The AP Exam... or something like that

To sum up how the AP exam went in a few words: What was that? My immediate opinion is that it is supposed to test knowledge of world history, not the ability to find the biases of an author and then ASSUME what they meant, I finished MCAS last year and I would have perferred not go back to opinion-based questions. After the test, my brain was melting out of my ears, and I don't think I have ever hand-written 10 1/2 pages in that little time in my life. The MC questions were deffinatly the harder of the two sections, with many of the questions ending in "Welp... haven't used B in a while." As far as the review goes, I think (judging by the disribution of material) we should focus on the fall of empires and the government systems more, and continue to analyze patterns throughout history, which I found helped alot on the exam. The snacks were wonderful, what a gesture! The essays... well let's not go there. They were easy, although the C/C was hard to find differences (I mean, really), the COT was a piece-o-cake (at least I think, maybe I bombed it... who knows) and the DBQ was, as always, a DBQ. Other than that, it was an experience I am excited I only have to handle once, and a 3 or above would be fantastic, although after that MC section I don't really know who optimistic that is... my head was too numb to make heads or tails after the exam. To finish... done with the AP exam and thrilled about it.

In a word: No. The Communist Manifesto

Throughout the highly repetitive manifesto, which really does nothing more than say a bunch of times 'Rich people treat you like crap... use our system," and provides no better rebuttal than "This one isolated time in history in our isolated peninsula, when you skim over some facts, this is what happened, and it will happen again," brings up some things that are worthy of some closer examination.

The Negative:

1. Industry has led to the destruction of family life, and that has to stop:
• This was talked about, and what they say is true. Urban manufacturing halted the development of families and had parents sending their kids off to factories, and that had to stop, as it did in many developed countries later, but it is a problem that still happens in other less developed societies today.
2. Those with power have developed power abroad
• International power and shipping/trade has lead to the ability to accrue personal international power for those who own labor (or land).
3. The few who have money control the many that need to work
• Working in the factories makes money for the wealthy landowners, and helps workers improve their conditions very little
4. Machinery has destroyed distinctions in labor
• Mundane tasks mean society is no longer specialized, and so there is no reason/ opportunity for advancement the way there used to be with artisans and merchants working to improve their conditions

The Positive:

1. The need for workers to have rights
• This is a point that is still pushed somewhat today, especially when the media gets a good juicy clip of a sweatshop or unfair labor conditions in other countries ("enjoy that sweatshirt, a starving child made" it type media that really pushes the facts or just doesn't back them up).
2. Private property is a form of capital
• This is a statement I have to find myself agreeing with. Property is a form of wealth, and therefore a form of capital, and I agree with what Marx is saying to a point, I think too many of the wealth controlled the poor, but I think that we need property. In Africa, it was the lack of property that led to slaves as a form of social wealth and a display of social prominence. 
3. The need for a progressive income tax
• A fact most today would disagree with, and a point that to me doesn't fit with communism (maybe I'm misunderstanding...) but one that is important none the less. Without taxes, infrastructure and development cannot be supported on a wide scale, government does that and when the government cannot support or defend itself, it falls. This leads to a power vacuum in some cases and social unrest in all, so why would you want to do that? We need taxes that can support what we want from out government (public education, water, roads, medicare, etc.).
4. The need for a central bank that holds a monopoly
• When a central bank can hold a monopoly over the flow of money, it doesn't mean that other banks can't arise, it means that a central bank controls all of the the value of the money, and we have that to an extent today with the Federal Reserve System (those FDIC plaques are wonderful reminders), a bank that controls the flow of money and to a degree tracks where it flows. The only difference is that without a monopoly banks are able to invest money. Although this is generally good for the person who is collecting interest on the account, a monopolized bank would at least keep money secure, a critical need in any society. 

Liberator Portrayal... Judging a Book by the Cover?

Upon looking through pictures of the liberators on the PowerPoint (Washington, Marat, Toussaint, Bolivar), there are a few things that stick out to me right away when I look at them. The first is that all of them are portrayed with a weapon, but not one that is active. Washington, Toussaint and Bolivar are all portrayed as having sheathed swords. Marat, although not holding a sword, is holding a pen, which was his "weapon", in this case it was the instrument that he used to push for change. All of the men are also portrayed as having a mixture of military and scholarly leadership (again, except for Marat, who fought with the pen). Washington is portrayed as having a desk in a beautiful, well decorated room, while Toussaint is portrayed holding both paper and sword. Bolivar's portrait is set in a beautiful room with a pen and a globe in the background, both symbols of learning and knowledge. Marat, also, is portrayed as having pen in hand, and so we could see him as a martyr for his cause, fighting (with pen) to the death for change, as well as having scholarly knowledge portrayed with pen and paper in hand. In order to portray these men not as conquerors, but as scholars and knowledgable leaders, they must not be portrayed as warriors fighting, but instead as leaders working towards a goal. In order to portray this, having a balance of military power and knowledge in the portrait is a must. In the case of Marat, he has fought for his cause by being a martyr.

So why is each liberator portrayed the way they are? By portraying these men where their greatest achievements happened (sadly for Marat that was in the tub), it imposes upon future generations several traditions, one is that they should be scholars as well as military leaders and the other that they should lead without extravagance, as none of the liberators in the portrait are dressed very extravagantly. In dressing nicely but not with extravagance, they are showing that they are not wealthy aristocrats that have decided to seize power for themselves, but that they are citizens who have stepped up and wish to lead for the good of the people, not the gain of personal wealth.

I'm being long-winded, so I'll speed this next one up! The reason these revolutions need heroic figures is that every movement needs a figurehead, someone that can give tangibility to the cause. Without a leader, figurehead or tangibility, a cause would not be able to gain any ground or make any progress. As for what is heroic, I believe there is more than one element that answers that question. The first is personal sacrifice. They have risked their lives and imprisonment (or even death), and well as united people together for a cause. These are the actions that make these men heroes. As for their ideals, that is what makes these men possess heroic minds. By believing in freedom and the lack of corrupt government (whether their revolutions fixed that or not), just having the ideal and helping bring that ideal to life makes these men heroes.

6 Killer Appz? Perhaps...

After watching the TED Talk by Niall Ferguson I can certainly think of a few things to say. The first is that I think he simplified the points he was trying to make, perhaps because of the nature of TED Talks and that they are limited to 20 minutes. Overall though, I agree with what he had to say about the institutions that led to the "Great Divergence." The points he brought up about the U.S and U.K (and the rest of Europe too) were particularly stunning, especially in looking at the patent chart and the chart comparing work ethics in the U.S/ U.K with those in China. He defiantly hit points of what caused the West to advance over the East, but I believe he may have missed one. Never once did he bring up resources. Although he explained increasing military technology through the scientific technology, he never explained where the resources that built these ships, guns and made the bullets came from. Africa, for instance, has large stretches of land that are barren of resources that are useable, including water. So what effect did the availability of resources such as iron, water, wood (for ships) and paper have on these developing societies? Although he did say if I played this game I would loose... so maybe I am totally off. But I think that resources had to play a role in the advancement of technology and medicine... it's really hard to think with a dehydration headache or when you are really hungry. That and something has to make the products which are consumed in a consumer society. He defiantly hit on points that were important, I just think that missed some, and that oversimplifying thousands of years (and billions of people) into 6 categories might be a little too much in order to still be able to support his "thesis" if you will.

On the other hand, it is defiantly a wake up call for Americans to see how they are falling behind to China in almost every global comparison, and I think his remarks at the end of the video about the focus being placed on the E.U crisis and U.S debt crisis are defiantly interesting and deserve some thought. It in particular makes me think of rising gas prices, and a talk I heard on NPR once about how broadcasting rising gas prices was actually speeding up the increase of gas prices, I would if the same type of concept applies?

Too Much Sharing? Too Much Caring? Too Many Sultans?

 The period of global interdependence was, to say the least, a double-edged sword. Although exploring and finding sea routes and improved methods of trade between societies during this time opened up a world of economic opportunities for some societies, it destroyed others. Africa, for example, was ravished by the slave trade, which was largely supported by the availability of trans-Atlantic transportation and the need for cheap labor to work American plantations. At the same time, the development of capitalism in Europe lead to the development of joint-stock companies, which fueled economic growth and international trade out of Europe, although in the end would lead to bad news for American Native Americans. China saw a return to native rule and was then controlled by Manchus, with native Chinese culture intact, even preserved through struck laws and tightly regulated trade. It really must be seen as the time period that lay much of the history which we use to sculpt many of our modern laws and decisions, but also laid the foundations of wrongdoings that would resonate through to our recent history and in some sense even today. Overall, I think the time period of the origins of global interdependence was detrimental to society. During this period countries were torn apart, the slave trade accelerated out of control, dependancies on American foods were developed overseas (which lead to the continued slave trade), and population crisis began to form. Some these problems we still have to fix today. Trade is good and can bring prosperity, but I think in this time period it went horribly wrong and a dominant society that parasitized other societies formed and ran out of control.

A Little Too Much for One Chapter?

Although the logic between grouping the Safavids, Mughals and Ottomans together in the book is not to difficult to discern, it still struck me as a cumbersome way to present the information in those two chapters. Perhaps it was logical to group Islamic empires which arose during this time period, which is the reason (I believe) that these societies are presented together. Indeed it does seem to make sense when they begin drawing comparisons between the empires, but in initially getting the information across it made reading the chapter slightly confusing. Especially since some topics are addressed when talking about one empire, but then never again addressed when discussing another empire. Also, occasionally I found myself looking back to make sure I was still thinking about the right empire while reading, since the book would mash together the empires, or at least draw thin lines between them. Certainly when talking about topics such as religion and trade having them all in the same chapter made it easy to follow, it still left room for confusion. In all, I wasn't a huge fan, and I think that it was a bad decision, they could have grouped them together too, if they had set up the chapter in a different layout.

Oh Fabian...

In the expert from the book "Dues Destroyed" , Fabian leaves very little for the reader to misinterpret. As a matter of fact, the excerpt from the book can best be seen as a deliberate and systematic attack on Christianity and its doctrines. One of the main comparisons that Fabian draws is between the "barbaric" beliefs of Christian theology and the knowledge that the Buddhist doctrine possess. Fabian also brings an interesting point to the table, that Christians "value their lives less than trash." Here, Fabian has directly attacked the concept of being a martyr, one who dies for their faith. He also discusses how Christians had taken over other lands throughout the globe, specifically referencing the Philippines and Mexico. How they try to dismantle the beliefs of the natives, and claims that they are only able to convert those who they do because they are lands with "nature close to animal". Fabian's assertions may, in fact, not be incorrect either. Much of the converting that was done in Mexico was because of the diseases that the Spanish brought with them, and so the native peoples believed that the Spanish (Catholics) were correct in their beliefs, since they did not get sick, and converted to Christianity. Fabian also claims that Christian missionaries have no other goal than to destroy and manipulate the cultures that they encounter, tear them down and then "import their own." He argues that they must, in fact, tear down Buddhist belief, the Law of Buddha and Way of the Gods to bring in Christianity. Fabian's "Dues Destroyed" does really batter Christianity against a wall. He accuses Christian missionaries as government destroyers and Christian faithful as suicidal barbarians with no regard for their own lives. Fabian, however, paints Buddhism in a pure, clean and intelligent life that runs and moves society in the way of tradition and peace. He equates his years of following Christian doctrine with a mistake, and claims he gained new knowledge and destroyed the "wickedness" within him from the Christian doctrine by becoming a Buddhist. He says there is "little truth" in the Christian doctrine, and that he was glad to become a follower of the Buddhist faith.

Chapter 26 - The Good Stuff

This is a ShowMe I put together to look over the important topics in chapter 26 as well as some of the changes and similarities between Africa in the past and Africa now. This mostly discusses the slave trade and political changes in Africa and the impacts of trade and the slave trade.

Chapter 26 - The Good Stuff ShowMe

Capitalism: A Second Look

After read a little more about capitalism, it seems like a fitting time to revisit and look at it again. After reading about capitalism and the impact that it had on European history, I think I have a little bit more of an understanding as to exactly what it is. To me, capitalism seems to be a way of manipulating the economy so that the most possible profits are extracted, while maintaining relatively cheap operations and cost of movement and productions. Furthermore, it seems that capitalism and this notion that the individual can manipulate the economy and those that rely on it to make a profit is what runs our modern politics, and a similar way to what happened in Europe. Here, as in (what I gathered from the reading) Europe, capitalism is favored by the government (or at least one half of it) and so legislations that makes that capitalism easier are passed more often than they maybe should. That being said, it is also very apparent that capitalism is a parasitic structure that feeds on the lower class. The serfs in eastern Europe being the lower class, along with the peasants in eastern Europe's "Putting-out system", were the backbone and the main reason that these operations yielded a profit. Without the lower class, which can be employed for little money and easily manipulated, capitalism would never have been nearly as successful. In our society today, we still depend on a lower class to make the world as we know it work. Whether these low paid workers are here or abroad, the general reaction of society is to treat them however they need to be treated to keep prices down. Without people who are willing to do the jobs that are too "easy" or "dirty" for others (even the lower class in the U.S lives and easier life than people in other countries around the globe, look at the Foxconn fiasco), society would stand still, trash would build up, we wouldn't have food, and our global economy would grind to a halt when we ran out of oil. So, from the reading I have learned that capitalism is the tool that runs our economy, and that are politics are a bad habit started by Europeans years ago.

Christianity and its many Divergences...

Throughout history, Christianity has always been the religion that splits into new groups time and time again. Christianity has split multiple times and developed many branches; Nestorian Christianity, Aryan Christianity, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant (to name a few). When looking at Christianity with other religions and patterns that have lead to divergences (such as in Islam, say), the presence of a high ranking, powerful religious official who is in charge of those who spread, preach and practice the religion is always present. In Islam, the argument into what the lineage of the Caliph should be led to the development of the Sunni and Shia clans. In Christianity, it is very similar, when a significantly large group of people believe in something that the religious leader (the Bishops in early Christianity and the Pope for most of the divergences after that) goes against, they often rebel and form their own sect. In a less than stable Europe, the ability to break away from an established religious practice and form an alternate religious following is available, and so, as in history, groups have broken away and formed their own sects, practicing the same basic theology with different rituals and traditions. So, Christianity branches off so much because corrupt and absolute leadership anger people, who then move away from the church.





 As for capitalism... well... let's see. All I really know is that someone has to own something that generates a profit (like a factory or insurance company) and then they build on that profit which adds to their own personal value. If that's right, that's all I know. If that's wrong, then I guess I know nothing about capitalism other than that it always comes up in politics.

Griots vs. Written History: Is there Really a Difference

The Griots, wonderful elements of the sub-Saharan African culture, were story tellers who passed stories, tall tales and historical accounts to one another through only oral communication. But how do the Griots compare to written history sources, such as religious books or textbooks? Well, the Griots had just as much ability to change the story as did anyone who wrote down history, and we have seen first hand through the descriptions of India in our textbook that historical accounts often exaggerate the splendor of the accomplishments of man or the splendor of an empire. So what is the difference between writing these exaggerations and spreading them through word of mouth. The real noticeable change, I think, happens when a culture dies out. If a griot passed away and his stories had not been relayed to another griot, then there is a good chance the culture and stories he carried would die with him. In comparison, written history can remain long after a scribe dies, and as long and the language doesn't become extinct than the texts can be deciphered. The other downside to griots is the change that happens as stories are passed down. Exaggerations become greater and the story is muddled every time that it is told, where as once an account is written those are the exaggerations that will be read and analyzed in the future. Overall, I think griots are a great source of culture, stories and entertainment, but I think that accounts that are used and relied on should come from a written source. Even though those written sources may only be ever so slightly more reliable that the oral traditions passed from generation to generation. I think the story of the reconstruction of Niani, passed down through griots, attests to how some details may be enhanced or exaggerated, but perhaps the main plot is left intact through generations of Griots. However, we are here reading it on paper, not receiving it through word of mouth, and if we had to sit down, memorize it and pass it down, how much would change and how? In conclusion, text history is the way to go.

Looking Back: The Mongol Trail

Well, today we came close to the conclusion of the trail convicting the descendants of Ghengis Khan for crimes against humanity, specifically genocide, terrorism and kidnapping. Looking back on the trail, for which I was the cross examination attorney for the defense, I thought it was a very enjoyable experience. Although overall I think I did a good job with the cross examination. I definitely had a few blunders, especially in questioning the Abbasid caliph. Although it was a much smaller blunder, I also said that it was the grandson of Kublai Khan, this was a false statement, it had been his second son. Although the point behind the fact still stands valid, the fact itself was incorrect. I think I could have been able to ask more direct questions, and not have tripped over my words so often. But, given the job I was to do I think that I did OK.

As for my beliefs, I think that the Mongols were perhaps overzealous in their conquests, they were not as bad as they have been made out to be. They are responsible for opening trade routes and for spreading culutre throughout Eurasia, two very important aspects of the Mongol story often left out. It is also overlooked often I believe that the mongols were warriors and nomads, and that their culture was significantly different than the cultures of those whom they were invading. That being said, they were not innocent people. They killed hundreds of thousands people and did horrible things to almost every society that they encountered. Although they deserve to be admired for the incredible empire that they built, I really can't help but see them as anything but overambitious conquers who went about regardless of the harm and suffering that they caused.

If I had watched the trail today, I most likely have said that the mongols were guilty. The prosecution hit hard right were it counts. Of course, it is hard to be objective since I was the cross examiner I really am unaware of what my impact on the trail was, since I was not observing. As I went through my research, I did realize that the mongols are hard to defend. Not impossible, but very difficult. Like I said earlier, there seems to be a very strong bias and I think that really impacts the information that is openly available for research. I would find the Mongols guilt of kidnapping and terrorism, but I think that the case against genocide was too weak to sway my opinion from not guilty to guilty.

Ghengis Khan: A Psychopath? Or not.

The video we watched in class today was not the first time and will absolutely not be the last time that Ghengis Khan is portrayed as a psychopath. But was he? The point is debatable, there is not doubt, but I do not believe that he was. I think a key point in developing this opinion is the definition of a psychopath:

"a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts."  - Collin's English Dictionary 2009 10th Edition

There is no doubt that Ghengis Khan was a violent man, but there was nothing abnormal or violent about his behavior. The Mongol culture was violent and unforgiving. Stealing women from neighboring tribes for marriage was a common practice, and in a nomadic society there would be no incentive for the lives of tribesmen from other tribes to be valued. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that his violent behavior towards other tribes was violent (in context to his culture) or unusual. He grew up in a hostel society, and having grown up in this society held different values, nothing he did was unusually hostile in the Mongol culture, and so there is no reason for him to feel guilt, and so there is no reason to classify him as a psychopath. Whats more, Ghengis Khan valued the lives of others, and was concerned about wasting them. A psychopath would hold no value in the lives of others. From a psychological standpoint, there is nothing about Ghengis Khan that suggests that he is a psychopath. He merely did what his culture taught him to do and expanded it to a larger scale by commanding a powerful military, and is therefore not a psychopath. In my opinion, he was a ruthless and hostile general who held a tight reign on his troops, and because of this was an effective and powerful ruler capable of large scale expansion, even if it came at a cost. Nothing about being a powerful and ruthless ruler implies that a person is a psychopath, and there is no reason that the case of Ghengis Khan should be seen differently.

The Final Thoughts: A Reflection

Well, now that I have the submission of this project behind me, I think it would be worth it to comment on how I think the project went. Please keep in mind the post with my submissions is the one below this post.
I think overall that the medium I chose worked very well for the project. Sharing the final products through the blog was very easy, and I am very pleased with my final products. Somethings that could have gone better for this project: fact finding. This was not an easy task, but between the book I found, many online resources I found what I needed. Another thing that I found today that I wish I had found earlier was one of the databases that the school is subscribed to. I used it today to make sure that all of my letters were accurate according to this source too, which they were. It felt good to have that final source corroborating what can sometimes on the internet be very different stories. Overall though I can say that I am happy with and confident in my letters.

The Final Step: The Letters to the Editors (The Submission)

Below are the three letters to the editors that I wrote, there is one for each of the crusades that I covered, which were numbers 3, 5 and 7. And, of course there is a bibliography too. They are all Google Docs that are public, so there should be no problem viewing them.

 Letters to the Editor:

1. Third Crusade 
2. Fifth Crusade
3. Seventh Crusade

And of course because no project is legitimate without legitimate sources, a bibliography:

Crusade Project Bibliography

A Charity Post:

This is for those of you having trouble finding information to use for your project. Below is a link to a google doc that you will be able to view, it has the websites I used in no particular order. Enjoy.

Useful Sites for Crusades 3, 5 and 7

Some of these I found today perusing the internet, and so I put them on this list but I am not 100% about how good they are, so feel free to comment to this post with reviews if you think there is a sour link here.

This is also a great reference, I found it today and our school library has a login, so we can use it. I so far have been using it as a fact-checking reference.

Gale Database - The Crusades

The Second and Third Letters

So today I have finished writing the second and third letter, which collectively focused on the fifth and seventh crusades. I think that the letters do a good job of conveying the disdain and utter lack of respect which I tried to portray the Muslims as having towards the crusaders. Although writing the letters themselves was more of a challenge than I had anticipated, I think they are a great way to mix together fact and opinion into a format that is easy sharable and able to be posted on a blog. Right now the plan is to post them as multiple links, each link will be labeled and that will take you to the letter for each crusade, which will be Google Docs.
I wish I could have gone with a more artsy medium, but graphic design is REALLY not my strong suite and I don't think anyone would appreciate my idea of a drawing, so I stuck to what was most feasible for the time that had been allotted for the project, and I can confident in my choice of a series of letters to the editor.

Letter #1: A Relfection

Well, the first "letter to the editor" was finished last night, and I think I can safely say that it was a success. Although I will admit finding the right blend of "ha they lost" and "oh they got us thought..." was a bit of a challenge, since I did the third crusade, a military win but a loss in the end. Of course I also wanted my letter to sound like a disgruntled reader in Egypt, so I'm not so sure how that went. I also must say that the name I used on the letter, Soron Jidus, was not nearly what I wanted, but I decided I wanted the letters of my name real name in this one more than an authentic sounding name. You win some, you lose some. The letter was a success though. It allowed me to write about the crusades in a global context but also share my "disgust" towards the crusaders, and my slight annoyance with the loose terms of the treaty that was signed with Richard. I also got some good personal commentary in on Richard though, which I thought was good. The medium of writing has done its job, and I think (hope?) rather well. They will be easy to make blog accessible through a public google doc, which will make them open to all. I am now going to write the second letter. I have planned to do one letter per crusade, dated with the year the crusade officially ended. I am think that I might make this a series type thing, but I will have to see how letter 2 goes.

Conveying the Cruades: Where's the info?

As with any project, it is critical to have a stable and reliable base of information that has been verified and is from a reputable source. To do this, I have been using a variety of search engines and research methods, including... a book. That's right, a book.
As far as search engines are concerned, I have been using Google, Bing and SweetSearch. From these three, Google is by far the most transparent and provides an infinite number of pages to be sifted through. Bing has been overly helpful. It provides many of the same sites as Google, with a stray page here or there. The other majorly helpful search engine has been SweetSearch, which only provides more reliable content, which is much easier to sift through in order to find the sites that have been the most helpful.
Also, a book I found titled "Brassey's Book of the Crusades" has provided a great deal of information, which can be easily researched and provides context, along with other facts and geography associated with the crusades that is often left out of websites.
Wikipedia, while being good for summations of crusades is not great for incredibly specific notes, and so it is great as a starting point but needs some help from other sources. The only difficult part in finding data about the crusades is trying to uncover what is truly reliable and what is based on speculations and myths, but between three search engines and the book I found, the information is abundant.

Conveying the Crusades: How?

Being the time to start debating how I will communicate the opinions and feelings the Muslim people had about the crusades, I am thinking of sharing these opinions in the way many today share their opinions, be these opinions funny, angry, vulgar or depressing: through a letter to the editor. I am thinking that I will write a series of letters to the editor which will discuss the emotions and facts that are tied to the crusades and the Muslim people.

Not only do I think letters to the editor will be clear and concise, but I also believe that they leave alot of room for creativity, personality and a common, sharable medium which can be easily accessed by all through a blog.

Starting with the Crusades: What and Why?

Let's start with the what. After perusing the interwebs, I have decided that I would like to follow the 3rd, 5th and 7th crusades, but I will also be doing some research into (hopefully) the first crusade for some supporting material.

I think the first crusade is a great filler, there is lots of information available and it is a great crusade to gather supplement from, but not focus on, so that's what I shall do.

The 3rd crusade is a gripping tale of mistreating prisoners, a battle of culture and an loss, but this is nothing unique. Because of the size and some of the aspects associated with the crusade, I think that it would be a great one to gather information and try to synthesize and research an opinion on.

The 5th crusade is very similar to, but it offers a new perspective from the 3rd crusade. I think having some similarities and some differences that fall into broad themes is a good start for forming and relying opinions, as it reinforces and adds context.

Finally, the 7th crusade resulted in an incredible defeat with the christian army loosing almost every soldier. I feel like this provides another pressure point, and exemplifies the power of the Islamic army, and of course its another chance to discuss Egypt. These things being taken into consideration I think the seventh crusade provides clear examples but also embeds aspects of the imperial struggle between the pope and the imperial power, a juicy topic.