Were the Middle Ages the "Dark Ages"?

No. The Middle Ages lasted from 493 C.E. to 1453 C.E., while in contrast, the Dark Ages were usually counted and are commonly called today to be The Early Middle Ages. There were large chunks of time in the Middle Ages that weren't dark. The fall of Feudalism still took place in the middle ages, and there were times when the Dark Ages weren't dark at all. With Monasticism, monks dedicated their lives to God, and were very kind and pious. They also created illuminated manuscripts, and although not many others knew how to read, the monks were there to read and write for them. Many people connect the two ages because the Dark Ages are the times that make the Middle Ages famous. The Middle Ages also had the Crusades, right at the downfall of Feudalism, the Black Plague, and the Hundred Years War, which was after the Dark Ages, and created a new sense of Nationalism in Europe, mainly Great Britain and France. Even though Feudalism and all the darkness, the years of knights in shining armor weren't always attacked by Vikings, or filled with the contamination of the Black Death. It would be unfair to call the two epochs by the same name and assume they were the same, for the differences are large and significant.

Why do you think Pope Leo III chose to select a Holy Roman Emperor? Why did he choose Charlemagne? Was it a wise choice? What were the results?

At some point Pope Leo realized how good it could be, both for Christianity and for the land to have a Roman emperor. With this kind of power in one persons hands, they could either really help or completely destroy the empire. Charlemagne was an extremely powerful and important figure, and to make him Roman emperor was both a wise choice and an unwise one. Previously, Charlemagne had rescued the pope from the Lumbards, an invading force, and to give him this honor was a perfect sign of gratitude. Charlemagne had also already proved himself to be a strong and mightly leader, and could obviously help the empire grow and prosper. He was also the son of the king before him, Pepin the Short, and so already had a strong and mighty reputation. It was, however, also an unwise choice. The other side of the empire, ruled by Empress Irene, was disgruntled, because Charlemagne now overpowered her. The split that had previously been in the empire now grew to a chasm, and the mutual feeling of revulsion between the two sides now became obvious. So in many ways, Pope Leo made the stupidest decision of his life, but looking to what Charlemagne did for his country and how great their name became, the idea changed all of mankind, their ideas, and our history for the better.

What parallels can you find between the fall of Rome and the current United States? Do you think we are in decline?

Both countries are involved in war. Whether for good or for bad, both are out o conquer and take control of other lands, and more often than not, succeed. Both are extremely materialistic. A big part in the fall of Rome was because everyone in the nobility was incredibly materialistic. They cared more about their possessions and how society looked upon them, rather than how people were suffering and how the empire was crumbling. Today in the United States, people care so much about themselves, and where they shop, and what they buy, that they just don't pay attention to everyone else, till someone turns their head for them. Another problem was the economy - things just weren't working. Nobody had money, and the lucky ones who did were quickly running out. Rome spent to much, what with emperors buying rare and expensive luxuries, and add it up to the basic care of the empire, it's no wonder they didn't have money left! In the United States now, the economy is poor, and although there aren't that many on the streets, people still run out of money and lose their jobs. Many things can't be afforded. The United States is also constantly in debt, what with buying products from different countries.In that respect, we're just like the Romans. Another important factor in the fall of Rome was the bad leadership. There were so many emperors, and they all did different things. Many of them were bad, but the main problem was the instability that was in the government. In the U. S., we don't have that, but without proper care, it is likely to topple. I think the United States is only at the beginning of it's rein. There's a lot ahead of us, so much more that we can do. We can explore conquer, grow rich, do so much. We have a big chance to make it big, and we can get there, with the right strategy. But make one wrong move, and like the Roman Empire, we will rot, inside out.

How did the Romans manage to effectively combine their whole empire into 1 unit?

The Romans effectively made their one empire by mainly one factor - war. Through war, the Romans conquered whole countries. They captured one country at a time, then made order. After that, they would settle the land, until the once-seperate countries became part of Rome. Then they went back to another war. And defeated another country. And then kept that one in line. The making of the Roman Empire was not overnight. It took years and years, but one by one, the Romans gained more people and more power. They gained treasures from the defeated countries. As they won, they gained people, soldiers and better chances of beating the other army. Because they waorked so hard and so steadily, they won. Slow and steady wins the race.

An Ancient Athenian would look at our democracy and both approve and disapprove. They would disapprove because of our select way of allowing people to become representatives. Though you can vote for a representative, maybe you don't have the same ideas, but the chance of you ever getting to that position is incredibly slim. The Greeks had someone else go into the government all the time -as long as you were over twenty, male, and free, you could have a part in leading the country. Also, if you are from outside of America, or from outside of Washington D.C., then you still may become a representative. For the Greeks, you could only be a representative if you lived in Athens. They would, however, like our system of state votes. Each state has a certain amount of votes according to population, but since not everybody over eighteen can travel to one place to vote for the president, each state has an elector, who travels and votes for us, as a representative of a village votes for the whole village, if they are away. Although their democracy mirrors ours, the reflection is different, and they wouldn't entirely approve of it.

How do we see Mayan values in our modern world?

We see Mayan values in our modern world everywhere. In architecture, there are stairways that are designed like the temples of the Maya, with step levels, and the steps coming in. Our homes nowadays are also similar to theirs. Before, civilizations like Egypt made their roofs pointed. But the Mayan often made their homes stone with a flat roof, as many apartments and houses are today. In our modern world, Mayan women are still weaving and making tortillas. Although the Mayan women back then would not have worked, now many help to support their family by weaving and then selling their work. And of course, much of the food has remained. Today, whole restaurants are dedicated to the task of cooking Mayan food, although often adding the European adaptations. And of course, we are always looking for more of Mayan history - through stellae, through pyramids, and through remains. We are always keeping a part of this history with us.

Legalism v.s. Mohism

I'm choosing to compare the two Chinese philosophies Legalism and Mohism. Legalism was led by Xun Zi, who had once been part of Confucianism. He, however, was party to the belief that people are mainly evil, selfish, and sneaky. Mohism, on the other hand, led by Mo Xi, believed that all people needed love. While Legalism discouraged common people from literacy and the intellect, Mohism believed that all should be educated, especially in useful subjects like math or the sciences. Mohisms key principle and belief was universal love. The Mohist leader had to be wise, kind, and care about the people of other countries as much as his own. The Legalist ruler was to rule with an iron fist and use war to strengthen power. The Legalists believed that the law, no matter how unjust people believed it to be, was more important than morality. If the law was to strike every blind person that you come across, the law was more valued than the needs and feelings for the blind person. The Mohists believed in humanity - everyone was equal and a family. A child shouldn't respect the storekeeper any more or less than his teacher or uncle. They avoided gossip, cursing, and war. They tried their hardest to discipline themselves, and fought not for power, but only to protect themselves and others.