18th Century Russia

THESIS: Anna Romanova, Elizabeth Romanova, and Peter III Romanovna were all just as successful as Peter and Catherine with the way they were all able to maintain peace in Russia and even better the country's relationship with the rest of Europe.
- Anna Romanova

• Got rid of Supreme Privy Council
• Maintained peace in Russia
• Steadied foreign relations

- Elizabeth Romanova

• Soldiers of Russia were in her favor
• Made it so other countries all wanted to establish treaties with Russia
• Got rid of capital punishment
• Flourishing economy and culture

- Peter III Romanova

• Returned important figures from exile
• Nobles did not have to serve the state
• Dissenters were not to be punished
• Instituted various reforms

**Peter the Great and later Catherine the Great were two of the most commended for their politics and the way they were able to advance Russia.  Peter made many improvements in the military of Russia, building up their army and navy and defending Russia from numerous threats, gaining territories left and right.  Catherine was a great patron of the arts and culture, founding museums and libraries all throughout Russia.  Both of them contributed greatly to the success of their country in the 18th century.  However, many of the rulers who controlled Russia between the reigns of Peter and Catherine deserve credit for their advances that they are not receiving.  Peter the Great and Catherine the Great were indeed both great, but there were many other czars and czarinas who also added to the success of Russia.  Anna Romanova, Elizabeth Romanova, and Peter III Romanovna were all just as successful as Peter and Catherine with the way they were all able to maintain peace in Russia and even better the country's relationship with the rest of Europe.

**Anna Romanova took the throne after the death Peter II.  Shortly after, she abolished the Supreme Privy Council which had elected her to rule in the first part.  Though this act is often questioned, the outcome of her rule overcomes this one uncertain act.  Throughout her whole rule, Anna maintained peace in Russia.  There was no internal fighting nor international wars.  In fact, during Anna's war, international relationships were made better, making Russia more interconnected with Europe, something Peter the Great had often tried to achieve.

**Elizabeth Romanova, ruling after Ivan IV, did one step better.  By the time she died, countries all over Europe were jumping to form treaties with Russia and be in the country's favor.  Part of the success of her rule came from her ability to sway people on her side, like she did with the soldiers of Russia even before she came to the throne.  While in power, she made the drastic, but beneficial, decision to abolish capital punishment, instead imprisoning or banishing criminals.  While she was in power, both the economy and the culture of Russia flourished.  Catherine the Great was not the only ruler of Russia who was able to give her country a sense of a true culture, and this was one of the reasons Elizabeth was an excellent ruler, not to mention the peace and stability of the country during her rule.

**Peter III Romanova, Elizabeth's successor, also instituted many drastic changes that turned out for the better of Russia.  All of the important statesmen that had been exiled he returned to the country, which ended up being a good decision on his part.  They were able to help the country to run more smoothly under the guidance of Peter.  On the other hand any nobles that did not want to serve the state were not forced to, and any subjects who did not agree with Peter's politics were not persecuted for this.  The fact that Peter was interested in the well-being and happiness of his subjects and not very dictatorial led to the peace within the country during his reign.  He also maintained peaceful international relationships, and under him Russia flourished. His reign was not long, but this only helps to show how successful he was in such a short time.

**Anna Romanova, Elizabeth Romanova, and Peter III Romanova were all quite successful rulers of Russia and do not deserve to be over-shadowed by Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.  Peter and Catherine both did marvelous things to benefit Russia, but Anna, Elizabeth, and Peter were all able to maintain peace and better the country as well.  In fact, they were the ones who cleaned up whatever mess Peter left behind and paved the way for Catherine to be a successful ruler.  These three rulers were able to maintain peace within the country and within the world, helping the country's economy and culture to flourish.  They all did great things for Russia, and for this they should be remembered.  Not every great ruler of Russia needs a "Great" behind their name, but those such as Anna, Elizabeth, and Peter III should receive the recognition they deserve.

Global Trade and International Relationships Midterm

~ Oversea expansion did lead to better opportunities to trade worldwide, but the relationship all these countries and colonies had was not necessarily made stronger by these routes; rather, the stronger, greedier countries were able to abuse their newfound colonies to boost their own mercantile economy by abusing both goods and people while giving nothing in return.
- Expansion of Trade

• East and West

- Mercantilism
- Slave trade

• Africa and Americas

**Prince Henry the Navigator sailed out into the Pacific, found the Madeiras and Azores, and paved the way to what would be a whole new way of life for everyone in Europe.  After him came many explorers life Pedro Cabral, who discovered Brazil, and Vasco de Gama, who was the first to round the Cape of Good Hope in Africa.  These explorers opened up a whole new world of possibilities for trade.  Now, there were even more resources available to everyone in both the New World and the old, which they could trade to boost the entire global economy.  However, this was not the case.  European countries like Spain and Portugal and later England did not want to trade fairly with their colonies, instead abusing their resources.  Oversea expansion did lead to better opportunities to trade worldwide, but the relationship all these countries and colonies had was not necessarily made stronger by these routes; rather, the stronger, greedier countries were able to abuse their newfound colonies to boost their own mercantile economy by abusing both goods and people while giving nothing in return.
**As explorers branched out into the ocean and across the land, trade routes opened up across the whole world.  The Columbian Exchange led to all sorts of goods being transfered from the Americas back to Europe.  The East and West India Trading Company allowed for goods to be traded east of Europe in Asia.  New animals were brought to new places and new foods were introduced to new soils.  This also paved the way for immigration of people to new places.  Even though Europe had much to offer their new colonies, these colonies still suffered because of the greed of their European founders.
**In the 17th century in Europe, there was a big focus on mercantilism.  This type of economy was one where a bigger emphasis was put on importing than exporting, and a country's wealth could be told by the amount of gold and silver in their possession.  Because of this type of economy, countries and Europe would take all the raw materials from their colonies in order to manufacture goods for themselves.  Colonies would not be able to manufacture the goods out of their raw materials on their own; they would later have to buy them back from Europe.  Even so, Europe kept most of the goods for itself.  The colonies would have to pay even more for the goods made from their own raw materials, rather then being able to make the goods themselves.  Though they did get money for the raw materials originally, in the end they still suffered the deficit while their European counterparts were rolling in their gold and silver.
**A newly discovered land that was being abused the most was Africa.  People were being taken from their homeland and being sold as slaves to labor in fields for no pay.  This also happened in what is now Mexico, where the Spanish conquistadors conquered the people there and forced them to work on encomienda plantations.  There was no respect for life in the Europeans' minds, only greed.  They saw these natives as resources, and abused them like they did the rest of their colonies.  The people in the colonies they found were nothing more than yet another way to bring in profit.
**Having new trade routes open up should have been an opportunity for unity around the world, where relations between countries could flourish, blossom, be beneficial, but European rulers and this time would have none of that.  All they saw was the money that could boost their mercantile economy.  Europe stripped their colonies of as many resources as possible, raw materials and even people.  Exploration could have been symbiotic and helpful to all parties involved, but instead it was only beneficial to the most powerful nation who was in control.

Pilgrimage of Grace Midterm

~ Though some people agreed with Herny, signing the Act of Supremacy was a purely selfish decision on his part that many of his subjects, gentlemen and peasants alike, disagreed with, resulting in the Pilgrimage of Grace.
- People in Herny's court who agree
- Common people who disagree
- Gentlemen who disagree

**The Pilgrimage of Grace was a a movement that went from 1536 to 1537 in which many of Henry VIII's subjects protested his signing of the Act of Supremacy.  In signing this act, Henry made himself the head of the Anglican Church of England.This upset many of his Catholic subjects, causing them to rebel and protest in the form of the Pilgrimage of Grace.  Though some people agreed with Herny, signing the Act of Supremacy was a purely selfish decision on his part that many of his subjects, gentlemen and peasants alike, disagreed with, resulting in the Pilgrimage of Grace.
**There were some people close to Henry who defended his decision to sign the Act of Supremacy, but their numbers were very few.  Richard Morrison, a writer hired by Thomas Cranmer, published a pamphlet titled "A Remedy for Solution," in which he wrote, "Those that are of a worser sort must be content that the wiser rule and govern them.  An order must be had and a way found so that the better rule the rest," (doc. 7).  He was completely convinced that Henry was above the peasant people, and therefore had a right to rule however he so chooses.  Even after all the rebellion, Henry still was adamant and his decision and thought that the rebels were merely misguided.  Thinking he was being kind, he wrote, "The royal majesty, duly informed that your offenses proceeded from ignorance and false tales, is inclined to extend his most gracious pity and mercy towards you and to grant to you his free pardon provided that you heartily repent your offenses and make humble submission to his highness," (doc. 9).  Despite what Henry said, the people were not protesting any "false truths," nor were they "merely misguided."  They knew exactly what they were doing, and he did not want to face the reality that his decision was not beneficial to his country or his subjects.  Even behind this facade of kindness and mercy, he tried and convicted 144 of the participants in the Pilgrimage of Grace, 65% of all of those who had been tried (doc. 10).  In order to defend his wrong decision, Henry just decided to execute the people who had opposed him.
**The majority of the people who had opposed Henry and participated in the Pilgrimage of Grace were peasants. 110 of the 144 people convicted were commoners (doc. 10), but even though they knew they could have been facing death, they were still adamant in their protests.  And, unlike the motives behind Henry's original signing of the Act of Supremacy, these protesters did what they did for very unselfish reasons.  The "Oath of Honorable Men" sworn by the marchers states, "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,  for the preservation of the King and his heirs, for the purification of the nobility, and to expel all evil counselors," (doc. 1).  They marched not for personal gain, but for the greater good, for a better cause, and for a better future.  They proudly marched in the name of God, sporting a holy chalice and Christ's wounds on their flag, representing their own religious wounds, given to them by Henry VIII (doc. 3).  These protesters were knocked down time and time again, and not only by the king and his English nobles.  A Marchers' Proclamation delivered at many gatherings states, "We must be ready to help one another when thieves or Scots would rob or invade us either by night or day," (doc. 2).  Even people from a different country were happy to persecute these commoners.  Catholic monks wrote a ballad for the marchers that talks about how they were "robbed, spoiled and shorn of cattle and corn," (doc. 4).  People were trying to take everything away from these peasant marchers, but they still pushed on for their beliefs.  Henry VIII had not thought about the consequences of his actions for his peasant subjects in signing the Act of Supremacy, but after he did this the peasants themselves thought of one another and banded together against their selfish king.
**It was not only peasants who disagreed with Henry's unjust decision; it was also gentlemen of England.  One gentleman, Robert Aske, attempted to do even more than protest.  He wrote a letter to Henry VIII, asking him to do such things as "to have the supreme head of the Church be the pope in Rome as before," and  "to have the monasteries' houses, lands and goods returned to them," (doc. 5).  Aske tried as hard as the peasants did to change things, maybe even more so, addressing Henry VIII specifically.  Right up until his death Aske believed that Henry's signing of the Act of Supremacy was for the worst.  In his testimony right before his execution, he said, "Once the monasteries in the north gave great help to poor men and laudable service to God.  Now no hospitality is shown to travelers," (doc. 11).  He goes on to talk about how ruined the monasteries are and how this should be corrected, but Henry still thinks he has done the right thing for his country.  Even Sir Thomas Temple, a former member of Parliament, wrote that, "The King should grant our petition against the traitor Thomas Cromwell and his adherents, or at least exile them from the realm," (doc. 6).  Even people who used to work very closely with Henry VIII in Parliament know that he is doing wrong and should correct he and his nobles' selfish actions.  During the Pilgrimage of Grace, these gentlemen were much less selfish then the king himself.  In the end, 67% of these gentlemen that were tried for treason ended up being convicted (doc. 10).
**Henry VIII's signing of the Act of Supremacy was a selfish act, and it was right of both peasants and gentlemen alike to rebel.  For nearly a year, they protested and protested, trying to have their beliefs heard.  Though in the end many of them did end up being convicted, their voices were indeed heard.  They left an imprint on England and everyone in it.  These people convicted of treasons were the ones who knew the truth, and they were the ones who had the right idea about Henry VIII right from the start.

Elizabeth I and Isabella I Midterm

~ Elizabeth I of England knew that religion could tear her country apart, and made special precautions to keep every one of her citizens happy, unlike Isabella I of Spain, who let her religion prevent her from seeing what was best for her country.

- Isabella I

• Spanish Inquisition
• Spanish Netherlands
• Granada

- Elizabeth I

• Compared to her sister Bloody Mary
• Emphasis on Protestantism, but not too much
• Compared to her successor, James I and his son Charles

- How they were the same

• Though different religions, still strong beliefs

**In the 15th and 16th centuries, religion was a big part of politics in every European country.  Alliances were formed because of shared religions.  Countries were brought together and made stronger by a religious identity.  However, religion also had the power to make a country weaker.  Entire wars like the Thirty Years War broke out based off of religion.  Because different rulers had different religious preferences, it was difficult for a ruler to please all of his or her subjects.  However, Elizabeth I of England knew that religion had the ability to tear her country apart, and made special precautions to keep every one of her citizens happy, unlike Isabella I of Spain, who let her religion prevent her from seeing what was best for her country.

**Elizabeth I's predecessor Mary was very Catholic, burning Protestants that opposed her and trying to force her religion on her already-Protestant subjects.  After her sister's reign, Elizabeth had a lot of religious mess to clean up.  She reinstated all of the previous Protestant acts that her brother Edward IV and her father Henry VIII had had in place, but in doing this did not threaten any of the subjects that had been Catholic.  She put her subjects before her religion, just like she had put her country before her love life and had never gotten married.  Though it was hard for a ruler to keep his or her country happy, Elizabeth put her country's religious needs before her own and did just that, making her a politique.

**Isabella I of Spain, on the other hand, was very strictly Catholic.  She exhausted many of her country's resources in order to remove the Muslim population in the stronghold of Granada, losing many workers that would have greatly benefited her country.  She imposed the Spanish Inquisition on her people, forcing them to convert to Catholicism.  She tried to force her religion on the Dutch, taking over the Spanish Netherlands.  The Dutch did not want this, so they asked England for help, and Elizabeth I and her army was able to completely obliterate the Spanish armada, with Isabella coming off the worst in this battle.

**Though they went about their politics in different ways, both Isabella and Elizabeth were adamant about their beliefs.  One of the first things Elizabeth did when she came to power was institute all previous Protestants acts.  Though she did not force anyone to convert, she was sure to make her religious preference known.  Isabella was a bit more obvious about her religion, but both women wanted to leave an impression on their country about what they thought the right religion was.  Because religion was such an important factor in politics at this time, both rulers made sure that theirs was known.

**Elizabeth I and Isabella I were both very strong rulers, but one used religion to help make her country stronger, and the other's religion happened to weaken their country.  Elizabeth was able to establish a sense of English Protestantism in a peaceful way, not having to do anything like the Spanish Inquisition.  Isabella, on the other hand, was too eager to fight for her religion, when fighting would not have been necessary at all.  If she had gone about it in a more peaceful way, it is possible that her country may have been as successful as England at this time.

Scientific Revolution DBQ

**The Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries brings to mind great scientists like Galileo who dedicated themselves to math and science in order to help human learning.  Advances were made in chemistry, astronomy, math, and even more branches of science by these men.  However, they were not the ones whose thoughts were able to change that of the people in charge, i.e., the Pope and the powerful rulers of that time.  Without those people, the ideas of the scientists would never have been accepted by the general public.  The thoughts of those people such as religious figures, philosophers, and even men working in the state were those that most helped to push the scientific revolution forward, because they broke boundaries and changed the way even society itself reacted to new ideas and developments.

**The year 1554 was one of the first years that a free thinker came into the picture.  John Calvin, a French Protestant theologian, disagreed with the fact that the study of astronomy should be outlawed by the Church, saying, "This study should not be prohibited, nor this science condemned, because some frantic persons boldly reject whatever is unknown to them," (doc. 2).   He had even formed his own religions, to become known later as Calvinism, because he so disagreed with the Church.  Just a few years earlier, Polish priest and astronomer Nicholas Copernicus had agreed in a more mild way, saying, "The learned and unlearned alike may see that I shrink from no criticism," (doc.1) meaning that he would continue his studies no matter what others told him.  Both these religious men, though in different religions, thought the same thing about the fact that knowledge and learning should have no boundaries.  Galileo himself was living proof of what these two men are discussing; his books were banned by the Church and put under house arrest for the last years of his life because his teachings disagreed with the Church.  People all over the world, including people within the Church like Copernicus, began to see that the Church was conflicting with the opportunity to discover many new things.

**Many philosophers had the same ideas about learning and the fact that it must be expanded.  Francis Bacon, as English philosopher of science, said that "the true and lawful goal of science is this: that human knowledge be endowed with new discoveries and powers," (doc. 4).  He believed that learning new things was absolutely necessary to all of mankind itself.  Another philosopher that was way ahead of her time was Margaret Cavendish, an English natural philosopher.  She said, "Were it allowable for our sex, I might set up my own school of natural philosophy," (doc. 9).  Though it would be many years before this would actually happen Cavendish, like these other men, wanted to open people's eyes up to new possibilities.  She also wanted them to accept scientists, though she was speaking of the female gender.  Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, talks not about how the Church would limit knowledge, but how the state itself would.  He believes that, because geometry does not appear to matter to people because it has nothing to do with "ambition, lust or profit," people will mostly leave it alone.  But, he says that if some geometry postulate or theorem would "conflict with the interest  of those who rule," he knows that "it would be suppressed," (doc. 7).  Hobbes believes wholeheartedly that any king or queen would censor new discoveries should they not be want they want their people to know.

**Despite Hobbes' views, there were some people involved in the state who tried to encourage scientists to gather their knowledge together.  Henry Oldenburg, secretary of the English Royal Society, had wanted scientists to all come together as a community.  He said, "Friendship should be spread through the world of learning, and established among those whose minds are above partisan zeal because of their devotion to truth and human welfare," (doc. 6).  Oldenburg believed that communities of learning would greatly benefit the world at that time, and all of mankind to come.  Jean Baptiste Colbert, French finance minister under Louis XIV, wrote a letter saying how the state also must allow arts and sciences to flourish, and that he has been persuaded  to establish many scientific academies to help science prosper (doc. 11).  This can be shown being put into action a few years later, with a drawing of all the great minds and projects at work in the French Royal Academy, a place where learning could flourish (doc. 10).

**Free thinkers of the Scientific Revolution such as religious men, philosophers, and statesmen, despite the fact that they were not considered "scientists," made the most important contributions in these time periods.  Though they did not actually change the way the people viewed the physical world like some scientists, they changed the way the people of that time period thought.  These were the people that opened their eyes so that they could see the new discoveries made by scientists.  These were the people that allowed the Scientific Revolution to happen.

Atlantic Trade FRQ and Thesis Statements

After the Portuguese explorer Prince Henry the Navigator paved the way for an age of explorers, trade across the Atlantic ocean bustled.  All sorts of resources were sent back and forth between Europe and the Americas in the Columbian Exchange, Europe and Asia in the East and West Indian Trading Companies, and from Africa all around the world in the slave trade.  Countries and colonies all around the world could now share their goods.  However, this was not the case.  The trade between Europe and the New World was not a symbiotic relationship; rather, it was a way for the rulers of the European countries to abuse their newly found colonies.

Even before the thought of economic benefits from the New World arose, conquistadors like Hernando Cortez and Spanish explorers like Columbus were already abusing the natives they had come across.  With the use of the European's guns, their diseases, and their superior metal weapons, they defeated the natives who had done nothing towards them.  In fact, the natives even worshiped them as gods.  None the less, the Europeans were to power- and money-hungry to care, only wanted to use the Americas for their own good.

Many countries from Europe, instead of letting their colonies produce goods on their own, shipped the goods back to the mother country, manufactured them, and then sold them back to the original country from which they came.  This led to an increase in revenue in the mother country in Europe.  The country from which the goods came, on the other hand, suffered.  Though they did get money for the original raw materials, it was still an expense to pay for the manufactured goods from Europe.

Not only did the Europeans want resources for themselves, they wanted people too.  Beginning in Africa, Europeans defeated the Africans and forced them to become slaves, laboring for free so that their wealthy owners wouldn't have to expense anything.  From the colonies in the Americas Europeans sought out skillful workers to produce goods that they could sell for even more money.  Countries like Spain and Portugal at first then eventually France and England only wanted to gain from the colonies they conquered, not compromise.

The thirst for power in Europe was too much for the rulers to overcome, so instead of trying to befriend and benefit their new colonies, they conquered them and used them for all they were worth.  The Americas did benefit from some of Europe's resources, i.e., horses, but it was not worth what they had to give up: their freedom.  The New World was controlled by Europe, and the European rulers knew it.  Though trade should have opened up worldwide friendships, everything became a hierarchy, with Europe at the top.  The European rulers took full advantage of their new resources, and the people in their colonies suffered from it.

*****

1.
2.
3.  The reason the economy of the Dutch Republic declined was because of the structure of the economy, and the fact that the wealth was TOO distributed.
4.  The biggest shift in power after the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War was the power that France now had.