I just finished watching a 48-lecture series (on DVD) on the Foundations of Western Civilization, taught by Notre Dame professor Thomas F.X. Noble. The lectures, which are about 30 minutes in length, begin with the birth of civilization in the Mesopotamia area and continue through the age of European expansionism around the beginning of the 17th century. Lectures are primarily devoted to political changes in Europe and the Mediterranean through the ages, but much attention is also played to important developments in culture, literature, and religion (religion actually operates in step with political history for much of this time). True to its name, the series focuses on the building blocks of the cultural, political, and social development of culture in the West.I would heartily recommend this lecture series for anyone interested in a comprehensive survey of European history in a way that is highly informative and engaging. The professor does a great job at providing a sense of motives within history without engaging in the kind of negative tone about Western Civ that may be tempting to others. While watching the series over the past few months I have tried to bring what I have learned into this forum.
Some old one once said that western civiliaztion would be a good idea. Given that all so called “civiliaztion” began west of here (California, or so), is it fair to say that civilziation moved from the east west, or the west east? I suppose it dedends on one's definition of civilization, and in concert, place of birth.Given the predessor of modern man came from the African continent, I think it fair to assume tribes moved north, then BOTH east and west, to Europe and Asia, gradually encircling the globe while intermingling.Maybe we should try it again. Maybe we could get along better.
I'm now going through a DVD lecture series on the Early Middle Ages. It's a 24-lecture set, and it's really fascinating. It began with Rome near its end at the late 3rd century and I'm now around lecture #9 which is covering the transformation of Britain. This period of history is less familiar to me because of its complexity and because it often gets glossed between Rome and Charlemagne. So it's really nice to be able to spend some time learning about events in more detail.