Great Courses Review: History of Science: Antiquity to 1700

I only got this course after listening to the others in the trilogy and then wondering if they had a course covering the time period not covered by the other courses.  I'm glad I found it.

I've read some of the other reviews and it seems to me that people are mistaking science for technology.  No one would mistake the Wright brothers for scientists.  They owned a bike shop.  However, they did build a flying machine when most "scientists" of the time were saying a heavier than air craft would never be built.  Once the technology was proven scientists could then help improve the technology.  It's possible that a course could be taught on the history of the science of aeronautics without ever mentioning airplanes or jets.  It would probably be boring and depending on how far back you went it might be hard to explain just why the scientists switched from believing heavier than air flight wasn't possible to it was possible.  In fact Dr. Principe alludes to this when he talked about the "Clock Work Age" and how those who built the mills were illiterate for the most part and not interested in natural philosophy (science) but made great strides in the  technology of the time.

It amazes me how much people don't understand how closely Christianity and science are linked.  Some reviewers have complained that Dr. Principe gives Christianity too much credit.  I personally enjoyed his insights and the linking of advances in natural philosophy to Christian philosophy.  In fact in my opinion it is exactly because Europeans were Christians that they developed "science" as we know it.  Certainly the inhabitants of the Asian Peninsula — incorrectly referred to as the "Continent of Europe" because of continental envy when Western geography books were written — were behind the great cultures of the East for most of history, with the possible exception of the Roman Empire.  Dr. Principe doesn't make a big deal of this but it's true only in the West did alchemy become chemistry, or astrology become astronomy.  Europeans were introduced to gunpowder by the Muslims from the Chinese, and they perfected it so that when the Europeans went on the voyages of "discovery" they totally dominated the historically great cultures because they had perfected putting gunpowder in tubes and shooting projectiles, among other things.  In fact Europeans took the ideas introduced to them and improved on them all.  They were introduced to algebra  and developed calculus. They were introduced to optics and developed telescopes, microscopes and glasses.  I can go on but the point is already made.

Another reviewer was upset because so much time was given to Newtons writings and studies on theology and alchemy.  Dr. Principe didn't make up the fact that Newton spent all his time studying and writing about those topics and ignoring the fact, like they did during the 18th century, doesn't make Newton a greater scientist — oops natural philosopher — it just makes him less interesting as a human.  Many biographers of Newton have said that he thought his writings on theology were his most important works.  That's just the way it is, most great scientists before the enlightenment were very devout Christians.  Many still are today.

I really enjoyed this course.  Dr. Principe covered a lot of ground and I thought he covered it as well as could be expected in 36 lectures.  Just be sure you know what he's going to talk about. 

Great Courses Review: Turning Points in Medieval History

Professor Dorsey Armstrong is an excellent lecturer. I very much appreciated the way that she presented the information. At first I was annoyed by the way she tied lectures together at the end and beginning of each lecture. It takes up a lot of the time. I grew used to it, and other commentators on this series have said that it is helpful.

I have a daughter and son-in-law that attends Purdue University so I actually paid closer attention than usual when the professors experience was given at the first of the lectures. I thought it would be interesting to hear from a professor who was involved in "women studies." Turns out she's a professor of English and Medieval Literature, and Purdue does actually offer a minor in women's studies. Well that's disappointing but I'm not an alumni so I can't really be that disappointed.

I like the way she taught the course where she pulls in the way that different events are connected. I like documentaries and books that do it as well, so that's just a personal opinion. She seems to jump around a lot some people may not like that.

This series of lectures was definitely taught from a liberal viewpoint. And I mean liberal in the modern PC liberal view point. When she first said that Europe became a "persecuting society" I almost laughed out loud, especially when she said they persecuted "infidels, pagans, homosexuals, leprorers, and Jews". She emphasized that there were still pagans at that time in Europe. this is the first time that I've ever heard that people specifically persecuted homosexuals in the medieval times. I suppose it's true, since homosexuals have never been treated very well and there might even have been some pagans at that time, but not many. However, I've never heard of it before, and every example of persecution she gave was against the Jews. Still as I said I almost laughed the first time she said it, but she said it often after that. Very often. In fact it's impossible not to notice since it was a constant refrain.

She also presented a very positive view of Islam. I kept wondering if she would like to go to a persecuting society today where they still actually do persecute homosexuals and Jews, and consider Christians infidels. In fact in Iran, an Islamic society they hang you for being a homosexual. While I'm sure that might have been done sometime in the past, somewhere in the Christian West, I can guarantee you it's not done today. This point leads me to something I found absolutely astounding in her choice for a turning point in Meadival History. She only picked two battles, one the Battle of Lechfeld, and the other the Battle of Hattin. I've never heard of the Battle of Lechfeld before, which doesn't mean that much except that I do like history and have listened to a lot of Great Courses history tapes. I'm pretty sure that that battle might or might not have really had a great impact on the development of the "persecuting society" of Europe, but I'm totally sure that the Battle of Tours is an actual turning point because it stopped the Islamic advance into Europe, then we would probably would have been much more like Iran, and would really be persecuting homosexuals. She does give some credit to this battle because she mentions the Song of Roland a couple of times, which she would practically have to mention as a Prof. of Medieval Literature, and that take place in the Battle of Tours.

The Battle of Hattin is a turning point, but Prof. Armstrong practically salivates over what a great guy Saladin was. I can't really blame her for that because that seems to be the PC version of the guy. Here's what I've written about Saladin on another Great Courses review that also thought he was a great guy. It's from my Great Courses review on Islam

"He then talks about how Saladin spared Jerusalem when he took it. He doesn't mention the account of Saladin taking Hattin. Saladin's secretary writes this account of how he treated the prisoners there: "[Saladin] ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair." He also doesn't mention that the Saladin planned to treat the prisoners at Jerusalem the same way. The reason he didn't it was because of an agreement he had reached with Christian commander of the city Balian of Ibelin who had threatened to kill all of the Muslims in the city of Jerusalem before Saladin could reach it if he didn't agree to spare the prisoners. He also only "spared" the prisoners that could be ransomed to freedom, the rest were sold as slaves. Nice guy Saladin. If you go to the Wikipedia account of the massacre of Ayyadieh it ends with this ironic sentence

"Aayadieh is perhaps the strongest refutation of Richard as a courteous and chivalrous warrior king. On this occasion his almost "theatrical" staging of the massacre showed that he was capable of using terror tactics in an attempt to terrify his opponents into submission. Ironically, Saladin's counter massacre did not hurt his reputation."

Many people point out how well Richard and Saladin got along even though they were adversaries. Saladin even sent his physician, who was probably much, much better than anything Richard had, to treat him when Richard was ill. They probably got along well because they were kindred spirits. Why does Dr. Espisito not tell this, if he "has" to tell about the villains of the plot why only the Christian villains? Muslims know Saladin, and not the happy charitable Saladin the west is told about by Dr. Esposito."

All that Prof. Tells us about Saladin and Hattin is he did behead was behead Raynald de Chatillon, who probably deserved it, and let King Guy go after giving him ice water. Well when supposedly knowledgeable people present facts like this no wonder everyone thinks Saladin was a paragon of virtue.

I liked some of the information she gave that came from her women studies background. I'd never heard of the women doctors before.

I'm always a little leery of taking professors to task here. After all they're professors and I'm a programmer. After reading some of the other reviews I see that I'm not the only one who finds her presentation one sided. However, I found her a most engaging lecturer. You can tell she loves the topic and she was very entertaining once you got used to her style. I'd recommend this this series to anyone, but I'd warn them of the biases, and after wards I'd want to see what they thought of it.