West European Studies

The Magna Carta was introduced on June 15, 1215 by King John. There is no evidence that it was signed, but after King John approved of it, the royal chancery produced many copies that had his seal. Up to date, only four copies were able to survive. Two of them are in the British library, another in Lincoln Cathedral, and the last one in Salisbury Cathedral. This document was created due to the harsh conditions to which the King subjected his people, making them pay high taxes so that he could finance his campaigns. The opposition was against him and pressed for the peoples right, making the King agree to the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta states that the King is under the law, placing limits to his powers so that he could not be able to torture people again. It also considers the rights of the people by having a clause which states that a person should not be imprisoned or exiled unless approved by the law of the land after judgment. It also touches on the issue of justice saying that it should not be sold, denied to anyone, or delayed under any circumstances. This document also has rules concerning the treatment of widows and heirs. The Magna Carta also provides for uniform measures as far as wine, ale, and cloth are concerned. It also explains the conditions on how to pay debts. Issues of the church and many cities are also considered in the document. It touches on the conduct of local authorities such as Sheriffs and Constables to ensure that they understand and follow the law.

Since the king had been forced to agree to the document, he did all he could to have it banned. He made the pope disagree to it saying that it was just and unlawful and shameful. The protest escalated, resulting in civil war and making the king suffer from dysentery which was followed by his sudden death.

The document was thereafter reissued and confirmed a number of times. It was then known as Magna Carta, meaning the great charter. This document was approved by Sir Edward Coke the chief Justice at that time, calling it the declaratory of the principle grounds of the fundamental laws of England (Baker). Therefore, it was the basis for the petition of rights in 1628. Its clauses are still used today in the English Statute book. The most important of them all is the clause which protects the rights of people, stating that no free man should be imprisoned or exiled without judgment by the law of the land.

Superior Courts of Common Law
The common law was the law that was generally practiced in England. This law was developed in order to punish those that did any wrongful acts known as torts. These acts could be either international or any acts resulting from ignorance and negligence. The common law uses case-based reasoning and the procedure practiced in the law courts is called adversarial system. This law was developed in England in the period between 12th and 13th century and the decisions were based on tradition and common practices of the people.

Before the Norman conquest of 1066 in England, there were no law courts. County courts which were led by a bishop or sheriff were responsible for administering of justice. In this case, they exercised not only civil but also ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This was also the origin of the trial by jury process. In 1154, Henry who was the King at that time institutionalized the use of common law. He did this by creating a unified system of law, bringing local control to an end, and bringing the jury system where any person responsible for criminal investigations is sworn by oath. The jury also evaluated common knowledge without presentation of effort something which is not practical today.

The King also started a practice where Judges could be sent from the central court and visit many parts of the country to hear several cases. They would then return to London where they discussed the various disputes they had heard and the decisions each had made. The decisions would then be recorded and filed. Later, the rule of precedence came, whereby in the event that similar cases existed, the judge was supposed to follow the judgment done by the previous judge and not make his own decisions. Through this method, the decisions to be made remained constant. As a result, the local customs method was replaced by the common system of law governing the entire country, hence bringing about the name common law.

However, this unified system of law brought about conflicts especially in the Church under the leadership of Thomas Becket who was later murdered, and people believed that the murder was under Henrys rule. This however was debatable but at the time of the murder, the King and Thomas had serious disputes regarding the issue that courts should exercise jurisdiction and not the clergymen. This murder resulted in more conflict, forcing Henry to repeal the laws making the church accountable for all secular crimes. Despite this, common law operated for a long time until statutory law was introduced by the legislative council. Examples of the laws which have been replaced include the criminal law and commercial law.

The Court of Chancery and Equity
The court of chancery was made up of the crowns secretarial department and the Catholic clergy men who were the chancellors. The judicial power of this body began to be recognized in the 15th century .The issue of equity was not yet clearly defined. This is clearly shown when J.C. Holt says Equity as a body of rules varied from chancellor to chancellor, until the end of 17th century. In time, it was only lawyers who could be appointed in the office of chancellor.

Previously, it had been said that in efforts to remove anyone who had forcefully acquired land belonging to another person, one could allege dispossession and pay for the writ of entry. This writ enabled one to repossess his or her land and also get compensation. In order to restrict invention of new writs by judges, the legislature recommended that judges would be given the power to issue only a single writ at a time. This was clearly stated in a package known as form of action. People began to petition the King for relief, and in time, the petitions increased, making the king transfer the task to the Lord Chancellor. The chancellors were then required to pass judgments which were based on morals together with equality. This resulted in diverse decisions since the chosen chancellors had no legal training.

This issue was later solved when Thomas More became the Chancellor. He made sure that all future chancellors were lawyers who had legal training. As a result, all records of the proceedings were kept bringing about equitable doctrines. The law of equity was developed, resulting in conflicts with the common law. Such conflicts would be in cases where Litigants would go jurisdiction shopping and would often seek an equitable injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a common law court order (Holt). Another case was where Sir Edward Coke who was the chief justice by then started issuing writs that required that people who had been imprisoned because of breaking chancery orders be released.

This case was later solved by Sir Francis Bacon who was the attorney general at that time. He said that in cases of conflict between common law and equity, equity would win (Baker). The courts of common law and equity were later fused together forming one system. However, it was only the administration that was combined as there still is a body of rules of equity far much different from that of common law rules. The Judicature act was thereafter established, stating that there would be no different procedures for seeking pardon upon breaking of equitable or common laws. This formed the basis of court structure in England, till today. Despite being implemented by the same courts, a big difference still remains between the two branches and in cases of conflicts, equity is given priority.

Released in 2009, The Secret of Kells follows the story of a boy who lived during medieval times and how he succeeded an important quest to complete a famous, historically-significant book. Brendan was a young, ordinary orphan who was living with his strict uncle, Abbot Cellach, in a remote abbey at Kells. His village was on the verge of threat to the Viking invaders. One day, Aidan, a famous illustrator from Scots, arrived at the abbey and he was carrying with him an ancient yet unfinished book. Brendan offered Aidan help in completing the magical book and he was tasked t to a dangerous journey to find the specific ink needed the complete the mysterious and important sacred manuscript.

This event began Brendans journey that prompted him to leave the walls of his village and go on a quest through the enchanted forest where the materials for the ink could be found. Here he met a series of mythical and mysterious creatures that would either guide him in his journey or cause impediments into his safe return to the village. Added to that was the increasing danger from the camp of the Vikings who wanted to invade his village. One of the most important being that he met was Aisling, a young girl gifted with magical powers and could shape shift into a wolf. Using her supernatural abilities, she rescued Brendan and helped him complete his quest.

Despite being a flat, stylized animation, the film was received warmly by both its audience and the critics. A film that appeals to both young and adult viewers, the Secret of Kells is more than a religiously-themed film although this Oscar nominated animation is largely inspired by a very important piece of Christian document known as the Book of Kells. This book of sacred text is considered as one of Irelands most important treasure. It is a manuscript filled with texts, illustrations, and ornamentations that document the four Insular Gospels of the New Testament in Latin.

The Book of Kells is a very effective aid to understand medieval extravagance and complexity for it mirrors the kind of perspectives and beliefs that people uphold during the medieval times. This particular manuscript surpassed other Gospel books in terms of intricate and patient designs because of the way the illustrations in the Book of Kells are carefully done to complete a masterpiece. Even if it was a pre-Renaissance piece of work, it still depicted brilliance and artistry. Excessive effort and resources are invested in completing this fine manuscript filled with Christian icons, Celtic symbols, and sacred images. Delicately ornamented and detailed, the book also represents the complex spirituality dominant during the medieval era.

The Secret of Kells is indeed a haunting movie that gives justice to the luminous artistry of the book it was inspired from not only because of the flat but creatively styled illustrations of the animation but also because of the powerful storyline that goes with it. The almost surreal feel of the film and the successful characterizations that match the plot makes the Secret of Kells effective in delivering the tale of how such mysterious and historically famous book was completed.

Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882) is a renowned Italian political and military figure who significantly contributed to the liberation of southern Italy. In his early twenties, Giuseppe Garibaldi joined patriot revolutionaries of Italy but was later forced to flee from his country following a failed insurrection. He was a key figure during the Farrapos War as well as Uruguayan civil conflict, which led to Italian Legion. He later went back to his country as served as a commander during the Risorgimento conflicts. Even though Garibaldi participated in several battles during his life time, he is most remembered for his great contribution in fighting for southern liberation as well as advocating for Italian unification. He won several battles and lost several others while relentlessly pursuing his noble ambition of liberating Italians. However, the great setbacks he suffered never made him to give up his quest and continued fighting for what he truly believed was the right thing for his nation.

Giuseppe Garibaldi and the liberation of Southern Italy
When Garibaldi was still a child, Nice that was being ruled under Napoleonic of France, started being ruled by the Italian kingdom. It is believed that this is one of the factors that triggered the Garibaldis desire to liberate his nation and later unite it. Italy was deeply rooted in Garibaldis childhood experiences, particularly the experience of watching his hometown nationality being altered. Garibaldi firmly resisted his mothers desires of joining priesthood and set off for the sea at an early age of fifteen years. By the age of twenty five years, he had already risen to the position of a captain. In the early years of 1830, Garibaldi became actively involved in the movement of Young Italy, which was being led by one of his greatest mentors, Giuseppe Mazzini. This movement was firmly devoted to unification as well as liberation of Italy, most regions of which were under the rule of the Austria commonly known as Papacy.

Garibaldi became actively involved in a major plot of overthrowing the government of Piedmontese, but unfortunately the plot was not successful and he was therefore compelled to flee. In his absentia, Garibaldi was sentenced to death by the government for the failed coup attempt. Since he could not return to his nation for fear of his life, Garibaldi was forced to sail to South America. But his determination of liberation southern Italy did not fade and continued working hard and hoping that he would one day go back to his country and liberate Italians. While in exile Garibaldi became rebel and participated in South American conflicts where he successfully assisted in fighting Uruguay and Brazil. He led military forces which were very successful in defeating the Uruguayan dictator. His conflict experiences in South American proved very essential when he finally went back home and continued pursuing his desires of liberating Italy.

During the entire period Garibaldi stayed in South America, he maintained a close relationship with Mazzini who was a revolutionary colleague to him. By then, Mazzini was living in London where he had escaped to following the failed coup attempt, which he had engineered. On a continuous basis, Mazzini promoted Garibaldi since he saw the great potential the young military figure had in liberating and unifying Italy. In the wake of revolutions breakout across Europe in the late 1840s, Garibaldi returned to Italy. His first stop was in Nice, on his return Garibaldi was accompanied by his Italian Legion composed of more than sixty loyal fighters. As several rebellions and wars broke in his nation, Garibaldi effectively commanded military troops but was later forced to flee to Switzerland.

When Garibaldi went back to his nation, Italy was experiencing the 1840s revolution turmoil. He offered his military services to Albert of Sardinia and thus participated effectively in the ongoing armed conflict in his country. The monarch of being ruled by Albert displayed some elements of liberal inclinations. However, Garibaldi treated these inclinations with high levels of coolness although distrusting them. This was because he needed the support of the monarch in liberating the country and could revisit the issue later after his country was fully liberated. Piedmontese rebuffed him, and together with his troops, Garibaldi crossed over to Lombardy and provided a lot of military assistance to Milans provisional government, which had opposed the occupation of Austria. During the period of the first Italian independence war that was largely unsuccessful, Garibaldi led his troops to two victories which were minor at Morazzone and Luino.

Following his successful crushing of Piedmontese at Novara, he led his troops to Rome where they offered support to the nation which was under the rule of the Papal States. They faced a tough time when military forces from France were employed into the region by Louis Napoleon, who later became Napoleon III this particular encounter in fact threatened toppling the Garibaldis forces. In the late 1840s, the republican army that was being led by Garibaldi defeated the French army although the latter had more soldiers compared to the ones being commanded by Garibaldi.  As a result, more reinforcements from France were sent to fight Garibaldi forces and this brought about the Rome Siege. Despite the strong resistance that was offered by Republican army being commanded by Garibaldi, French forces eventually prevailed. Having been defeated by the strong French forces, Garibaldi gave a speech which clearly showed his great loyalty and nationalism he had to his nation. In his speech he said that it does not matter where the Italians are dispersed by other military forces of other nations, but Rome will always be there.  

A ceasefire was later negotiated and it was agreed that Garibaldi should withdraw all his troops, which were about four thousand from Rome. The great idea of liberating and unifying Italy was strongly opposed by Spain, France and Austria. These nations thus sent their troops which overpowered Garibaldis forces and forced him together with his troops to flee towards north, with the aim of reaching Venice. This is due to the fact that it is in this region where Venetians still resisted the Siege of Austrians. Following a grand march, he led his troops to a temporary refuge in the region of San Marino.

Garibaldi together with his few remaining troops finally managed to get to Portoverene, which is located near La Spezia. However, he was forced by the government of Piedmontese to emigrate abroad once more. After staying for a while in Tangier, Garibaldi then went to the Island of Staten. During this particular exile period, Garibaldi avoided a lot of publicity he instead worked in the factory of his host, Antonio Meucci, as a candle maker. He was however not satisfied with his new job as he kept meditating how he would one day liberate his nation, which had proved to be an uphill task for him mainly because he was being opposed by several governments neighboring Italy.

In 1854, Garibaldi went back to his country applying his dead brothers legacy. Caprera Italian Island located in the northern part of Sardinia and devoted himself fully to agriculture. Five years, the second independence war of Italy, commonly known as the battle of Austro-Sardinia broke out. Due to the great experience and desire to liberate his nation, Garibaldi was appointed as the major general he created a unit of volunteers which was commonly called Hunters of the Alps. Having tried to liberate Italy for several years, through the republican ideals of Mazzini, Garibaldi finally left his mentors camp to join the monarchy of Piedmontese.  He made this all important move since he strongly believed that this was the only monarchy with the capacity of liberating Italy.

Together with his several volunteers, Garibaldi won major battles over Austrians in several places such as Como and Varese. He was however greatly disappointed when Nice, his home town was eventually surrendered to France, in exchange of significant military assistance from the French. In 1860 when Garibaldi was Nices deputy in the parliament of Piedmontese in Turin, he led his troops in vehemently attacking Cavour because of his actions of ceding Nice to Frances Emperor, Louis Napoleon.

Having fought for several years in order to achieve Italian liberation, the Government of Italy eventually bought Garibaldis ideas. In fact, when the Austro-Prussian conflict broke out in 1866, Garibaldi was fully supported by the ruling Italian government. Garibaldi led his fellow countrymen to join hands with Prussia in order to fight Austria and Hungary. In doing so, Garibaldi and his team hoped that that Italy could take Venetia away from the rule of Austrians this battle became the third independence war of Italy. This powerful Italian military leader and liberator gathered the Alp Hunters and led them in invading Trentino. The Austrians suffered humiliating defeat on the hands of Garibaldi and his Alp Hunters at Bezzacca.  

After the battle, this great Italian military leader and liberator led a party that was purely political, the party agitated relentlessly for Romes capture. In the late 1860s, Garibaldi marched again to the city, however the army of Papal which was being supported by the auxiliary force of France opposed Garibaldis move. During this particular armed conflict, Mentana Battle, Garibaldi suffered a gun shot which badly wounded his leg. He was therefore forced to withdraw from the territory of Papal. Although the Italian government had joined hands with Garibaldis forces during the Austro Prussian battle, it imprisoned him for a while before releasing him and allowing him to go back to Caprera.

Despite the great challenges and drawbacks Garibaldi suffered in his attempts to liberate and unify Italy, he never relented on his tough mission. In 1860s, Italy was again locked in political upheavals, which again called Garibaldi to go to battle. He arrived in Sicily in the early 1860s accompanied by his loyal followers. The troops under the leadership of Garibaldi were informally referred as Thousand Red Shirts. When the Prussian-Franco conflict started in 1870, the public opinion of the Italians strongly favored Prussians. In fact, several Italians signed up to become volunteers in the war in order to assist the Prussians in fighting the French. Following the garrison of France being called back from Rome, the army of Italy eventually captured states of Papal without the physical presence of Garibaldi, but using his war tactics and ideologies. Following the collapse of wartime during the second empire of France in the Sedan battle, Garibaldi was faced a lot of hostility under the rule of Napoleon III and was thus forced support the third republic of France. This great Italian military and political leader led his troops and effectively conquered Neapolitan troops. The defeat of these troops basically meant the defeat of the island and easy crossing the Messina Straits into the mainland of Italy. After Garibaldi, matched northwards and reached Naples, he made an entry which was quite triumphant, into a city that had not experienced any major defeat in the past. At this point, Garibaldi declared him self an Italian dictator.

Conclusion
Throughout his life, Garibaldi was actively involved in several battles most of which were aimed at liberating his nation. Even though this great Italian military leader and liberator suffered several defeats which at times forced him to flee from his beloved nation, his desire to liberate his nation and people never escaped from his mind. He spent his entire life fighting for what he strongly believed was the right thing and course for his nation. Despite the fact that it took him and his followers several decades to fully achieve the full fruits of their labor, Garibaldi and his troops eventually managed to liberate Italy.

In the middle and late 18th century the United Kingdom was no doubt an economic giant in the western world compared to other countries. According to scholars a number of changes in the industrial and agricultural sector, gave her tremendous economic advantage. Historians agree that England was the first industrial nation. A number of reasons are therefore attributable to the emergence of England as an economic powerhouse. Firstly the agrarian revolution attributed to England, propelled her to the economic progress. Due to increased use of new farming methods, manure, fertilizers, new hybrid crops and animals through artificial insemination, agricultural production increased tremendously compared to other countries. Its the statement of historians that by 18th century British farmers were the most productive and efficient farmers of the century.

England is regarded as the architect or pioneer of industrialization. This is a period that led to widespread use of machine in the industrial and manufacturing sector. Basically its a period which enabled England to change from the traditional agrarian society to a more successful industrial economy based on capitalism. As a result of Agrarian revolution their was, enough supply of raw materials for industrial use, this led to increased production of manufactured goods resulting to increased trade. The British government policy of encouraging free trade, technological advancement through limited restrictions encouraged economic development. Of important are the inherent traits of the English people who are considered as commercial people

Politically the English people experienced a period of peace and stability. Given the history of Western Europe and America no other country experienced such period of peace characterized by liberty and fair laws as the English. (Baines, 1835).Thus as Baines (1835) quips as a result the manufacturing prosperity became deep rooted. Also the tremendous mighty of the English army especially in the seas gave it both political and military advantage over the others.

The debate over the greatness of napoleon has raged for long. In order to establish a true reflection of Napoleon, its important to note his upbringing, achievements and contributions to modern political and historical thinking.

A number of reasons make Napoleon one of the greatest general of all times. For instances his achievements can not be downplayed. Napoleon, born to a lower French class was able to ascend and became one of the greatest leaders of France, an achievement not achievable at the time. After conquering Egypt and Austria he returned to France where he staged a coup and became the emperor of France through a referendum.

He also became the ruler of Europe, a tremendous achievement, which Hitler never achieved. While still in war with Great Britain Napoleon together with his army staged the fastest march in world history and defeated an allied force of Austria and Russian  at the battle of Austerlitz despite being completely outnumbered,  becoming the undisputed ruler of Europe.

Another aspect of napoleon is his ability to win wars. Its known fact that he only lost one genuine fight of all the wars he had fought. Historians argue that his military strategy of conventional military ideas, gave him an upper hand over others, making his army lethal. Since he had great knowledge in artillery, he came up with an ingenious strategy, which involved the use artillery to support his infantry, he once said I have fought sixty battles and I have learned nothing which I had not known (McLynn, 145). Scholars coherently state that napoleon was a master of deception, and perhaps, his use of deception enabled him outsmart his enemies and often enabled him win wars. Carl von Clausewitz the renowned military strategist described napoleon as a genius in the organizational and operational art of war.    

Napoleon introduced the napoleon code. Which was a law book aimed at making the management of his vast empire simple. This has become the foundation of government laws in Europe. However, there are numerous Criticisms against him, for instance McLynn (1998), states He can be viewed as the man who set back European economic life (174).despite this criticism napoleon still remains an icon in modern political and cultural setting.

In essence the impossible achievements of Napoleon given the odds and the time make him the greatest general of all time. His greatness has been attested by the great English general Wellingtons. Once asked who had been the greatest general after the battle, replied In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.(Abbot, 161).

Toussaint-LOuverture. He was a Haitian who led the revolution against France
.The Bastille. Was a prison in France during the French Revolution.
Catherine II the Great. was a Russian empress from 1762-1796
Enlightened absolutism. This is a form of monarchy in which the enlightened influenced rulers decisions.

Natural rights. Are universal rights, which are not based on cultural or political laws of a given society.

French Parliaments. it was and is the legislative arm of government in France
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. It was a French revolutionary document, which defined the universal and individual rights of man.

Civil Constitution of the Clergy. It was a law passed in 1790 that merged the Roman Catholic Church and the French government. It gave the Roman church powers to influence the government.

The Jacobins. This was a radical revolutionary group in France that fought for removal of social class distinction.

Paris Commune. It was a short lived government in France that ruled before the split of anarchists and Marxists.

The Vendee. Its a department in the western central France region.
Reign of Terror and the guillotine. it was a period in France in which people were executed by the Jacobins using the guillotine

Treaty of Paris. It was a treaty sighed in 1783 between UK and US officially ending the American Revolution.

Civil code. this were form of laws established  during Napoleon time, which gave certain privileges and freedoms

Grand tours. It was a customary travel of the rich European men across Europe.
Balance of power. Its a situation in which there is stability and order between two conflicting forces.
 Joseph II he was a  roman emperor considered holy, who was the first ruler of the house of Lorraine
William pitt the elder he was the earl of Chatham, who lead Britain during the 7 year war
Committee of public  safety  it was the undisputed government of France during the reign of terror
 United kingdom its an island state ,comprising of great Britain some parts of Ireland island
Partition of Poland it was the dividing and sharing of Poland between Russia, Prussia and Austria.
War of Austrian succession this was a war fought from 1740-1748, siting the inability of Maria Theresa to rule after the death of the king.

Girondins and the Mountain this were a political faction in France during the French revolution.
The Hanoveriansthe Georges. This are derived from George who became the leader of the Great Britain after the death of Queen Anne. It refers to the other Georges of Hanover. There were other Georges who became king.

First Consul and Emperor. This title is often associated with emperor Napoleon emperor refers to the first male ruler.

The medieval period refers to the middle age period. Germany is one of the oldest European country and its history dates back many centuries ago. There are a couple of aspects that characterized the medieval period in Germany. One of these aspects is the presence of Jews. Although Jews were in Germany way before this period, they however played a great role in making the history of Germany as a country during this time. This discussion focuses on the Jews of Medieval Germany.

Medieval Germany
The Empire in Rome at the time of entry of Jews was such that everybody had freedom of movement. Jews as well a Christians could move freely as they wished without any form of discrimination. Although many Jews were bought as slaves, they eventually became free and could move around the empire freely.

Germany as a country is said to have rich history of Jews. However it is also the country where Jews were killed in great masses during the reign of Nazi as we shall see later in this discussion. Germany is also the only European country that provided the best environment for Jews to accumulate wealth and prosper especially during the 19th century. Jews from America and Poland fled to Germany when they faced opposition in their native countries. Jews were first recorded to exist in Germany in the 4th century. It thus seems ironical when we view Germany through the lens and see that the same place where Jews were provided with home is the same country where misery and massive killings began.

During the first migration of Jews to Europe, there was no Christianity. Although not much is known about the Jews who migrated first to Germany, the 8th century is known to have been the century when there were large numbers of Jews in the country. For the bigger part of their life Jews in Germany were able to relate well with Christians. During that time Jews were allowed to have equal opportunities as Christians. They would work in whatever offices they wished, hold positions in public offices, take possession of land. However despite the good and seemingly smooth relationship between these two religions Germany like all other countries of the world during this period experienced some problems. There was disunity in the country as Germany at this time had various tribes. There were various civil wars between the Christians and the Jews. By this time the Christians had come with their own coded laws which gave the impression that Jews were to be treated as outcasts and that they were hated by everybody.

The Christians went to great efforts to have everybody seclude themselves from the Jews. This made the civil wars even worse with the Jews attempting to fight for their rightful position in the society. The attempt by the Christians however did not bear much fruits as this is also the time that Germany as a country was experiencing financial crisis and fluctuations in the political arena.

Most of the Jews in Germany were assimilated into the cultures and traditions of Germany. They were given full citizenship as though they were born in the country and they were treated equally with the natives. Most natives however did not find this idea agreeable and they opposed it heavily. However, the Chancellor of Germany at the time Ottovon Bismarck gave directives which had to be followed whether they were agreeable or not. It was also at this time that many Jewish refugees came into the country having fled from Russia due to various orders and laws that had been introduced by the government which were anti-Jews.

The medieval period in Germany and the entire Europe was one of the most difficult for most Jews. While Jews formed a big portion of the population in Germany at the time, all of the people in power professed the Christian faith. One of the reasons why Jews were considered as great enemies of Christians is because they were seen as sympathizers of Muslims who were dire-hard enemies of Christians. Jews were therefore prevented from owning property like land and had areas that they could not be allowed to occupy. They were restricted to low class areas that were known as ghettos while the developed parts of the country were reserved fro the Christians. There was segregation against the Jews during the mediaeval period in Germany and the entire Europe.

During this period the laws that governed Christians prohibited them from lending money at an interest. However, most elites needed to borrow money for various activities. The Jews thus played a significant role as they would lend money to those who were in need of borrowing. While sometimes the Jews made money when the borrowers paid back, most of the times they lost their money if a borrower especially the king decided to throw the Jews out of the kingdom. Alternatively to avoid the debts owed to the Christians, the kings would introduce new laws which would stipulate that Christians were not under obligation to pay back the Jews. A good example was King Edward I when he borrowed money from the Jews only for him to thrown them out of his kingdom terming them as outcasts. The Jews were kept out of England for the next three hundred years and the money they had lent to the king was lost.

The Holocaust
The killing of Jews in large numbers was initiated in German. Although it is not yet clear whether it is Hitler the leader of the Germans who came up with this concept, many writers argue that, Hitler was the mastermind of Holocaust when he took office as leader of the German people. Hitler wanted the Jews to be driven out completely from Germany and be separated from totally from the natives. Within two weeks after Hitler gave the order of seclusion of Jews, the Germans were already going round burning shops and houses belonging the Jews. This seemingly harmless action escalated to greater height and before long masses of Jews was being executed mercilessly through the watch of Hitler and his assistants.

Jews in the public service lost their jobs and everything went out of hand. Jews began fleeing from the county that was initially considered as a safe haven for Jews. It was during the World War II that Hitler came up with the final leg of dittoing Jews and this came to be known as the Holocaust. It is ironical that the very hand that initially fed the Jews later came to be the very hand that brought about their misery in the end.

To an observer and participant in events in Renaissance Italy, how was a nation to conduct the very serious business of war, from recruiting an army to leading in it the field To Florence and other city-states, the question was more than academic and an answer reaching back through time was to emerge in the early part of the 16th century.

The Italy of Niccolo Machiavelli was a land divided into principalities or even kingdoms, some stretching far beyond the Italian peninsula in terms of influence and actors on the stage. In many ways, Italy was the in the middle of political, economical, religious and social changes and trends that criss-crossed Europe and could even be felt in the distant lands of Asia and the New World. The primary centers of Italian politics and economics were the  city-states, notably Rome, Milan, Florence, Naples and Venice. Each developed in its own way, with, for example, Rome being drenched in the Churchs power and weight in daily affairs throughout Europe or Venice, whose merchant fleets roamed the known world, collecting in its ports the riches of many lands.

This Italy that Machiavelli lived in was filled with intrigue, a barely-contained chaos where fortunes of men and states could rise or fall in a matter of weeks. Factions were created and disbanded in a frenzy, as power seemed to shift from one group to another. The Church held a supreme position, but the increasing riches of city-states coupled with the rise of kingdoms throughout Europe and the growing awareness of New World opportunities was beginning to weaken the Churchs hold on people, thus weakening its overall power.  In addition, the descent of the Church into political intrigues and military ventures, a pattern now long established by the early 16th century, had soured the Churchs image in many parts of Europe and given rise to open religious questioning, undermining the institutional power the Church had held by itself for centuries.

Countries such as France, Spain, Germany and Switzerland were also playing major roles on Italian soil as they sought to create and expand power bases in the riches of ports and commerce. It was a heady time for lovers of intrigue, courtiers, politicians, merchants of all stripes and military commanders, a time when opportunities to match wits was sharpened by the knowledge that victory was brief and defeat could be permanent.

Machiavelli, best known for his sharp-eyed analysis of the politics of his time as expressed in The Prince, had only one book published during his lifetime. That book, The Art of War, took the form of an analysis of military concerns within a dialogue between four Florentine noblemen and Lord Fabrizio Colonna, as Fabrizio answers questions about the proper form, methods and tactics needed for an army to be raised and managed so it could succeed in their day.

Fabrizio, through Machiavelli, is an open admirer of Roman tactics and organization, using them as the basis for his most excellent army to be created. At the time the book was written, circa 1520, Florence was at or very near the top of its power as the premier Italian city-state, rising through a combination of political, economic and social strategies that nevertheless needed to be defended by military might. However, with most of Italy and a great del of Europe engaged in battles and skirmishes, the need for a robust and effective army was great, even greater in the case of Florence whose rise to prominence would not be any sort of defense against the damages it could suffer if defeated.

Just as The Prince would try to lay the groundwork for a most excellent leader to emerge, so did Machiavelli try to steer the course of developing the army of the present and future for Florence. By basing his armys design on the Romans, Machiavelli is reaching back into antiquity for authority, but also bringing forth the best example of military might the world had ever known. In his mind, that the Romans were able to conquer the known world is sufficient proof that the Roman army was by far the most worthy of being emulated. As Fabrizio says in Book Two

For if their manner of arming had been defective, it was necessary for them to follow one of two courses either when they found one who was better armed than they, not to go on further with the conquest, or that they take up the manner of the foreigner, and leave off theirs and since neither ensued, there follows, what can be easily conjectured, that this method of arming was better than that of anyone else.

Fabrizio begins by discussing why an army is needed and what kind of army one should have, for although it is obvious that an army is for fighting battles and wars, it is also obvious, or should be, that an army has no other function, meaning that the soldier can only be one in war and not in peace. Understanding this, the Romans made sure their citizens did not have to become permanent soldiers, and in this way, long avoided the evils of having armed men engaging in ills and lack of virtue that would ultimately harm society. Thus an army is most certainly a double-edged sword, in fact and function, as its primary role is crucial for the nation to survive, but its very existence can be as big a threat or even a greater one than an armed enemy.

Fabrizio also mentions that no nation should give absolute power to its regent, but they should to their armys commander, because a regent rarely has to make any decisions without consulting and an army commander must do so quite often.

What Fabrizio is telling the Florentines is that they must separate the functions of regent and army commander, for they have different goals the regent is to rule by agreement  and the army commander is to do whats needed to preserve the nation from being defeated. The regent has time to decide and the people have time to respond to the decisions made, but an army commander lacks the time to discuss decisions, and unless the decisions are largely correct, will not have anyone left to discuss what should have been done.

Since the purpose of war is to secure peace, Fabrizio is against permanent soldiers, for they will create problems. He points out how the Romans weakened themselves when Octavius and Tiberius had armed guards (the Praetorian Guards and unarmed citizens, but were strong when the citizens were armed (the traditional army from the people) and soldiers became part of the community after their service.

For this reason, mercenaries are also dangerous, as they are not only prone to being subverted by another higher bidder, but because they lack any connection to the city or nation they serve, thus being a source of problems for the society that hires them. In his day, the Church in Rome had replaced the hired local mercenaries they used for protection with Swiss guards, preferring the disciplined soldiers of a foreign land, a decision that has become a tradition, as the Swiss Guards are still active in their role as guardians of the Vatican.

As for composition of the army in terms of weapons and organization, Fabrizio tells the Florentines he would combine Roman flexibility, armors and organization with Greek arms, in essence creating a 6,000-man army of 3,000 short swords with shields, 2,000 men with pikesspears and 1,000 light cavalry. In modern eyes, this seems like a very small army, but in ancient times, many battles that changed history were fought with armies of 1,000-5,000 men. What Fabrizio is suggesting is a Florentine army that not only is large enough to face the challenges its enemies could throw at it, but also small enough to be affordable, given that the cost of maintaining an army is an enormous drain on the public and private coffers of the nation.  With campaigns largely limited to spring and summer, having too many able-bodied men as soldiers would also threaten the productivity of farms and merchant enterprises, an economic weakening that no city-state or region could long afford.

The use of this army is described by Fabrizio as using mobility to avoid entrapment, the armored soldier capable of better defense, the pikesspears of the Greek phalanx as a defense against larger number of soldiers and cavalry and the three-tiered troop arrangement of the Romans to plug gaps that may occur in the front lines while providing tactical reinforcements where the battle may need them. Emulating the Roman model of troop disposition and combining it with the forward thrusting power of the Greek phalanx is what Fabrizio wants to accomplish, adding reach to the short swords of the legion while providing defensive strength to the phalanxs offensive power.  

Fabrizio indicates that if an army is new, as in being drafted or recruited from scratch, it should seek men from 17 to 40 years of age, but that if it is already established, it should simply seek 17 year olds for new soldiers (Book Three). His reasoning is that a new army needs experience and youth combined, but that a standing army needs only youth to keep it strong. In matters of discipline, the constancy of the army would come from the soldiers themselves and the consistency in methods used by its leaders to train and punish soldiers. By recruiting good men of able body and good disposition, an army could be reach strength quickly and keep it throughout its existence. For the future of Florence and any other city-state or kingdom, the selection of soldiers was thus not a matter of grabbing bodies but of true selection, for a bad army could be more disastrous than not having any.

For Florence, an army such as the one suggested by Fabrizio  would have meant that most of its young men would have to serve in the army at some point in their lives, exactly as in the Roman Empire. What is not mentioned is that the Roman nobility often avoided army service or served only in high command capacity by virtue of having money to buy their way out of service or into command. It could be expected that the Florentine nobility would do the same, although Fabrizio does mention that the way to pay for the army would be to have the same recruiting method the Romans did, where the nobles provided the cavalry and some infantry to support it.

In Book Four, Fabrizio discusses tactics as related to historical Roman battles, such as the need to keep forces concentrated, the power of surprise and the need to speak powerfully to ones troops. By using historical references, Fabrizio is reinforcing his message to the Florentines about the kind of army they can create and who should lead it, for a commander who doesnt grasp tactics and strategies, who cannot see the need to make fast decisions and lacks the power of oratory would find himself leading nothing. This portion is long on history but short on basic principles, serving more as a manual of operations of what worked than a blueprint for what could work in the future, given the changed nature of warfare from the days of the Roman Empire to Renaissance Italy.

Books Five and Six show the Florentines how the army support system should be organized for engaging enemies both seen and unseen, with cavalry as scouts and supplies well-managed within the armys reach. Fabrizio suggests dividing the supplies into quarters, with each quarter being assigned to one-fourth of the army. This method would allow each army division to move quickly and have its own supplies while ensuring that no single attack by the enemy could eliminate all of the armys supplies at once. Given the fractious nature of roads and shipments that characterized Italy in Machiavellis day, not putting all of ones eggs in one basket seems prudent.

In addition, he suggests that the infantry help support the cavalry in camp to reduce the number of retainers the army would need, a Roman feature as well. As for the camps, Fabrizio suggests making an organized armed camp as the best defense an army can have at rest, taking advantage of the terrain rather than submitting to it. he particularly praises the Roman method of erecting camp, with each man assigned a task and a plan followed every time a camp was set up and taken down. The underlying virtues of discipline and forethought allowed the Romans security and enhanced chances of success when their army was in the field. For the Florentines, sending their army out would be just as perilous and following Roman example would help reduce the dangers of surprise attacks and a weakened army.

Book Six also urges the Florentines to be aware that a cornered enemy is a desperate foe and that taking advantage of the enemys mistakes is a key to saving ones soldiers for greater battles. Very little is discussed concerning negotiation, but Fabrizio is focused on war and its management, not so much on the politics that could avoid it.

For the protection of cities, Fabrizio suggests walls high enough for medium-sized artillery to keep the enemy at bay and a ditch inside the walls so that as the walls crumble from artillery attacks, the enemy finds itself facing a ditch made deeper by the piles of rubble they have created (for the rubble would fall outward, away from the ditch.) He also suggests that the ditch be so deep that tunneling beneath it would either strike water or create no clear advantage for the enemy.

For city-states and their vassal cities, sieges were a common tragedy and being able to defend themselves well could mean the difference between destruction and a negotiated peace. The reality of the new power of artillery is see in Fabrizios examples as he talks about recent battles and the larger scale of destruction artillery has created in them. To counter this, he suggests that bigger is better, as in a bigger city is easier to defend than a smaller one because it has more positions the defenders can fall back to and bigger defenses better than small ones because they can sustain greater damage and afford more protection.

Fabrizio discusses the use of guile and awareness to keep besieged cities safe or to overthrow them, with more care needed when the enemy is distant than when he is near, for a nearby enemy is easily watched. He praises the constancy and valor of the Romans who never once tried to seek peace from Hannibal, though the Carthaginian defeated them several times and showed  himself to be a true threat to Rome.

In this Book Seven, Fabrizio is providing the Florentine nobles with hard advice about protecting their cities and villages, but also telling them that arms and walls and artillery are not enough if will and courage are not also present. In a day of almost constant battles and skirmishes between enemies, whether it be squadrons of cavalry or armies in the field, the need for preparation, careful thought and decisive action was the key to retaining what one had and conquering the enemy. Fabrizio stresses leadership as a vital component of an armys success and that it is the armys courage and fearlessness that will help it defeat the enemy.

In Fabrizio, Machiavelli created a voice for his ideas on how war should be handled. Unlike the other two best-known works on war, Sun Tzus The Art of War and Claude von Clausewitzs On War, Machiavelli had no direct experience as a soldier, so his insights are not profound or innovative in terms of military thought, thus his work on war is not really studied by military students in our day. It was more a political work than a military one and its lesson is fairly clear to the mind of nations leader war is to be considered very carefully, prepared for with diligence, managed with great skill and exploited with clear thought. In all of these aspects, the Romans had much to teach and much worth emulating. Given the stakes at play in the Italy that Machiavelli lived and worked in, doing less was a path to failure and even death.

Introduction
The life of Marie Antoinette was, undeniably, a tragic one. It was a time of when the people were frustrated with poverty, and sought for  revenge on the aristocrats, and on the injustice that they have experienced. It is sad to say that Marie Antoinette was not able to escape the same fate that most aristocrats suffered during the French Revolution.

While it is, of course, arguable that most accounts regarding Marie Antoinettes life have shown that she was often referred to as  mauvaise fille, mauvaise epouse, mauvaise mere, mauviase reine, monstre en tout bad daughter, bad wife, bad mother, bad queen, monster in everything   (Hunt 110-111), her life, remains to be a life that is to be pitied, for it seems that she was thrust into the world without being introduced to it first a fact which resulted in her own misery and death.

Marie Antoinette The Beginning and the Ascend to the Throne
In 1769, Louis XV demanded that Empress Maria Teresa of Austria give her daughters hand in marriage to his grandson, Louis XVI. This was in lieu of the recent agreement that there would be a truce between France and Austria the agreement states that in order to seal the friendship, it should be  cemented with marriage.

The daughter of Maria Teresa was Marie Antoinette, a beautiful young woman whom is said to have an appropriate standing, as well as commendable character. Louis XV found her suitable, and eventually, she was wed to the future king of France, Louis XVI, in the Easter of 1770, at the age of fourteen.

As soon as she was married to the crown prince, she was able to experience new comforts in life. She was then part of the French court, and even gained the full approval of the king. She was able to have everything that she wants to have, and she was surrounded with various comforts (Marie Antoinette Online).

However, her life experienced a sudden change when the Louis XV died in 1774. Her husband, Louis XVI became the king of France in 1774, around four years after their marriage. Marie Antoinette, only eighteen years old, was then the new Queen of France. Her  enchanted life (Marie Antoinette Online) has officially ended.

The Miserable Life of the Queen
Marie Antoinette, unfortunately, is often depicted in history as a villains, as an enemy. However, if one would read into her life and meticulously examine every detail, it will be realized that such a statement regarding Marie Antoinette was unfair and harsh.

Marie Antoinette, as a queen, was particularly bored of her duties it must be understood that she was a very young queen, and yet she had to spend most of her time in various court rituals. She missed being able to pursuit her own desires, particularly those which are in the field of arts. Apart from these, she was not comfortable with being in constant public display, which is part of being a queen. Marie Antoinette preferred the kind of freedom and  relaxed environment  (Marie Antoinette Online) that she experienced when Louis XV was still alive.

On the other hand, as a wife to Louis XVI, she found herself in constant frustration. The man was not her hearts desire, since their marriage was only the result of an agreement.  Although Louis XVI eventually a doting husband to Marie Antoinette, the first years of their marriage was more of a torture to her (Marie Antoinette Online).

Unfortunately, since Marie Antoinettes life a a queen bored her, she eventually resorted to creating a circle of friends with whom she would go around with. She showered them with expensive gifts, eventually ignoring other nobilities, much to their anger. The queen became extravagant and spent most of her time attending theatricals and masked balls, as well as gambling. In a short period of time, scandalous rumors spread about the queen, which angered many individuals at court (Marie Antoinette Online). In fact, nothing, not even honest speeches delivered by the queen, could make the members of the court feel at ease at her presence (Tytler 99).

A lot of them had often felt that it was wrong for Louis XV to have created an alliance with Austria unfortunately, this was one of the reasons on Marie Antoinettes eventual downfall from the throne (Marie Antoinette Online).

However, Marie Antoinette was a good woman who was only trying to find some enjoyment for herself. In fact, when she gave birth to her children, she became a very devoted mother, and abstained from  unmeaning amusement  (Zweig and Paul 143).

However, hatred for the queen kept on growing a lot of accusations were thrown against her. She was accused of holding banquets to mock those who are starving and she was also accused of being a whore, that she attended orgies of sorts, and that she was was having sexual relations with her female friends. Such accusations were rather unfair, to say the least, since the queen has attended charitable events for the benefit of the poor. Marie Antoinette even allowed poor families to use the hameau she had been good-hearted and unselfish in helping the citizens of France. However, her acts of kindness were ignored, and people sought to kill her (Marie Antoinette Online).

Eventually, the peoples hatred against their queen and the aristocrats had reached a desperate state. The Bastille fell, people killed the aristocrats, causing fear and havoc  everywhere. The queen and king fled to Varennes but was eventually captured as a patriot recognized them and alerted other people. Her husband was killed in the guillotine in December 1792, and she suffered the same fate in October 1973. She was brought to the execution site, and had to endure her last moments hearing the jeers and taunts of her people. She, however, retained her pride, and sat up straight, despite the fact that her death is about to come (Marie Antoinette Online).

Conclusion
As seen in the aforementioned discussion, Marie Antoinette suffered throughout her life. She was unfairly accused by her people, and this eventually resulted to her horrendous death. She was not a villain she was just a woman who had resorted to the best ways that she knew will make her happy, and yet, people misunderstood her actions as mere whim and selfishness.

According to one historian, Marie Antoinette was not a saint, but she was a guilty woman either. She may have been impulsive and extravagant, but she had certainly been a woman who was charming and well-endowed with  tenderness of heart  (Vidal). As seen in the aforementioned discussion, Marie Antoinette was a victim of circumstances, and yet she retained her pride, and even took her time to take care of her people.

Not only was she good to her people, she was also a good mother. Such characteristics of Marie Antoinette should be highlighted, for they are very important in understanding who she really is, rather than saying that she is the woman who roused the French Revolution with her extravagant and lecherous ways. In a way, such viewpoints of history have mislead people into believing that Marie Antoinette was a woman who did nothing for her people, providing only light to her mistakes and shortcomings as a person.

It is, of course, arguable that Marie Antoinette was not exactly a model queen, but this does not mean that she can be dismissed as an enemy, as an individual who was not able to do her job as a queen, as a mother, and as a women. Although history mostly shows her in a negative light, she remains, nevertheless, a strong woman who carried her head up until the end.

How have changes in warfare helped to shape political and social institutions in Western society
Throughout history, humans have found the need to wage wars. Waris characterized by intentional violence on the part of large bodies of individuals trained for that purpose. Some wars are fought internally between rival political factions while others may be fought against external enemies in the name of religion, self-defense or to acquire resources or territory.Warfare refers to the tactics used by the military to fight a war. Over time these tactics have changed, thereby bringing a significant change in the political and social institutions. Though modern warfare is present in every significant periodof  military history, it refers generally to the concepts, methods and technologiesthat have come into existence during and after the  Second World Warand the Korean War. Largely due to the extensive use of highly advanced information technology, these concepts and methods have developed into more complex forms of the 19th and early-20th century antecedents.

Modern warfare has had significant changes in the political and social institutions. New technologies and the development of nuclear weapons give a lot of authority and power to the developed, western nations. Ever since the U.S. dropped the atomic bombon Japan, people started wondering about nuclear weapons and the risk they pose to the entire globe. It is known that there are enough nuclear weapons in the world today to annihilate all of its inhabitants. Many countries including the worlds super-powers have well developed nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war is feared by many. Western politics claim that these weapons are of necessity so that a nation may defend itself. However, these same nations argue that these tools of modern warfare should not be developed by Third World nations and should be deemed illegal by international law.

These security benefits were not missed by other powerful countries and soon afterward the Soviet Union also built these crucial weapons and this is how the nuclear arms race began. In the following years, the two superpower enemies developed the largest nuclear arsenals in the world. But they managed to refrain from using them even in the brink of war. Ironically, many experts believe that nuclear weapons have helped prevent such hostilities as neither side dared risk starting a dispute that could lead to an annihilating nuclear strike.

The inclusion of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in limiting a nations war engaging ability is perhaps the most identifiable social consequence of modern times war. Two distinct theories led to the targeting of civilians. The first theory was that factories would not be able to function properly if enough of a nations civilians were killed. The second theory suggests that if too many civilians were killed then the nation would become so demoralized that at would not wage further war. Although estimates for the total casualties of World War IImay vary, most agree that about 60 million people were killed, including 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. About half of all the Second World War casualties, some 27 million people were killed in the Soviet Union alone.The largest number of civilian deaths in a single city was 1.2 million citizens which were killed during the  Siege of Leningrad that lasted 872 days.

Western powers use political and social reasons to wage war. TheIraq War is an ongoing military campaignwhich began on March 20, 2003, in which Iraq was invadedby a  multinational forceled by troops from the United Statesand the  United Kingdom. Before the war, the governments of the above named countries claimed that Iraqs alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction(WMD) was a serious threat to their and their coalitionregional allies security. After investigation however, the U.S.-led  Iraq Survey Groupconcluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear programs in 1991 and although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weaponsfrom before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion.

We have seen that todays superpower nations of the west use modern warfare and weaponry to gain political advantage over lesser developed nations. The social repercussions of these political strategies are devastating for countries that are invaded. The fear of a nuclear clash may keep enemies at bay however, it is a real threat to all the inhabitants of the world. As seen by the Iraq example, wars are made for political gain and have massive effects on society.

Dating back to 340 BC, the Persian Empire and Macedonia had an inevitable clash between them. The Macedonian king during that year, King Philip laid blockade to Perinthus, posing a threat to the fundamental interests of Persia and Greece. Persia sent out troops to Europe as response. It was Persias first time after Xerxes to intercede in the west and the Macedonians regarded it to be an unwarrantable act of hostility and aggression. King Philip aggravated the Fourth Sacred War and overpowered the Greeks at Chaeronea. He was then about to strike the eastern region.

During that same time, Artaxerxes III Ochus, the king of Persia died. The Persian Empire was left with no powerful successor. Artaxerxes IV Arses was forced to be in charge of the revolts. As they were about to attack King Philip in 336 was assassinated. When Arses passed away, Darius III Codomannus became the successor as opposed to the successor of King Philip who was Alexander.

Took place in November 333 BC, the Battle at Issus or also known as the Battle of Issus happened in the southern Anatolia. The young Alexander of Macedonia took charge and led the invading troops against the army of Darius III of Achaemenid Persia.

The Battle of Issus began as Alexander in 334 BC set out into the region of Asia. He defeated the local Persian satraps during the so called Battle of the Granicus. Alexander conquered the rest of Asia Minor and heard about Darius while he was in Tarsus. He heard that Darius was forming a great army in the lands of Babylon. It was said that Darius had the Persian fleets support under Pharnabazus if he were to go to the Gulf of Issus. The Persian fleet was still in service at the Mediterranean Sea. The army of Alexander remained at Tarsus but the coast of Issus was occupied by Parmenion, as ordered by Alexander. Reports circulated and reached Alexander that the Persian army had progressed to Sochi, a town in Syria. Alexander then gathered his scattered troop and moved forward south beginning Issus all through the Pass of Jonah.

Darius was aware that Alexander sent Parmenion to the Pass of Jonah so he decided to take on a northern path to advance. Issus was captured by the Persians with no hostility or resistance. Hands of those wounded and sick individual that Alexander left behind, were cut off. Darius discovered that his army was now behind the Macedonians and had cut off their lines of supply. Darius, together with his army moved forward to the south and before advancing further to the river Pinarus, he perceived that Alexander and his troop were marching north. So Darius decided that he must set up a camp on that limited coastal plain where they were presently located.

There were about 69,000 Peltasts, 10,000 Greek hoplites, 10,000 Persian immortals and 11,000 cavalry under the Persian army. With roughly about 100,000 men in total, the Persian army clearly had the advantage. There were other accounts from historians that the number of Persian men reached 250,000-600,000 individuals. The Macedonian troops on the other hand did not exceeded the 40,000 count even with their Greek allies counted. As led by Alexander, the Macedonians consisted of roughly about 22,000 hoplites and phalangites, 13,000 peltasts plus 5,850 cavalry.

The Battle of Issus happened in the southern area of Issus on the side of the river of Pinarus. Issus was an ancient town which is similar to present Iskenderun, a Turkish town. the Macedonians led by Alexander moved forward through the Pillar of Jonah. The Companion cavalry of Alexander was ordered to be on the right border while the Thessalian allied cavalry was on the left side with Parmenion as their leader.

Darius focused his army on the coast located at his right. His heavy cavalry was assigned to this together with the Greek mercenary phalanx. After the Greek phalanx, Darius ordered the Cardaces, his Persian infantry to go along the riverside and into the hills. They wrapped around to the other side and posed a threat to the right flank of Alexander. Darius together with the Greek mercenaries, his very best infantry, and the royal cavalry guard positioned himself at the center. Some argue that this tactic by Darius was similar to the battle formation of the Hellenic during the Battle of the Granicus.

Parmenion together with the allied cavalry first made charge, giving way to open battle as they crossed the river. The left wing of Alexander became the heart of the encounter once again, as two years later at Gaugamela, Parmenion took charge of the wing long enough against the greater Persian troops in order for Alexander to make his planned cavalry hit against Darius and in turn make the Persian army collapse. The Hypaspists together with Alexander were able to give an assault to the Persians as they crossed the riverbed on the Cardaces and opened a crack through the Persian force.

Alexander planned a direct assault against the leader of the opposition, Darius who left the battlefield, as he mounted a horse as he led the Companion cavalry. However, Alexander had a change of heart when he saw and realized that his center and left flank were in trouble. Darius fled and broke down into the back of the Greek mercenaries. The Greek mercenaries fell apart and collapsed. The Persians recognized that their battle was starting to be lost as their great leader had gone. They ditched their positions and fled in total disorder.

The Macedonian troops continuously pursued the Persians who fled and just like most battles during the ancient times significant slaughter or carnage became inevitable after the battle. The Macedonians who pursued their rivals slaughtered their disorganized and congested foes.

There were a great deal of debate as to what the motives of Darius and Alexander was preceding the Battle of Issus. According to a modern point of view, Darius was compelled to move camp to territory that was in favor of Alexander for the reason that Alexander was battling defensively due to a proposal suggested by Parmenion and his war council. The large troop of Darius could not be backed up in the field in times of the winter and his cities founded in Phoenicia were by then in turbulence as Alexander arrived. Darius was obliged and forced to transfer and move his big army to a smaller battlefield, significantly to the benefit of the smaller army of Alexander.

The Battle of Issus was a crucial and significant Macedonian success or victory as it signified the beginning of the termination of the Persian power. The Persian troop was defeated for the first time with their King who was Darius III, present. It is believed to be the second great battle for dominance in the continent of Asia.

Out of the ruins of the Roman Empire came the Western Civilizationone civilization whose uniqueness has stayed until the modern century today. It has affected not only its concerned countries but as well as their neighboring countries. Today, third world countries continue to feel the effect of the rich history of the Western Civilization.

Before we examine the effects of the environmental, social and material challenges to this particular civilization, one should remember that it was formed in the middle of a rich start of the eastern civilization. Those times, things were simple. Religion was the center of things and law wasnt so complicated yet it can solve the issues of the human race. The early civilizations were one with the nature. They were in harmony. It all changed when in the 4th century, Christianization separated Europe in two, when Mesopotamian cultures lose interest in the Eastern Culture, thus starting the Western Civilization.

In reality, this civilization did have its roots in the rich history of the Greeks. The Greeks started the democratic society. Political freedom was largely exercised among the Greek citizens. Greeks tried to understand the human capacities and the effects it has in the outside world. With these practices did the westerners developed humanistic ideas and a sense of individualistic happiness. However, along with these ideas, there is a prevalent argument that until now haunts the civilization although most people from this civilization seek perfection, there is this reality that people is imperfect. Only God is.

Environment of the civilization
The environment has a great effect in the development and shape of a civilization. By the early signs of western civilization, the dominating environment was an environment of excellence and finding the worth of God in ones life. But by the end of the Hellenistic age, Christianity spread as a dominating character for people who had no sense of individualism and cannot completely interact with the Empire, grasp the ideas of this religion. In the time where physical environment was considered one with life, a sense of belonging to its divine creator had that great impact among the early habitants of the early years of western civilization.

This kind of environment shaped western civilization into a seemingly religious group of people. By the time of the late middle ages, Christianity was interrupted by Islam. And then there were literature, arts, and music. During this time in the west, nations celebrated various inventions, paintings, genres of music, and different sections literature had to offer. There was a challenge to enrich history with talents from the people of the civilization. Indeed this was the rebirth of the western civilization in which they went back to their roots which were nature and God. Again, the concept of humanism emerged as, the concept of the prevailing behavior of the people at that time.

By this time, we may have assume that people from this civilization is concerned in the total human warfare. However, the battle of Lepanto breaks this as the Christians battle with the Islams. Along with this time, science and math progressed giving an analytical edge to the people of the western civilization.

After which, political concepts reigned as Napoleon took over and imposes monarchy more consistently at that time. This kind of environment spread throughout the nations such as Germany, France, and England. As a result, various revolutions were made by different nations to oppose this kind of political system. Since westerners are particular to humanism, monarchy opposes this very nature of the west people.

After this environment, communism was developed. Then came  industrialization. Then democracy which the Americans heads until this day.

This environment shaped the western civilization as it is today. From being humanistic people to feudalistic people, to communists, to capitalists, and now people with liberation. They are the free people of this world. Nations of which are concerned to the wholeness of being human through social and political means, and through freedom.

Social effects
In the early years of the western civilization, almost everything focused on religion and the essentials of man. The prime reason of people was to love God and their fellow human beings. In fact, by the time of the Hellenistic Age, Christianity which was the dominating religion by the time of Middle Ages presented people a sense of belonging to the Creator. Christianity went as far as taming the warrior habits of the German when the first German emperor was crowned as the leader of the then roman empire. By this act, the fusion of traditions and character began (Perry 26).

People saw themselves as part of participants in a great drama of salvation... There was only one avenue to heaven. To the medieval mind, society without the church was inconceivable as life without the Christian view of God. Through teaching higher morality, the church was able to tame the warrior habits of the Germans (26).

With this we can presuppose that the very core of the social norms of the western civilization was to the fulfillment of a person. If we are to examine the modern western civilization, they are rather self-centered and have their own goal as their concerns.  Its a shame for a civilization who started humanism. Nowadays, the idea of humanism is connected with AIDS and Africa which is not the roots of humanism. If we look back to the social roots of western civilization, they were for the total fulfillment of a person, through love of God and fellow humans. Nowadays, its just not evident enough anymore.

Materials that they used
One of the materials that that the western civilization used greatly are wars. From the start of this civilization, Alexander the Great made war as the determinant of power. Over the years of the development of this civilization, many wars have broken out not only against their enemies but among themselves as well (nations vs. nations, cultures vs. cultures).

On the other hand, there are many materials that shaped western civilization. Among them are philosophy, monarchy, politics, and the explosion of manufacture and industrial world. Along with these are music, art, literature and progressive mathematics and sciences. But the most significant material that shaped the very behavior of the westerners is Christianity.

Being a civilization that many nations has patterned their style of government, the environmental, social and material challenges helped in shaping it into a unique civilization. Environmentally, since the civilization developed more in an aggressive manner, people became assertive of their right and a strong believer of justice. However, they connected it to apathy to the other nations. Socially, since they are strong believers of faith, they have this certain compassion for the people who does not have the privilege to experience their lifestyle. Obviously, their material devolpment has set thestandars of western nation into advance and first world countries.

The rise of the Achaemenid Empire in the 6th century BC is shrouded in mist of antiquity. It sprang in the region encompassing present day southern Iran and Iraq.  A disparate group of tribes of Indo-European origin serving as vassals to the Medes controlled the region east of Tigris from their capital Ecbatana (near Hamadan). Here, around 650 BC the religion of Zoroastrianism was founded uniting the populace as an enlightened people into a political force. In 559 BC a devout Zoroastrian, Cyrus became the head of an obscure tribe and he set about uniting the other into a fighting force and in five years he had defeated the Medes and conquered all Persia. Lydia in Asia Minor and Babylon soon followed and by the time he died, as Cyrus the Great in 529 BC had founded the Persian Empire. After his death, his son Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525 BC. Indeed, the growth had been so rapid that rebellions sprang up and it fell upon Cambysess son Darius (The Great) to quell these uprisings and institute satrapies or self-governing colonies across the empire. It was sheer administrative genius, military planning with a humanistic view that transformed disparate tribes into a formidable world power. By the 5th century Persian power extended from the river Indus to the shores of Mediterranean, North Africa, Thrace, Greece and Macedonia on the European continent.

Following the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization large numbers of Greeks moved to Asia Minor and significant among them were three tribal groups, Aeolians, Dorian and Ionians who settled around Lydia and Caria establishing twelve cities which made up Ionia. These were independent states but they all acknowledged a common heritage. They enjoyed this status till they were conquered by the Lydian King Croesus. The Ionians were invited by Cyrus the Great to rebel against Lydian rule which was turned down forcing Cyrus to conquer Ionia in 540 BC and thereafter to be ruled by local satraps. During the rule of Darius the Great in 499 BC the cities of Ionia were incited to rebellion against the tyrants representing Persian rule and in 498 BC the Ionians with support from Athens and Eretria destroyed Sardis provoking the Persians into decisively beating them at the battle of Ephesus. The Ionian Rebellion was the first major conflict between the Greeks and the Persian Empire. Asia Minor was subdued but Darius the Great saw the myriad Greek states as a threat to the stability of the Empire and was bent upon conquering the whole of Greece.  In 492 BC as a consequence of this rebellion first steps were taken to secure land routes to Greece by re-taking Thrace and forcing Macedonia to become a client state of Persia. In 491 BC Darius sent emissaries to Greek cities seeking their submission. Most complied with the terms but Athens put the ambassadors to death and in Sparta they were thrown down a well. Thus both cities were now effectively at war with Persia. Darius next dispatched a force which besieged and destroyed Noxos and Eretria and then confronted a vastly outnumbered Athenian army at Marathon. The ensuing battle of Marathon was a remarkable victory for Athens resulting in the withdrawal of the force to Asia Minor. A major campaign against Greece was now in preparation when Darius died in 486 BC leaving son Xerxes I in command. A rebellion in Egypt delayed progress on this front and preparations resumed once the rebellion had been quelled. By early 480 BC Xerxes was ready and marched his army across the Hellespont to Europe using pontoon bridges. Spartans and Athenians were also preparing for war and in 481 BC the Congress of Corinth was held at which confederation of the city states was formed and they thought that the invader would have to traverse the narrow pass at Thermopylae on way to southern Greece, which could be blocked by a smaller force. Furthermore, to prevent Persians bypassing Thermopylae by sea a naval flotilla gathered to block strait of Artemisium.

It was August by the time the Persians arrived. This is a time of year when the Spartans celebrate the festival of Carneia and the Olympic games.  A time of truce, during which war is forbidden but the urgency of the situation persuaded King Leonides I of Sparta to take 300 royal bodyguards and support troops as an advance expedition to block the pass and await the arrival of the main Spartan army. According to historian Herodotus the Spartans had consulted the Oracle of Delphi, (The high priestess of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Pythia) was credited with powers of prophecy
O ye men who dwell in the streets of broad LacedaemonEither your glorious town shall be sacked by the children of Perseus,Or, in exchange, must all through the whole Laconian countryMourn for the loss of a king, descendant of great Heracles

In keeping with this prophecy Leonides I was convinced he was going to certain death. Once   the Persians were sighted the Allies decided to make a stand at Thermopylae. The Persians offered surrender terms and asked the Greeks to lay down their weapons to which Leonides 1 is said to have responded come and get them (Holland, p269270).  The Persians had mustered an overwhelming force even though historians dont seem to agree on a precise number. Modern scholars estimates vary from 25,000 (Hans Delbruck) to 100,000 -200,000.  There were 11,000 -12,000 Greeks in a combined force. Five days after arriving Xerxes launched a frontal attack. The Greeks formed a phalanx of overlapping shields and layered spear points across the width of the pass stopping the Persians from breaking through. This proved most effective as the wicker shields and shorter spears of the Persians prevented an effective engagement. On the second day too, the Persians fared no better but later that day the Persians got help from a traitor in locating a mountain path round the pass thereby out-flanking and encircling the Greeks. Some suggested withdrawal, but Leonides resolved to stay with the Spartans at the Pass forming a rear-guard to enable other allied contingents to withdraw.  At dawn on the third day the Allies came forward to the wider part of the pass to engage the Persians. They fought with spears and short swords and Leonides 1 also perished in this assault.

Thereafter the Persian surrounded the Greeks and rained down volley after volley of arrows opening up the pass to the Persians who proceeded to burn and sack cites which had not submitted. Xerxes then retreated back to Asia leaving a Satrap to complete the conquest.

Thermopylae was undoubtedly a defeat for the Allies but is arguably the most famous battle of European ancient history.

Western civilization began in western and southern Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It was a classical type of civilization which was unique as compared to the other great civilizations in the past. Every civilization has significance with respect to organization of a person in relation to the way he or she lives in the universe. It includes the behavior, moral values and the material environment.

The modern civilization in the West that has been seen for quite a long time is not a new thing. It originated from somewhere and its roots can be followed way back to ancient times. Most of the ideas and concepts were got from the ancient Greeks many centuries back. Ancient Greece occurred between 1750 BCE-323 BCE. They lived in mountainous areas and had several states. They were an organized group who really valued their culture. The Greeks were known because of their involvement in different areas and activities. The ancient Greeks influenced several areas and contributed to western civilization. Among the areas of contribution includes health, architecture, science, sports, mathematics, arts and the government structures. Some of their philosophies were also recognized by and adopted in the west. The Greek culture was a unique one and has impacted the lives of many people in the current world.

The ancient Greeks have influenced the politics in the west. The democracy existing in the west can be traced way back in history to Greece. The Greeks were the first to embrace democracy in history. Their leader who was known as Pericles was guided by three goals which he wanted to achieve. He wanted to Make democracy in Greece even stronger and lead a powerful Greece empire. Pericles also had the desire to give glory to Athens. He fought for equality to all citizens regardless of their social or economic status in the society. Every person had the opportunity to offer his or her service to the public. He believed that every persons opinion was important for the government to function well. He was the founder of what became known as direct democracy which meant that everyone was entitled to vote. These were the fundamental beliefs of Pericles.

The influence on politics can be seen in the United States which has practiced democracy for along time. Every citizen has rights which are included in the constitution. The citizens have been given the power to vote during elections in the U.S. as soon as they turn 18 years of age. This is similar to what happened in Athens where the people voted for the law. The government in the U.S. is divided into three arms namely Judicial, legislative and the executive arms. This compares to a similar structure in Athens. The judiciary consists of jurors and it deals with trials whereas laws are passed by the legislative arm. Lastly, the laws were carried out by the Executive. The government in the United States applies most of the theories that can be traced back to those that were used in Athens. Western civilization believed in Liberty under law which can be drawn from ancient Greece and Rome.

Ancient Greece was the home of great philosophers who have been well known by many generations that followed. These include Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who can be credited to have contributed to the civilization in the west. Socrates is well known because of his famous quotes regarding life. His suggestion was that life needs to be examined and several questions must be asked regarding what life offers. Plato was a student of Socrates and a great philosopher too. He later taught Aristotle who was Alexander the Greats teacher. Therefore, their philosophies spread to other philosophers. Great quotes and ideas from these ancient philosophers are still being referenced to by the modern philosophers. These philosophies have acted as a guideline in day-to-day life. They have transformed the way of thinking in different people and on different issues.

The ideas of great scientists like Hippocrates have had an influence in medicine. Hippocrates, a good doctor and mathematician, is well known for inventing Hippocratic Oath. He was regarded as the Father of Modern Medicine. For a long time, it was believed that sickness was due to demons and the gods. This later changed after Hippocrates proved that illness was due to natural factors or causes. Therefore, many physicians from the west draw their inspirations from people like Hippocrates. The Hippocratic Oath implies that no deadly medicine should be administered to the patients. It also affirms that treatment should be done in the best way possible. This oath is still recited by doctors and students. Although it is slowly fading away, it has given rise to the making of new oaths in the medical field. This act as guidelines to the profession and the idea is from Hippocratic Oath. The Greeks were great astrologists and mathematicians of all times. They were the first to explain the movement of the planets and the manner in which the earth moves on its axis. They unraveled the mystery on the circumference of the earth. They got involved in physics and came up with different kinds of principles that are currently applied in modern times.

Ancient Greeks were well known for their great works of fine arts. They were involved in different artistic works such as sculptures and different kinds of paintings. Classical art works was the most common type of art in ancient Greece. These referred to proportional sculptures which were emotionless. These emotionless sculptures, such as that of the discus thrower, meant power and the strength of the Greeks. The different plays and films in western civilization originated from ancient Greeks. During the ancient times, most plays were either a tragedy or comical. These were the most common forms of plays which were used to pass specific themes or messages to the audience. For example, comedies were political and targeted specific group of people in the society. On the other hand, drama was used to expressed love, affection or hatred.

Ancient Greeks valued sports and even included it in their traditions. They were involved in different kinds of sports such as wrestling, running, boxing and others. The first Olympics which were held in Greece involved these sports and other kinds of games too. Sports in western civilization can be traced back to Greece. For example, modern javelin closely resembles the sculptured Discus thrower in ancient years. This was a famous sport among the Greeks. Most of the sports in todays western civilization resemble those in ancient times. Since its beginning in Greece, many nations still take part in the Olympics. The only difference between the Olympics in ancient times and today is that participants in ancient times had to speak Greek. Nowadays, it brings people together even though they might be from different cultural backgrounds or nations.

Greece was a wonderful place, full of beautiful buildings courtesy of the skilled Greek architects. Architecture is another area that has impacted on Western civilization. Most of the architectural works in Greece were erected on the hills. One of the well known buildings was the Parthenon. It was the work of Pericles as an honor to the goddess known as Athena.  In most buildings today, limestone and marbles are still being used. For example, the architectural works such as the White House and Lincoln Memorial have been built in columns similar to the buildings in ancient times in Greece.

Conclusion
It can be concluded, therefore that, there could not have been Western civilization if the ancient Greeks never existed. The process of civilization in the west would have taken longer. Their legacy was dominant and lasted long enough to be embraced in modern times. Their contribution greatly impacted on Western civilization in the different areas discussed above. This impact was either direct or indirectly through the application of their ideas and philosophies. The Greeks achievements, ideas, works, activities and philosophies helped to develop the civilization that is seen today. Western civilization was, therefore, founded on the cultures of Ancient Greece.

In the late 1800s the world was changing rapidly. The scientific and Industrial Revolutions fostered more urban, nationalistic societies. The continual thirst for resources led some European nations to establish colonies, far from the home country, that could be exploited relentlessly. This was one factor that led to conflict and militarization across Europe.

Germany, as one united nation, was at the forefront of European empire-building. Meanwhile, increasingly lethal weapons of war were being developed that would allow Germany and other European nations to expand their influence. Many of the factors that would result in two twentieth-century World Wars were emerging in the late 19th century. Economics, society and politics were all changing at a rapid place.

Germany sought to take advantage of the changes to establish an Empire. Otto Von Bismarck was a central figure in the development of German nationalism and therefore an extremely important character in German and world history. A Germanic nation was never a given. Bismarck operated with great skill to create it. There was no template for creating a nation-state from the remnants of the old family empires. Bismarcks historical legacy is mixed, but more complex than what is usually portrayed. His imprint, for better or worse, casts a long shadow over the first century of German history.

Background
In the 1840s the area now known as Germany was a collection of ethnic and regional alliances. Overshadowing these local concerns were two empires, one based in Prussia and the other in Austria. Internal and external conflicts were frequent. A revolt in 1848 led to a reorganization of the Prussian government. Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) was an up and coming representative in the new legislature.

Bismarck was born into the Prussian elite and would resist popular uprisings against these elite throughout his career. He went on to become an ambassador and was widely regarded as an effective diplomat. Bismarck became President of the North German Confederation in 1862, and the first Chancellor of the German Empire in 1871. His skill in both international relations and domestic politics cannot be underestimated when tracing the foundations of the German nation.

Europe itself was undergoing a transformation. The old empires that had dominated it for centuries were slowly but surely disintegrating. Economies were also changing and populations were becoming more urban-centered. The successful American and French revolutions gave rise to revolutionary thought across Europe. Socialism and other liberal philosophies were gaining ground in response to unrestrained capitalism during the industrial revolution.

The world was changing and the nation-state arose to fill the power vacuum left by the old empires. This is the world in which Bismarck operated. To some he is seen as the direct cause of the German horrors of the 20th century. To others he was a statesman who actually delayed the outbreak of the First World War for decades. What is unquestioned is that he was the pre-eminent political operator of his time.

Forming a New Nation
In the mid 1800s various German states were organized into an association called the German Bund. The Bund was ruled by the Habsburgs, still powerful remnants of the Holy Roman Empire centered in Austria. Later several of the Germanic states would organize into the North German Confederation in which Prussia was the dominant power. Eastern Germany, known as Prussia, was an empire of its own.

In 1848, German liberals tried to take advantage of civil unrest to forge a unification of Germanic states. At a meeting in Frankfurt a constitution was drafted that included the right to vote for all males. Friedrich Wilhelm IV was offered the position of Emperor, but he declined. Because of fear from opposing forces the conference ultimately failed. Into this void stepped a member of the Prussian elite, Otto von Bismarck.

Otto von Bismarck served as a diplomat for the Prussian Empire but this only increased his mistrust of other European powers. None the less he was widely regarded as an effective ambassador. Most of Bismarcks early career was spent in the Prussian legislature where he consistently advocated for a strong military and a stern approach to diplomatic relations. Bismarck had dreams of a larger Germanic empire which did not include Austria and, more specifically, the Habsburgs.

At an international conference Bismarck claimed that Germany is too small for the both of us (Beran, 2007, 46). The statement was largely ignored at the time but it signified a shift in European politics that would play out over the next 75 years. The phrase blood and iron became closely associated with Bismarck as he rose to power in the second half of the 19th century.

The continuing rise of liberal thought challenged the militaristic elite, of which Bismarck was a part. His claim that Germanys problems could only be rectified by blood and iron was meant to startle the German public (Hobsbawm, 1987, 189). He implied that a Marxist or socialist regime would not be able to defend the country. Only the German elite could control and direct the military effectively while simultaneously managing internal issues.

Bismarck was a conservative who sought to maintain conservative control, particularly in the German power center of Prussia. He was in favor of universal suffrage unless, of course, it could result in conservative downfall. Marxism and Communism were threats to the landed elite that Bismarck had to cope with throughout his tenure.

To blunt criticism from liberals, he introduced several social welfare programs and labor reforms in Germany. Meanwhile, he used France, Russia and Austria as external threats that could only be dealt with by increasing military capability. In 1866 Prussia defeated Austria in the Austro-Prussian War. Only four years later Prussia went to war with France. This was the opportunity for German unification Bismarck had always sought.

After defeating France Bismarck turned to another project he considered no less important than the fall of Paris, the unification of Germany under Prussian rule (Friedrich, 1995, 199). In 1871, William I was named Emperor of Germany at Versailles Palace in Paris. Bismarck is named Chancellor of Germany. His first order of business is diminishing the power of the Catholic Church a critic of the Lutheran Bismarck, and foster the secularization of Germany. The building of the German military continued. The combination of these events, along with the perceived threats to the new nation, laid the groundwork for a fervent nationalism to develop.

Conflict between the Habsburgs in Austria and the Russian Empire put Germany in a difficult position. Bismarck tried to remain friendly to Russia, but it was apparent to most observers at the time that Germany would eventually have to side with its historical ally Austria. Russia, in response would ally itself with France. By the early 1890s two power groups therefore faced each other across Europe (Hobsbawm, 1987, 313). A European arms race was under way.

Bismarck was the consummate political actor in holding together a union of territories with disparate interests and molding them into an empire. The new German nation had a dynamic leader, a strong military and access to vast material and human resources. Germany became a center of scientific innovation and education. The makings of a great nation were in place, but rational and irrational fears of external threats would jeopardize its long-term success.

Bismarcks Legacy and Concluding Thoughts
Otto Von Bismarck can certainly not be assessed the blame for all of 20th century Germanys actions. Hobsbawm writes that the First World War resulted from a progressively deteriorating international situation which increasingly escaped from the control of the governments (1987, 312). In fact Bismarck played the game of international relations well for years with his ultimate goal being peace. Bismarcks statements show an internal conflict. He shuddered at the horrors of war. He also believed war was necessary to achieve peace. He wanted peace on his own terms however.

Bismarck had established alliances across Europe committing Germany to come to the aid of Austria-Hungary and other allies in case of attack. This type of diplomacy locked in opposing military forces and reduced diplomatic flexibility that could have otherwise solved problems. Bismarck saw alliance diplomacy as a means to achieving peace. His goals were short-term and defensive in nature (Kennedy, 1987, 249). Other nations, however, saw it as provocative. They established alliances of their own and Europe moved down a slippery slope of mistrust.

In order to hold his new empire together Bismarck resorted to non-democratic means. He dissolved parliament and collected funds for the military without government authorization. He also enacted laws prohibiting socialism. He also tried to marginalize and isolate the Catholic Church by the process of Kulturkampf, an overt initiative to attack the church.

After his death nationalists idolized him and exaggerated his commitment to imperialism. They ignored his efforts at reconciliation and compromise. In the wake of Bismarck Germany had become an aggressive, nationalistic power. This would cost millions their lives in the century to come. Viewed through a 20th century lens that includes Adolf Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm, Bismarck became a caricature of himself. Those leaders miscast and misrepresented Bismarck for their own political ends.

As with most historical figures, the truth is more complex and shaded with gray than the modern image. Bismarck, above all, was a politician. He was not an ideologue like Hitler or other 20th century dictators. Did his actions set Germany on a path toward that kind of leadership The answer is not as obvious as some would like to think. In his time Bismarck was highly regarded as a maker of peace through strength. At the same time he built a militaristic, nationalistic state and worked hard to silence any dissent within that state. He also stoked fears of France, Russia and Austria for political ends.

The foundation of a Germanic nation was a process that occurred over many decades. Otto von Bismarck gave that process a tremendous shove forward. His skill in doing so was nothing short of remarkable. Domestically, Bismarck installed some ahead-of-their-time social programs that still exist in Germany today. National health care and labor laws designed to decrease exploitation are legacies of the Bismarck chancellorship.