hDiscuss the ways that the 17th century Dutch Republic differed from its neighbors, telling how these differences contributed to the country's success.
The Dutch republic provides a unique example of government in its time. Most governments around the 17th century were monarchies. Their unique system was a provincial government with 7 provinces instead of one ruler. This prevented any one man from being too powerful. Each of the representatives of the provinces could only act on behalf of his province. The Dutch republic found itself to be more successful than most of its contemporaries because of its wealthy middle class, form of government, and its tolerance of many foreign ways.
The power and wealth of the Dutch Republic gathered in the middle class, and the merchants, differing from most governments, where the power is in the hands of the king, the nobles, or some sort of parliament. The Dutch currency, the florin, was the European form of currency because of the Dutch's vast wealth. The Dutch's vast wealth caused it to be a supreme naval power, with over 10,000 ships in its control. Other attributes of the Dutch wealth are their vast knowledge of agriculture, and high class paintings.
The form of government employed by the Dutch during this time frame was built to have a fair government, and to prevent a tyrant from ruling, and destroying the republic. The Dutch republic was divided up into 7 territories known as provinces, lead by a stadholder. There was no rank above it. There was a house known as the House of Orange, but they could only act on behalf of the people. In wartime, the stadholder was the most powerful person in the republic, but peacetime, a burgher took control of all of the economic portions of the government. There was one attempt in 1795 to break up the republic, but it was quickly pounced on, and the government remained the same.
The Protestant reformation brought many troubles to the Dutch Republic. Joseph Arminius taught his own doctrine, which edited the belief of predestination, believed by the Dutch Calvinists. This challenge was quickly over when the Dutch Republic granted religious freedom, and did not take it back. Most of Europe was enveloped in religious wars. Soon after religious freedom was granted, many Protestants from other countries migrated towards the Dutch Republic in hopes of a better life. The culture of the Dutch was enriched by all of these minorities entering the borders, and the economy was stronger than ever.
The Dutch were largely successful where other countries were not. They had a provincial government, avoiding tyrants. The wealth was in the hands of the many, rather than the few. They were not plagued by religious wars, like almost every other European country, and granted religious freedom, giving a bigger working class to its economy.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Make up Assignment
In your opinion, was Oliver Cromwell the right person to take over England after the death of Charles I?
Oliver Cromwell took over control in England with the death of Charles I. The English government was changed over the years of his reign more than ever. He changed it from a monarchy, to a republic, and then what can be considered another monarchy. Although Oliver Cromwell entered his reign with good intentions, he was too indecisive, and power hungry to be an effective ruler of England.
Before Cromwell took over in England, England was ruled by an absolute monarch, Charles I. Charles disbanded parliament, and took England into civil war, against the parliament. Both sides lost considerable amounts of money, and men. Charles was finally defeated, and was forced to surrender. He was put on trial after the first civil war, and executed, believing until the end that he was the king by God's will. Cromwell took over afterward and made England a republic.
Upon returning to England, Cromwell did not do things differently than Charles. He dissolved the newly established parliament that put Charles to death. He said that HE was the true parliament, and that they were not any kind of parliament. He established a new parliament supposed to do the job that Cromwell wanted, but he felt that it did not do its job, so he dissolved it the same year he created it.
He established a protectorate, which gave the power to the few high ranking officials. It was a handful of men hand picked by Cromwell, lord Protector. He ran things just like a monarchy. The Protectors made decisions, the people were upset about it. Cromwell was offered the crown, but refused. He was a king, without the title. Finally, the people were so upset, they had Cromwell tried, and executed.
Cromwell was not the right person for the job. He dissolved his own parliaments, and brought England back to where it was after he changed it for the better. He was too indecisive, he never could really decide what it was that he wanted for England. He kept changing it, then changing it back. He installed three different types of parliament, executed a king, and crossed the line with the entire country of England.
Oliver Cromwell took over control in England with the death of Charles I. The English government was changed over the years of his reign more than ever. He changed it from a monarchy, to a republic, and then what can be considered another monarchy. Although Oliver Cromwell entered his reign with good intentions, he was too indecisive, and power hungry to be an effective ruler of England.
Before Cromwell took over in England, England was ruled by an absolute monarch, Charles I. Charles disbanded parliament, and took England into civil war, against the parliament. Both sides lost considerable amounts of money, and men. Charles was finally defeated, and was forced to surrender. He was put on trial after the first civil war, and executed, believing until the end that he was the king by God's will. Cromwell took over afterward and made England a republic.
Upon returning to England, Cromwell did not do things differently than Charles. He dissolved the newly established parliament that put Charles to death. He said that HE was the true parliament, and that they were not any kind of parliament. He established a new parliament supposed to do the job that Cromwell wanted, but he felt that it did not do its job, so he dissolved it the same year he created it.
He established a protectorate, which gave the power to the few high ranking officials. It was a handful of men hand picked by Cromwell, lord Protector. He ran things just like a monarchy. The Protectors made decisions, the people were upset about it. Cromwell was offered the crown, but refused. He was a king, without the title. Finally, the people were so upset, they had Cromwell tried, and executed.
Cromwell was not the right person for the job. He dissolved his own parliaments, and brought England back to where it was after he changed it for the better. He was too indecisive, he never could really decide what it was that he wanted for England. He kept changing it, then changing it back. He installed three different types of parliament, executed a king, and crossed the line with the entire country of England.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Free Response Practice Essay
Explain how the trials and tribulations of Galileo pointed towards the future of Europe, while at the same time, demonstrated the realities of his own time.
The trials of Galileo took place during a time of turmoil between the Church and the secular world. Italy was experiencing a Renaissance and people were now more focused on secular things rather than religious, secular meaning worldly, and non-religious. Galileo was one of the prime free-thinkers, and regarded by some as the father of modern science. His discoveries lead to the scientific revolution. The Church was against most of his discoveries, as they contradicted many of the Churches most hallowed traditions. Galileo's trials were a symbol of the times Europe was experiencing, where modern science was beginning to form, and the original Church had its control start to slip from its grasp.
Galileo's trial took place in the middle of the Reformation. In the Reformation, people were starting to question the beliefs of the Church instead of just follow its laws without question. Before the Renaissance, faith was the only thing that most people had, but with the Renaissance, people's sole purpose was not longer just to get into heaven. People became more secular. The Church also was losing some it its longest traditions because of modern science. Galileo backed up the ideas of Copernicus, that the Sun was the center of the universe. The Church damned these ideas, saying that Christian belief states that the Earth is the center. However, no where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the center.
Europe was torn between moving with the times, and keeping with its Church tradition during the time of Galileo. Many were focused on art, and inventions, while the clergy still kept its hold on things. It used to be that the clergy had the run of the law, now it was the secular world. Modern science was beginning to take its form. The Church was highly against the scientists because they were under the impression that there is no place in the world for science and religion to coexist peacefully. Scientists were often put on trial, just like Galileo, for their ideas that the Church found a "problem" with.
Galileo's trials moved Europe towards the future. Modern science began with Galileo. Some call him the father of modern science. Galileo discovered Jupiter with his new invention, the telescope. Modern science has discovered 4 planets since Galileo built his first telescope. Modern science has improved on his telescope more than Galileo could have ever imagined. He was one of the first people to practice physics. He expanded of the Heliocentric idea of Copernicus, and backed it up with enough facts that it has been proven to be correct. Most of the ideas Galileo discovered, and theorized are taught in schools today. Since Galileo's trial, the Church and science have not tried to coexist, some believe they can, but after his trial, most believed they cannot. As a result, he was excommunicated. If it was not for Galileo, we would not have modern science at all, and would still be living in a world dominated by the Church's teachings
Galileo is most likely the most important figure concerning modern science, and the battle between The Church and science. Galileo has since been acquitted, and had his full honor restored by the Church. Pope John Paul II remarked he wished that the Church had handled his trial much better. Galileo's ideas were in a sense, Europe moving forward, and the Church's argument against him, trying to cling on to the old ways, even though they were dying and on life support as it was.
The trials of Galileo took place during a time of turmoil between the Church and the secular world. Italy was experiencing a Renaissance and people were now more focused on secular things rather than religious, secular meaning worldly, and non-religious. Galileo was one of the prime free-thinkers, and regarded by some as the father of modern science. His discoveries lead to the scientific revolution. The Church was against most of his discoveries, as they contradicted many of the Churches most hallowed traditions. Galileo's trials were a symbol of the times Europe was experiencing, where modern science was beginning to form, and the original Church had its control start to slip from its grasp.
Galileo's trial took place in the middle of the Reformation. In the Reformation, people were starting to question the beliefs of the Church instead of just follow its laws without question. Before the Renaissance, faith was the only thing that most people had, but with the Renaissance, people's sole purpose was not longer just to get into heaven. People became more secular. The Church also was losing some it its longest traditions because of modern science. Galileo backed up the ideas of Copernicus, that the Sun was the center of the universe. The Church damned these ideas, saying that Christian belief states that the Earth is the center. However, no where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the center.
Europe was torn between moving with the times, and keeping with its Church tradition during the time of Galileo. Many were focused on art, and inventions, while the clergy still kept its hold on things. It used to be that the clergy had the run of the law, now it was the secular world. Modern science was beginning to take its form. The Church was highly against the scientists because they were under the impression that there is no place in the world for science and religion to coexist peacefully. Scientists were often put on trial, just like Galileo, for their ideas that the Church found a "problem" with.
Galileo's trials moved Europe towards the future. Modern science began with Galileo. Some call him the father of modern science. Galileo discovered Jupiter with his new invention, the telescope. Modern science has discovered 4 planets since Galileo built his first telescope. Modern science has improved on his telescope more than Galileo could have ever imagined. He was one of the first people to practice physics. He expanded of the Heliocentric idea of Copernicus, and backed it up with enough facts that it has been proven to be correct. Most of the ideas Galileo discovered, and theorized are taught in schools today. Since Galileo's trial, the Church and science have not tried to coexist, some believe they can, but after his trial, most believed they cannot. As a result, he was excommunicated. If it was not for Galileo, we would not have modern science at all, and would still be living in a world dominated by the Church's teachings
Galileo is most likely the most important figure concerning modern science, and the battle between The Church and science. Galileo has since been acquitted, and had his full honor restored by the Church. Pope John Paul II remarked he wished that the Church had handled his trial much better. Galileo's ideas were in a sense, Europe moving forward, and the Church's argument against him, trying to cling on to the old ways, even though they were dying and on life support as it was.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
DBQ Format Quiz 11/16
1. The scoring range of DBQs is 0-9
2. If there is no thesis, the highest score is a 4
3. If there are 12 documents, the bare minimum citations is 8
4. Bias is personal opinion on a certain issue
5. Groupings are similar documents together
6. ("Document 5")
2. If there is no thesis, the highest score is a 4
3. If there are 12 documents, the bare minimum citations is 8
4. Bias is personal opinion on a certain issue
5. Groupings are similar documents together
6. ("Document 5")
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Some of the Vocab
Roman Catholic Church- The Christian Church opposite to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Has about 1/6 of the population of the world. Largest religion today. The pope is their spiritual leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic_church
Eastern Orthodox Church- Separated from the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the great Schism. The pope excommunicated the bishop of Constantinople, but the bishop retaliated by excommunicating the pope, and the surrounding area separated from the Church. Also known as the Greek Orthodox Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
Crusades- attempts by France, England, and the Holy Roman Empire to retake the Holy Land. There were 9 Crusades, however they were unsuccessful. If there was any success, it was short lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Black Plague- One of the worst pandemics in European history, peaking around 1350. Wiped out about half of Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
Gunpowder- Invented by the Chinese, but only used in festivities until they were conquered, and the conquerors found a way to harness its power. The canon was first recorded in Europe in 1248. 1267 describes the first firecrackers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder
Medici- Powerful Renaissance family in Florence. Family of great leaders such as Giovanni de Medici, Cosimo de Medici, and Lorenzo the Magnificent. The Medici family collapsed with the formation of the United Kingdom of Italy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici
Niccolo Machiavelli- Author of the Renaissance. Famous for writing the Prince. He wrote it saying that morality should not be the basis of a rulers reign. He had hoped that the book would be a reference for Italian rulers, so that they would return to the ways of Lorenzo the Magnificent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
Christian Humanists- The belief that the Renaissance way of life is able to live collectively with the Catholic faith. Christian Humanists believed in both ways of life, uncommon at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanist
New Universities- Universities renamed, or founded in the UK. Since 1928, they have been referred to as red brick universities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_universities
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Prince
- Oliveratto da Ferma would most likely have success out of the three men today. However, his success would be at the criminal aspects of the world today. He gained his power during his life by the means of crime, and most likely would run the local mafia. Oliveratto da Ferma would have success leading the mafia because he was a skilled leader in battle when it came to taking, and laying siege to cities. The only weakness that can be seen in Oliveratto is the fact that he is too trusting. After he claimed a city for Boregio, he attended a meeting. At the meeting, he trusted Boregio would hear his points. Boregio had him strangled to death after the meeting, and was succeeded by his son after his death. Oliveratto da Ferma would place too much trust in his subordinates in the mafia, but It is not far fetched to believe that he would realize if one of his underlings would be trying to have him overthrown.
Cesare Boregio would not be very successful in todays world running a business because he consolidated his power through means of favor, gifts, and his inheritence. Boregio was known for using fear to instill loyalty in his subjects. After one of his leaders, da Ferma, had conquered a city, Boregio had him executed.
Remirro de Orca could have found some success in today's world, but his success would have been short lived. He was appointed his office by his uncle, Pope Alexander the Fourth. Remirro Da Orca restored peace very quickly in his rule, but was notoriously cruel to his subjects.
- The Prince has many allies in his claim to power. Allies of the prince include: nobles, generosity, other nations who back him, victory, the people, public opinion, amount of territory controlled, money, etc. Every ally is extremely important, but one of these supersedes the others by far. The greatest ally of any prince is victory on the field of battle. Victory on the battlefield allows the Prince to expand his territory, add subjects to his rule, increase a positive opinion of him if he is merciful, and add money to his treasure. Victory on the battlefield has granted public favor of the leaders and made powers out of leaders such as Caesar and Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered the entire Persian empire, ruled by Darius, in about 15 years. He won strictly because of key, decisive victories at Isis, and Gaugamela. Gaugamela was the final crushing blow to the Persians, their king had fled the field, left the army to be slaughtered, his treasure to the Macedonians, and his personal guard to die. Darius was assassinated before he could ever regain his honor. Alexander conquered, and had victory at every place he encountered that was not already his own. Julius Caesar gained his respect by defeating the Gauls in battle, and conquering all of their territory for Rome. After Caesar returned to Rome as a politician, others turned against him. Caesar, without victory was arrogant, victory gave him that. His own friends assassinated him. Leaders need victory to succeed, but they need to maintain their victories to keep order.
- Machiavelli states over and over that generosity is not always a good thing. Generosity has its ups and downs when you are a prince in power. Generosity is good when you are trying to vie for the crown, and gather a prince's supporters for his claim to the throne. Generosity can be a bad thing if the said Prince is in power, and trying to establish his power. Generosity is good for the nobles to gain favor when you are getting support for a claim to the throne, but generosity to the nobles is bad when you have that power because it takes one smart, vocal person to point is out, gather followers who say that the prince does all of the favors for his friends, or the nobility. The educated of the group would say that this prince was a puppet, and these angry people would rebel, and start a revolution to overthrow this prince if the favors for the nobility were so great that they could not go unnoticed. Generosity is very good to the Prince's enemies, or those who do not like him because it can gain their favor, and help this prince's image in the mind of the people. They would know that this prince respects his enemies. Generosity is frowned upon if this prince is being generous to those who also have claim to the throne that this prince is looking to claim for himself. However, as soon as this prince has the throne, they can show compassion to those who he competed against for the crown. Generosity is good overall to powerful figures when a prince is looking for power, but it is good to be generous to common people as soon as the prince has this power. Never get too optimistic though, princes must be cunning, and if they sense a hint of treachery, be ready to strike. Be generous, and ruthless at the same time. See everything as political. Never confuse morals with politics. Be generous and sly at the same time. Take a pragmatic approach to things.
- The Beatitudes state that those who are patients will be rewarded, but Machiavelli has a more pessimistic viewpoint of things related to being meek etc. The beatitudes give hope to the people who are not born into extremely rich families, who have dreams of making the big time. Machiavelli focus' too much on social orders, saying that the poor should remain poor, and that the rich must remain rich. The beatitudes encourage us, while the Prince, written by Machiavelli discourages those who read it and are not the richest person. Machiavelli can be seen to have the desire to return to the feudal system, where there are few rich nobles who run everything, and the common people work the land as serfs, with no real hope of moving up. Machiavelli says to disregard morals, and devote all of a prince's actions to personal gain, or gain for his or her country. The Beatitudes are meant to be used as guidelines to enforce morals. Machiavelli was not very sympathetic for those who are trying to advance in social class, or those who do not have powerful connections. Machiavelli is false to say that it is not likely for a stroke of luck to happen to a person with a shaky background. A prime, modern example of a such stroke of luck is Michael Oher, offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens. The Beatitudes are hope for those who have none, and are more prominent for the common person to follow, while Machiavelli is not providing such hope to those. He give hope to the rich.
- Machiavelli says you must be sly at all times, the Beatitudes say be patient. Machiavelli provides a realistic approach to things, while the Beatitudes give people false hopes that cannot be achieved. A prince should not give his subjects a false hope after all, so he must be generous, but honest at the same time. If the people have false hopes, they start to act like they know how to run things better than those who already are in charge. If the people start to question the authority of a Prince, then that Prince's power will be threatened. If so, the prince has two option, neither of which are good: he would forfeit his power, or he would put down the revolt. Both of these options are bound to hurt this prince's public opinion. Public opinion is everything when it comes to gaining control of the throne. Also it is everything when a prince have the throne, because other leaders should respect him as a leader, otherwise they will challenge this prince's authority and go to war. The Beatitudes are not good as a code of law. They may challenge the authority of this prince if most of the people believe in them. The worst thing that a prince could face is a possible rebellion. If the beatitudes were to be followed, those in power would be extremely threatened, and could lose said power. Granted, there has to be some hope for the people who have none, but princes must be careful not to give them the false hopes that the Beatitudes give to these desperate people.
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [OFFICE Aet. 25-43--1494-1512]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter VII]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter VIII]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter IX]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter XVII]. Retrieved from
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter XXI]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
The bible. (n.d.). [Exodus 20]. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NIV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)