Stirrups
The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd edition) defines a stirrup as "a loop or ring hung from either side of a horse's saddle to support the rider's foot" (The American Heritage Dictionary 799). Stirrups were invented by the Chinese in the year 477 A.D., and by the early Middle Ages the countries of Japan, India and Korea seem to have adopted its use. Stirrups became known in Persia, Byzantium and France in the 7th or early 8th century A.D.. Before stirrups were invented, riders had to use "a wooden stool or [they leaped] directly on to the horse's back" (Gans 1). Stirrups provided riders with much greater stability while on horseback especially during battles with lances and swords.
A number of historians believed that the invention of the stirrups created the rise of feudalism. This belief caused what is called the great stirrup controversy still going on up to the present day. There has been several theories proposed pertaining to this controversy. For example, Heinrich Brunner in 1887 said that "feudalism was a wide effect of the development of mounted shock warfare by the Franks" (Gans 1). Brunner's stance of the controversy is that he believes that the rise of feudalism was not caused by the introduction of the stirrup but was caused by the Frankish army's envy of the fighting ability of the Moslem cavalry. As a result, the Frankish army became primarily a cavalry army. Before that time, the Frankish army used to fight on foot using a long handled ax called a francisca. Heinrich Brunner proposes that the Frankish army transformed itself from an infantry force to a mounted cavalry between 732 A.D. to 891 A.D. in an article he published called "Knights' Service and the Origins of Feudalism" (Gans 1).
The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd edition) defines cavalry as "troops trained to fight on horseback or in light armored vehicles" and feudalism as "a political and economic system of medieval Europe by which a landowner granted land to a vassal in exchange for homage and military service" (The American Heritage Dictionary 141, 312). Lynn White Jr. in 1962 said that both feudalism and cavalry was caused by the introduction of the stirrup. White agrees with Brunner's argument that "it was true that feudalism arose out of military necessity but that Brunner's details were wrong" (Gans 1).
Now a day every video game has something violent going on. Such as in 2010 the top 20 games out in the market were violent related. When a kid sees in a video game that he can beat someone else up and get away with it they think they can do that in real life. This will increase bullying and kids are being taught not to bully. Every kid plays video games even if it’s a racing game or a shooting game. In 2008, 97% of kids from the age of 12-17 played video games. Most M rated games have sexual violence and when a kid sees that in a game and then beats the girl up. The crime rate for rape will increase as it has. A study in 2009 found that it only takes a child four minutes of playing a game to make him have aggressive and violent thoughts going through his head. The critics of violent video game has that bully has increase 32% because of violent video games. Also in the study when a child sees blood when beating up or killing someone in a game he will have more aggressive thoughts than normal.
In the joust the knight used the lance, a weapon specifically designed for mounted combat. At first jousters would simply spur their horses towards one another, weapons ready, each attempting to knock each other off there horses. If a knight was knocked to the ground, his battle was as good as lost. For the mounted warrior could run him down, trample him with his horse, or spear him with his lance; all while out of reach of the land bound fighter.
One of these tactical reforms was the implementation of a new standard of training for soldiers. Roberts argues that unlike in the middle ages, new training represented a shift from medieval individualist warfare (characterized by weapons such as the lance) to non-individualist warfare (characterized by weapons such as the pike).
Desensitization from video games creates a biological response that leads to a lack of empathy and more aggressive behaviors. Furthermore, violence in video games is rewarded, making one more likely to repeat the behavior in real life. Finally, video games allow people to take on roles, and along with one’s inability to separate reality from fantasy, people will take on these roles in real life, leading to many of the recent mass shootings. The debate on video games and violence will carry major significance over these coming years. Although violent video games will not necessarily be banned, there might be moves to educate parents about the dangers of violent video games so that their children can be monitored in the games they choose. However, the debate will not be completely solved. Video games are a multimillion dollar industry and the companies may pay psychologists to agree with their sentiments, prolonging the debate. Although video games are some of the most popular items in the world to own, one must take caution in purchasing them, especially violent
For centuries different diseases and infections have plagued the human race. As science evolves throughout our history, we’ve figured out how to combat these illnesses effectively, but some still choose to not protect themselves or their children and put the rest of us at risk. Mandatory childhood vaccination is essential for keeping our population safe and building a strong and healthy future. While many support this stance, some also have opposing views to this subject. Some claim that the vaccines pose a dangerous health risk to young children that can amount from anything to a weakened immune system, to developing secondary disease from the vaccine. As well, some see vaccinations as non-effective and don’t see why they should immunize and potentially put their child at risk. Also, anti vaccine parents do not feel they should be held socialy responsible for not protecting their child and putting others at risk. These are legitimate concerns, but if you look at how diseases have been irradiated, the vast amounts of research done, and countless children’s lives saved because of vaccinations, you might ask yourself why people would decide to not protect the ones
There are so many violent video games it’s hard to find a game without all the violence. If we don’t change the games our young people then they might not have a future. Some people believe video games keep kids of the streets. People don’t know that video games mold are young people monkey see monkey do most. You put your kid in front of a violent video game they will pick up something from that game if it’s good or not they will learn something from that game. Parents if you’re concerned about what kind of game your kid play then you should check the violence...
During the Middle Ages, feudalism served as the “governing political, social, and economic system of late medieval Europe.” Feudalism consisted of feudal liege lords giving land and protection to vassals, common men, in exchange for their allegiance and military service. Although this principle may at first sound like a fair trade, it in actuality restricted the entire society and took away every bit of their independence. In essence, this system could even be compared to a “mini-dictatorship” because the common people relied on ...
Print. "The Middle Ages: Feudal Life." Learner.org. Annenberg Foundation, 2012. Web.
Manorialism and Feudalism were important key characteristics of Medieval Europe. Although they were closely related they were very different. Feudalism’s concept was to have a political and military institution. The Knights would protect the serfs for their work, and the knights would get paid to protect the lords and the kings. While Manorialism was more of an economic organization. For example, in document 2 it states, “They also had to pay high rents to the lords to use his land”. Money was not used a lot in this medieval Europe, but Manorialism was economic. Mannerism lacked of military and political aspect, and it depended more on the serfs for living. If there were no serfs, there would be no food.
Sale of human organs is the one of the most popular argumentative and ethical issue of today's world. With the every passing day the world is heading towards more modern and technological era leading people's life towards easier and faster way of access to each and everything. Impossible things and acts have been turned possible due to the advances in science and technology. One of the science's miracle is organ transplantation mainly kidney, the most commonly transplanted organ of a body which can bring hundreds of dying people back to their normal life. For transplantation, availability of organs is the main issue because there are many individuals for and against the sale of human organs which affect the supply of organs and as a result people die due to kidney failure and unavailability of organ at the right time. Many individuals are not in favor of legalizing the sale of vital human body organs as they fear about the black market where buyers obtain organs illegally and take advantage of financially weak people who sell their organs to fulfil their daily needs.
As Western Europe was in chaos the peasantry was left with nothing to protect them from local warlords. The biggest change the peasants suffered was the subjugation to the knightly class.This European Feudalism was developed with the idea of creating an arrangement between rulers and
Who appoints ethical limits that prevail in our society? Is every individual responsible for their own actions even though their morals may be different from others? Ethical judgments are made for every individual separately and some of them are based on their own emotions or their own reason. There are many factors that influence ethical judgments in a society or culture. In my essay I will use reason and emotion as ways of knowing, because I believe that in order to make an ethical judgment in both the natural sciences and arts a person’s emotion and reason play a role. Discovering new knowledge in natural sciences is mostly done with controlled experiments, while artists can express their knowledge in a different way with pictures, sculptures, movies… In both areas of knowledge ethics cannot be excluded. Art has more freedom to express without getting negative feedback from spectators or society, while a natural scientist must be aware of lots of ethical limits in order that their experiment would be ethically acceptable. My claim is that ethical judgments do limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in arts and natural sciences, but the limitations are stricter when it comes to conducting experiments than creating art works. Ideally an objective view should be considered when evaluating this claim but our emotions can be stumbling blocks to ethical judgments.
Even though historians are required to deduce what is accepted as understanding, they inevitably view history through a modern lens which provides a framework for the future similar to human scientists. Therefore, the assertion appears to be true to a certain extent as historians are forced to understand the past while human scientists must look to change the future. Yet, the past and future appear to be interchangeable in terms of importance for both the historian and human scientist attempting to derive knowledge.
As the problem of organ shortage is getting more and more severe, how to increase the number of organ donors for transplantation has become an urgent problem faced by the government. Among all kinds of proposals, the legalization of organ sales gradually become a focus of many discussions. Both proponents like MacKay and opponents like S. M. Rothman and D. J. Rothman have supported their own opinions from several perspectives. However, no matter how the government makes its final decision, it should always consider the interest of everyone in the society and should not ignore the limitation of each solution. For legalized organ sales, the government should notice that it could be the trade only between a small portion of people and make it harder to wait for
A historian provides descriptions of the facts and concepts of the past events and circumstances. His main job is also to interpret the past. He does that through the methodology, for example analysing evidence from multiple sources, evaluating it, eliminating bias sources, filling the gaps with reason and having the ability to make conclusions, but can we even apply our contemporary way of reasoning to past events that we want to understand? Historians tend to be as objective as they can be. And since the past no longer exists, it cannot be changed and is therefore a fixed sense of events, but truthfully it cannot be understood that way. A historian is the one that chooses which event from the past is significant and can therefore choose the object of observation. He often chooses an event according to his emotions which