Friday, April 15, 2011

The causes of WWI

The Causes of International tension before WW1
Alliances
- Doc 1, Doc 2
Ethnic and political tension in the Balkans
- Doc 3, Doc 4, Doc 6
Germany and the blanque check
- Doc 9,8
- Discuss the reasons which led to the rising international tensions that sparked World War I.

The Great War or World War I was the bloodiest war Europe had seen to date and involved all the great power of Europe. Before the outbreak of war an underlying tension had been brewing in Europe between many of the great and small powers. This tension was political and ethnic and posed a constant threat of war to all in Europe. When Gavrillo Princip assassinated Franz Ferdinand he became the catalyst for the greatest war the world had ever seen, however the greatest cause of WWI was not ethnic tensions in the Balkans or hasty alliances but the support given to Austria Hungary by Germany to invade Serbia.

The Alliances of Europe were not often made because the 2 countries had good relations, but more often because having an alliance would be strategically, economically or militarily advantageous to both parties involved. The Alliances of WWI had been formed in the spirit of Realpolitik. In document 1 we see the terms for the alliance between Germany and Austria Hungary, the alliance was mainly formed to protect both countries from a Russian attack, if one was to fight a war the other would be dragged in as well. “Should… 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” (Doc1). This scenario was repeated throughout Europe among the great powers, France was allied with Russia and England as we can see in document 2 and if “If one, or two, of the High Contracting Parties, without direct provocation on their part, should chance to be attacked”(Doc 2) the others would be forced to fight. These alliances would be the undoing of many Empires in the years to come.

Tensions in the Balkans had been escalating over the years before World War I, with the withdrawal of the Ottoman Turks from the Balkans and Greece a power sink had been created in the area, powers like Austria-Hungary and Russia were vying for influence in the area. A smaller nation Serbia wanted to unite all the Slavic people together into one country and Russia supported this in order to gain influence in the Balkans. However, this south Slavic nation would be impossible because many slavs lived within the confines of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. There they were treated as second class citizens by the majority Germanic and Hungarian population. At this time in Europe Racism was rife among the citizens of all countries. Houston Stewart Chamberlain said” the Germanic races belong to the most highly gifted group.”(Doc 3) The slavs of Austria Hungary were treated with disrespect and disdain. This ethnic tension became a major cause for the war because of the patriotic fervor that the Slavs felt to their races belittlement. Roland N. Stomberg wrote that “1914 was to prove that the masses as well as the classes were militantly patriotic when they thought their country was being attacked.”(Doc5) One young patriot of Serbia Gabrillo Princip was to take his patriotism out on the to be monarch of Austria Franz Ferdinand and begin the longest and bloodiest war Europe had ever fought.

Whereas the Alliances among the great nations and the tension in the Balkans were major causes of the War in 1914 the greatest cause was probably the support Germany gave to Austria Hungary in their decision to attack Serbia. Without German support Austria would not have been able to attack for fear of a Russian attack on their flank. Kaiser Wilhelm stated his support for Austria in a letter to the his Russian Monarch cousin Nicholas II in which he stated that, “Doubtless You will agree with me that both of us, You as well as I, and all other sovereigns, have a common interest to insist that all those who are responsible for this horrible murder shall suffer their deserved punishment…”(Doc8) With the support of the Germans Austria became confident in their attack upon Serbia and doubted Russian intervention strongly. However the Russians decided to side with Serbia, in a reply to Wilhelm Nicholas wrote,” An ignominious war has been declared against a weak country …I shall be unable to resist the pressure exercised upon me and that I shall be forced to take measures which will lead to war.”(Doc8) The Russian army is mobilized in preparation and because of this the Germans are forced to launch the Schlieffen plan because France was allied with Russia. World War I had begun. The Germans excuse for war was “Russia, without waiting for any result, preceded to a general mobilization of her forces both on land and sea.”(Doc9)

The outbreak of World War I was caused by many factors including ethnic and political tension in the Balkans and a chain of hast alliances among the great powers. However, the greatest cause was the support Germany gave to Austria Hungary which plunged Europe into bloody war.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Socialism and Marxism DBQ

Socialism and Marxism DBQ


The 2nd half of 19th century was a time when reform and change were daily parts of life and the conditions the working man and woman lived in daily were becoming safer and healthier. New political ideas were forcing previously conservative governments to reform the laws that governed labor and health. People were protesting openly the Marxian idea of surplus value in which the factory owner gained all the profits of the common man’s labor and the common man remained poor. Figure 1 and Figure 2 suggest radical changes in the way everyday life was conducted among everyday Europeans in the 19th century and these changes are apparent in the way the pictures are set out. Although the effects of socialism greatly improved the conditions of the working man in the 19th century the difference between figure 1 and figure 2 does accurately portray the transformation of European lifestyle due to bias among the artists.

The socialist movement during the 19th century was not just 1 movement but many including Marxian socialists, utopian socialists and moderate socialists who were willing to work with the government to achieve their ends. While Marxian and utopian socialists preached radical change among society the moderate socialists of Europe worked to form trade unions and to improve the conditions of the working man. In Britain their influence led to the creation of worker’s rights acts such as the 10 hours act and the banning on Child labor. They also formed their own political party and had influence in government like when the labor party in Britain was able to overturn the Taff Valle Act which hindered strikes. However, as Marx preached the in his theories of surplus value and subsistence theory of wages the poor would always remain poor unless they rose up against their employers and although wages increased the poor would still remain poor.

Although figure 2 seems to portray a modern urbanized city it was likely painted before figure 1, the realistic way the people and buildings are detailed suggest that the artist followed a realist style of art. This style came before the impressionist style that figures 1 appears to be painted in with the appearance of movement and life among the people in the painting. The workers in figure 1 appear forlorn and sad, squished into a small room with many others. Figure 2 suggests an open more appealing world with modern urban environments. However all the people in figure 2 are dressed like upper class members of society, the artist was like a member of that society and portrayed the town in the image of an urbanized and modern town. However no
true town would lack the poor laborers and middle class, none of whom are seen in the painting.

Figure 1 and figure 2 seem to portray a radical change in European lifestyle from poor hovel worker to rich gentlemen, the transformation is bias. Although the 2nd half of the 19th century featured advancements for workers’ rights and their influence in government the majority of workers remained in the same jobs and with increased wages. The artist of figure 2 would have been a member of the exclusive upper class in his city and painted his city to represent his classes lifestyle.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Unification and revolution FRQ

2. Contrast Mazzini and Garibaldi's revolutionary views with those of revolutionaries in France.
Mazzini and Garibaldi revolutionary views
- Unification would help the Italian states defend themselves
- The right to vote, human rights and elections
- Free Italian states from foreign dominance

French revolutionaries

- Wanted more equal spreading of wealth from 1st and 2nd estates
- No absolute monarchy

The Italian unification and the French Revolution are both known as key points in those nations, and Europe’s history. The French Revolution was an idealist movement aiming to create a more fair government that ended in chaos and another tyrannical regime. The Italian unification’s ideas preached freeing their country from foreign oppression and establishing the rights to vote for Italian citizens. The French and Italian ideals of freedom, equality and elections were some of the key reasons their people believed in the movements however although both succeeded in their objectives they also failed to keep their ideals safe along the way.

In Italy, Garibaldi and Mazzini support a united Italian Republic with Rome as the capital and no more foreign oppressors controlling Italian states. In 1848 an insurrection occurs when large cities in Lombardy and Il Veneto, like Milan and Venice rise up against the Austrian regime which ruled there. Mazzini leads a movement to use the opportunity to unite the rest of the Italian states. However the attempt fails and Mazzini and Garibaldi are exiled. Their unification was not successful however their ideas remained in the minds of Italians and the country was finally unified in 1860 with the help of Garibaldi back from exile. Unfortunately this unification happened under the monarchy of King Vitore Emmanuel instead of the revolutionary leadership and therefore Italy could not be a republic with voting elected leaders and equality which was what Mazzini preached from the start.

The ideas of the French Revolution were aimed at creating a more fair government from the King, nobles and clergy which they thought to be corrupt and oppressive to the people. When an estates general was called by the King to help levy taxes the 3rd estate called for equality and reforms to the Government. The national assembly got out of hand though and a revolution began. The city of Paris was in chaos and the King was beheaded, France had a new government ruled by a council of revolutionaries who believed in freedom and the ability to vote. The French revolution also failed because of the resulting terror, the council killed anyone who they believed might be a traitor and destroyed the true purpose of the revolution instead carrying France from 1 regime right into another. By the end of the terror the country yearned for a strong leader and Napoleon was able to take control and become the next de-facto King of France.

The ideals of French and Italian revolutionaries were exemplary; people killed and were killed in their name; however when all was said and done the movements were not successful. The French revolution resulted in mass murders and a new regime under Emperor Napoleon while the Italian unification put Italy under a new monarch with the north still rich and industrialized and the south still poor and agricultural.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Romantics DBQ

Romantic DBQ
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?
Ways they challenged Enlightenment outlooks
- Did not want to live by society’s “rules”
- Many were in love with nature and used it as inspiration for their art
Challenging god and individual
- Shelley was atheist and published papers anonymously
- Keats believed in nature and did not think heaven existed therefore he published poetry to become remembered.

The age of the Romantics was a in a period where the industrial revolution was in full swing, especially in Britain where the industrial revolution had started, cities were flooding with people coming to work in the factories. Enlightenment ideas and new ways of thinking were spreading throughout Europe The British Romantics like William Blake, Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge despised this “new” way of life which did not appreciate the beauty of nature, and forced people to live and work in horrible conditions. These romantics turned to nature in protest of the machine and logical lifestyle that was becoming common after the enlightenment however more unique was the way the Romantics challenged one of the oldest beliefs in history, the existence of God and Heaven itself.

In response to the growing industrial lifestyle of Britain and the implementation of Enlightenment ideas which favored logical order the Romantics turned to the opposite of the ordered world they despised, chaos. They broke previously unbreakable boundaries by exploring their emotions to the fullest. Coleridge used opium to produce some of his greatest works, something never done before, Lord Byron became the World's first ever "celebrity" and had a following much like what celebrities nowadays take for granted, Percy Shelley wrote the pamphlet "The necessity of Atheism" which preached the idea that God did not exist. The Romantics turned order to chaos in whatever endeavor they undertook, the opposite of enlightenment thinking.

The Romantics created a new set of rules by which they lived their life. Unlike the enlightenment style of society and it’s way of thinking the Romantics created the image of the intellectual. They lived by their own rules and disregarded the flow of society. Enlightenment thinking supported science, inventions and machinery like the spinning Jenny and other innovations which were changing the way of life for everyday people. Romantics worshiped emotion and intense feeling. Artists like Shelley and Coleridge explored these emotions intimately. Coleridge himself used Opium as a means to create poetry while Shelly explored love and relationship with multiple women. They did not follow the traditional rules of society and the church at all and their influence transformed modern English society by means of their readers and fans. Lord Byron had a celebrity following for his poetry and the influence of his relationship hopping was great on the general public. The relationship jumping that Shelley was doing, while weird back then, is regular in the western world.

The relationship between God and Man was one of the oldest and most respected beliefs in the world. Most people before the time of the Romantics were born believing in God and died believing in God; the Romantics had other ideas. While Shelley was at Oxford he anonymously published a paper throughout the town called "The necessity of Atheism" which challenged the existence of God and supported logical means of explaining life. The books were declared blasphemy and all were burned. Another Romantic, Keats, did not believe in God and said so; he believed that in order to become immortal himself he needed to leave a mark on the world rather than hope for entrance into heaven. The influence of the Romantics can be seen to this day, many people nowadays doubt the existence of God, and the power of the church to censor and burn is gone. Atheism is not uncommon in the modern world, the Romantics were some of the first Atheists.

The British Romantics challenged the ideas of the enlightenment with nature and religion with logic. They were people who lived out of sink with society and their ideas were contemporary with much of modern day ideas and to an extent their ideas shaped modern day society.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Industrial revolution free response

Explain how the Industrial Revolution influenced the rise of conservative and liberal philosophies and explain how those philosophies competed with or related to nationalism in Greece and Germany.

During the 19th century the industrial revolution had taken off in England and was spreading rapidly across Europe. Following the industrial revolution came the political philosophies of liberalism and conservatism. These new philosophies emerged at a time when nationalism was picking up in Germany and Greece. The liberalists in Germany and Greece were overshadowed by the rise of nationalistic ideals in their countries and nationalism became the pre-eminent philosophy of the German and Greek peoples.

The rise of nationalism in Greece came swiftly once the Ottoman Turks occupation had ended. With the absence of the Turks the Greeks were free to create their own government. After the Greek war of independence the people were filled with nationalistic fervor, because of this the new government of the Greek state was primarily nationalistic and conservative and focused on the betterment of the country as a whole rather than the betterment of the people. The aftermath of this ensured that the liberalist ideas spreading from the North were not overly popular in Greece.

In Germany a new chancellor named Bismarck had been appointed. The Prussian government and Bismarck had wanted to unite Prussia and the rest of the German states but were always unable to because of political and military blocks by Austria. The need for a larger army was apparent if Prussia wanted to unite Germany. In order to do this Bismarck needed funds to arm and train a large army, however, his petitions to increase taxes and acquire the necessary funds were always blocked by the liberalists inside Prussia. In order to get the money he needs Bismarck violates the constitution and disregards the liberal complaints. The army of Prussia is doubled in size from the funds and Germany is able to unite under a nationalist government, moreover this showed that the liberalist movement had lost its power in the government.

The governments and people of Germany and Greece after the industrial revolution were both united under strenuous circumstances. For Greece it was the war of independence that made it into a nation recognized by the great powers. While with Germany it was the unification of the various states into once coherent government by Bismarck. After these unifications the level of nationalism in both countries was unprecedented and the ideals of liberalism were put down by the industrial fervor of the new nationalist Greek and German governments following a conservative strategy of industrialism and production. The liberalist movement that had succeeded in Britain had failed to significantly affect the lives of Germans and Greeks in the 19th century.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Term paper outline

Thesis
The cause of the British victory at Trafalgar was less on account of Nelson's strategy than it was a result of the culture of fear that dominated the French command structure.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Term Paper thesis

The many key sea battle of Napolean's fleet, Trafalger, showed that Napolean's military genius commanding and using men on land did not carry over to the organization of his fleet and it's leadership; he commanded his fleet from France with messages and although he was not physically there the presence of his orders was a constant reality for his officers. The real failure of the French navy for Napolean against the British at Trafalger was not Nelson's strategy and the royal navy but the hierarchy of fear command structure that his officers, including Admiral VIllaneuve, followed, with Napolean on top.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Monday, February 14, 2011

Mubarek and Louis XVI, French Revolution and Egyptian Revolution

Similarities

Louis: Absolute ruler
Mubarak: dictator

Louis: Came to power because Louis XV died
Mubarak: came to power because Anwar el-Sadat was killed

Louis: forced out of office and executed because of French revolution
Mubarak: forced out of office because of Egyptian revolution

Louis: In 1789, the National Assembly goes against the king and his people, riots start to break out around the country.
Mubarak: In 1986, riots break out against Mubarak and his government; this is the most serious riot yet.

Louis: He keeps his friends that are nobles in places of power, and never assigns someone from a lower class to a position of power.
Mubarak: Mubarak assigns is friends positions in his cabinet, like Atef Obeid.

Louis: The National Assembly is formed and begins to go against King Louis XVI.
Mubarak: The Muslim Brotherhood fights to gain more seats in the Egyptian parliament so that they can rise against Mubarak.

Louis: When he found out that the National Assembly refused to be a part of his Estates General, he said the Third Estate was no longer welcome in his Estates General.
Mubarak: When he found out his people were revolting against him, he shut down all means of communication

Differences

Louis: made peace treaties with countries far away like the United States
Mubarak: made peace treaties with neighboring countries and areas like Israel

Louis: the economy of France was deteriorating but he did nothing to change that, he only continued to tax the poor
Mubarak: in the beginning of his regime, he tried to better the economy of Egypt

Louis: He avoids meeting with leaders of countries that France normally has problems with, like England.
Mubarak: He meets with the leader of Israel in 1986, despite having previous problems with
Israel.

Louis: He was an absolute ruler and therefore did not allow for any laws to be made that could kick him out of his position as king.
Mubarak: Egypt has a parliament so the constitution was amended so that people could run against Mubarak. (2005)

2. In the French Revolution people were protesting because their government was in huge debt and instead of taxing the rich most of the taxes were being forced on the poor. The poor were forced to pay the most taxes while the top 2% were paying very little or no taxes. This caused the people of France to protest because they were being treated unfairly by the King.

In the Egyptian revolution the people were protesting because Mubarek had been ruling for 30 years and over this period of time he had become a dictator. He made it impossible for anyone else to become president and he was thinking of handing the leadership of Egypt to his son. When the people protested against Mubarek he used the police and military against them and shut down communications. The people were protesting because their rights were being taken away.

3.
French Revolution
- Marched on Versailles

- Olympe de Gouges writes a pamphlet called the Rights of Women which helps spread the word during the revolution that they deserve equal rights with men.

- Women weren’t officially allowed to take part in the revolution but they conducted most of the marches against the monarchy and because of this woman were banned from gathering in groups.

Egyptian Revolution

- Egyptian women march and protest in Tahrir square and outside the presidential palace.

- Women take part in many peaceful marches in Cairo and Alexandria despite the curfue posted by Mubarek.

- Women volunteer in Tahrir square and help by setting up makeshift utility stations and hand out food and water.

4. Many are concerned that even though Mubarek has resigned the government of Egypt will return to being ruled by a dictatorship. Right now the army has taken control of the country and set up a supreme council to rule Egypt. What the people do not want is a situation like what happened to France after it's revolution in which the Committee of public safety headed by Robespierre began executing thousands of potential "threats" to the new republic. The army says it will control the country for 6 months or until elections can be held. Hopefully Egypt will have a smooth transition into a democratic country.

5. People in the French Revolution did not have the internet so they expressed their views mostly through protesting, the printing of pamphlets and public speeches. Eventually they became violent and used guns and other weapons to revolt against Louis XVI.

The people of Egypt originally expressed their views through the internet and then they began to protest against Mubarek openly in the street. They set fire to government buildings and in some cases fought with police sent by Mubarek to stop the protests. When the internet and communications were cut off for them they gathered in Tahrir Square and refused to leave until Mubarek stepped down from power.

6. The protests are now over because Mubarek has resigned however some days were violent and protesters often clashed with riot police in the early days of the protests. Some Egyptians were killed accidentally during the protests aswell. In many cases the protesters surged through police to set fire to government buildings or to get to Tahrir square. Now that Mubarek has stepped down people are leaving the square and starting to return to normal life.

7. People are optimistic that Egypt is now heading in the right direction and that hopefully fair elections will be held and that the military will not over use it's power. After Mubarek stepped down people rejoiced in the square and the protests became like a party. Posts on twitter were saying to rejoice that Mubarek has fallen and that freedom had prevailed. In short, the people are optimistic that Egypt has been improved with the fall of Mubarek. People are celebrating on twitter with tweets in arabic that basically say, "Yay Mubarek has fallen" or tweets saying that the square is a party. Egypt is celebrating.

8. The possible outcomes that I can see for Egypt based on our study of the French Revolution are that the country has many possible paths it can go. It could end up like France, controlled by revolutionaries turned tyrants or the opposite could happen. Egypt could become a true democracy and set an example for the rest of the Arab world. The new balance of power in the Middle east could be a building block for democracy in the Arab world. Right now we can only speculate and see how events play out.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Surprise DBQ

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the terror as an instrument in the French revolution.
Outline
Advantages
- potential dissenters all killed leading to more stable government
- Those who would consider rebelling are fearful of death
- The new government could use their estates and wealth as their own
Disadvantages
- Many skilled and innocent people killed.
- The Revolution had failed
- Fear breeds resentment

The terror was a horrible period of French History in which tens of thousands of French men and women were executed. France’s revolutionary government had become a tyrant and was killing off anyone they believed to be against their cause sometimes unjustly and with no proof whatsoever. Headed by Robespierre the committee for public safety was purging France of dissenters who they believed to be a threat. The terror was a horrible time where many people were killed but it was necessary for the preservation of the new government, namely the Committee of public safety.
The fear of death can be a powerful motivator and the leaders of the new Government did not use it sparingly. The sheer number of people being killed scared the masses of France who may consider rebellion from their new tyrannical government into submission. Throughout the period of the terror over 8000 peasants and members of the working class were executed according to document 2. Many were likely innocent but the fact that anyone could be killed caused fear and a lack of will to rebel. General Ronsin of the revolutionary army justified the killings by saying the killings, “will carry terror into the departments where the seed of rebellion was sown.”(Doc 5) General Ronsin was right, even though it took the deaths of thousands to do it. The people were galvanized into agreeing with the Committee of public safety and accepting what was pretty much a period of tyrannical rule. In a report to the committee one reporter wrote, “On seeing peasants on the scaffold, people said, What, have these wretches allowed themselves to be corrupted? ...‘The law is just,’ people remarked, ‘it strikes rich and poor indiscriminately.’ The verdicts of the Revolutionary Tribunal are always applauded.”(Doc12) The fear of the guillotine also compelled many to join the ranks of the revolutionary army and fight for the committee. William Pitt the British Prime minister said in a speech to parliament about the reliance of the French armies that, “They are compelled into the field by the terror of the guillotine…what can be the dependence on the steadiness of their operations, or what rational prospect can there be of the permanence of their exertions?” (Doc 8) The terror killed thousands of innocents but it secured the position of the government from rebellion and bolstered the strength of it’s armies.
On the other hand the terror was also a terrible hindrance to France and it’s people. Thousands of skilled laborers were killed in Paris and throughout the country (Doc 2). Fear also breeds resentment, you can only terrorize the people so long until they begin to become discontent and ready to depose a government. A report sent to the Committee later in the month of the other report states this, “The revolutionary committees are every day falling into discredit. You daily hear that they consist of a number of intriguers, who plunder the nation and oppress citizens, It is a fact that there is no section in Paris which is not dissatisfied with its revolutionary committee or does not seriously desire to have them abolished.” (Doc 13) The revolutionary committee had gone too far with it’s relentless extermination of the citizens of France.
The terror helped to stabilize France and to unite its people even if it was through fear, however the insensibility of the killings caused the French people to become unhappy and many skilled people were executed under no legal grounds. However, the terror did stabilize the country and allow it to protect itself from invaders by forcefully recruiting through fear men to join their armies.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Candide Essay outline

Thesis: Pangloss has an optimistic philosophy that seems naive and ill thought out throughout most of the novel while Martin's philosophy seems more realist and practical in accordance with the events that plague the characters in the novel. The realistic views of Martin best represent the events of Candide and his story, and this realism is also a preferable philosophy the optimistic outlook of Pangloss.

I. Martin's realistic view of life in Candide is a much better reference to reflect upon the events of the story and what befalls Candide and his companions.
A. Oftentimes in the story Candide is tricked by characters who take advantage of his naivety and his initial faith in that people are inherently good.
B. Candide learns the hard way that not everyone is to be trusted and that some people are not who they say they are.
C. This shows that Martin's realistic view of society and people is superior to that of Pangloss' because if Candide had believed in Martin's philosophy he would have been aware of these tricks.

II. Pangloss' view of how the world is the best of all possible worlds and that everything that happens is for the best may seem like the more appealing argument but it is unrealistic and over-optimistic.
A. During the story Pangloss often disregards horrible events and uses his philosophy as an excuse to explain away horrible events as the best possible outcome.
B. Pangloss himself doubts his philosophy at the end of the book because of all the hardships that befell him.
C. The only reason he stands by his belief is because of pride and that a philosopher can never abandon his philosophy.

III. Candide is exposed to both these men and their ideas throughout the story and his ideas change often as he desperately tries to defend the ideas that he grew up on.
A. Candide grows up learning from Pangloss about his philosophy and that everything that happens is for the best and that men are good. When he starts out on his adventures he is incredibly naïve because of this.
B. As Candide’s story develops and he meets Martin he learns that there is another way to look at things. At first he fights the idea that Pangloss was wrong but as so many unfortunate events befall him his viewpoint begins to shift.
C. By the end of the story Candide is leaning towards Martin’s views as reality has pummeled him.

Friday, January 21, 2011

AP Euro MID TERM DBQ

Analyze the concerns and goals of participants in the Pilgrimage of Grace and those who opposed it.
Outline: Goals of Marchers
- Restore England to Catholicism
- Reform of the Government and Parliament including Cromwell
- Get the King to renounce the writings of Luther and other Reformists
- Get King to secure borders from Scots and to make the country safe again.
Goals of opposition
- Stop Marches
- Arrest Leaders
- Restore order
The Pilgrimage of Grace was a march by dissidents of the Henry VII in order to protest the way the country was ruled and the Religious reformation England was undergoing. Marchers were unhappy with a parliament they believed to be corrupt, at the fact that England had split from the Catholic Church and that Scots and robbers were roaming the countryside. The opposition to the march on the other hand included the King, his court and the nobility and they wished to disperse the marches and to restore order. The marches took place in the north eastern parts of England where Royal influence was not as strong. The Pilgrimage of Grace and the goals of the marchers and opposition not only give us a glimpse of England in the Early 16th century but show how willing the English people were to have a reformed government ruling for the people like Oliver Cromwell’s after the English civil war.

One of the 1st and foremost goals of the marchers was to protest Henry VIII decision to split England from the catholic church and to proclaim himself head of a new English Church which was ruled solely by the King or Queen of England. The Oath of honorable men was taken by marchers during the pilgrimage. It begins, “ You shall not enter into our Pilgrimage of Grace for worldly gain, do so only for your love of God, for the Holy Catholic Church militant,”(Doc1) The marchers were primarily Catholics angered at their King’s decision to change their countries religion on a whim. The also sent a petition to the King and his council which included pleas for him to abolish the works of Reformists like Luther from England, to restore the land and authority of the Catholic Church in England and to have Thomas Cromwell condemned for treason. (Doc5) The marchers were angry at the King, his recent decisions and his council and chose to show it by marching.

A secondary goal of the marches was to gain reforms in English government which included: a parliament that actually represented the people and was not a puppet of the throne and they also wished for the King to secure the English borders and roads from robbers and raiding scots. A marchers proclamation which was read before many marches began, “Because the rulers of this country do not defend us from being robbed by thieves and scots…We must be ready to help one another when thieves or scots would rob or invade us.” (Doc2) The marchers were angered at their leader’s failure to protect them and the properties from Scots and petty criminals. In a pamphlet which was eventually attributed to Thomas Tempest a former member of parliament we learn that many are unhappy at how the current parliament is run almost like a puppet of Thomas Cromwell’s, ”The current parliament has little authority or virtue. It is merely a council of the King’s appointees.” The English people at this time wanted a government that they could have a say in, not one completely dominated by the whims of the King and his nobles.

On the flip side of the marches were the opposition which mainly included the King and others in positions of power in government like Thomas Cromwell. This opposition wanted to stop the marches and to restore order to northern England. Many protesters were arrested and tried for treason and the King issued pardons to protesters as long as they renounced their protests and returned to their everyday lives. (Doc9) Arrest statistics show that 65% of all those tried in the first trials were convicted of treason and 233 were tried. (Doc10) The opposition wanted to arrest the leaders and disperse the remainder of the marchers. A writer named Richard Morrison was hired by Thomas Cromwell to write the book, “A remedy to Sedition.” In the book he opposed the idea of equality in government and reinforced the authority of the King, “When every man rules who shall obey?”(Doc7) Cromwell commissioned the book in what was perhaps an attempt to present an argument against an equal state.

These sources show how many in England wanted a reform in the nobility of England and a change in how the government was run. They wanted more authority for the people and less for the King and his council. This shows that when Oliver Cromwell took over after the English civil war the people were easily convinced to make him Lord Protector and basically a King of England as long as he preserved their civil liberties. The Pilgrimage of Grace gives us a glimpse of how the English civil war happened.

AP Exam Free Response #2

Discuss the political and social consequences of the Protestant reformation in the 1st half of the 16th century.
Outline: Consequences
- Counter Reformation by the Vatican in an effort to fight reformists.
- Council of Trent caused reformation inside the Catholic church, completely condemned the Protestant reformation and reaffirmed that the Catholic Church’s word on scripture was final.
- Set the stage for the many religious wars to come like the 30 years’ war
- Changed the hierarchy of power in Europe, the church loses a lot of power and authority in Eastern Europe and England.

The Protestant reformation was not just a time for a change in religious hierarchy and how the average European prayed. The Reformation was a prompt for many, many events to come in the future, the 30 years’ war and other religious wars being some of them. The Vatican starts its Counter-Reformation beginning with the Council of Trent in which it condemns the Protestant Reformation. Not only did the Protestant Revolution change the religious hierarchy in Europe but it was a catalyst for events in the 16th century that would change the balance of power in Europe.

Once the reformation begins to gather supporters and popularity the Vatican begins it’s counter-reformation; an effort to restore most of Europe to Catholicism and to crush the protestant reformation. The consequences of the council include many reforms in the church which in fact are exactly what Luther wanted in the first place, an affirmation that the Catholic Church’s word on scripture was final and a complete condemnation of all who were protestant. Catholicism had declared war on Protestantism.

A series of Religious wars would soon follow often lumped together and referred to as the 30 years’ war. The 30 years’ war took place in the southern Netherlands and among the 300 principalities of modern day Germany, many of these principalities choosing different religions and sides to fight on. The war was mainly fought in Germany but all of Europe felt the effects. All throughout Europe Protestants were fighting Catholics, maybe not directly but the rivalry was there. The consequences of the 30 years war was a united Dutch Republic, a still widely dispersed and war torn Germany in which each principality could choose its own religion legally and France under Louis the 14th as the pre-eminent nation in Europe for decades to come.

In Spain Isabella and Phillip instigate their inquisition which persecutes all non-Catholics and purges the country of Moors and Jews. Urged by Papal influence they also send a he armada to attack England which is defeated and from which Spain does not recover and allows England to come out on top of Spain.

The Protestant reformation changed the face of Europe and indirectly caused the 30 years’ war and the Counter Reformation. Both events changed the lives of every European, allowed Louis the 14th and France to become the most pre-eminent nation in Europe by the end of the 16th and caused the downfall of the Spanish Armada. The Protestant Reformation changed the balance of power In Europe forever.

AP Exam Free Response #1

Compare and contrast the religious policies of Elizabeth the 1st of England and Isabella I of Spain
Outline: Elizabeth- head of protestant English church, more tolerant of other religions in her realm, Did not follow the catholic church and the pope
Isabella- Wanted her country to be completely catholic, started inquisition which forced moors and Jews either to leave or convert, followed the Catholic Church and the pope.

Elizabeth the 1st and Isabella of Spain were both remarkable monarchs during a period of great religious reformation and change in Europe. The reformation was sweeping across Europe from Germany and the Catholic Church had started its counter reformation. Both rulers had very different religious policies to one another like how in Spain Isabella instigated the inquisition with the support of the Vatican in an attempt to purge Spain of all non-Catholics while Elizabeth in England was more tolerant of religions beside the English church and allowed Catholics to worship in private. Isabella followed the word of the Vatican and the pope while Elizabeth was her own leader in terms of religious policies. Their differences in Religious policies set the stage for England to come out on top of Spain by the 17th century and caused a disaster for Spain that it never recovered from.


Before the marriage of Isabella and her husband King Phillip Spain was not untied, their marriage brought the country together and united it. One of their first acts was to start the inquisition. This was a court supported by the Vatican which basically ordered anyone who was not Catholic in Spain to convert to Catholicism or be either killed or deported. This included all the moors living in the south of the Iberian Peninsula and all the Jews who lived in Spain. Although the inquisition did unite Spain religiously it also made Spain weaker in terms of specialist trade and industry. Many of the people they deported were skilled tradesmen who were forced to leave rather than convert. The inquisition killed Spain’s cultural diversity and weakened its economy.

On the other side of Europe Elizabeth the 1st was ruling as the head of the English Church created by Henry VIII after he split from the Catholic Church. Elizabeth’s policies towards Jews, Catholics and other minority religious sects were much more forgiving even though the Catholics in England strongly supported rejoining the Catholic Church. Elizabeth herself was a politique, meaning she often sacrificed personal opinion for the good of her throne and country. Even if she wanted the Catholics expelled from the country she knew that doing so would cause much resentment. This preserved England’s religious and cultural diversity.

Throughout the 16th century the Popes in the Vatican had wanted to regain England as a catholic nation. Persuaded by Papal power to attack England and restore her Catholicism, in 1588 King Philip and Queen Isabella sent a huge Spanish armada which heavily outnumbered the English fleet into the English Channel to attack and Conquer England. However, bad weather and superior English ships defeated the Armada and almost the entire fleet was crushed. Spain never recovered from this devastating loss and the results of the battle made sure that England now secure against papal invasion.

Isabella and her husband Phillip’s religious policies did not help Spain other than to unite it religiously under Catholicism. They had lost much of their diversity and skilled tradesman when they purged them during the Inquisition and their decision to follow the Vatican’s orders and attack England was disastrous for their Country. Elizabeth’s more moderate policies allowed the English economy to flourish and England to become secure from invasion for centuries to come.

Friday, January 14, 2011

DBQ Exam practice

Analyze how political religious and social factors affected the work of scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The sciences in 16th and 17th century Europe were not only the source of great discoveries but often political tools for rulers like Louis XIV. At this time in history Europe was either dominated by the influence of the Pope and the Church or by a Prince in one of the numerous principalities and empires however the catholic principalities also deferred to the Vatican. Some scientists like Copernicus had papal support and or others like Marin Mersenne were sponsored by the wealthy nobility. This support helped some discoveries to flourish and help the cause of mankind while in other cases it caused important ideas to be suppressed. Although political and religious support funded scientists and philosophers in the 16th and 17th it actually hindered the development of modern ideas and theories among scientists.

Many scientists were supported by the Vatican; however, because of this many scientists were in fact hindered in their ability to research and present their findings among their peers. If your findings went against the scripture you could be tried for heresy. A prime example of this was the astronomer Galileo who was persecuted for his findings. The church wanted him to be moderate and to defer to their judgment on the accuracy of his findings. Giovani Campioli and Italian monk wrote this to Galileo, “It is indispensable therefore…to defer to the authority of those who have jurisdiction over the human intellect in matters of the interpretation of scripture.” Galileo released his findings anyway and was persecuted for them. John Calvin the father of the protestant religion Calvinism wrote, “This study should not be prohibited nor this science condemned because some frantic persons boldly reject whatever is unknown to them.” Calvin is arguing in favor of a free form of science that was not mediated over by religious figures in case it went against the biblical views on philosophy. However at this time in history this type of system was no in place. Marin Mersenne was hired by a noble patron to do research in his name. In document 5 we see a letter from Marin to her patron explaining his findings. Marin tells her patron that if he wished any of her findings could be censured because a lot of the experiments seem to support the ideas of Galileo who was persecuted for his ideas. However, Marin urges his patron not to censure his research as all of it has been completely verified multiple times. This shows how the politics of the church and its influence concerning scientific findings often indirectly suppressed works that could be remarkable. Lastly, Thomas Hobbes remarks in his book Leviathan that the whims of the rulers of the land had too much influence among the scientific community and that information could be too easily repressed by disgruntled nobles or papal figures.

In conclusion the influence of the Church on scientific works in the 16th and 17th century while funding many of them often hindered the most important and world changing discoveries if they went against the traditional biblical view of the world and it’s creation.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The thirty years war

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

The Thirty Years War was a bloody conflict that involved the powers of Europe between 1618 and 1648. Catholics, Protestants fought with and against each other in a battle to determine the power balance of Europe. The aftermath of the war changed Europe forever, it marked the end of the religious wars that had plagued Europe for centuries and completely changed the balance of power. The Thirty Years War and its aftermath in the Peace of Westphalia ensured the rise of France as the dominant power of Europe.

The war itself had ravaged the German states and parts of the Netherlands. France, having joined during the later phases of the war on the side of the protestant league had managed to come out with the least losses and much gain in territory while the power of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire was much diminished after the Peace of Westphalia and 30 years of combat attrition on their economies and armies. This left France as one of the strongest powers in the new European balance of power post-Thirty Years War.

Germany itself remained a fractured country of individual principalities which were either protestant or catholic according to their prince. With much of its population and land destroyed it was easy for France to gain influence in many of the states, more influence even than the now diminished Holy Roman Empire. This gaining of influence and power in Germany constituted to an increase in trade and goods for the French economy.

Moreover after the Thirty Years War the ideas of absolutism were all over Europe. Power in France had become much more centralized and it now had a professional Navy to rival the fleets of the British. The Thirty years war allowed the centralized power of France’s monarchy to flourish with a professional army and navy now in play.

The Thirty Years war culminated in a series of Treaties which in effect divided up Europe and set the rules of diplomacy. The clever time that France joined the war allowed it to come out on top at the end with no losses to territory and fewer casualties. The war also kept the German states fractured and France was able to gain influence in Germany to rival the Holy Roman Empire. The aftermath of the war set the stage for the most famous monarch in French history Louis XIV and put him in place in the right circumstances to make France the dominant power in Europe for decades to come.

Thesis statements:

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

- The artists and scientist of Renaissance Europe and who controlled their expertise were used as a way to determine power for European Monarchs from 1500-1800.

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

- The many protestant views of th

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.