WWI

World War I, " the Great War," involved all of the great powers of Europe and killed more than eight million soldiers. Discuss the reasons which led to the rising international tensions that sparked World War I.

World War I was without question the biggest war of its time period. European powers allied with and against each other and the war killed millions of soldiers. Austria allied itself with Germany because of their ethnic ties, and allied with Italy because of their religious backgrounds. On the other side of the war, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Serbia allied together to fight the war. Serbian nationalists played a big part in the assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria which was a big reason for the tension leading to the war. Also, Britain was afraid that Germany had the potential to take some of their territory in other places such as Africa. Germany felt it had to join the war because it was impossible for them to stay out. Due to the many reasons for international tension, World War I was inevitable, but the biggest reason that started the War so quickly was the assassination by the Serbs.

The war started as a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia before it became a World War. The Austrians felt that they needed to protect themselves through war according to the telegram that declared the beginning of the war, " the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Belgrade, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms (Doc. 7)." This declaration of was was due mainly to the assassination of the man in line to be Duke of Austria.

Serbia pulled Russia into the war so Austria was forced to turn to its ally, Germany. An agreement between Germany and Austria said, " one of the two Empires be attacked by Russia the High Contracting Parties are bound to come to the assistance one of the other with the whole war strength of their Empires (Doc. 1)." Therefore Germany had to join the war at some point. They felt Russia did not readily have the troops available, but would get them if given time. They also knew France would ally with Russia and join the war, so the attacked France hoping Austria would take care of Russia. Instead, Austria focused on the Serbs and were defeated at their first battle.

The Germans and Austrians knew they needed another alliance to have a chance in the war, so they turned to Italy to create "The Triple Alliance". The alliance itself said, "In case Italy, without direct provocation on her part, should be attacked by France for any reason whatsoever, the two other Contracting Parties shall be bound to lend help and assistance with all their forces to the Party attacked (Doc. 2)". All of these European powers were being recruited by the Austrians and Serbs, over a war the started because of the Ferdinand's death. What scared Great Britain into the war was Germany's hunger for more power. Erye Crowe wrote, "Germany distinctly aims at playing on the world's political stage a much larger and much more dominant part than she finds allotted to herself under the present distribution of material power (Doc. 4)". At the time, Britain was the biggest economic power in the world, the biggest target for Germany to take from.

Meanwhile, the Serbs were cooking up something important of their own. The Black Hand was an organization that, "prefers terrorist action to intellectual propaganda (Doc. 6)". Serbia and Austria were not the most powerful players in the war, but they were the mastermind's behind the scene. They assembled their allies and created the World War through their own problems with each other. Communications between Berlin and St.Petersburg took place during the war saying, "The unscrupulous agitation which has been going on for years in Serbia, has lead to the revolting crime of which Archduke Franz Ferdinand has become a victim (Doc. 8)". This shows that the all throughout the war people knew what had started the war. There had been agitation between the Serbs and Austrians, but the murder of Ferdinand brought it all to a head and sparked the war. The war could not have been entirely avoided, but would have started later and had less of an effect on everyone involved if this murder never took place. Therefore, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the biggest contributing factor to World War I.

DBQ

During the second half of the nineteenth century, Europe went through transformations. The changes affected the working middle class the most of any people in Europe. In figure 1, a women is breast feeding her child in public. In earlier times, this never would have been painted. Classical nudes were the only accepted naked paintings by the majority of the population. Pictures such as this caused and uproar of emotions from people who viewed it. In figure 2, the painting is not a close up of people. In the back of the painting, people are walking around with their backs to the viewer. This was another change during the second half of the nineteenth century. New ways a painting were just a small portion of the changes going on. Socialism was coming about during this period. People like Karl Marx had ideas for a better life style for middle class people. The idea of Socialism was a good idea to create a perfect society; but a society cannot be perfect full of imperfect people. Different biases about ideas during this time stopped Socialism from being successful. During the second half of the nineteenth century, transformations were prominent. Transformations in art and culture help society grow; but things such as Socialism led to radical new ideas that bettered the present but worsened the future.

In the 19th century, middle class people were over worked and under appreciated. They were also underpaid, with the minority of the population having the majority of the money. Marx thought this was backwards and wanted to transform society. He wanted a society where everyone was even. This is the idea of Marxism, a subsection of Socialism, with slightly different ideas. This idea would take affect on the middle class the most. The majority of people in Europe were a part of the middle class, yet they took orders from the smallest group of people. In a factory there is one owner in charge of numerous workers. If all the workers came together for a common good, they could over throw the factory worker that took advantage of them. This is the idea of Marxism. The idea was good for the moment, but over time turned into a nightmare. After the middle class came together as one, somebody had to become the leader of the group. This brought everyone back to square one. Without a leader, the group will have no direction and fail. With a leader, people will always be unhappy and want more for themselves.

Other transformations took place within the culture of European society during this time period. The art work before this time had been about nobility and religion. Now, people were beginning to paint things everyone could relate to. Figure 2 has middle class people walking around in a town. A simple painting that spoke volumes to the people at the time. Paintings of Kings and Queens, Gods and Goddesses could not be related to the average person. The working class was thought of at some points as uncultured, but that was because culture failed to include them. The transformation of art types opened new cultural doors for people. They were suddenly interested in art because at any point in time, they could substitute themselves into the scenes. This helped to bring the people of the middle class even closer together. This had its advantages and disadvantages. And advantage would be a more cultured society. A large disadvantage would be more people coming together to accept things such as Socialism, which cannot work in society.

The culture of Europe definitely had been changed forever by these new ideas. People bought into the ideas because at the time they seemed like a good thing. But bad came out of the ideas also. People were killed in mass numbers in something called "the bloody June days". This was a scary time where revolution again tried to change culture more than it needed to be changed. The change in culture through art was an advantage and helped people come closer together. Things like Marxism and Socialism tried to do the same, but on a more radical level. Like the radical Jacobins of the French Revolution, their ideas were not successful.

Romantics free response

To what extent did Romanticism challenge Enlightenment views of human beings and the natural world and how did this challenge illustrate changes between the Enlightenment and Romantic views of the relationship between God and the individual?

During the Enlightenment period, human beings viewed the world with the words of religious leaders in their minds. When Romanticism started, people began to focus on more natural ways of looking at the world. Individuals thought more of their own feelings rather than the feelings they were told to have by their God. Romantics thought more of the spirit of the human person in an Earthly life, focused on all the feelings that rush into a persons mind and body. This was a new way of thinking that became popular through out society. Some Romantics were extremely popular because of the new way of thinking about life and religion that they imposed on society. Romanticism challenged Enlightenment views of the human person and natural world by going against the traditional way of thinking that personal feelings and imagination needs to be suppressed for the public; furthermore showing that a life lived through feelings and imagination can be more satisfying than a life lived through God.

Shelly was a Romantic poet during this time period and challenged Enlightenment views in his works. He went after other women while he was married to another women, something that was frowned upon. He expressed his choice by saying that there is no God, no Heaven, and no Hell, therefore the choices made in life should satisfy a person in the present, not looking forward to the future. This contrast the Enlightenment way of thinking where everything was done for a specific reason that was thought about for a period of time. Romantics did not think, they felt with their emotions and dreamed with their imaginations to make choices that pleasured them during their life span.

Romantics did not need a greater being to look up to, to realizes their purpose in life. They searched deep within their soul to find the meaning they personally had for their life. Lord Byron was very popular during his time, especially with women. He was a dark, mysterious character that used his poetry to heighten the senses of others and himself. He found the meaning of his life not through God, but through his popularity. During the Enlightenment, nobody had ever thought like this, and life was more secluded. Bryon along with other Romantics opened the doors to new ways of life. New ways of life broke up the monotony of daily life, making an imaginative life more fulfilling for many. A belief in God was no longer needed, as people were realizing that they were satisfied by paying attention to feelings the experienced through nature and life itself.

Not all Romantics thought of life the same way, but all knew the importance of emotions. Enlightenment ideas were nearly all the same with no originality at all. Even the music during more classical periods had a specific formula to make it work. Art and music during Romanticism was more appealing to many because it told a story. Romanticism was something people could easily relate to, because it was within themselves, where as during the Enlightenment, people went by what they were told, not by what they felt. The people of the Enlightenment really knew nothing, they only learned what they were told. Romantics knew everything the wanted to know, because they learned it from their inner spirit.

Romanticism changed the view of people on the natural world and religious world. People now had an idea of independence and originality that was not present before this period. People were no longer afraid to try new things, allowing new discoveries and ideas to come about and enhance society. A life through emotions and imagination proved to be sufficient to make the people on the fringes of society feel more certain of their existence. Romanticism challenged the views of the Enlightenment but was able to put its own stamp on the way of life.

Egypt/France

1. Compare / Contrast Louis XVI and Mubarak. The same- Both of them were taken out of power due to a revolution. Both had complete political power; Mubarak a dictator and Louis XVI an absolute monarch. Both had violent riots break out against them during their reign. Louis appointed his friends that were nobles into places of power around him as Mubarak kept his friends in high positions also. Differences- Louis did not attempt help the economy of France but Mubarak tried to help the economy. Louis was executed but Mubarak was just thrown out of power. Louis XVI did not allow others to run for power, Mubarak ran in elections with other but won them all.

2. In each case, WHY were the people protesting? (Cite primary sources). In the French Revolution, people were protesting mostly because of unfair taxes. The third estate, or common people, were the only estate being taxed, and they were the estate with the least money. The other two estates were the clergy and nobility and neither had to contribute to the lessening of the countries debt. The third estate, the largest estate, joined together to revolt against the first two estates.

- http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/history/constitutionof1791.html

- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1791degouge1.html

- http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/turgot/reflecti

- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1789platiere.html

In Egypt, Mubarak had been suppressing the rights of the people. He had become a dictator and outlawed and protesting against his reign. He used to the military to protect himself from riots and shut down ways of communication for Egyptian people such as the Internet. The People had enough and began to protest and he stepped down.

- http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/egypt

- http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/10/live-blog-feb-11-egypt-protests

- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/11/133675132/live-blog-latest-on-events-in-egypt

3. What role did women play? In France, women were still unable to receive and education and had limited rights. Women joined together and revolted against their oppression. Improvement were seen in small steps, especially after The Declaration of the Rights of Women was published. Women in the Revolution did not play a huge role but instead gained rights from the years after the Revolution itself. In Egypt, there are a large amount of women activists protesting in the streets along side the men. Women had been abused by governmental people which added to their list of reason to revolt. There were women's rights groups established and still being established now.

4. What concerns are their about the current situation in Egypt? How might they relate to the days following the fall of Louis XVI? One concern is that some of the people have reported on twitter that they now will stop protesting to rebuild the government and economy. The concern is that the Vice president and military may take full power and a new dictatorship will arise. This can relate to days after the fall of Louis XVI because people did not want a new absolute monarchy to rise. A new absolute ruler did come about in Robespierre and the Terror took place. After it all blew over, the Republic failed and an Emperor came to power.

5. How did/are people express(ing) their views? In both Revolutions, the common people revolted because they felt under appreciated and taken advantage of. In Egypt people marched around the presidential palace, burned buildings, and refused to stop until Mubarak stepped down, and he finally did. In France, the third estate created the National Assembly, protested violently with guns, marched on Versailles, and attended the Estates General when they were banned from it.

6. Are the current protests violent? Yes, the protests are violent in Egypt are violent. Buildings have been burned and large fights have broken out. To try and maintain control the military has been using weapons, bombs, and fire to keep protestors back up until the resignation of Mubarak. The people gathered in an unusually large amount and stormed one of Cairo's major squares.

7. What do people on the ground in Cairo think is going to happen now? (Directly contact reporters and bloggers in Egypt via Twitter during this class period). People are excited that the Revolution got Mubarak out of power and are rejoicing. Reporters are saying that an election will be held for a new president, but until then, the vice president will reign with military aid. I was unable to come in contact with anyone at the scene, put from generic posts this is what I was able to find.

8. Based on your study of the French Revolution and your current observations of the situation in Egypt, what do you think are possible outcomes? How are the possible outcomes in Egypt alike or different with outcomes in France -- both in the short and long term. I think that a possible outcome is that the Vice President will take control and become a dictator as Mubarak was and as Robespierre was a absolute ruler in the French Revolution. He will become power hungry and the Revolution will have to try and force him out of office as they had with Mubarak. This will cause more violence and protests along with turmoil for the entire country as the Terror did in France.

Terror Thesis

Maximilien Robespierre's radical oppression of the public's ideas, such as the gathering of women and any opposition to the French Revolution during his Reign of Terror, caused the French Republic to fail, leading to the rise of an Empire in France.

Term Paper

The Terror

Results from Page 134-136

14/20

French Revolution DBQ

Discuss the advantages and the disadvantages of the Terror as an instrument of

the French Revolution.

The Terror took place in the infancy stages of the French Republic during the French Revolution. The Jacobin's used their best efforts to try and destroy any opposition to the Revolution. The Terror began in the summer of 1793, the year the Jacobin's took over the French government with Robespierre as a head and spokesperson for them. He began to turn on his former allies, and noticing he had become to power hungry, was executed by the convention in the summer of 1794, ending the Terror. According to a chart indicating the amount of people executed in different parts of France during the Terror, 13,347 people were killed through out France during this period (Doc. 3). The Terror of the French Revolution was a powerful tool but it lead the the disbanding of the committee of public safety, an uneasiness through out the French population, and ironically due to the Terror, a emperor came out of the Revolution instead of a Republic.

The French Revolution allowed for the dethroning of the King when the revolution began but later lead to an emperor in Napoleon. The Terror was the killing of anyone who was against the revolution and Robespierre can be contributed with the majority of blame for the Terror. He was one of the five people on the committee and became the face of it, making decisions instead of all people working together. According to reports to the government on January 24, 1974 the public felt "that they acquit the innocent and punish the guilty (Doc. 9)". This is an advantage of the Terror because in the beginning, the people were unanimous in the decision that the right thing was going on. A little less than a month later, another report sent to the government stated a radical change in public opinion: “Bitter complaints already expressed numberless times, were repeated today of the arrest and imprisonment of citizens who are good patriots (Doc. 10)". The Terror had begun to claim too many lives of innocent people who were murdered for even the slightest hint of discontent in a government decision, sometimes unfairly killed. This was a major disadvantage of the Terror as a tool of the Revolution because the public was becoming unhappy as it was before the Revolution even took place.

The government was based in Paris and according to a chart documenting the death of certain classes, a quarter of the people executed in France were nobles (Doc. 2). The common people in Paris were killed in much lower numbers than in other parts of France, where a majority of the deaths were common working class people. This caused an uproar in the majority of France because the common people felt that they again were being taken advantage of. Charles James Fox, reformist member of Parliament and sympathizer with the French Revolution said in a letter to Parliament during the Terror, “What a pity that a people [the French] capable of such Incredible energy, should he guilty or rather be governed by those who are guilty of such unheard of crimes and cruelties (Doc. 4)". This man stated that the leaders of the government, the committee put in place, were the ones guilty of treason against the well being of France, not the commoners being executed. The committee had its leader, Robespierre executed and the committee destroyed, showing the end result of the Terror was negative; the committee they worked hard to make happen being destroyed.

Another disadvantage of the Terror was ironically, in the later years of France, a emperor rose. This would not have happened if the Terror did not take place and the people were kept happy by the new imposed government. A former ally of Robespierre disagreed with his method of killing people to get what he wanted, “You want to remove all your enemies by means of the guillotine? Has there ever been such great folly? (Doc. 6)." If the man's own ally was against his radical killing spree, he should have realized the Terror would in the end hurt France not help it. Robespierre himself said , "To good citizens revolutionary government owes the full protection of the state; to the enemies of the people it owes only death. (Doc. 7)." He made this statement but killed people who were good citizens and valued as patriots in the community, as stated in a report to the government shown early in the essay. If the Terror would not have taken place, yes the reformation would have progressed more slowly, but its overall success would have been greater.

The Terror helped a speedy progression of the Revolution but it was unstable and that was proven through the committee and Republic being destroyed only a few years after the Terror.

Candide Thesis and Outline

Martin's pessimism is much more appealing than the optimism of Pangloss because it deals with reason, thoughts of enlightenment, and reality where Pangloss tries to fake the Earth as a perfect society through his love of religion.

I. Martin's pessimism is realistic and uses logic.

A. His pessimistic attitude is really a realist attitude, he only seems like a pessimist compared to Pangloss.

B. Martin uses reason like an Enlightenment thinker.

1. Martin says good things come with bad things, and vice versa, basically saying nothing is as good as it seems, but also nothing is as bad as it seems.

II. Pangloss bases his optimism on his religion.

A. He says that anything that happens is the best possible situation.

1. Candide has jewels stolen from him but the boat with the jewels crashes (chapter 19).

a. Martin says this cannot be the best possible outcome because the innocent passengers were also killed.

B. Pangloss ignores anything that goes against his beliefs by making absurd arguments to reaffirm his faith in God.

III. Pangloss's beliefs are a parody of Leibniz's philosophy, while Martins views represent Voltaire.

A. Leibniz's philosophy is that everything in the world is perfect because it is created by a perfect God.

1. Pangloss argues the same thing in a satirical, over-the-top way in the novel.

B. Martin's beliefs go along with the beliefs of Voltaire.

1. Voltaire prefers a philosophy that is based on reason and past experiences over religion.

a. Martin had tragic situations in his life that caused him to think with reason when situations came about for Candide.

2. Martin was created by Voltaire to express his own beliefs in the book and to contradict Pangloss and Leibniz.

Free Response Midterm #2

Compare and contrast the religious policies of TWO of the following:

Elizabeth I of England

Catherine de Medicis of France

Isabella I of Spain

Outline

I. Elizabeth I of Spain

A. Protestant

B. Never married

C. Politique

D. Considered to have had a successful reign as Queen

II. Isabella I of Spain

A. Married to Ferdinand

B. Catholic Spain

C. Spanish Armada

Elizabeth I of England and Isabella I of Spain had both similarities and differences in the way they reigned. Both of these two rulers were women and were popular in their respective country that the ruled. They had different religions themselves, and their countries had different religions. During the period that they reigned, England had more success than Spain did. The way Elizabeth I of England ruled compared to Isabella I of Spain allowed England to be more successful because its ruler gave all of her focus to the well being of the country, making her a better ruler than Isabella.

Elizabeth I of England ruled in a way that not many rulers take. She never married because she wanted to have her undivided attention turned to England. She is a great example of a politique, someone who does everything for the well being of the State. She was loved by her people and had a long reign as Queen. She was successful against the attack of the Spanish Armada which gave England power over a recovering Spain. She was a Protestant Queen who turned England back to a Protestant nation after her sister Mary had tried to make it Catholic. This was an advantage for England because of the Protestant Reformation that was taking place throughout all of Europe.

On the other had, Isabella I of Spain differed in the way she ruled. She was married to Ferdinand of Spain. They ruled together as a monarchy of Spain. One of the major mistakes of her reign that lead to a decrease in Spain's power was the Spanish Armada. She sent a fleet of ships to invade England but bad weather and faster English ships left them in defeat. This gave England the best navy in the world during the time period of their reigns. She was a Catholic ruler of a Catholic country during a time where the Protestant Reformation was taking place. Her reign was not as successful as Elizabeth because of her religion, and the loss of its navel power to England.

The two Queens did have similarities in the way they ruled their respective countries. They both were the same religion as the countries they ruled. Both rulers were liked by their people, which is an advantage for their reign. Both had long reigns that were overall successful. Both were women which is an obvious way they were similar to each other. Women have different thought of politics and were viewed differently then men. Both were viewed as intelligent by their people even though Isabella may have made more mistakes that cost her country.

Both queens had similarities and differences in their political policies but during their time period, Elizabeth's policies made more sense. The major factor that lead to her success was her being a politique and never marrying. If Isabella would have given more focus to her country Spain may have had a large amount of gains and a smaller amount of losses. England was lucky the have a Protestant ruler during a time of Protestant Reformation. Elizabeth was overall the better queen because of the success of her reign, but the two Queens did not have a large disparity in their policies of political reign.

Free Response Midterm #4

Discuss the political and social consequences of the Protestant Reformation in the first half of the sixteenth century.

Outline

I. Strain in relations between Protestant and Catholic nations

A. Wars broke out

B. Less unity between different European nations

II. Strain within own countries

A. civil wars

B. flaws more visible

C. more vulnerable to attacks

In the first half of the sixteenth century consequences of the Protestant reformation could be seen. Europe was not as united as it once was when only one religion was accepted. After the Reformation, more people began voicing their opinions and things and this caused revolts and wars between countries, along with flaws within to be more prominent. The Reformation did have bright spots where economies were increased and religious tolerance began. The consequences of the Reformation during the first half of the century, both political and social, caused strain in relations between the common people and the nobility of their country, along with relations between country and country that lead to an overall weakening of Europe at the time before it was later strengthened as a whole.

One of the most visible consequence of the Protestant reformation during the first half of the 16th century can still be seen today. The Catholic Spanish Armada of Spain was a fleet of ships sent to attack Protestant England. The Armada was embarrassingly destroyed and Spain went from a strong European power to being in grave danger of falling apart. Spain has still not recovered fully and this weakened Europe as a whole. Another consequence of the Protestant Reformation was the Pilgrimage of Grace from 1536-1537. This was a group of Catholic followers who demonstrated against Henry VII, the Protestant English King. This showed the flaws within England itself as some of the common people within England were against the political leaders. This could be seen as a weakness to other European powers such as France.

Relations between neighboring European countries were also strained. England's Queen Elizabeth I had Mary Queen of Scots imprisoned in the Tower of London. Elizabeth was a Protestant Queen and Mary was Catholic of Catholic Spain. The Protestant reformation then had a great consequence on Spain, their Queen was imprisoned. The Reformation helped certain countries at the time it was happening, but other countries were taking steps backwards. Thoughts of alliances were beginning to form between the powers of Europe who shared the same religion after the Reformation. Social, gaps and separation could be seen in countries where the common people had different views than the nobility. This causes uproars from within the countries, leaving them vulnerable to factors outside of their own borders. The Reformation was so dominating and radical, it caught the attention of everyone, and took attention off the preexisting problems.

Nobility had to deal with issues and complaints from the Religious officials. Martin Luther who played a major part in the Protestant reformation was prosecuted by the Catholic Church at the start of the Reformation. Out of Lutheranism sprouted many variations of Protestant religion. This caused the Protestant Reformation to gain power and speed, in turn causing more consequences. People who remained Catholic were imprisoned, executed, or exiled from their homes. Even though it was a religious reformation, people were still being murdered for their beliefs. Religious wars the the Thirty Years War were results of the Reformation itself.

The Protestant Reformation caused rocky roads for the people of Europe in the first half of the 16th century. Radical changes were being made and as always there were supports and people who were against it. The Reformation was not all bad, as certain countries such as the Dutch Republic later went through a "Golden Age" of prosperity. But during the first half of the 16th century when the changes were beginning to take place, the reformation to a toll on European society. This had to get worse before they could get better from the Protestant Reformation, and that is exactly what it did.

Midterm DBQ

Analyze the concerns and goals of participants in the Pilgrimage of Grace and of those who opposed the movement.

The Pilgrimage of Grace participants were Catholics who were against the Protestant Reformation. They made armed demonstrations and protests from 1536 to 1537 against Henry VII, head of the Anglican Church, and Thomas Cromwell his Lord High Chancellor. Cromwell implemented a series of policies that included the confiscation of Catholic Church lands. The goals of these participants were to stop the Protestant Reformation and give more rights back to Catholics. They had concerns with the protestants growing more powerful and having a protestant King in Henry the VII. The goals of the Pilgrimage of Grace were to give power back to the Catholic Church in Europe and take credibility from Proestants, but instead their concerns of the Protestant Reformation overshadowed them and their goals were not reached.

The "Oath of Honorable Men" the participants must take says, "You shall not enter into our Pilgrimage of Grace for worldly gain. Do so for the love of God, for the Holy Catholic Church militant....(Doc. 1)." This oath shows that the members of the Pilgrimage must only protest for the Catholic Church, not for their own gain. The members must do this through their love for God. At the time protestants and catholics had very different views and religion was a source of tension, even though both groups are Christians. In a petition presented to the King's Council, written by Robert Aske in December of 1536, many things are asked of the Council. "To have the supreme head of the Church be the Pope in Rome as before (Doc. 5)." Henry VII had become the head of the Church by the Act of Supremacy in 1534. The demonstrations and protests of the Pilgrimage of Grace were in part reactions to this act. The Pope had been the face of the Church for past centuries. Now, the King, a protestant political figure head, was also the leader of the Church. This was a major concern of the Catholics who started these armed demonstrations. After the petition, a random pamphlet attributed to Sir Thomas Tempest (a former member of Parliament for Newcastle) said that, "The King should grant our petition against the traitor Thomas Cromwell and his adherents, or at least exile them from the realm (Doc. 6)." Calling Cromwell a traitor was a failed attempt to take away credibility of the King's Lord High Chancellor. The protesters goal here was to get rid of the person who was influencing the King the most, and taking away from the Catholic Church's land.

In December of 1536, Henry VII wrote a letter that gave pardon to the marchers and protesters. "Let it be confessed to you, the King's subjects and commoners, have recently committed rebellion that might have ruined your country (Doc. 9)." this is stated in the beginning part of his letter, where he says that Catholics who rebel against the Protestant way are ruining their own country. The King then goes on to state that he has pity on them and will pardon their offenses. This gave the protesters more time to demonstrate against the Protestant King and followers. The members still had concerns that the Protestant Reformation would continue so they did not stop their protests to restore power to the Catholic Church.

In the first trials against the members of the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1537, 223 people were tried and 144 convicted. Of those people, the vast majority were commoners, but the group with the highest conviction rate were the members of the clergy with 80% of those tried convicted (Doc. 10). The trials lasted from January to March, but the Pilgrimage stopped protesting in February of that year. In 1537, Robert Aske stated in his testimony before his execution that, "Once the monasteries in the north gave great help to the poor men and laudable service to God. Now no hospitality is shown to travelers (Doc. 11)." This gentleman and member of the Pilgrimage felt that because the goals the protesters set were not achieved, the country was not as good as it could be. He felt that a Catholic Europe during his time period would be better than the Protestant Europe it was becoming. His testimony before his death gives meaning to the fact that the Reformation was to powerful for the Pilgrimage of Grace and their goals were never reached.

The goals of the Pilgrimage of Grace were never reached because the concerns and factors against them were to great. Thomas Cromwell hired a writer named Richard Morrison to say, "When every man rules, who will obey (Doc. 7)." Here Cromwell's thoughts are saying that the rebels are not making anything better for themselves, they are making it worse. They should just stay and obey the King, rather they go and continue to protest. Their plans were stopped when the King and Cromwell had enough and the majority of the members were convicted after only a year of protesting. The Protestant Reformation taking place during these demonstrations was the reason the demonstrations were not successful. The country was in religious reform and the majority of people were reforming with it.

DBQ 1/14/11

Analyze how political, religious, and social factors, affected the work of scientists in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Scientific revolution took place during the 16^th and 17^th centuries with a multitude of ground breaking discoveries. Political, religious, and social factors affected not only the works of scientists during this time period, but the way the discoveries and persons were viewed in the public eye. The scientists during this time period were often criticized and threatened for their scientific discoveries or methods. People in high political, religious, and social power affected the work of the scientists more than anything else. The negativity brought to works of scientists during the 16^th and 17^th centuries by political authority and religious officials are the very reason why the works were influential on the public during this time period.

Religious officials high in the Church affected the way the works of scientists were viewed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The fuss made by the Church against scientific discoveries that disagreed with their teachings is why the works became so popular. Galileo Galilei expanded on Copernicus’s idea of a heliocentric universe while the bible taught the universe revolved around Earth, or a geocentric model. An Italian monk named Giovanni Ciampoli sent a letter to Galileo in 1615 telling him he needs to differ to the Church. “It is indispensable, therefore, to remove the possibility of malignant rumors by repeatedly showing your willingness to defer to the authority of those who have jurisdiction over the human intellect in matters of the interpretation of Scripture” (Doc 3). Letters like this to Galileo made the public more interested in his discoveries, allowing them to spread through Europe. The Church tried to gain control over scientific discoveries to boil them down, but inadvertently spread them and gave them more meaning. Other religious figure heads, such as John Calvin, a French Protestant, understood the importance of scientific works and encouraged them to be shown to the public, not condemned for the selfish reasons of Church integrity (Doc 2).

During a time of religious reformation, science was able to thrive with new discoveries. Social stature was affected by the new forming of religions and religious ideas and had opened peoples mind to new things. A French monk and scientist, Marin Mersenne, wrote a letter to his noble patron in 1635 confirming that in his experiments, he found that the discoveries of Galileo were true (Doc 5). The fact that a monk, a lower building block in the Church agreed with scientific discoveries even though higher authority was against it. The negativity of high power along with the support of the common people allowed for the radical works of scientists to be fully noticed. Scientists now could experiment to try and prove these discoveries right or wrong, a social factor that affected the works of scientists greatly. Social separations between male and female also affected the work of scientists. Margaret Cavendish, a female scientist said in her book in 1666, “But I, being a woman, do fear they would soon cast me out of their schools” (Doc 9). Science was predominantly male dominated as was every major profession during this time period.

My Map

View London Map in a larger map

Dutch Republic

Discuss ways that the 17^th-century Dutch Republic differed from its neighbors, telling how these differences attributed to the country’s success.

The Dutch Republic experienced advances in many categories such as science and art during the 17^th century. The Republic went through a “Golden Age” and experienced one of the most successful and prosperous times in their history. The Dutch Republic’s neighbors, also influenced by the Renaissance, were also experiences advances but they came along with hardships for fellow countries. France was another successful country in Europe, but unlike the Dutch, had an absolute monarchy, powerful nobles, and no religious tolerance. The Dutch Republic, unlike France, needed a decentralized government, a strong merchant class, and religious tolerance to its advantage to become successful during the 17^th century.

Most European countries did not have religious tolerance at the time. The Dutch Republic differed in this matter and tolerate multiple religions but gave Calvinists the most rights. The Republic strengthened as its merchant class was made stronger. Huguenots in France had to flee when the Edict of Nantes was revoked and traveled to the Dutch Republic. Because of the religious tolerance, they were allowed in, and the merchant class grew, which strengthened the economy. A strong economy help sustain the Dutch while a majority of its neighbors neighbors, who did not have religious tolerance, watched their economies decline.

Another way the Dutch differed from its neighbors was its decentralized form of government. Most European countries had an absolute monarchy at the time. This means all the power was in the hands of the King or Queen. The nobles in these types of governments also had a large amount of power over the common people. In the Dutch Republic, their form of government allowed the people to elect rulers of their different provinces. This makes the lower classes happier and more faithful to the elected rulers, instead of absolute monarchs who appoint themselves. In Machiavelli’s book The Prince, he states that they key to success of a prince, or any form of government for that matter, is the people being happy enough to follow and not cause problems.

Due to the decentralized form of government, the merchants and middle class citizens were a bigger part of the country, unlike its neighbors. In other European countries, the nobles and monarchs had all the power, while in the Republic the strong merchant’s class upheld a more balance economy than in other countries. The diversity and acceptance of multiple religions led to more skilled workers in the Republic than any other neighboring country. This is proven by the success that the Republic had in the 17^th century.

If the Dutch would have tried to be like other European countries, they would not have experience the amount of success they did. The Dutch Republic had its own unique style of government and religious views along with a different class make-up that allowed for its successes. These three things are the main contributing factors to the success of the Republic itself. They coincided with each other to help the Republic. The economy grew as more people came because they wanted religious freedom. The decentralized government kept the people happy and feeling that they had more power than they really did. Lastly the middle working class was built on the previous two things, overall boosting the economy and success of the Dutch Republic in the 17^th century.

Theis

2. Analyze the various Protestant views of the relationship between church and state in
the period circa 1500–1700.

3. Analyze the various effects of the expansion of the Atlantic trade on the economy of
Western Europe in the period circa 1450–1700.


4. Compare and contrast the economic factors responsible for the decline of Spain with
the economic factors responsible for the decline of the Dutch Republic by the end of
the seventeenth century.

5. Analyze various ways in which the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) represented a
turning point in European history.

Free Response 1/11/11

Analyze the ways in which European monarchs used both the arts and the sciences to enhance state power in the period circa 1500–1800.

European monarchs were able to enhance their power with advances in science and the arts during the 16^th and 17^th centuries. New ideas were being thrown around by scientists while artists and architects broke down barriers of the art world that had not been touched before. The shocking new discoveries and ideas allowed the State to gain power. A scientist like Galileo with his ideas of a heliocentric universe was an example where Church teaching was disputed. Scientific discoveries and new art types disagreed with some Church teachings and in ways took away from the power of the Church, and added to the monarchs.

In the palaces of the monarchs, extravagant art could be found anywhere. Artists had begun to make beautiful paintings taking new artistic ventures. Pagan gods being painted in the nude could be seen in the palaces as they grew in popularity. Hugh murals and extravagant paintings hung from walls and ceilings to show the power and elegance on the monarchs. This in turn upset Church officials because it was not “right” to have nude paintings and pictures of pagan gods. The Church was losing a grip on its power it had worked for and the monarchs used the paintings and other works of art to add to the power loss of the church and add power to the state. There were people who liked this type of art work and if the monarchy showed they like it, common people would feel they had something in common with the monarchy and would in turn be more faithful.

The advances in sciences during this era also aided to the power of the state and the lack of credibility of the Church. The Church taught that the Earth was the center of the universe when actually the sun was the center with everything revolving around it. This is known as a heliocentric universe. Copernicus first came up with the idea but Galileo Galilei is popularly thought of when it comes to this idea. His idea and teaching was shot down by the Church because it went against their teaching when it is actually the way the universe is. While he did not make his discovery to add to the power if the state, it did have a ripple effect that gave the state more power. There was a certain amount of power to be shared between church and state. When the church lost power, the state gained it and vice versa. During this period the monarchs supported people who made radical discoveries and advances that had the chance to help increase the committed followers to the state. In Machiavelli’s book The Prince, he says that a government must have the support of the low classes to be strong. By supporting new ideas that the lower classes supported, the state was able to enhance its power.

Developments in architecture could be seen also that added to the effect that monarchs were all powerful. Take for example the living conditions the monarchs had. They had the largest homes by far in all of Europe, adding an aura of power to them. Top line clothing was worn and the best food was served. While the monarchs did indeed have power, they were able to make it seem as if they had more than they really had by using architecture and fashion. The people on the outside looking in see them and at first impression, see how much power they really have. Lower classes may not like it all the time but they have to respect it. The respect the monarchs earned is a key component to the power they gained from arts and sciences.

Without art and science being prominent in the 16^th and 17^th century, the monarchs would not have been able to gain the same amount of power they did. Material things had become dominant as they are today and the monarchies took advantage of the resources they had at hand. The Church lost power due to radical ideas during this period of Renaissance able to give the state all the power it needed and more. The state now was ahead of the church in power instead of the two being even as it had been before the Renaissance took place. Sciences and arts were the reason the state gained its power during the Renaissance instead of losing it all to the church and the people.

Thesis Statement

The War of Spanish Succession, the Treaty of Utrecht, and the European Balance of Power

The Treaty of Utrecht assured that England would remain a dominant power after the War of Spanish Succession due to its rise of control of the slave trade, while also giving England power over France at the time.