Napoleonic Wars
Naval sea battles including the battle of trafalger
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.
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.
Friday, February 11, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)