Group A
        1. Is the implication of the term "Greco-Roman" that
Greece and Rome should be seen as part of the same "Age"
correct, or does Rome deserve to be seen as an "Age" in its
own right?
	2. How can the Middle Ages be seen as a poorly-blended 
mixture of Christian, Greco-Roman, and Germanic barbarian elements?
	3. How can both the Renaissance and the Reformation be
seen as emerging from the same conditions and social factors?
	4. How can such disparate phenomena as political,
industrial, and scientific revolutions all be described with
the same term -- revolution? Is this usage justified?
	5. Did Europe lose its dominant position in the world
because of internal weaknesses or because of forces beyond
human control?


Group B 
	1. What is the justification for the position that
developments in ancient Greece mark the beginning of Western
Civilization? Why was such an insignificant place successful
in placing its stamp on Western Civilization?
	2. Does a monk, a knight, or a peasant make the best
representative of the Medieval spirit?
	3. How did the "New Monarchs" of the Renaissance
differ from their Medieval counterparts in the period of the
crusades?
	4. Were the people of the period 1600 to 1850 better
or worse off as a result of the three revolutionary movements
discussed in this section?
	5. What distinguishes the period covered by this last
three chapters from earlier periods of Western Civilization?