4.15.11 World War I DBQ

World War I, " the Great War," involved all of the great powers of Europe and killed more than eight million soldiers. Discuss the reasons which led to the rising international tensions that sparked World War I.

World War I was one of the largest and deadly wars ever to grace this planet. It involved all of the European superpower, in an all out battle being fought for, in retrospect, such a small cause. The first two nations involved in this war were Austria-Hungary and Serbia, who were going to war over the death of Franz Ferdinand by the hand of a Serbian revolutionary. This war between two nations grew, encompassing many others, and even changing the focal point away from the assassination, and more towards economics. The Pressing factor for this war was not only the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but rather it was the numerous treaties and pacts among European states that forced many nations to join in on the war.

As World War I began with the Serbian-Austria-Hungary conflict, these nations began to call other nations to join them in their fight. Serbia brought in their Slavic native, Russia, who was also allied with France. This led to the treaty between Austria-Hungary and Germany being put into play, due to the Russian involvement (Doc. 1). This grossly increased the magnitude of this war, from two nations fighting to world powers now fighting. These nations had created these treaties from past history together that linked them. Germany has been linked together with the Austro-Hungarians from the time of Bismarck, which kept the two contractually obligated to aid one another in war. Russia came into to join Serbia because of their linked Slavic heritage that they shared. The tie between Russia and France came from the days of Peter the Great being influenced by the French monarchy. Ever since Peter the Great modeled Russia after France they have been tied, with French goods being sold in Russia, the upper class speaking French, and their government system. England was also brought into the war, fighting on the Serbian side, because they vowed to protect Belgium, which was attacked by Germany, and also wished to protect their economic growth in the Middle East that Germany had infringed upon. Another nation involved, that was not a major player, was Italy which was brought in but did not play a significant factor in the war (Doc. 2).

This entire war that engulfed all of Europe can be traced back to one craze that the Europeans thought would go well, treaties. If these nations had not created such complex partnerships it would still have been strictly a conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. In reality, these alliances did more harm than good to the general European collect. Treaties were created to protect Europe, and to save lives, but when put into place created a much larger problem than what was in place originally. The original assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not even linked to the Serbian government, and was more of a misunderstanding that started the war, not a disagreement. The Black Hand was a Serbian radical group that fought against any enemy they thought quelled Serbian nationalism (Doc 6). This secret organization was not involved with the government, and did not fall under their jurisdiction. They performed this assassination unbeknownst to the Serbian government, but the blame was still placed on the Serbian state. The Austro-Hungarians were really fighting a war against a people who, for the most part, was not involved in the assassination at all. The Austro-Hungarians were expecting war when they sent their demands to the Serbians, sending irrational claims to them, and when they accepted the majority of them, the Austro-Hungarians still when to war (Doc 7).

These treaties that had been created, in hindsight, did not seem to have worked to plan for Europe. They put European nations into shambles, crippled economies, and created an even greater hatred for others. Treaties and partnerships are meant to be thought of as a benefit and good thing to have, but really pulled nations into war when they really had to reason to get involved. Germany is perhaps the biggest victim of these treaties, a nation that was contractually bound to aid Austria-Hungary in war, and tried to peacefully negotiate out of the war with Russia, but was unable to (Doc. 8). Germany was not on bad terms with Russia prior to this, but seeing that other Russia was assembling their troops for an invasion, they had no other choice but to attack first, and begin this war (Doc 9). Germany was then surrounded; all because they were obligated to join Austria-Hungary, a treaty that can defiantly be seen to have hurt the Germans much, much more than they had thought it would help.

This massive European war could have been entirely avoided, if these treaties had not been created. Yes, there still would have been a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but this would have been much smaller and not have done such damage to Europe. These treaties that had been created forced the European nations to join into this war, whether they wanted to or not, showing how the downside of treaties far outweigh the upsides and benefits.

3.25. DBQ

Nineteenth Century Art DBQ

During the late nineteenth century, European art experienced many changes in style and subject. The first of these movements was realism, a style of art that presented its subject matter typically to be common people, performing normal tasks. This was a large change from the former paintings that were concerned with royalty and religion. This movement in art illustrates the movement of power from the economic and social elite towards the common people and the middle class of the time.

In figure two, this painting given represents the realist art of the nineteenth century. It portrays common people walking on a street, in the rain. This painting presents the people as proper and well kempt, going throughout the town. All of those walking are shown in a good light, as if they have enough money and no troubles to worry about. This painting does not accurately depict the real life scenarios of the common people. It shows them as having money, and being able to spend it somewhat luxuriously. They have new suits, bowties, dresses, and hats, all things that common people could not have with their small amount of money from their work.

The painting presented in figure one was created in a style that is more in line with impressionism, rather than realism. Impressionism, from an artistic standpoint, consisted of less precise lines and no finite borders. Those in the picture were somewhat blurry, and it gave a sense of confusion and disillusion, and the aim was to look at the world from a different perspective. This was far different from prior art, which was much more clear and finite in their work. In the subject matter of this art, it also portrayed the life of the common people, however, this tended to be more real than realism itself. Realist art did not show all of the aspects of a common person’s life, and presented them in a favorable light. Impressionism attempted to shine light on a greater truth, depicting the dank nature of common life, and also showing the changes that had occurred to them, such as machinery. In figure one; it illustrates a poor family on a train, crowded with many other people, in a somber mood. The family is disheveled and disorderly, the way typical lower middle class citizens were. Another point that is not thought of to stand out is the fact that the painting takes place inside of a train. Prior to impressionism, art did not generally concern mechanics and the advancements in machinery. Now, not only was a true portrait of a lower middle class family shown, but the painting also shows the advancement in technology present.

In these two paintings shown, they both attempt to depict the common people of their time, but only figure one successfully illustrates the way life really was for these people. Figure two attempts to present the middle class as something which the majority was not, wealthy. They could not afford the suits shown, or hats, or ties, or even umbrellas. The real common folk is similar to the family on the train, in crammed conditions and unkempt. This now realization of the genuine lifestyle of common people represents the shift in power to the middle class. Middle class citizens are now becoming organized and realizing that they are being wronged, and demanding that they see justice. They became inspired by the socialism movement and wish to be equals with the rest of society; no more poor, no more rich, only equals. These people had the manpower to rebel against those in control of them, and demand what they wanted.

During the late nineteenth century, these artistic movements not only affected the way art was depicted, but also represented a shift in power. The common people were now able to demand what they wanted, and began to unite together for equality. These works of art represented how the economic elite, such as kings and social elite were not longer in total control, but now sharing their power with the common people.

May 18, 2011 Free Response Question

Contrast Mazzini and Garibaldi's revolutionary views with those of revolutionaries in France.

During the period of Italian unification, revolutionaries in Italy differed from the revolution that occurred in France. The French people at the time wanted justice for their country, and an entire revamped system of government, through means of overthrowing the current system and those in power, while the Italians were striving for unification, with no true enemy involved in their revolution.

The time of the Italian unification was headed by two major players, Mazzini and his follower, Garibaldi, but also included Cavour, the Prime minister for Piedmont-Sardinia, speaking on behalf of its king. Mazzini and Garibaldi were centered in Southern Italy, while Cavour was in the north. At this time, Italy was a separated people, with Piedmont-Sardinia in the north, the Papal States below them, and the Kingdom of Naples in the south, below them. Mazzini began a movement for Italian unification, one which garnered a large following in Southern Italy. This did not go well with Cavour, who began to shut down this movement. Years later, after Mazzini had passed, Cavour began to rethink Italian unification, and asked Garibaldi for help. He did this because he now viewed this unification as a benefit to Piedmont-Sardinia. He asked him to rally up support for uniting southern and northern Italy together, excluding the Papal States, as they were ruled by the Pope at the moment. This movement prevailed, as the revolutionaries did not want persecution or war, but rather rights, such as voting. This differed with other revolution that had and were happening in Europe.

During the French Revolution, the people of France revolted for far different reasons than their Italian neighbors. The French people were being ruled unjustly, and under an autocratic rule, having tax after tax levied upon them. The current governmental system at place in France was corrupt, with the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Taxes were never put on those most wealthy, with the burden of all of France’s debt going on the poor of the country. This grew to be too much for the French people, who began to openly rebel against their leader, and having a king in general. These Frenchmen were fueled by angst from the wrongdoings done to them over the years under rule of a king. The people then came together, and rebelled against their king, changing France for good.

These two revolutions that occurred are strikingly different in shape, reason, and outcome. The Italian revolution was two sides coming together; to unite into one singular power, while the French Revolution was rather a revolt against their king, demanding a change, for the better. The Italian people were fueled by promises of a better Italy, and better lives, similar to the French, but the French people were not adding to their domain. The French nation would remain the French nation, while the Italians would create a unified power that they have never experienced. They key difference for Italy was that there was no “enemy” in their revolution, but rather just promises of what could become of Italy if they unified. The French people were fighting for their beliefs, demanding their new system of government.

Both of these revolutions occurred to change two nations from being torn apart, separated, and desolate areas, to national powers that have remained to this day. Through both of these different means and thoughts of revolution these nations unified in a new form, allowing for more justice to come to these people, though not immediately and not without struggle. The French people were striving for justice from their tyrannical and unjust ruler while the Italians were attempting to unify themselves with their fellow Italians, who had become separated.

3.14 Free Response Essay

To what extent did Romanticism challenge Enlightenment views of human beings and the natural world and how did this challenge illustrate changes between the Enlightenment and Romantic views of the relationship between God and the individual?

The Romantic period that occurred was a spark that changed the way human thought is processed, and has rippled down into the current era, affecting the way things are looked at today. The Romantic period created a view that separated humans from God, no longer requiring the need for a higher deity. This change allowed humans to deviate from societies rules, with no threat of a punishment from a higher power, unlocking past potential that was deemed sacrilegious prior to this.

During the Enlightenment period, humans began to rationalize the way the world was, with a strong affiliation with mathematics and sciences. This period of thinkers looked at the world from a scientific and analyzed viewpoint. When the Romantic period came around, people began to think in a different variation, specifically illustrated through the artists and poets and musicians of the time. This movement was a revolt against the creations of norms for society, and the coherent thought put into nature, rather than abstract and new ideas. These people were much more free-minded, not tied down by past moral laws or beliefs, but rather separated themselves from them. This was a revolt against classical order. The Romantic period focused more on human emotion, instead of intellect, with artists of all variations expressing their emotions through their work.

One specific aspect of the many portions of the Romantic period is the newly embraced view on God. These thinkers believed that with the advancement of society, God was no longer necessary in human’s lives. Religion was grouped together with the other old-world ideas and viewed as obsolete by these thinkers, and left behind by them. They thought that if they separated themselves from God, they were no longer held back by laws that were associated with religion. This new outlook on life allowed them to create masterpieces that would not have been possible without this movement and separation from religion. Instead of looking towards God for inspiration for works, people now looked into themselves, allowing for pure inspiration to create their works, ranging from paintings to poems, to symphonies, and so on. Without the belief in an afterlife, these people would want to be remembered, and their way of doing so was to create works of art that would be cherished through generations, still alive once they were no longer here.

This entire movement can be seen as a new-age group of thinkers revolting against past ideas and trains of thought, replacing them with their own variations of such They removed the rational and planned-out way of looking at things and changed it one more focused on emotion and feeling, a person’s true self. They accused the Enlightenment thinkers as being illogical themselves by not involving human emotion in their works.

This Romanticism movement away from Enlightenment thought was a key factor to the change in the way of thought that has been passed down since that time. These thinkers dared to rebel against prior thought, and succeeded. They separated themselves from those in the past, creating a new sense and order, one that not only moved away from God, but moved away from all things they viewed as obsolete. In doing this, the Romantics released an entire new type of thought to humans, one that was blocked off before.

Outline for Term Paper

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yI7IHI_O7BA8vj_F8-2iI9NbSVvqO3DV7PQ55TZ6Kwc/edit?hl=en&authkey=CKbCyYYO

Industrial Revolution and Nationalism Free Response Essay

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

The Industrial Revolution was a major factor in the rise and popularity of liberal and philosophies in European society. This resulted in a movement of people to cities forcing cooperation by the people, now having to depend on each other, to express their ideas politically for now they no longer were isolated farmers, but now city-dwellers who had constant contact with others on a daily basis. At the same time, German and Greek people were fighting and striving for independence from foreign nations, which was credited to, partly, the Industrial Revolution. Without the Industrial Revolution, these changes would not have occurred, and these movements of people and movements of ideas would not have affected Europe.

During the 18^th and 19^th century when the industrial revolution occurred, former farms that required many people to work on were now beginning to become more efficient, and require less workers to farm the land. This resulted in a mass of farmers losing their jobs, and moving to cities to find a new profession. When these large flocks of workers immigrated to the cities, many problems ensued, such as hygiene, workers right, the disparity in wealth, and much more. Because of this, these people now realized that they must involve themselves into political affairs so that their problems and requests may be answered or acknowledged. Prior to this, these people did not require much involvement from government, living as farmers, and being self sufficient. Now, with the movement into cities, commerce grew, and required regulation, along with work laws to protect their own people.

At the same time that this was occurring, the Germans are being overlooked, and used, without their consent by other nations. The German people are not represented, and are without power for much of this time, resulting in their minimal involvement in world affairs. This leads to a German sense of nationalism, which is played out in the German middle class. This nationalism is fueled by the fact that for years the Germans have been looked over, and mistreated, with no nation inquiring about the German people as to what they do, deciding their future for them. One specific nation that was controlling German affairs was the Austrian people, which did not set well for the Germans. The Prussians, on the other hand, were for a united German state, one which the Austrians did not want. This resulted in a war over German independence, one which resulted in Germany regaining its independence. This all was fuelled by its past, the other nations negligence of its existence. This fire inside the German people would eventually lead them to demand a position of prominence in European and world politics, but this did not occur until slightly pas these times.

Meanwhile, as this is occurring, the Greek citizens were under Turkish occupation and rule. The Turkish people had never been on good terms with Eastern Europe, involving numerous battles between Eastern and Western Europe. England, France, and Russia all were for Greek becoming an independent nation. Once they fight for Greece to become and independent nation, Russia begins to have a large influence within Greek borders. This results in the Greek people

All of these happenings occurring at the same time in Europe resulted in an uneasy time for the area, one that was going through many changes, economically, politically, and technologically. Without the Industrial Revolution, these changes may have not occurred, resulting in a far different looking Europe, and rest of the world.

Term Paper Thesis

The Soviet Union was forced to create the KGB, the secret police and intelligence agency, and spy on and suppress the Russian citizens through legal and illegal means that may seem inhumane at time, so that they could keep order, the nation stable, and maintain the position of Soviet Union leaders over the Russian citizens below them.

Term Paper Ideas

I would like to either do my paper on Russian espionage during the Cold War, or the scientific gains and ideas from the scientific revolution at use in todays world.

Comparison Between French and Egyptian Revolution

1.

Louis XVI	Mubarak
Was an absolute ruler	Was a dictator
Came into power because Louis XV died	Came into power because Anwar El Sadat died.
Ruled France for 17 years	Ruled Egypt for 30 years
Was executed by the French	Was forced to leave office.

2. 2. In the French Revolution, many of the people were revolting because the French economy was in shambles. To attempt to solve this debt, heavy taxes on the poor, which did not sit well with the people, who already had little money, and it being taken away, and the upper class was keeping their money, even having their taxes cut.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/cahier.htm

In the Egyptian Revolution, the people were trying to free themselves from years of oppression from a corrupt and cruel leader, who was effectively a dictator. Mubarak would not let the people express themselves, to protest, allow others to run against him for his office, and many other things to quell the masses.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201112523026521335.html

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/egypt

3. 3. In the French Revolution, women were involved partly, having their own march on Versailles, and inspiring other women that they matter and can affect the world.

In the Egyptian Revolution women were also involved with the men in the protesting, taking to the streets along with the men.

4. 4. Now that Egypt has overthrown their previous ruler, many are being cautious that this fragile situation does not make a turn for the worse, with the people on edge; a single spark could set the country afire. After the French had taken down their leader, there were worries that they would enter the same state, with another absolute ruler, similar to Egypt. Many nations are also worrying that Egypt’s new ruler will not go well with its Israeli relations, which has become a problem in the area. This is similar to the French as their neighbors were worried that this new volatile government could begin to harm them.

5. 5. During the Egyptian revolution, the people expressed themselves through conventional methods like marching and protesting, but also adapted to current technologies and communicated in ways such as Facebook and Twitter, to organize over the internet.

6. 6. The current Egyptian revolution has been violent, with deaths numbering around 300, so as the protestors are not centered on a violent protest, there have still been deaths.

7. 7. The people in Egypt are now rejoicing that they have successfully removed Mubarak, and are celebrating their victory. They are hoping that with all their work, Egypt can become a great nation and this work will not be put to waste.

8. 8. Now that the Egyptians have successfully removed their leader, they must make sure to not stop in their movement to change Egypt, for many there are many possible outcomes to this situation. If the Egyptians do not install a powerful and leader who has their best thoughts in mind, they could fall into worse conditions than before Mubarak, but just as easily a successful leader could take them into prominence in the world. Egypt is in a risky time at the moment, with no one knowing what will come out of it, and the only choice being to wait and see what unfolds.

Page 134 - 136 Questions

I got a 15/20

Sorry for posting late, I had and internet problem, and am on an off mod.

The French Revolution DBQ

The French Revolution presented a time where France was in disarray, and was forced to make tough and difficult choices in a time of war. French citizens were not all whole heartily with their country, and did not go along with all of its demands and ideas. Then France entered a time known as the terror, wherein they executed all those who did not agree with their ideas, or they believed were against their nation. Even though this Terror did result in many innocent French citizens being executed, it was a choice that France had to make in a tough situation.

At this time, France was in many of troubles, including an economical collapse, a full fledged revolution, questionable leadership, famine, and much more. The French leaders needed to unite this nation that was beginning to take sides in a all out civil war. If the people did rebel, they believed they would lose their beloved France, and needed to send a message to those against them. These executions were not only used to thin out those against the French, but also to instill fear into those who have not yet been captured or killed (Doc. 5). They wanted to make the people see what would happen to those who went against them, setting an example (Doc. 8). However, this did not always work, as when one person is killed, those close to him may actually become inspired now to go rise up also, in a way redeeming those who have died (Doc. 6).

These executions that were performed had a high number of similar classes that were killed, but all were still involved. In Paris, the largest number of those deaths were the nobles and the upper class, being so that their was much more wealth in Paris. However, outside of Paris, a large majority of those killed were working class and peasants, showing how those who were typically unimportant in French life were now making a stand, and demanding their rights, instead of their previous low place in society. These people were also heavily effected by the economy, because when it was diminishing, taxes were not put onto the wealthy, but exempt, and left upon the laps of the poor to pay. A large number of those who were tried, were all tried of similar crimes, hostile acts against the state (Doc. 3). This was the French way of classifying those they killed who opposed their regime's way of doing things. And when these killing occurred, they occurred in large numbers in similar areas (Doc. 1).

Now as those involved in the executions may have seen this necessary, to others it seems to be barbaric. People were going around killing their own countrymen, simply because they differed in opinion. Some viewed those who were executed as patriots, and some viewed them as traitors, but it all depends on the aspect and knowledge of what was happening at the time. The French citizens believed it was necessary for them to stand up against what was happening, even dieing for it, but the French government was forced to make a tough decision, that ultimately decided what would happen to France and define its reign into the future.

Candide Essay Outline

Thesis: The optimistic view that Pangloss believes in is a more pleasant and favorable view on life, however, it is not realistic or rational, compared to Martin's pessimistic view which is much more logical and not based on religious faith or belief.

I. Even though Pangloss's view on life is more pleasant and likable, it is too good to be true, and is also based upon his religious views also, which cannot be relied upon.

A. Pangloss believes that this world is the best possible world, and therefore everything that happens is the best. Whenever a something dreadful happens in the story, Pangloss simply relies on his belief that something worse could have happened.

B. Pangloss believes in this philosophy only because he believes that it matches with his religious faith, and holds to it no matter the situation.

C. The way that Pangloss supports his view to certain points can almost be seen as pure ignorance at times, completely denying truths, and just believing in his own view.

II. Martin represents the opposite view of Pangloss, and of Voltaire also, a view based more on logic and reasoning, rather that faith.

A. Martin is more of a realist, with a view that is much more closely to the way the world works, however, it is still not as pleasant as Pangloss's.

B. Whenever a situation where Pangloss's view is presented, Martin is quick to retort it, such as when a thief's boat sinks, that the passengers were doomed also.

C. Martin tries to stay unbiased in his views, and is also more knowledgeable than the others in the story, giving his views much more validity.

III. Candide is presented both of these views in this story, and is strong in believing in Pangloss's ideals, but eventually he begins to doubt them.

A. Candide has been exposed to Pangloss's beliefs throughout his life, and even after they are separated, he remembers this view, and applies it to the situations he is in.

B. After Candide has been exposed to the many horrors in his life, he is no longer sure that Pangloss's view is the correct view, specifically when he encounters the slave with the amputated leg.

C. Even at the end of the novel, the result is not favorable, with Candide losing all of his money, Cunegonde is now ugly, and things are worse than the were at the beginning, with much more favorable outcomes that could have resulted.

Midterm Exam Questions

Free Response Essay Number 3

Outline

I. The New world that was presented to Europe was not only a source of prosperity and wealth, but also had severe negative effects, even toppling nations.

II. Spain was a huge player in the new world.

a. Spain committed itself to exploring new world

b. They became a major factor amongst the land

c. They led conquests on the native people

d. These conquests led to them obtaining many resources, specifically gross amounts of gold

e. This new gold overflowed their economy, lowering its cost

f. This led to the collapse of their economy

III. The New world needed workers

a. The Europeans began to send slaves into the Americas for work

b. This led to many new people arriving in the Americas

c. The new world then became more powerful

d. The more powerful the new world, the more the Europeans received

IV. European nations all wanted the new land

a. This led to disputes over who owned the land

b. This was already an area prone to conflict

Essay

During the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, a vast new world of opportunity was assimilated into the modern world of Europe. This allowed for more trade, more resources, and more conquest for European states to involve themselves in. However, this large increase in resources did not only aid some nations, but also toppled others.

During these years, many explorers were set out to exploit this new land, many of which were Spanish explorers. This led to a large amount of this new land falling under Spain’s jurisdiction, with an influx of resources to come along with it. Spain devoted much of its time to the new world, believing that it would only better them, not realizing the consequences of their actions. Spain eventually toppled the major powers of the new world, becoming the dominant force in many areas. Once Spain had begun to pull in their plunders from the conquests, a gross amount of gold came into their possession. This gold, a once rare and precious material, had now become much more common, drastically lowering its price. This huge shake-up in price of gold shocked Spain, and eventually led to a collapse of their economy.

Spain was not the only nation of interest during these times, with many others becoming more involved in the new world, changing the face of European and global trade. The new world required workers to continue its now flourishing economy, which benefitted the European countries. The Europeans then began the slave trade, as it is known today, shipping Africans who were sold into slavery to the Americas. This led to the Americas becoming more powerful, which came into play later in history. At the time, the more power that the new world obtained, the more Europe was able to benefit, whether through goods, or food, or trade. Europe was now becoming a more colonialism-centered power, with the influx of new areas that they could overcome, and reap their goods.

With these new areas that were under no control at the time, many European countries rushed to the scene to be the first the claim the land. This led to quarrels between nations fighting over who owned what land, or who got their first. This created tension between the nations, in an already unstable area prone to conflict. Eventually, the nations began to settle, but not always peacefully. The Church was also brought in to settle the dispute, creating the Treaty of Tordesillas to settle the dispute.

The sixteenth century was an eventful time for European exploration, opening up a vast new world for them to explore. This created a new level to the economies of European, having a large effect. This effect, however, was not only a positive one, while it did bolster some economies, it also led to the demise of others.

Free Response Essay Number 2

Outline

I. The rise of witchcraft persecution in the 16^th and 17^th century can be accredited to the Catholic Church’s involvement and the times view on women, and its decline can be credited to the Reformation and the movement away from the Catholic Church

II. Witchcraft persecutions experienced an increase in this time

a. The Catholic Church tried to link witchcraft and Satanism together

b. They did this, and encouraged persecution of the witches.

c. Women were also more highly persecuted

d. They believed them to be weaker than man, and more susceptible to corruption

III. Witchcraft persecutions now began to decline

a. The Reformation came about

b. This encouraged thinking about faith, rather than blindly following it

c. People realized they did not need to kill witches

d. The people also wanted to move away from the Catholic Church

e. They did not want to do the persecutions, which were viewed as Catholic inspired events.

Essay

Witchcraft is today seen as a myth, but during the sixteenth and seventeenth century in England, it was widely practiced and also persecuted. This led to much controversy, death, and demise throughout Europe, not all justified. The time that these persecutions rose can be credited to the Catholic Church’s involvement and its condescending view on women, and its decline that came soon after can be attributed to the Reformation and a desire to move away from the Catholic Church.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, witchcraft was commonly practiced and also not too outlandish for the times. However, the Catholic Church viewed it as a serious issue, and one the wanted to do away with. The Catholic Church put much effort into linking witchcraft with Satan, and Satan worship, condemning the act and trying to unite the people against witchcraft. This allowed the Church to justify their persecution of the witches without being viewed as corrupt or evil. The Church did not want its people to believe in witchcraft, because it believed that it was contrary to their faith. This would lead to people going against the church, something that they wanted to avoid. Another key aspect of why this rise occurred in witchcraft persecution was the view on women. Women were believed to be the weaker sex, and more susceptible to Satan, which led to many more women being persecuted than men.

With the rise in persecution of witchcraft, eventually their must be a decline, and there was. This decline can be accredited to the Reformation and its intellectuality and effect on people. The Reformation encouraged people to not blindly follow their faith, but rather think about what they are doing. This resulted in seeing the error in their ways of blindly killing innocents for their belief that they were devil worshippers, without any logical proof available. This new view on religion was not the only reason for decline of persecution in this time, the people also wanted to move away from the Catholic Church and its practices. The persecution of witches was believed to be strictly a Catholic idea, and once the people no longer wished to be associated with the Church, they decided to cease what they were doing. With this occurrence, their became a stoppage of persecution and less involvement in witchcraft.

In today’s world, witchcraft may be written off as a fool’s idea, but in these times it was a very serious practice and involvement. This involvement led to much death and turmoil, a dark time for Europe. These persecutions rose in number due to the fact that Catholic Church encouraged said persecutions and the negligible view on women, and decreased because of the Reformation and separation from the Catholic Church.

DBQ

Outline

I. I. Pilgrimage of Grace

a. This was the English people wanting to have England return to Catholicism

II. These people wanted King Henry VIII to revert his religious changes

a. They thought that England was better religious

b. They wanted to be able to practice their faith

III. Henry had followers on his side also, but still those against him.

a. Thomas Cromwell was with Henry

b. People like Henry, not Thomas Cromwell

c. Henry weakened Parliament

d. Henry did not change England back

IV. This shows how King Henry was a corrupt and absolute ruler

a. Henry wanted power

b. He did what he needed to get power

c. Henry eventually pardoned the protestors.

Essay

The Pilgrimage of Grace was a protest by the English people against King Henry VIII’s movement away from the Catholic Church and creation of the Anglican Church. This resulted in many punishments for Catholics, including land removal, arrests, confiscations, and much more. The Pilgrimage was done to show the resentment for King Henry and their desire to return to their old ways. However, this did not work to revert England, and did not help their cause. This event illustrates how King Henry VIII was able to keep power whilst also being an absolute, corrupt ruler, and how he showed no sympathy for those below him, even allowing them to be assaulted by enemies (Doc. 2).

The Pilgrimage was a protest centered in the middle of the British Isles, consisting of various people of different backgrounds all uniting to prove their point: to bring Catholicism back. These people did this march not to gain for them, but for God (Doc. 1). These people were doing this because they simply believed in their faith and faith alone. These people also want the times again where they could seek refuge in the church, having a home for those needing it, food for the hungry (Doc. 11). They believed that the best England was a united, Catholic England. These people were heavily involved in the cause, singing in the streets their songs about the new England (Doc. 4). With those who were involved in the movement, many of the followers seem to be commoners, people without high standing positions, but still petitioned for what they desired (Doc. 10). It was said that the commoners believed that what they were doing was treason, and that they could be punished for such actions (Doc. 8). If these people were aware of these consequences, their numbers may have vastly decreased.

Now, with these opponents to Henry’s rule, there were also those who favored his rule. Out of Henry’s supporters, most notably, was Thomas Cromwell. He believed that England should stay how it is, because not all men can rule, only few, and the people must accept that (Doc. 7). Henry was not always viewed as the enemy to the protesters, some praising him. Many of the protesters called for the heads of Henry’s followers, such as Cromwell, Wycilffe, and others (Doc. 5). During these changes, Henry had also diluted the affect of Parliament on England, “little more than a council of the King’s appointees.” (Doc. 6). The former Parliament members wanted power to return to the people, where they believed it truly belonged, but Henry would not willingly give up so much power. This stubbornness eventually was proven to stay true, without the change in religion requested by the protestors.

During this entire event, Henry VIII was able to keep his grip on England. If he wanted to change the religion of England, he could, if he wanted to divorce his wife, he could. Henry was a power hungry man who was solely interested in his own well being. If there was a force in Henry’s way, restricting his power, he would do whatever it takes to demolish it. This pilgrimage was not seen as a large problem to Henry, who even granted that the rebels would be cleared of their charges of treason if they renounced their ways, and submitted to his rule (Doc. 9). This illustrates the ego-centric views that Henry possessed, simply offering their charges to be dropped if they submitted to him, strengthening his power, which is all Henry wanted to begin with, power. Henry dissolved the only political force blocking his power, parliament, and was still able to keep his nation afloat.

The Pilgrimage of Grace was a movement that eventually did prove to fail to revert England to its Catholic ways. This movement was spearheaded by the commoners who were the bulk of the protestors. They believed that they could sway King Henry’s mind, but were proven wrong. This protest helps to illustrate how even though King Henry was subject to his people revolting against him, he was still able to keep his power, and remain an absolute ruler of England.

DBQ Essay - January 14, 2011

In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the sciences were under heavy constraint from social factors, political factors, and religious factors. This time is known for its magnificent scientific minds that were present, but where restricted to what they could have achieved based on current laws of the time, even having to ask permission to further their research at times (Doc. 1). If these scientists were present in the current day and age, without the restrictions of their time, they would have been able to achieve so much more, and have had an even greater impact on the world.

During these times in Europe, many restrictions were on the sciences and what could and what could not be researched, done, or experimented upon. Many of these restrictions originated from the Church and their influence upon the world. The Church had very specified, and firm beliefs in varying aspects of science, including species origination, astronomy, and much more. At the same time, the Church was also a key player in the politics and power of Europe, which in turn allowed them to set guidelines to scientists across their reign, restricting numerous people. Many people disagreed with the Church's ideas, and pleaded with them to open up their eyes, but they did not (Doc. 2). If the Church had not obtained such power and control, such as in todays world, then they would not have been able to stop these scientific advancements and research as they did so effectively. Granted, the Church is still a major player in the complex global political scheme of today, it no longer is able to constrict scientific minds as it once could.

One of the most commonly mentioned European astronomers, among other professions, was Galileo Galilee. Galileo was a man who thoroughly researched a heliocentric world, which was at constant conflict with the current times beliefs. At this time, the Church believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe, with the sun and other entities rotating around it. This was a firm belief of the church, one which they were not lenient with, and wanted Galileo to abide to (Doc. 3) The Church was a strong figure in Galileo's time, tightly linked with many powerful leaders and countries. If the Church's ideas where questioned, then the people would begin to question other aspects of them, resulting in a loss of power that they would not allow. All of these powerful people were interested in what Galileo was doing, and what he discovered, and encouraged it, as long as it did not hinder their power (Doc. 7). Now, back to the present, their are still laws restricting certain fields of science, but they are much less controlling, allowing for more work to be done by scientific minds. Galileo could not research his ideas on astronomy as much as he wished, due to the fact that he was given barriers that he could not fully overcome. If he was present in the scientific world of today, he would have been able to further his scientific mind so much further, only benefiting the world with his ideas.

Galileo was not the only scientist who was restricted by his time, nor the last. A large group of scientific minds that were available in this time were all excluded, because they were women. In this time women were effectively second hand citizens, and were not able to participate in the scientific field. These men simply disregarded the entire female gender (Doc. 9) It was socially acceptable in this time to leave women out of nearly all things that were considered "man's work", which included the sciences. In today's world, women are accepted in most modern societies as equals, but not entirely. However, today they have the potential to participate and cooperate to better this world with their scientific minds that were once repressed in the past due to conflicting powers, or religious ideals. If all humankind were able to accept one another, and work together bettering the world, they could achieve so much more (Doc. 6)

It has been shown that many factors had affected scientists in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, including political, religious, and social factors. These people were at constant disadvantages due to the beliefs at the time of what is right and what is wrong, and the blindness to what needed to be changed in the world. If these scientists had not been bound to these laws and beliefs of the time, their potential to invent, research, and discover would have grossly increased, bettering the world through it.

Practice Free Response Essay - Day 1

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

Protestantism was a faith that came about due to a man named Martin Luther. Luther was a Catholic monk who disagreed with Church ideas, and stated his ideas throughly to the Church. Without Martin Luther, not only would the world of today lack one major religious denomination, but it's view and handling of religion would be entirely different.

In the times of Luther's life, the Catholic Church was constantly involved in many affairs, some that today may be seen as obscene for a religious organization to be involved in. Simply put, the Catholic Church and its leaders were corrupt, even selling condolences, which were what they viewed as a monetary exchange, in return for forgiving sins. and it seemed like that would not change. Luther was a firsthand witness to this, and believed that this should change, and soon thereafter came out with his 95 Thesis. In this thesis, Luther effectively disagreed with the three key teachings of the Catholic Church: Salvation by faith alone, that the bible was the only source of Church authority, and most importantly, a change, or demolition, to the Church hierarchy. With this radical change, eventually a new church denomination was formed, Protestantism. In this church, their would be no hierarchy of Bishops, or Popes, or priests, but instead equal people. This obviously was a problem with the Catholic Church, as many high ranking officials were involved, effectively playing a major part in world politics. If Luther's laws were followed, the Church would lose all of this power, which they would not give up. This led to quarrel between the two, with the Church wanting Luther to adhere to there laws, and vice versa.

Protestantism eventually began to popularize, especially with the middle-class people, who viewed is as a way to live with more freedom. Protestantism allowed a more "common people" friendly religion, giving them more power and free will. It opened their eyes to the corruption of many who were involved in the Catholic Church, which again the Church did not want people to know. Through Martin Luther, the common people also were able to more throughly understand the teachings of the bible, and point out the areas that were not in the bible, that he did not believe to be true. The Church had began to adapt practices that were not in scripture, yet they believed to be important to their religion, such as the condolences.

This new religion eventually began to stir a movement that the Church did not have to be involved with the state, and that they could function separately, without a church hierarchy. This obviously created problems, with people wanting this separation, and others desperately trying to keep hold of their power. They wanted to rid themselves of this believed holy people, that were proven to be corrupt and problematic. This eventually led the Catholic Church to change some of their ways even, not entirely, but to fix some of the flaws that were seen within their faith.

Protestantism is to this day a commonly practiced religion in parts of the world, all due to one mans's movement against the Church. This movement helped to spark a new wave of ideas and views on the way not only religion worked, but also government and politics. If Martin Luther had never been so bold, be would have never changed the world to the way it is today.

Practice Theses

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

European monarchs had much control of the arts and the sciences, and exploited this power to turn it in favor of themselves, by constricting what could and could not be created, what could be told or not told, not based on the validity or the beauty of the work, but rather on how it would effect their power and reign.