# data[].attributes.body
1) The authors top argument seemed to be that the Congress of Vienna is a very exciting, interesting topic in history if a teacher explains it well.
2) From everything the author explained, I agree with this argument. I think that the Congress of Vienna is really interesting and the pictures in the article also helps you picture what it was like which made it even more interesting.

# data[].attributes.body
1.The authors main argument was that the Congress of Vienna is very interesting if taught right and somewhat a "rager"
2. I agree with his argument. I thin the congress of Vienna is very interesting but can be very dull if you just state what happend and not look at the whole picture.
3. I thin they are equally as important because how the countries are shaped are influential to history.
4. Historians/ teachers/textbook editors. Also where you live contributes to what you learn.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author argues that the Congress of Vienna was more than a group of people doing business work, but rather an excuse to through huge extravagant parties.
2. I agree with the author's points because it makes logical sense that these extremely wealthy men would throw raging parties more often than we think. Also, the picture a room they did "business' in, looked more like a party room for eating and drinking.
3. I think it is important to learn both sides of the story. Although they did impact the borders and rearrange Europe for the better, it is necessary to hear the truth that they did more than just work. It is important so that we don't make assumptions and

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main argument is that there was more behind the scenes of the Congress of Vienna that we didn't know about or learn about in History class. It wasn't just meetings, but lavish and fun dinner parties.
2. I agree with this argument because there is a picture of a room that one of the meetings would be held in and it did not look like a boring room. It looked like a room that was meant for lavish parties.
3. I don't think that this history is as important as the treaties because it doesn't really relate to the purpose of the Congress of Vienna or the goals of it, however; I think it is fun to see that these people had fun while going about this process.
4. I think that no one can decide weather or not history is important. I think to find out weather history is important or not, one needs to think of an event in history, and then find the events that lead up to that event to find out the important pieces of it.

# data[].attributes.body
1) the authors main argument is showing that there is more then just the treaties, that there were dinner parties to help plan work this out. Not some regular dinner parties, but huge ones with lots of food and alcohol.
2) I think this is probably true because they were all very wealthy and they were definitely stressed about all that is going on. I don't know if this was necessarily a rager, but I wasn't there for it so I can't say.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main point is that the Congress of Vienna was actually more fun then it looked and that they held parties - "ragers" all the time. He says that the Congress of Vienna wasn't actually just boring meetings instead they would drink and through huge parties.
2. I agree with is argument. The members of this congress were very wealthy men that could easily throw huge parties. They spent way more time decisioning topics then what was needed and this could have easily been because they were partying instead.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main point was that the Congress of Vienna was very important and the meetings were more than just discussing treaties
2. I agree with this article because the information is very similar to what we learned in class. I think the author stretched it out a little bit to make it sound even more important for the sake of the article.
3. I think it is as important as what we learned in the video.
4. I think that anyone can decide whether history is important or not. Sometimes the event that happened it very obvious that it is important for history and we should learn from it such as the 9/11 attack, but sometimes it it less obvious and it is controversial as to whether it is important to learn about or not.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main argument is that the Congress of Vienna is much more than "multicolored maps" and terms like "balance of power". The author stated that there is so much more valid and interesting information about the Congress of Vienna then what most people are taught in history class. What most people focus on are the formal meetings and the discussion of treaties but what was left out was that these discussions were actually during huge extravagant parties.
2. Based off of what I read I do agree with his argument

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main argument was that the Congress of Vienna isn't just a bunch of boring meetings, but instead a rager.
2. Based off of this article and what we learned in class I agree with the author's argument. I think that there is much more to the Congress than boring meeting and that they impacted today in a huge way. But I don't agree with the author a little bit as well because he made it sound lavishing and that it's all that it was about, fancy dinner parties.
3. Yes and no. Yes because the video touched on important aspects of the Congress of Vienna and the article described the summary very well. No because the article spent too much time obsessing over the luxurious dinner parties they hosted and it took awhile for him to get to the important facts.
4. Historians

# data[].attributes.body
1. His main argument is that the Congress of Vienna is more than meets the eye, and helped Europe more than people really understand.
2. I agree with parts of the story, but I do feel like he is being very over dramatic about some parts, such as how great the congress really was. While the congress was very important and was very helpful to Europe he makes it seem as though they are all powerful.
3. I think it is just as important as what we learned in the video.
4. I don't believe anyone one person can decide if history is important or not, everything in the past has affected our future and will continue to.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main point is that the Congress of Vienna was just one big "rager". He is saying that we shouldn't see the history as a bunch or boring meeting but as a bunch of parties were people drank way too much.
2. I think I can see were the author is coming from, however wether or not I agree is a whole other story. I think they are trying to make the Congress of Vienna seem more interesting by making generalizing statements that insinuate that things were more exciting then they were. By stating "When one considers that the average man in the early 19th century had a yearly alcohol intake several times larger than modern tallies–thus making the prodigious alcoholics of the 21st century look like virtual teetotalers by comparison" they are saying that they were drinking way more in this time, this does not mean that all the members of the Congress of Vienna drank all the time it just means that people drank more.
3.  I think all acounts of history should be looked at when forming an opnion.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main argument is that the Congress of Vienna wasn't just formal meetings where the only thing discussed was treaties, it was actually that these treaties were being discussed over extravagant and eventful parties.
2. I don't think I have a clear enough understanding of the Congress of Vienna to say whether I believe this article or not, and I don't really know what the people were like. I think if these people liked to have a good time, I would believe it. I normally envision leaders during this time period to be very stern and dictator-like, so it is a little hard for me to believe it.
3. I think the history in this article is less important than the history of the treaties, because the treaties are what made an impact on the country.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main argument was that the Congress of Vienna was a thorough "rager" but was full of things more than the treaties. Even thugh we might think the treaties are the most important, and that it what we focus on in class, there were a lot of behind the scenes events and actions. There was more underneath. Every so often, they would have large dinners with lavish amounts of fine dining and decorations.
2. I can understand where the other is coming from, and I agree with how she supports and explains her thoughts. She makes me change my mindset and believe that this time was full of events and gatherings and was not a simple time with small treaties and Congress gatherings. She was really emphasizing on how big and astonishing this time was, but mentioned how we don't really focus on that part in class. I think that might be because it isn't as important as the treaties and actions made that affect our lives today.
3. I feel like the article spent a lot of time talking and some what obsessing over the parties and gatherings that happened. I think that the treaties are more important for the actual history, therefore I feel like the video did a better job getting the important part across even if it wasn't as eventful and engaging.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main argument is that the Congress of Vienna should not be thought of as a group of people in a meeting, but rather a luxurious party, or "rager".
2. With how the author described the Congress of Vienna, I agree with his argument. He gave us many instances that illustrated the parties in action, and all of the evidence supports the claim that the Congress of Vienna was not what people depicted it to be (just a meeting).
3. I think that this information is as important as the video because it shows us behind the scenes and a greater detail of what was behind the treaties.
4. No single person can say whether or not history is important, it is instead what someone interprets from the information.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the author's main argument is on how the Congress of Vienna was much more than a dry part of history. It was a "rager" as said in the article. It was full of many events and parties.
2. Based off of the article, I pretty much agree with her opinion. I am still trying to understand the Congress of Vienna, but I think her point in the article is right.
3. I think that it definitely is important, but not as important as the ones in the video.
4. I don't think one individual or thing can decide, but groups of people could.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main argument is that the Congress of Vienna was truly just a "rager". He says in the article,"The real story of the Congress of Vienna is that of an astonishingly protracted, lavish and expensive party which easily qualifies as one of the most obscene “ragers” in recorded history."
2. Based on this article, I believe that his points make me want to believe that this period in history really was just a rager, yet there is more than just words on a page, so I can never be sure about what really happened.
3. Partly, because all history is important and allows you to put your thoughts to evidence, but I believe that this article was written on the basis of how fun their parties were, vs. the importance of what really happened.
4. I believe that no one can truly decide what history is important, because all of it matters. History is basically a story, and in a story, if you miss part of it, the whole thing is either misinterpreted or confused. Also, the more we learn about a topic, the broader our perspective can be and we can look at the story from different perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main point in this article was that the Congress of Vienna was not just people meeting to have boring meetings, but they would also throws these lavish dinner parties and discuss issues.
2. I agree with the article that their meeting may have been really wild and crazy but I don't believe that they were extremely "drunk". If they were that drunk how could they discuss the topics.
3. I think the history is important to learn about but not as important as the treaties in the video. This article just talks about the parties the congress would have and not so much on the things they discussed or did in Europe.
4. All history is important and I think the history textbooks are not reliable because they put what they think is important and not so much all of the history.