someone king just because he was a protestant wasn't a good idea, they though that a catholic person could do a work equally right. The Whig party on the other hand, really wanted to be ruled by a protestant, so you can see the conflict here.

Another problem was the relationship between George I - George II, they hated each other actually. They hated each other due that George I accused his wife (Princess Sophie Dorothea) of adultery and he banned her from seeing her kids, obviously George II (son of Princess Sophie)never forgave his father for separating him from his mother.

Baroque Assignment: Vivaldi's 4 Seasons

Everybody has heard this piece of music in their lives. It's one of the most representatives pieces of art in the 18th century.

Written by Antonio Vivaldi in 1725 in a set of 12 concerto's named: "Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione (The Test of Harmony and Invention)." One of the 500 composed concertos had to become a hit, right?

The King Louis XV of France, heard and loved the Spring season's music and he ordered to perform it at the most unexpected moments. That's why it became so popular.

The song is divided in 4 different seasons:

1.- Spring
2.- Summer
3.- Autumn
4.- Winter

The first one represents (obviously) the Spring, the music is a little bit energetic but beautiful, it represents the calm of the spring and the flowers, it's just beautiful how the music can represent the season.

The second one is the Summer, is a little bit darker due the constat rains in the summer and it's way more concentrated on the violin.

The third one is Autumn, I don't know why, but I find this season more relaxing than the Spring, the color of the leaves, the pacific wind, the air, the smell, everything.

The final one is the Winter, obviously this is supposed to be the darkest one due to all the cold and ice in this season, is also a little bit darker and they concentrate a little bit more on the low notes.

Bibliography:

http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/baroqueperiod/ss/fourseasons.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Seasons_(Vivaldi)
http://www.baroquemusic.org/vivaldiseasons.html

History Song

The first song that came to my mind when I read this homework was this one: "Pero - Mero", in English is "But - Mero". I don't know if this song actually counts because instead of talking about the event of 11/09/01. It talks more about how can everything be a conspiracy of the goverment, and shows some "proofs" that were extracted from a documental (I guess, 'cause I remember that I saw THAT documental). Here's the song:

Even tough it can be false, I still think is a great song, 'cause is kind of catchy :)

Now, if you want a 100% true event, we can talk about the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

This song is about the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the fall of communism in Germany, ending 40 years of dictatorial Communist rule. The song also address the fall of communism in Moscow (Russia) and details the waste of time that pasted before freedom was brought to these places, the joy of democracy and emotions of the times... Or at least that's what I think.

"The drum part in this song was inspired by a different part of the world. One hot night I lay under the stars on a rooftop in Togo and heard the sound of drums from across the valley. Even on the edge of sleep the drumming moved me, the rhythm stayed in my head, and while working on this song I used variations of it and other West African influences." 

(Neil Peart explaining the percussion aspect of the song)

The inspiration (obviusly) came because of the fall of the Berlin Wall, everybody was happy, but this song talks more deeply about it, what does it means, why it took so many time to this to happen and who is going to give back all the time of suffering to the people who suffered because of this wall.

Omar Khayyam - Biography

Omar Khayyam

“A hair divides what is false and true.” (Omar Khayyam)

Omar Khayyam was born on the 18th of May, 1048 AD in Iran. His full name was: Ghiyath al-Din Abu’l-Fath Umar Ibn Ibrahim Al-Nisaburi al-Khayyami. He was born into a family of tent makers, he spent part of his childhood in the town of Balkh, (in actual northern Afghanistan) studying under Sheik Muhammad Mansuri. 

Later on, he studied under Imam Mowaffaq Nishapuri (who was considered one of the greatest teachers of the Khorassan region, in actual Afghanistan) . Khayyam had notable works in geometry, particularly on the theory of proportions since he was a child.

He was a Persian polymath. Mathematician, philosopher, astronomer, physician, and poet.

He wrote treatises on mechanics, geography, music, etc. He also made BIG contributions to the geometry. Not only that he also helped a lot to the algebra, because Khayyam was the first mathematician who noticed the importance of a general binomial theorem. The argument supporting the claim that Khayyam had a general binomial theorem is based on his ability to extract roots.

 

Another achievement in the algebra text is Khayyam's realisation that a cubic equation can have more than one solution. He demonstrated the existence of equations having two solutions, but unfortunately he does not appear to have found that a cubic can have three solutions. He did hope that "arithmetic solutions" might be found one day when he wrote.

Khayyam was also part of a panel that introduced several reforms to the Persian calendar. On March 15, 1079, Sultan Malik Shah, accepted this corrected calendar as the official Persian calendar.

 

(Persian calendar)

Outside the world of mathematics, Khayyam is best known as a result of Edward Fitzgerald's popular translation in 1859 of nearly 600 short four line poems the Rubaiyat. Khayyam's fame as a poet has caused some to forget his scientific achievements which were much more substantial. Versions of the forms and verses used in the Rubaiyat existed in Persian literature before Khayyam, and only about 120 of the verses can be attributed to him with certainty.

Khayyam’s personal beliefs are discernible from his poetic oeuvre. In his own writings, Khayyam rejects strict religious structure and a literalist conception of the afterlife.

According to some recordings. Khayyam taught for decades the philosophy of Avicenna, especially in his home town: Nishapur, till his death. Khayyam, the philosopher can be understood from two rather distinct sources. One is through his Rubaiyat and the other through his own works in light of the intellectual and social conditions of his time. 

 

As a mathematician, Khayyam has made fundamental contributions to the Philosophy of mathematics especially in the context of Persian Mathematics and Persian philosophy with which, most of the other Persian scientists and philosophers like: Avicenna, Biruni, and Tusi are associated with his works.

Of all of his verses, the best known is this one:

The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

Omer Khayyam passed away on December the 4th 1131 in Nishapur, Persia now known as Iran.

Bibliography:

Omar Khayyam. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/omar_khayyam.html Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/citation/quotes/authors/o/omar_khayyam.html#cZAlWSBf5L8KzOz0.99

 

Personarte. (1993). Recuperado el 25 de November de 2013, de Personarte.com: http://www.personarte.com/omark.htm

J J O'Connor, E. F. (1999). Hystory. Recuperado el 25 de November de 2013, de Hystory.mcs.st: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Khayyam.html

History Articles

What sorts of discoveries and findings are being made in history today?

Most of them are bout some artifacts that the people in past had or places that people constructed in other periods of times that they were thought by the historians, comparing them to the things on that period of time and their knowledge about that time.

In what ways are these discoveries and findings being made?

Some of them are discovered by historians and paleontologist or specialized people that had worked during a lot of time to find some things, and in other discoveries, they are found by normal people, people that had no clue what they were till they found out by the museums or the specialist

What was unusual about some of the findings discussed in the articles?

That they were discovered by normal people, people who didn’t had a clue, people who were not a specialist on the history

Every new finding needs to be compared to similar findings that are already known. ¿Why?

Because it needs to be proved that is real and that is not from other things, it needs to be putted in a long process to see their similarities with other things that are known that are truth and their properties, including their aspect, what material is made of, how much time it has been since it was created, etc.

Was everyone involved in these findings a professional historian or scholar? How might you and your friends make similar findings?

No, the 3^rd and 5^th article are discovered by normal people, non a professional historian or scholar. And one of the ways we could find something is by luck, like 2 of the people in the articles did, just by curiosity or going into a cave that no one has noticed it existed.

What are some of the facts you learned form the articles?

1.    That a normal guy can find something very important in history

2.    That there have been a lot of things that we didn’t care about and could be something important to the history

3.    That these things need to be examined more carefully

Many of these findings were made at physical sites. What dangers are historic sites exposed to?

Wars, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, constructions, animals step on it, and pretty much every human or natural disaster close to (or in) that place.