Peter the Great

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_great
• Expanded Russia enormously
• Muscovy was a princely state that gradually expanded in size
• He pushed back the neighbors who had blocked their expansion to Moscow
• Dreamed of controlling Constantinople 
• The first of the great Russian Czars to dream of controlling Constantinople
• They lost the fight for the Black Sea
• Forced to surrender for the Turks
• Russian participation in European affairs had been totally minimal
• From he 1620s-1740s, Russia expanded enormously
• Would have an tremendous effect on Europe and Asia
• He opened up Russia (no secular influences) to Western ideas
• He could do what he wanted as the Czar
• Childhood
• very curious
• very smart
• he traveled in order to learn more
• went to Europe
• was constantly sketching things
• very unorthodox
• was interested in cartography, math, and geography
• Tried to open up to commerce
• Trade---> Wealth----> Power
• Tension in Russia about westernization
• Peter had a very bad temper
• Occasionally executed people himself, and loved to torture people
• Harshest about treason
• He liked being with normal people and acting like them
• He refused to act like a Czar much of the time
• Very informal
• Russian culture was completely religious

Exam... Keep Reading If You Really Want To...

Compare and contrast the religious policies of Elizabeth I of England and Catherine de Medicis of France

Thesis:  The brutality of Catherine de Medici towards the Huguenots compared to the respect of Elizabeth the first showed to both Catholics and Protestants represent the differences between Catherine and Elizabeth, and clearly prove that Elizabeth was the better ruler.
I. Introductory Paragraph
II. Elizabeth/ Protestants after Mary I
III. Catherine/ Huguenots
IV. Elizabeth/ Catherine (comparing politiques to queen mothers)
V.Conclusion

While both Catherine de Medici and Elizabeth I ruled European countries at similar times in history, their styles of ruling their people were very different.  Elizabeth I followed her sister, Mary I, in line for the thrown, and had to clean up the mess of Protestants that her sister had left for her.  Catherine was part of the Medici dynasty; a family that not only ruled the city of Florence, but also controlled the banks and the papacy.  They were similar in the sense that they both came from powerful royal families, but different in the sense that Elizabeth had to fight her sister until she accepted her on her deathbed, and Catherine's family remained unified.  The brutality of Catherine de Medici towards the Huguenots compared to the respect of Elizabeth the first showed to both Catholics and Protestants represent the differences between Catherine and Elizabeth, and clearly prove that Elizabeth was the better ruler.

Elizabeth came into power in a dark time in England.  Her sister, Mary I, had been nicknamed "Bloody Mary" for her killings of Protestants.  Elizabeth, a Protestant herself, had been unable to do anything about it until she came to power after her sister's death.  After taking the crown, she stopped the slaughter of the Protestants and helped coax England back into a state of unity.  The significant thing about Elizabeth, however, was that she did not try to retaliate again the Catholics.  Regardless of religion, the people of England were better for her being queen, which is not something that many English monarchs from that time could say.

Catherine de Medici did not share the spirit of equality.  She hated the Huguenots, and did nothing but hurt them.  She spread vicious lies about them to try to discredit their religion, one example being her saying that everything that they say are lies, and that everything they do is without proper religion.  She was obviously trying to eradicate them from France using her influence, which makes her more similar to Mary than Elizabeth.  Without the support of a major religious group, one cannot be very successful while ruling.

Elizabeth and Catherine also differed in their form of ruling.  Catherine was a Queen Mother, one who worked through her sons Francis and Charles.  While it cannot be denied that she had great power, she was not a "true" ruler in the sense that she was held responsible for her sons' actions, even if she swayed them.  Elizabeth, on the other hand, was the Queen of England.  She was held responsible by her people, and did them proud.  Not only that, she was a politique.  She was so dedicated to her country that she did not marry the man she loved because of his questionable past.

The difference between Elizabeth and Catherine can be summed up in saying that Elizabeth was dedicated to doing the best for her country, while Catherine was dedicated to herself.  Elizabeth, while she didn't accomplish as much as some monarchs, kept England in relatively good standing, and managed to become a much loved queen.  Catherine slunk in the shadows behind her sons, getting favors done while hurting a significant portion of France's population.  Catherine and Elizabeth were very different people, and Elizabeth was obviously the better leader.

_________________________

Discuss the political and social consequences of the Protestant Reformation in the first half of the 16th Century.

Thesis: The 95 Theses, the Church losing power, and the new Protestant groups due to the Reformation were some of the best things that ever happened to Europe.
I. Intro
II. 95 Theses
III. Church not being able to control everybody (absolute monarchs)
IV. Rising of other branches of Protestantism
V. Conclusion

The Protestant Reformation in the early 16th Century brought about some of the biggest changes in European history.  Previously, Catholics had really been the only real power in Europe, and anyone who believed otherwise would not be in a position to do anything about it.  The Protestant Reformation changed everything.  Soon, other branches of Christianity were widely accepted and growing.  The 95 Theses, the Church losing power, and the new Protestant groups due to the Reformation were some of the best things that ever happened to Europe.

Martin Luther's 95 Theses was one of the events that got the Reformation off with a bang.  Martin Luther, a Catholic monk, was upset with how the Church was being run, especially with Indulgences for sale from the Church.  He wrote 95 things that the Church could do better, and nailed them to the Church's door.  The Church ignored him, but by doing that, they set him off on a whole new direction.  He accumulated followers, and started Lutheranism.  This was one of the first major branched of Protestantism, and got everyone else off to a good start.

The Church's influence was wounded by the Protestant Reformation, just like the absolute monarch's power.  The Church had the ability to tell people what to do with the treat of Hell before, but they lost a lot of that power when many of the people stopped believing that the Church had the authority to send them to Hell.  Without people being afraid of their religious wrath, the Church couldn't actually control Europe.  This also meant that the absolute rulers that were said to be "chosen by God" lost their authority.  Without people believing in your religion, religious precedence isn't as impressive.

Anabaptists and the Huguenots that were specific to different areas.  The Reformation was allowing religious freedom to be wide spread.

The Protestant Reformation created a good Europe in the 16th century, but it would only get better.  Places like the Dutch Republic would gain benefits from their religious freedom, while places like France would suffer.   Luther was a man trying to work inside the Church, but he started something that has allowed the world more freedom of religion.  The Protestant Reformation brought about positive changes for anyone interested in equality for all religions with Marting Luther's 95 Theses, the Church losing power, and different branched of Protestantism coming into existence.

_________________

Pilgrimage of Grace

Thesis: In the situation pertaining to the Pilgrimage of Grace, both the King and the marchers used unnecessary force, disrespect towards the people on the other side of the argument, and the name of God unnecessarily to do what they wanted and to show the worst side of religion there is.
I. Intro
II. Henry VII putting to death
III. Marchers being racist
IV. Both using the name of God
V. Conclusion

The Pilgrimage of Grace was an event that shows off the worst side of religion, and both sides were at fault for this.  Henry VIII was well within his rights to choose his religion, but he took his Protestantism to a level of violence.  The marchers were well within their rights to protest, but the protested violently and hatefully.  Both the Protestants and the Catholics involved gave Christianity a bad name through their behavior, and they went about what they were doing the wrong way.  In the situation pertaining to the Pilgrimage of Grace, both the King and the marchers used unnecessary force, disrespect towards the people on the other side of the argument, and the name of God unnecessarily to do what they wanted and to show the worst side of religion there is.

Henry VIII was doing fine until he split from the Church in order to get a divorce.  Even then, he could have become a Protestant with grace and stayed under the radar.  Instead, Henry decided to cause the Church as much trouble as possible.  He started shutting down monasteries and taking the Church's land for his own.  Many of the places that he was shutting down were helping the poor in his own country (Doc 11). When people got upset about this and started protesting, he accused them of Treason and had them sentenced to death (Doc 10).  A year before he put them to death, Henry extended his "most gracious pity and mercy" (Doc 9) upon them.  People were afraid to act in case "their actions to be offensive to the Church" (Doc 8).  By pardoning them and then killing them as treasonous, Henry was flaunting his religion in the Church's face, and obviously trying to get revenge for them not signing his divorce papers.

The marchers were at fault for some of their actions throughout the Pilgrimage, but they were also provoked by the irresponsibility by Henry VIII.  They started off totally justified in their anger towards Henry, as their places of worship were being destroyed and sold back for the king.  They even invited people into the march with a warning, "You shall not enter into our Pilgrimage of Grace for worldly gain" (Doc 1).  They also used the words "robbed, soiled, and shorn" (Doc 4), which shows how understandably upset they are about the destruction of their monasteries.  However, they soon started adding their own twists on the events, blaming people who need not have been blamed.  They said that they were "being robbed by thieves and Scots" (Doc 2) which had nothing to do with the Protestant church.  They also asked for the destruction of the religions founded by "Luther, Wycliffe, Hus, and Tyndale" (Doc 5), which is now using the opportunity they have to completely wipe out other religions.

Both sides were wrongfully bringing God into their picture, even though both sides believed that God didn't approve of violence or killing.  Henry says that "God commands you to obey your sovereign in all things" (Doc 9), which is just taking the Catholic version of an absolute ruler and making it Protestant.  The Catholics also used God, but they instead had a symbol of bleeding Jesus on their banners (Doc 3).  Both sides used God for their own gain, without actually thinking about the violence they were casing.

The Pilgrimage of Grace was a march that never should have happened.  While Henry VIII initialized it, the Catholics created an issue that never should have been part of the march.  Both sides were selfish and disrespectful, and just stopped caring about their ethics after a while.  When people defend their religion, they can become irrational and vengeful, which is what happened here.  Both sides were wrong to use force, the name of God, and their opinions to create disrespect within religions.

1. Documant 5- Marin Mersenne 
2. Document 8- Charlton 
3. Document 9- Cavendish 
4. Document 11- Colbert 
5. Document 7 

The theory of heliocentricity became popularized in the 1500-1700's with scientists like Galileo making it widespread knowledge.  He disagreed with both prominent philosophers, such as Copernicus, and with the Church, but the spread of heliocentric belief was still significant.  This spread, however, was many times threatened by the Church.  Because the Church believed something different than Galileo was proving, they tried to discredit him and stop his findings.  In not only the case of the heliocentricity argument, but in other cases as well, those people such as Copernicus, Giovanni Ciampoli, and others associated with the Church are less likely to see reason within clearly logical and supported science than those unaffiliated with the Church.

Copernicus, one of the main philosophers supported by the Church for his theory that the Earth was at the center of the universe, is a good example of religion making people blind.  Instead of taking into account the research that Galileo had done, he instead wrote to Pope Paul III.  In his latter, he displayed two types of ignorance.  He refused to back down from his theory, even though there was counter proof; in fact, he was willing to be bold with his denial of any other possibility so that "learned and unlearned alike may see that I shrink from no man's criticism" (Doc 1).  This is not only ignorance, but arrogance.  He also displays ignorance when he says that the Pope displays a "love of letters and science" (Doc 1).  English philosopher Francis Bacon says that "the true and lawful goal of the sciences is this: that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers" (Doc 4).  Instead, the Church was only using science that directly backed up the Bible, not science that would allow for new discoveries to be made about their world.

Giovanni Ciampoli is another prime example of religion getting in the way of scientific fact and discovery.  He wrote a letter to Galileo mocking his studies and claiming that the next leap that Galileo would make would be that there were humans living on the moon.  He references Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark, but never actually references the actual science.  Ciampoli is so caught up in Biblical importance that he doesn't take time to look at simple facts or explanations.

The other side of this argument is that people not associated with the Church were better able to see reason.  John Calvin, the founders of the Calvinists, was proof of this.  Calvin, obviously a religious man to have founded a major branch of Protestantism, applauded the discoveries made using the science of astrology.  He even went so far as to say that astrology "unfold the admirable wisdom of God" (Doc 2).  A man not related to the Church, Calvin didn't have to focus on what was not exactly the same as the Bible teachings, and could actually focus on the facts.

To every rule, there must be exceptions.  For example, a monk, Marin Mersenne, wrote to his noble patron confirming Galileo's studies, and going so far as to say

Thesis Statements

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 European monarchs nurtured artists and scientists to help them grow and to help their community become more powerful and better known; the used the latest art and science as status symbols of the area in which they were living, and they spread the word of their state through the rising popularity of whatever scientist or artist was there.

Separation of Church and State

In 1500 to 1700, the Protestants wanted separation of Church and state.  Catholic monarchs had long been making life hell for Protestants, but if the Church became separate and did not have power over the state, the Protestants would be able to worship in the way in which they were accustomed without fearing death.  Monarchs like Mary I of England showed how dangerous the union of Church and state could be for anyone other than Catholics.  The Medici proved that it was easy to influence the Church, and thereby, easy to influence the state.  The Divine Right of Kings illustrated perfectly the union of church and state, and how corrupt it could be.  The Protestants were right to think that Church and state should be separated, as Mary I, the Medici, and The Divine Right of Kings prove that the union can only lead to corruption.

Mary I of England, otherwise known as Bloody Mary, was a Catholic monarch who used her power to persecute Protestants.  Mary viewed her religion ass the most important duty she had as a queen, and refused to have anyone disagree with her.  Any Protestant living in that time or after would want the separation of Church and state, as it would save the lives of their people.  When only the Catholic or Protestant side is in power, there is an unbalance that can only lead to the abuse of one side.  The only way to avoid that is to remove religion from the equation of ruling.

The Medici were the epitome of corruption of the Church.  They bought the Pope-hood for Giovanni Medici, which was simply a power play on their part.  By placing someone as pope, they became the most powerful family in Florence.  While the papacy is supposed to be incorruptible, the real fault is that they could gain so much power by having a Medici as a pope.  They became the most trusted bank in Florence, which meant that they got to be extremely wealthy.  By buying their way to the top of the Church, the ensured political gain, which should never be able to take place.

The Divine Right of Kings most clearly illustrates the point of why the separation of Church and state was necessary.  The idea behind the Divine Right of Kings was that monarchs were chosen by God to rule.  if they could claim to have the power of God behind them, they could do anything and say that it was God's will.  Kings were pretty much printing out licences to do what they wanted, and there was no way that any Christian could stop them without fearing the wrath of God.  The Divine Right of Kings was the ultimate union of the Church and state, and possibly the most corrupt of all.

The separation of Church and state was an issue that Protestants wanted to see resolved.  It was a way to gain power corruptly, but had almost no good sides to it.  The Church and state, while a powerful bond, was not the moral thing to do, nor was it stable for people in the Church or in government.  The Protestants received the worst end of this deal, and needed some sort of separation to occur.  With the Church ad state unified, the Protestants could expect persecution by Mary I and other Catholic rulers, corrupt gain of power and money by the Medici, and the ability for monarchs to rule with being questioned under the Divine Right of Kings.

Midterm Review

1. Galileo-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
1. Heliocentricity
2. Kepler- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler
1. Improved telescope
3. Copernicus- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus
1. Earth is not the center of the universe
4. What 3 states/empires bordered the area between France and Russia?  Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Poland (a republic)
5. Poland
1. Was a republic that voted on kings; usually not from Poland
2. Lack of the centralized authority leaves a power vacuum
3. Spread through the nobility all across the kingdom
6. Suleiman the Magnificent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent
1. Leader of the Ottoman Empire
7. Hapsburg's seat was in Spain, and their power was in Austria
1. Power over Austria because they were Catholic
8. Charles VI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
1. *Pragmatic sanction* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Sanction_of_1713
9. Prussia
1. Part of the Holy Roman Empire
10. Absolutism in Prussia
1. Hohenzollern Family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenzollern
2. Brandenburg
3. Junkers
4. Estates
5. TOO MANY FREAKING FREDERICKS!!!!!!!!!!!
11. Russia
1. Ivan the Terrible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_terrible
2. Romanov Family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanov
3. Peter the Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great
12. Explorers
1. Prince Henry the Navigator 
2. Bartholomew Diaz
1. Portuguese; tip of Africa
3. 
   

Pepy's Journal--Great Fire of London

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=212045160984977390985.000496467612f37bfe5fd&z=10

1. Read all of Kaplan (up to Chapter 10)
2. Know the definitions for the boldfaced words
3. Go back and read my blog, starting from Day 1.  Also read other people's notes.
4. Go to BBC and read through English History (Concentrate on the Tudors and the Civil War and Revolution)
5. Kaplan- the Italian Renaissance and the Reformation
6. Wikipedia the Renaissance and the Reformation 
7. Wikipedia Protestant Reformation 
8. Wikipedia Age of Discovery
9. BONUS: Look at primary sources