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.

Wars of Spanish Succession Thesis

After the Wars of Spanish Succession, Austria made out with the best deal in the Treaty of Utrecht because of the land all over Europe that it gained, from Italy to the Netherlands.

Dutch Republic Free Response

The Dutch Republic of the 17th century was divided into seven provinces, each one with the ability to select its own ruler, as opposed to countries such as England, France, and Russia with their absolute monarchs.  At the end of the Thirty Years War this independent republic was formally recognized by the rest of Europe.  In the Golden Age of the Dutch Republic in the early 17th century, it was able to rise above much of Europe in exploration and trade by establishing the Dutch East India Company and Dutch West India Company.  The main reason that the Dutch Republic of the 17th century was able to establish worldwide trade, house the largest bank in Europe, and have the highest condition of living at that time was because of the fact that they put less of an emphasis on absolute ruling and exhausted less effort controlling every aspect of the people than their absolutist neighbors.

In the Dutch Republic, an important part of what they stood for was their religious toleration.  Though it was primarily Calvinist, many other religions resided and were accepted in the Dutch Republic.  Christian minorities fled there from their home countries and lived in peace with Catholics, Jews, and Protestants.  In Russia, Peter the Great attempted to secularize the country and the Russian Orthodox Church, but this was only met with rebellions by fundamentalist Christians.  Peter had to use his army and his resources in order to bring them down, an effort which could have been used elsewhere and more successfully.  In the Ottoman Empire, Muslim leaders were the ones ruling the country.  They persecuted Christians and attempted to convert them to the Muslim faith.  Eventually, this theocracy fell apart because of corrupt actions.  If religion had been kept out of the equation and leaders could have been selected by the people, the Ottoman Empire would have had a better chance of succeeding in government workings like the Dutch Republic.

Because the Dutch Republic did not have an absolute monarchy, there was not one person who could take all the power or all the money.  Even when William of Orange was appointed leader of six out of the seven provinces, he still could not be the supreme ruler.  This was the earliest of a system of checks and balances, which none of the other countries followed.  King Louis XIV of France had free reign when he came of age, and taxed the French peasantry enormously.  With this money, he built the extravagant palace of Versailles, for use of him and his nobility -- the likes of which hardly paid any taxes.  Not only did the Dutch Republic acquire their surplus of money more fairly, but they also put it to good use, distributing it fairly amongst its growing middle class.

Because of the relative peace and lack of angry rebellions in the Dutch Republic, much effort was given to building up a strong navy and expanding trade routes and territories.  In 1600, their navy had roughly 10,000 ships, and the Dutch Republic was known to be home to excellent fishermen and canal builders.  The Dutch East India Company traded with such places as Indonesia and India.  The Dutch West India Company traded with Africa and the Americas.  Because the Dutch Republic did not have to establish friendly relationships within its own country, it could make connections with other countries.  While other countries were struggling interiorly, the Dutch Republic was doing just fine.  It was doing so fine that, when there was conflict in England, William of Orange of the Dutch Republic was able to come in and take over, along with his wife Mary.

The Dutch Republic was the most successful of all European countries in the 17th century.  It was peaceful, had a bustling economy, and had a very content, growing middle class.  This was due to the fact that there was no absolute ruler, therefore no religious prejudices, no one person have all the power, and no one person to monopolize all of the money and resources.  The leaders sharing the power in the Dutch Republic were able to keep all of their citizens happy because their distribution of power and money was equal.  Because their people were happy, the leaders of the Dutch Republic and the wealthy merchants were able to establish very successful trade relationships with other countries, boosting the economy even more.  The Dutch Republic had no problems with monarchs and corruptness because of their republic, and this is what made them so successful.

Galileo Free Response Practice 2.0

During the Scientific Revolution in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, Galileo was a great scientist who made many astronomic, mathematic, and physical discoveries.  He has been referred to as the "father of science," and Pope Pius XII referred to Galileo as one of the "most audacious heroes of research."  However, at that time, since many of his findings disagreed with beliefs that had always been held by the Church, Galileo made himself an enemy of the Vatican and its priests and bishops.  Galileo's being persecuted by the Church because of his differing astronomical ideas was the biggest setback in expanding his studies because of the power and control the Church had over Europe at that time, and people of that time would have known much more about science sooner had it not been for this roadblock, and people today also may have even known more.

Throughout his life, Galileo contradicted the findings of multiple Jesuit priests.  Galileo published The Assayer in 1623, discussing, among other things, the nature of comets.  The previous year, Father Orazio Grassi had written pamphlet on comets, and because Galileo's views contradicted those written in Grassi's pamphlet, a controversy between Galileo's and Grassi's ideas arose.  In another work, Galileo also contradicted Father Christoph Scheinder's ideas on sunspots.  Galileo proved to be a constant struggle against the Church, contradicting its priests and forcing them to turn their people against Galileo.  With these priests discouraging their followers and students from Galileo's works, people were less likely to read them, fearing the wrath of God.

During the Roman Inquisition, the Vatican itself dealt with the people opposing their teachings and loyal priests.  In 1616, they banned Copernicus's Orbium Coelestium, putting it on the Index of Forbidden Books.  This alone was enough to discourage people from listening to Galileo, whose work was largely based on Copernican theories of heliocentricism, instead of the Church's ideas of geocentricism.  This was also the year that Galileo was chastised for his findings and asked to repent by Cardinal Bellarmine.  The Vatican made an example out of him to show the people what would happen to them if they went against the Church, which no one was eager to do now.  This time, Galileo refused and continued on with his work.  Galileo went on trial in 1633, in which the verdict was that Galileo had committed great acts of heresy, and was forced to sign a form, formally announcing that he was wrong.  Further printing of his works were banned, making it very difficult for Europeans to get a hold of his now-heretic discoveries.  It was not until 1718, almost one hundred years later, that the current Pope lifted the ban on his works and they were able to be printed yet again.  That is one hundred years in which people could have learned the truth about the tides, the truth about the position of the earth, and the truth of many more various astronomical phenomena.  If not for the Church, people of 16th and 17th century Europe would have been much more educated about the sky above them.

If not for the discouraging Church, Galileo may have even discovered more than all that he had in his time.  All the time he spent fighting the Church could have been used to even further improve his compass or telescope design, for example.  He could have taken more time to stargaze and report even more on what he saw.  Instead, he was exhausting his efforts trying to spread his truths to the whole of Europe.  In the last years of his life, when he was under house arrest for heresy, he could have been discovering even more about physics, mathematics, or astronomy.  If Galileo had not been persecuted by the Church, he would have had more time to devote to his studies, and therefore would have had more to share with the world.

The Catholic Church and all of its priests and bishops were a hindrance to Galileo, even those such as Pope Urban VIII who Galileo had considered a friend.  Living in Italy where the influence of the Church was greatest did not help; Galileo's whole life was spent fighting against the Church to spread his beliefs.  Because the Church was so powerful, it is not a surprise that it took almost a whole century after Galileo's death for this to happen.  If not for the Church in general and its representatives such as Grassi, Scheinder, and Bellarmine, the whole of Europe would have learned much more about science sooner, and people today may even know more than they currently do because of what Galileo would have been able to learn.

Great Fire of London Map

View Great Fire of London in a larger map

Free Response Practice #1

Why are the trials and tribulations of Galileo often considered both predicative of the future of Western Civilization as well as a perfect encapsulation of the context of his own time?

Galileo was a man who was born and worked during the Scientific Revolution is Europe in the 16th century.  He made many advancements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics, but was also held back by the Catholic Church.  Galileo's trials and tribulations throughout his life demonstrate the condition of Europe at that time because it showed how big a role the Church had -- in not only religion but also science and society in general -- and showed how close-minded Europeans could be to new things, but he looked towards the future of Europe and the world because, despite the Church and the naysayers, his findings influenced many other scientists of the Revolution and much of his discoveries are still used today.

Throughout Galileo's life and his research, his findings were not widely accepted by the European community, Jesuit priests in particular.  Father Grassi had published a treatise of comets and their origins.  Galileo had later published The Assayer, which contradicted Grassi's views on comets.  Grassi, instead of considering the possibility that he was wrong, instead turned people against Galileo and his ideas.  Father Christoph Schiender's views on astronomy also differed from Galileo's; they both had different ideas about sunspots and where they came from.  Scheinder had also accused Galileo of plagiarizing from the former's book of mathematics.  Like Grassi, Scheinder was not willing to accept Galileo's different ideas, and even went so far as to accuse him of stealing ideas, which may or may not have been true.  These people represented the mindset of many people in Europe at that time, showing how hard it must have been for Galileo to teach others what he had learned.

In his time, Galileo also showed how powerful the Catholic Church was, and how much control it had over many things other than religion.  One of the most religiously controversial things that Galileo believed in was the Copernican idea of heliocentricism.  The Church had biblical reason to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, whereas Galileo had scientific reason to believe it was not.  Even when Cardinal Bellarmino gave Galileo an order to stop preaching such blasphemy, he still continued with his current works and findings.  Galileo was one of the earliest people that the Vatican punished in the Roman Inquisition.  An order was given to stop printing Galileo's findings, and he was put under house arrest for the last years of his life.  This part of Galileo's life shows that it is not a particularly good idea to get on the Church's bad side.  Though now, in 2010, the Pope seems to be exclusively the head of the Church, Galileo shows that, at that present time in Europe, the Pope and his bishops were in charge of much more than religion.

Despite the Church's bad feelings towards Galileo, he was still able to be a spearhead in the Scientific Revolution.  He worked with Johannes Kepler to help develop his laws of planetary motion.  Galileo had done some work on the laws of motion that had previously been established, and this work helped Sir Isaac Newton develop his laws of motion that are still accepted today.  By improving the design of a compass and  a Dutch telescope, Galileo was able to give others the resources to further astronomical discoveries and the study of the stars.  Though he was persecuted by the Church which highly discouraged his work, he was still able to pass it on to later generations of scientists who got much use out of it.  Galileo, living and working at the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, was able to be one of the men who really began the whole thing, and his work was a foreshadowing of the entire era that was about to occur in Europe.  Even today, the four moons of Jupiter that he had discovered with his telescope are still widely accepted, and the Gal is a unit of measurement of acceleration named after him.  Galileo's findings pointed toward much of what would be found during the future of the Scientific Revolution, and even many discoveries today.

Galileo was limited by the mindset of both the Church and the general public at the time of the Scientific Revolution, but he was still able to pass his findings on to the future of European scientists.  He was persecuted up until his very last days, but he still lives on in his research.  Galileo sacrificed much for his science, and showed how hard it can be to go against the Church and even Europe, but he succeeded.  He succeeded in changing the world of science forever, and though there were troubles, Galileo was able to overcome them proudly, always looking to the future.