In order for St. Augustine to be effective in any of his teachings or writings, he had to be very knowledgeable, so that he could cite examples and explain God’s words, and he had to examine things from every angle. By utilizing such tactics, St. Augustine attempted to break down the resistance of the men and women who were reluctant to convert to Christianity. Meanwhile, by his compelling nature to convert the people, he showed historians that when the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410, Christianity truly had not yet achieved an undisputed triumph over the other competing religions in the empire. Today, historians should be very grateful to St. Augustine, with the help of the solidity of his own beliefs, for having recorded with such detail, style, and skill, the status of Christianity at the sack of Rome in the compilation of one great novel, City of God.
This conclusion has a suitable summary: it ties in the main points of the paper, and restates the thesis. The conclusion should also add a call to action, or application, as suited for the type of writing.
The impacts of Charlemagne’s coronation and Henry’s depositions on church-state relations and on the times differed from one another in that the coronation had positive results while the depositions had negative ones. The coronation strengthened the ties between church and state, and the depositions widened the gap.
The most outstanding characteristic that the coronation and depositions share is their effect on the church-state relations of the times. Both events exaggerated the political circumstances surrounding the times, and both events increased the impact the circumstances already had on the times. The Popes and Kings of both eras were influential rulers who took advantage of their positions to achieve what they wanted. The difference between the eras was significant in one main aspect. Leo and Charlemange worked together to achieve common goals and solve crises. The stubbornness of Gregory and Henry prevented them from forming or maintaining what was left of any ties between church and state, and instead of solving crises, they may be viewed by some historians as being a cause of them.
This is a typical 2 paragraph conclusion, which is not really a good idea. Try to keep it in one paragraph. Again, tie in thesis and sum up paper… creatively!!!
By this I simply
mean: what does the paper mean to your reader? Tell the reader either what
context the paper has in today's world, or what they can do about a problem,
if that is the subject of the paper.