HIST 116 Final Exam

Define the term Realpolitik and explain how it guided Cavour's policies that led to the unification of Italy. How did this (Cavour's) approach differ from that of Garibaldi and what were its long-term effects?

"realistic politics" really talking about each individual rested on the assumption that the European states were in the competitive state system. No one wants to destroy the system, but they are all jockeying for a little more power. Realpolitik emphasized that the statesman's job within the system was to make it better for his state. We're not a community; we're rivals. "how can I stick it to the other guy and get some little advantage?" They ignored the future. What's unrealistic about seeing Europe as a community? Those would be ideas that led to the World Wars. Machiavellian style: do whatever it takes. Cavour was a pracitioner of realpolitik, he believed Italy had to be united from above, under the leadership of the Bedemontese monarchy. He was really not a nationalist. He had been born in Piedmont (then in France). Garibaldi was a romantic nationalist. He believed in the fervor of the Italian people. He was a republican, and he was honest. Almost childlike in his honesty. While Cavour lied and cheated to achieve Italy unity, Garibaldi was open and romantic and sincere. Long-term effects: continued divisions in Italy. Southern Italy felt that they were being colonized by Northern Italy. There is still a very strong N-S divide. This alienation is very widespread.

Describe the objectives of Stalin between 1928 and 1941 and the extent to which he succeeded in achieving them. Why was his legacy so troubling to his successors?

1. Built a heavy industrial base; a modern iron and steel industry. When economists talk about heavy industries they mean iron, coal, steel, energy sources, etc. Stalin wanted that to make all kinds of different weapons. He wasn't interested in improving the standard of living of the Russian people; but in creating 2. Established total control over the soviet political and social system. He did this through the purges and terrorism which he unleashed on the Soviet people. Stalin took out about 50% of the communist party leadership. IT was terrible; he terrorized everyone, and it worked. He died in bed; from his point of view, it was good. It was troubling to his successors because they ruled on the basis that they had the viewprint of the future. Therefore, they were right; there was no need for another political party or opposition. Well, then why did they have a homicidal maniac for a leader? It worked because it paralyzed people. They didn't want promotions; they didn't want to be too prominent. Then, you were liable to be a victim of the purge. That's why it was a problem for its successors. They wanted to step back on Stalinism but not give up a monopoly on power

Contrast the values and institutions of Medieval Western Civilization with those of Modern Western Civilization and explain how our view of the former has changed from the Renaissance to the present.

1. Renaissance individuals saw the middle ages as backward, and identified with the classics. Today this is not true; we see the greatest advancements in Gothic architecture (e.g. Notre-Dame v. St. Chapelle), engineering and architecture. 2. Medieval Thought: Religion: churches/fortresses were the only stone buildings; they were seen as most important. The Church was the greatest expression of the attitudes and beliefs of the people. Faith: they didn't reject knowledge; they sought it in different ways. All knowledge came from God. It was acquired by either reading the Bible and official Church pronouncements or studying in order to amplify the teachings of the Church. Contradictions between reason and biblical thinking were resolved with the acceptance of biblical thinking. Scholastics: scholars who read the writings of antiquity and tried to put them into a Christian perspective. This took place in an European institution, a university; where scholars came together to develop new learning and transmit it to students. These universities were autonomous and self-governing. By 1400, there were 56 universities in Europe (many were very small; the great universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Paris were founded in the middle ages). Theology, law, medicine, and philosophy. Philosophy was anything that wasn't the other three. System of Place: Historically, economic activity was determined by either force or tradition (slavery or inheritance of position). You didn't grow up and go out and get a job. That's a modern concept. Rather, you grew up and took your place in society. Usury was a mortal sin. Buying for as little as possible, and selling for as much as possible was considered un-Christian. Princes would borrow money from Jewish, because buying money from Christians that would risk their souls. Business was limited. Most of the economy was a barter economy. Most lived in small communities that were largely self-sustaining, grouped around a noble's home. There was little transportation and communication. You needed to survive somehow, so you made sure you always had a blacksmith by hereditary means. Corporate State (modern term for medieval thing): refers to a legal structure that evolved gradually over the course of the middle ages out of the collapse of the Roman Empire. Feudalism: the granting of land by a lord to a vassal who owes his lord military service in exchange for the land to support himself. The lords owed the king military service. You could be both a lord and a vassal. This was a very decentralized system, but the only system that worked under the circumstances. These nobles had different levels of titles; they were independent (mainly because they needed to build castles to protect themselves and the peasants who farmed his land). With this, they could challenge the king. The relationship was not written down, but over the centuries became specific what the requirements were. If the king wanted more than military support, he would have to offer more. The Magna Carta was the nobility of England saying that the king was demanding more than what was required; not anything to do with democracy, although it was important. Sometimes, vassals just went to war (i.e. William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy, later also the king of England). In the 12th/13th centuries, other forms like feudalism grew up. Cities began to emerge and to grow. Rulers granted these towns and cities certain rights and privileges in exchange for certain obligations (i.e. a river town would be given the right to charge a toll to cross a bridge. A portion would go to their lord). The king was dependent upon these corporate bodies. Guilds: all economic activity was organized around guilds at this time. Wine guilds, jewelry guilds, etc. A group of artisans were given a monopoly over the production of certain goods. They controlled all of the activity in a given area over this time of production; they owed their lord a certain amount. The corporate state was a whole series of these relationships between kings and nobles and towns and guilds and universities, etc. All of these were given the right to handle all of their own affairs, with certain obligations in return. There was no concept of nationhood there. The lines might look like France and England and Spain, but they were not anything like what they are today. Primary loyalties were to the corporate body. They didn't give more than what they owed. There was not a common set of laws, a common language, and a common culture. Kings weren't trying to build their nations; they were trying to increase the reach and the power of their dynasty, in the family. "I want to increase my family business. I want to enhance the power and prestige of my family." Countries were simply bound together by legal charters. Modern Western Civilization: Secularism: an emphasis on worldly matters and activity. However, there were people who were religious. Rationalism: if you have a problem or a condition that you wish to understand, that you sit down, study, and analyze it. Think your way through, to understand things. Capitalism: we've had some alternatives appear periodically, but it has not turned out that any of them were viable alternatives. Capitalism was the defining force for the production and distribution of goods and services. Chief driving force: supply and demand. That determines what is produced, how it is produced, and what it costs. Relative Social Mobility: as much emphasis on relative as on social mobility. People are not born into a certain legal cast. (Not entirely evident until the 20th century). Political Structure (Nation-state): countries, countries that are bound together by a common culture, language, and heritage. People in a nation-state see their futures wrapped up in the experience of the nation-state.

Describe the problems and achievements of the first French republic between 1792 and 1799, explaining why the radicals consistently won the struggles of the first two years and whether or not the regime of the Committee of Public Safety constituted an early experiment in creating a socialist society. Why were the radicals not able to maintain their control after the latter date and why did the republic ultimately fail?

Achievements: the draft, the maximum, price controls, sponsorship of science, first air force, the metric system, persecution of the church, saving the revolution, hard ideological war (if you lost, you were shot), confiscate the property of nobles who had fled abroad and refused to come back; it was distributed to poor peasants (that's not really socialism, it wasn't attacking the private property, it was attacking the enemies and giving it to his friends. They weren't trying to eliminate private property). Committee of public safety; was . Montegnards and Gerundins were both republicans (what will you do to defend the republic; whatever it takes (M)).

Describe the traditional interpretations of European motives behind the late 19th century wave of imperialism. On what assumption are these interpretations based and how does Daniel Headrick critique them?

All assume that they just randomly chose this time. Headrick argues that they couldn't have expanded before that. The tropics were death traps for Europeans. They didn't have the overwhelming 'tools of empire' needed. After 1880, that balance changed massively. Now, the Europeans could just send in some soldiers. The economic interpretation: Hobson and Lenin. Hobson maintained that it was a mistaken short-sided policy of nationalism. Why do we have poverty in England are still expand overseas? Because manufacturers couldn't sell more goods in England. But there are people living in poverty; we have to figure out a way for the poor to buy more things. England needed to raise the wages of workers. Entrepreneurs didn't see that. They were used to the old model; where there was always a shortage. Lenin argued that Imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism. Marx said they would become poorer, but they are getting bigger. It was possible for business to evolve into socialism. Lenin was trying to reject that argument by saying that the capitalists know Marx was right. They are expanding capitalism to the rest of the world, brining new areas into the model to replace the exploited European worker with the exploited Native worker. Marx was still right, but he hadn't taken into account the imperialism aspect. Nationalist: JH Hayes. The states of Europe used imperialism as compensation as a sense of national weakness or vulnerability. Britain felt it didn't have friends on the continent, so it compensated by building up the empire. The French had been humiliated in 1870-1, so they sought to prove their worth by expanding. Germany needed a new generation's achievement to match the old guys' unification of the country. The problem is that the glorification of the Empire and the view of the Empire as compensation did not come about until after colonies were acquired. Only after having the colonies did they use them for propaganda. Strategic interpretation: Galleger and Robinson. Argued that the key event in the European expansion and the partition of Africa was the British acquisition of Egypt. There wasn't anything valuable in Egypt except access through the Suez Canal. The Egyptians didn't want a bunch of farmers running around acting like they were gods. British tried to bribe, faced even worse. The British had to get in totally and take over Egypt or get out by 1881 (They were afraid to get out). The British colonies were all in Eastern Africa, helped massively with trade. New work: questions all of these because it says that all of these earlier interpretations look at European motives and work on the assumption that Europe could've taken these policies and expanded any time in the 19th century. We just have to figure out Hedrick, Tools of Europe: it wasn't a question of motives, they could not have done it earlier! Technology in the 1880s made it just too easy.

Explain how Bismarck's policies to bring about the unification of Germany were a response to the domestic constitutional crisis in Prussia and how this affected the way Germany was united.

Army reforms; explain. Bismarck was able to convince the king that he could resolve the constitutional crisis by making the king the leader of German nationalism. The liberal opposition wanted a united Germany. They will recognize/give you a great deal more authority. If they can have a united nation. He used nationalism to overcome the liberal opposition to the army reforms. He wanted to make the Prussian monarchy the repository of the German nationalist movement. To make the king, William I, the man who would bring all of the German people together (or at least, a large portion, keep the Austrians out). This was his way of overcoming the constitutional crisis. The king wanted to reform and strengthen the army. He wanted to bring it more firmly under royal control. He proposed a number of reforms, one was to increase the length of service from 2-3 years. The Prussians also had a draft. The purpose of the third year was to further indoctrinate them in the values of the Prussian army and make them good soldiers of the king. The legislature of Prussia that had come about as a result of the revolutions of 1848 would not put up with this. William was a firm conservative, he acquired the nickname "prince grapeshot" after the revolutions of 1848. He put down the revolutionaries with a great deal of vigor. Bismarck told the king he could overcome this by being the leader of German nationalism. The opponents would like to see a united Germany, so let's give them that under the Prussian monarchy. It worked.

Describe the political changes which occurred during the Renaissance and their significance in the development of European political institution. What is Machiavelli's significance in these changes?

Besides Machiavelli, you find a centralization of authority. The competition between different political entities and the different city-states, the vassals/lord system. You find a consolidation of authority. There are fewer political powers; those that exist have more influence, more power. In N Europe, this is reflected in what are called the New Monarchs. Historians still use that term, but we modify it considerably. They weren't all that new. They did some different things. They tipped the balance in the favor of centralized authority. In Italy you have these struggles within the different city-states, strong rulers and signori (wealthy people, sometimes condoterri, sometimes they were merchants or bankers. The people had not elected them; the power brokers in the city would not have elected them. They had not inherited the role, they just had the biggest club around, anyone who got in the way would feel the wrath.), the use of condoterri (mercenary soldiers). This process is furthered by the need for more money to remain competitive. Therefore, you need to have money for the new style of fortifications (fat walls for the cannons). You take steps for the economic development of your country to increase your wealth.

Describe the conflicting ideologies of liberalism and conservatism that emerged after 1815 and explain how each was founded on a different perception of human nature.

CLASSICAL. Conservatism: "equal opportunity pessimists." The only way to do that is through customs and traditions. Negative view of human nature; human fallibly: leave people to their own devices, they will mess it up. There needs to be a system to prevent this. solidify the monarchy's authority and the hierarchical social order through legitimizing it. The French Revolution had undermined it. Did not believe the old order would survive completely intact (during 1820s, it became clear to everyone that the monarchy would be challenged). The monarchy guaranteed political stability, nobility were rightful leaders. Both the monarchy and the nobility needed to work together actively and effectively to influence public life, despite their past disagreements. Change had to be slow, incremental, and managed so as to strengthen rather than weaken the structures of authority. Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France became a point of reference, consistent in its view of people; all people were flawed, and all would screw up if you gave them a chance. Therefore, you had to figure out a way to curb individual freedoms. Burke's response was custom and tradition. Society continues to evolve. This is a long and tortured process. There is no such thing as human rights, just the rights that people inherit from their ancestors. In different societies, different people will have different rights. Therefore, there will be different forms of government. He did not oppose all change, but counseled deference to experience, tradition, and history. Joseph de Maistre, Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise Bonald defended absolute monarch and the Catholic Church. Monarchy, aristocracy, and the Church were the mainstays of the social and political order. A revival of religion in the 19th century among the masses also supported these ideas. Liberalism: optimistic, people are in control. Government should let people do what they want. All human beings have rights regardless of their past. the most important function of government was to protect liberties and therefore promote justice, knowledge, progress, and prosperity. Equality before the law (ending traditional privileges and the restrictive power of rank and hereditary authority). Government needed to be based on political rights and the consent of the governed. Individuals should be free to engage in economic activities without interference from the state or their community. Advocated for direct representation in government (with adequate property and public standing). Property and education were essential prerequisites for participation in politics. Torn between belief in rights and fears of political turmoil; there were many contradictions (individual liberty and vested economic interests, determination to preserve order and property, and increasingly 'scientific' theories of racial inequality). Economic activity should be unregulated. Functions of the state should be kept to a minimum. Wanted right to vote, assemble, and print political opinions without censorship (France). Englishman Bentham went further than most: believed in granting equal rights for women.

Describe the principles of Marxist thought and explain how and why it evolved into paths Marx and his followers failed to foresee. How did the rise of Marxism and working class movements contribute to the decline of classical liberalism?

Central to Marx's whole analysis is his economic determinism: economic systems determine all other characteristics of a society. The social structure, legal system, political system, etc. are all derived from the economic system. Very often, the struggle comes out over the economic system. Then he had the system of the union of opposites: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Frankly, it's a load of crap, because anything can be a thesis, antithesis, or a synthesis. From his economic determinism, Marx had an analysis of history and a prediction for the future of Western Civilization. He argued that civilizations had evolved: slavery, feudalism, capitalism (the next best thing). But capitalism had inherent weaknesses that grew because capitalism was in private hands and the result was competition between firms. The system of production was based on cooperation as people at different levels produced goods and services. The competitive system of capitalism arising from this meant that capitalists would have to produce goods and devise a means for acquiring extra money for the competitive struggle. Marx believed that the only value of a product was the amount of labor put into it; that could be measured. Capitalists calculated that and added an additional amount, the profit. The problem was that the profit was used in the competitive struggle. They would use this money to buy machinery, refine their methods of production, do all kinds of things to reduce their costs. Those who failed would be driven out of business. The result would be a concentration of wealth and a pauperization of the prolaterate. Eventually, capitalism would produce a crisis of overproduction and underconsumption. The system would collapse, replaced by a system of public ownership. People would be paid equitably, they would be able to pay, and you would have a just society. This prediction didn't happen; their real wages rose. This does not mean that poverty was by any means eliminated in Europe. There was still terrible poverty in many areas of industrialized Europe before WWI. Socialists had to take this into account. They had to take into account the emergence of the welfare state within capitalism. Take Bismarck's Germany. What would socialists do? The workers wouldn't vote for them if they campaigned against them. If they campaigned for them, they would be putting off the great revolution. Marx failed to see, because of his economic determinism, that the state could intervene to help those people in society who were vulnerable. Sometimes there were capitalists who were enlightened. Sometimes, there were people who were just concerned for a just society. Marx held that the government would never intervene. If someone tried to be a decent socialist under capitalism, he would go out of business.

Describe how and why interpretations of Europe's expansion overseas in the 15th and 16th centuries changed between 1892 and 1992 and explain why Europeans undertook these hazardous voyages as opposed to the Chinese of Moslems.

Columbus' voyages are a great example of historiography. In 1892, Columbus' first voyage was seen as an extraordinary advance of human civilization. There wasn't enough good that could be said about it. Most of these views rested upon racism and religious bigotry. It was a time of social Darwinism in Europe. It was a given "fact" that evolution had demonstrated the superiority of white people. It wasn't written about in trash newspapers, it wasn't in secret societies. It was studied and preached in major universities in the US and Europe. So, the expansion of white people overseas had to be a benefit to the Europeans and the Native Americans. Christianity was axiomatically was the true religion. You had the true Church and then you had the poor souls who were going to hell. These attitudes were a given; people didn't have to explain them. In 1992, the attitude was very different. The idea of a racial superiority was certainly not preached in American universities. The idea that non-white people were somehow inferior was recognized clearly as ignorant. There was a greater respect for other religions. It wasn't that they had lost their faith; they had just lost the rationale for judging. There was further recognition that Columbus' voyages were a disaster for Native Americans. There is not question that it wasn't a disaster, so how much of a disaster was it? There are some estimates that say that the Native American population in 1492 was about 100 million and 90 million died. We really don't know; but we do know that it was a disaster. This was caused by the brutal, sadistic, and unchristian practices towards the Native Americans. The Europeans did not have any control over the disease that they spread throughout the Americas. People here had been isolated from the Eurasian continent and had no protection against it. Europeans were not immune, but the Native Americans had never even been exposed. Measles could wipe out a community in the matter of a few weeks. The diseases were crucial in establishing control of the Europeans in the Americans. The Europeans believed that disease was a sign from God; disease was His judgment. This undermined the resistance of Native Americans to this small number of Spaniards. Gunpowder wasn't like todays; it wasn't scary enough, and they could easily escape. They had seen large animals before, so the horses weren't causing the trouble. It was the disease. The beginnings of globalization and regular contacts between the different civilizations of the world. Why the Europeans? The Chinese and Islam were far more advanced than Europe and had the ability to go out and explore. To do this, you had to have a knowledge of astronomy, and a calendar (the position of the stars change every day). You need to have some knowledge of mapmaking, and how to make ships. In all these things, Europeans were behind. The compass came to Europe from the Chinese through the Arabs. The Chinese had boats called junks- large, oceangoing boats. The ship was so constructed that you could close off that part of a ship that was hit. They travelled to Africa and collected dues. They were certainly able, but they didn't want to. China was already the wealthiest area in the world. The staple of the diet was rice; which you can feed more people with than wheat. Europeans simply would have starved. They had, from their perspective, just about everything they needed. There was a strong element of ethnocentrism in China. The Chinese, like the ancient Greeks, had the same word for foreigner—barbarian. They didn't want to expand; they saw no need to expand. They had a centralized government who said, "you will not expand!" and people listened. The Chinese did not go back after 1450, because the emperor said they could not. When he spoke, everybody listened. Islam was in many ways more advanced. Different and better ships (e.g. the lateen sail: a triangular shaped ship that enables you to tap into the wind and makes the vessel far more moveable). Islamic civilization was business-oriented. They had thriving commercial connections. But, they seemed to have everything that they needed. They didn't have centralized authority, but the wealth they were able to acquire was sufficient to maintain them. But in Europe, life at that time and in that place was miserable. The poverty of Europe was certainly one of the reasons they left. The diet consisted of hard bread with water that made a sort of gruel. You might have meat on rare occasions. They had no spices, perfumes, resins, etc. One of the reasons for the tremendous interest in Europe was that they saw the many products others had. They had gained all the land they had legal claim to. The crusaders from Spain saw the New World as an opportunity to continue the style of life they had known. There was also the pull of commerce and gold. There was also a very sincere desire to spread Christianity. All expeditions had a group of missionaries with them. There was also a desire amongst a small, educated population for knowledge about new areas of the world and a desire for knowledge about science. We know of this because many of the explorers kept detailed accounts of what they observed, and when they returned, these accounts and descriptions were published in books. There was also a certain element of personal glory. More than anything else, Europe's expansion overseas should really be seen as almost an act of desperation to get out of the poverty and the lack of resources. 90% of them never came back alive. There had to be a strong motive of desperation. They also had the support of European rulers. They saw this as opportunities for wealth and the expansion of Christianity. Not every European ruler was open minded in this way. Those rulers who took advantage of opportunities saw their influence, power, and position rise. Europeans at this time were also acquiring the technical knowledge to make these journeys. Religion is coming back into the focus of Europe, because of the great Protestant Reformation.

The rise of the political nation-state has for better or worse been one of the main contributions of Western Civilization to the world. Beginning with the Renaissance New Monarchs, through the Absolutism of the late 17th century, the Enlightened Despotism of the late 18th century, the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Eras, and the rise and decline of Classical Liberalism in the 19th and 20th centuries, describe the contribution of each of these periods to the development of the modern state.

Corporate state of the middle ages: the highly decentralized powers. The Renaissance New Monarchs made inroads into that; just a generalization. The reformation was important; the ruler decided whether their country was protestant or catholic. When religion was so important in the lives of the people, clearly saying who determines your religion will be critical. Absolutism: Louis XIV. Enlightened Despotism: welfare concept of the state starts to replace the warfare concept of the state. The destruction of the corporate state. The rise and fall of classical liberalism was when people wanted to make the government small and not impose a hierarchal system. Yes that's fine, but now we have a whole bunch of new problems, and maybe the state can help in solving those new problems.

Describe the impact of the First World War on the European political system and on the cultural and economic values of the European people. How did the war contribute to the rise of more radical politics in the 1920s and 1930s.

Destroyed the European balace of power. Who defeated Napoleon? The other European powers. Who stopped Germany in WWI? America. Not because we're better or smarter, the Europeans had just wiped themselves out. This destroyed faith in classical liberalism in constitutional government, in laissez faire economics. It quickly became apparent that would not work given the demands of the war on the economy. Remember the 55,000 industrial workers. Germany used 11 million artillery shells/3mo. They had 5000 pieces of artillery that were destroyed by counter-artillery fire or worn out from use. Laissez faire economics wasn't going to work on that. Belief in human rationality was undermined; "if we're so smart, how did we wind up seeing so many people slaughtered." Dadism was the immediate result of that; it was relatively short-lived. They no longer believed that humans were rational; which is a foundation of classical liberalism. The newly strengthened forces claimed the Western Civilization was decadent and corrupt were the communists and fascists. The ideas were not new; what was new was the belief or the strengthening of those beliefs because WWI was such a disaster.

Describe the evolution of the alliance system from 1873-1914 and explain how it contributed to the outbreak of the First World War. Why did these alliances come into existence at this time and what was the fundamental weakness of the system Bismarck created?

Evolution of the alliance system: the only that really endured was the Dual Alliance (Germany—Austria), but you need to know the others. After 1890, the French are able to break out of their isolation, and you see the development of the triple entente and the triple alliance by 1907. Fundamental weakness: it was based on pure strategic calculations without taking into account popular emotions (nationalism, etc.) Bismarck thought you could still redraw the map like you could in 1815. He tried to bring Russia and Austria together, but they don't like each other because of the Balkans. They made strategic sense, they just didn't make nationalistic sense.

Describe the causes of the French Revolution and the forces present in France before 1789 which shaped the Revolution after it began. Be sure to explain how the latter turned to revolution onto unexpected paths after that year.

First, the financial crisis of the French government; made Louis XVI called the estates-general. Need to explain why; in many ways, it was typical of those states in the old regimes. Due to the wars for empire; France needed a strong army and a strong navy (no one else needed that). The French economy had not developed as rapidly as its main opponent, England. And, the French did not have an enlightened despot/powerful monarch. The class conflicts between the nobility and the middle class; lack of adequate land for the peasants; and the enlightenment. These minor things pushed the constitutional assembly and the revolution to make much more radical changes in France. Once they opened Pandora's box, people sought to make changes in these other areas. France was the only one with a strong army and navy, and that put weaknesses on the government. Louis XVI lacked the intelligence to understand the problems that the state faced. All he could see was that his court was in turmoil; so he got rid of Turgot. Once the estates-general was called, the representatives wanted to tackle many of the other problems. They saw this as an opportunity to create a constitutional government; to give the people a voice without overthrowing the monarchy. We're talking about people of property; not ordinary Frenchmen. They wanted rational, effective government; no more illogical special privileges of different groups. You had a country that had grown up in different times in different places with their own traditions and customs and laws. The people of Paris paid 60X higher salt tax than the people in Brittany. Why? Because Brittany had been an almost semi-independent kingdom; he had to make concessions to Brittany. This was the irrationality. So the Enlightenment did not cause the revolution or the financial crisis, but once the estates-general began to meet and the third estate has a prominent position (all the middle-class influenced in a broad sense by the enlightenment), then they wanted every French person to be equal under the law, privileges and obligations. They were destroying the corporate state. This was a term coined by historians to describe the political structure at this time; they were a conglomeration of different areas with contracts to a central government which limited the central government's power greatly. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes did not apply to Alsace; a major change in religious law because Alsace had for a long time been part of the Holy Roman Empire. He had to respect the local customs and traditions. They didn't try to change the laws because it was more trouble than it was worth. They just cared about getting taxes, securing a strategic border. In many ways, the governments were always strained. I don't know if it wouldn't occurred to them. They didn't see themselves as leaders of the "French Nation." The only reason the French were finally able to do it is because they had the French revolution. The king would've been breaking the law. He would have had to have overwhelming power to get away with that; he didn't have that much power. He had more than his predecessors. Unexpected paths; it was making the government more rational, etc.

Describe the different interpretations of the origins of the Scientific Revolution and explain what they say about the state of Western Civilization at this time.

Great Man thesis (the idea that the scientific revolution can be explained simply because there were a number of great brilliant human beings that happened to be born. We don't need to look beyond that, just look at those individuals. Problem: we know there was enormous intellectual activity that happened in Muslim, Chinese, and other heritages. The idea that they couldn't make these breakthroughs, that their people weren't smart enough...no), the Marxist thesis (all major changes in society are caused by economic changes. The weakness is that is fails to see a distinction between pure science and applied science. Pure science is the study of phenomena in nature to acquire knowledge. Applied science is when you take knowledge and you figured out what you can do with it. The men of the scientific revolution were pure scientists; they weren't trying to make money. There were people like that, but the men who made the major breakthroughs were not concerned with this. It tries to bring in economic changes), the Protestant thesis (claims that it was the teachings and the attitude of the Protestant churches specifically that gave rise to a new intellectual thought and led people to ask more questions and seek more answers. Problem: a lot of Protestant leaders were not very scientific. When Martin Luther heard about the heliocentric theory of the universe, he deemed it heretical. It doesn't say that close enough is not enough. Luther wasn't a scientist; he only had evidence from the Bible. The pope Gregory the VII called for a commission to reprise the calendar. A lot of Protestants rejected it, because it was the popes. You may not like the way he holds church services, but this has to do with science. One can't really see that Protestants were all modern and free thinking), the Medieval interpretation (it wasn't a revolution, rather an evolution, tries to present W-C as making progress all along), the Reformation interpretation (most recent, unlike the Protestant interpretation (it doesn't say that the new church gave rise to the reformation) rather the conflict, the debate between the two religions raised the entire level of intellectual debate throughout Western Civilization. That is the basis really of modern science (to have a scientific fact, need evidence to back up your theory. With the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, two different interpretations of the same source, you had to be very careful. There was that spillover. It raised the whole level of the question, "what is proof? In anything?" William McNeill says that it has produced enormous innovation. Movie: the Third Man, What is morality, what difference does it make?).

Describe the reasons for the fall of napoleon and how the European territorial settlements of 1814-15 was designed to preserve peace. How did the events in the late 19th and 20th centuries alter assessments of the effectiveness of that settlement?

He was not able to transform his military victories into a stable political settlement; he got older. His opponents got together in 1813 against him. The continental system eroded support for him. It was costing people money and disrupting trade. The continental system to prevent the bad imports from England. This caused a lot of hardship and opposition (there were a lot of things people really wanted from England). You could export to England, but he was trying to pull England into bankruptcy. Congress of Vienna was meant to restore Europe before Napoleon. It was to ensure each of the 5 major powers (England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria) needed to have their power, but be able to counter any other power. France was not out of the running. (Brumaire; the revolutionary calendar, the month that Napoleon seized power). So, they set up a system to maintain and establish that balance of power. That territorial settlement worked; the problem, if you can call it that, was that it was solely based on the balance of power. It had nothing to do with ethnic rights, or respect for ethnic groups. That meant that there were going to be a lot of people in Northern Italy who would be in the Austrian Empire. The Belgians would be part of the United Netherlands and dominated by the Dutch. These people didn't like that; but the men who drew it up said, "tough, I don't remember asking for your opinion." When the ideas of nationalism and representative government became much stronger, in the late 19th century, people said that's not right. After WW1, Wilson and the European leaders, came together to create contact nation-states to end the animosities and rivalries between different ethnic groups. They tried to correct all of the problems of the Congress of Vienna. That effort lasted until it collapsed with WW2. Then you had the cold war and the fear of nuclear war. Then people like Henry Kissinger started to go back and look at the Congress of Vienna again. He did not discover anything new, but he was writing from the perspective of living in a dangerous age that can blow up the world. Lets look at a peace settlement that kept the peace for a century. Yes, we recognize it was not perfect. But they looked at it with a more favorable light. Kissinger said that we needed to base our foreign policy on balance of power; and not so much on human rights. They're important; but keeping the world from blowing itself up was more important. The assessment of the Congress of Vienna became more favorable.

According to many popular historians, the Protestant Reformation was caused by the worldliness and corruption of the Catholic Church. Describe the basis of this interpretation, and explain why it is inadequate from the perspective of the early Protestant leaders and the response of the Catholic Church in the Catholic Reformation.

Historians have put forth (Barbara Tuchman) the idea that it was the corruption and worldliness of the Church. The Church was violating its own teachings! Why wouldn't have they expected that someone would challenge them on that? The Protestants went back to the Bible and they had a different interpretation: how do you achieve salvation? What do you have to do? What can you do, if anything? Luther's justification by faith held that the sacraments, etc. were things Christians should do but they didn't save you. It was faith that saved you. It put a direct relationship because the believer and God, and it put the hierarchy out in the cold. The Anabaptists wanted to go back to the 1st church, there was no hierarchy like what was in the Catholic Church at that time. The savagery between the religions resulted in conflicts that almost destroyed Western Civilization. The abuse interpretation: Reformation is caused by the abuses of the Church. This really was not true. Luther was much more concerned about other things. Very much obsessed with a sense of human sinfulness. He visited Rome several years before 1517 and saw what was going on there. That did not inspire him to challenge the Church; given human sinfulness, he expected that. He was concerned with certain practices of the Church that he felt were dangerous to laypeople and Christians. They would reduce or even prohibit the chances of people going to heaven. The sale of indulgences was a major problem. The Church started saying that if you could buy those indulgences you could get out of hell. In 1517, a prince in the Holy Roman Empire wanted to be the archbishop in the city of Minz. This provided you with a considerable income. He was already an archbishop in two other cities. The pope was willing to give it to him, but for a certain sum. So, the pope authorized this individual to issue a special indulgence. Half the money went to pay for cathedral; half the money went to pay back the moneylenders. People were buying these indulgences believing they would go to heaven. Luther believed this would put their souls in danger. He went to the Bible and he read Greek and Hebrew. He ultimately concluded that human beings are saved by faith. Salvation is something that is granted to human beings by God out of His love. Human beings do not deserve it, and we can do nothing to alter it. It has nothing to do with the Church. This was a revolutionary doctrine that challenged the authority and power of the Church. The initial reaction tapped on a wellspring of concern. The pope's initial reaction was that this was a conflict over money. They demanded that Luther recant. He refused. In 1521, he was called before an imperial court in Worms. This was a Diet in the city of worms. The court demanded that Luther recant, and he took a Bible in his hand and said, "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." Prove me wrong on the basis of the writings of the Bible, I will gladly recant. Luther was excommunicated. Being excommunicated in the 16th century put him beyond the pail of the law. He was not be protected, sheltered, and if anyone wanted to kill him, they had a free shot. Anyone who helped him would be excommunicated. He lived as a monk for a year, and then the ruler of Wittenberg and other various leaders were on his side. The Lutheran church spread through much of Northern Germany and Scandinavia. He had no objection to clergy marrying. A few years after he broke from the Church, a nun came to him and asked for help. They married. She managed the affairs of the house (meals, houseguests, brewed, etc.). Luther's movement became restricted to Germany. He did not see himself as a leader of a German church. He came to rely on princes and rulers in the Holy Roman Empire. He also relied on them to ensure the uniformity of the teachings of the reformed church. His translation of the Bible was the one German text that a large number of Germans would refer to. Luther believed that since faith was the key to salvation, everyone needed to be able to read the Bible. He dismissed Latin as a the language of worship. This was not done for naturalistic reasons. Luther believed that if everyone went back to the Bible, we would all agree. That was a terrible oversimplification. Translating the Bible is very much a work of art. Luther as a scholar knew that, yet with other people didn't agree with his interpretation, he became very frustrated. Jean Calvin led the international form of Protestantism. French Calvinists are known as Huguenots. He was French, but his church was based in Geneva. In the 16th century, Geneva was its own country. They had broken with the Church of Rome to a significant degree for political reasons. They felt a need for true religious reform. Calvin established a theocracy. They were known for being extremely strict. Calvinism is known for the doctrine of predestination. Calvin preached the idea of the rule of the select here on Earth—those who are destined to be saved should direct society because they can make changes. Luther's obsession with sinfulness would not allow him to even entertain this idea. People of the radical reformation (Anabaptists) believed that Christians could only preserve their purity was to withdraw from the world. They formed their own separate, distinct communities. They believed that Christians should adopt a lifestyle of Christians of the first century. They believed in adult baptism. It was commitment, something one had to understand. They did not believe in two baptism. They are known today as the Medonnites (Memmo Simons). Anabaptists were pacifists. The worst punishment they could give was to exclude them from their family. They did not believe in the consumption of alcohol (back then, this was dangerous). They refused to take oaths or serve any of the rulers. As a result, none of the rulers were willing to offer them protection. They originated in Switzerland, and were focused in the Holy Roman Empire. All of these churches emerged out of theological differences from the Church of Rome. Those differences are what made the Reformation permanent. There were people in the Church of Rome who were dedicated to reforming within the Church. Before the Protestant reformation began, a group of clergy and laypeople in Italy formed The Oracle of Divine Love (1490's). This was dedicated to reforming the Church from within. Many problems had arisen because the Church was very wealthy and powerful. They were interested in having people who could protect that wealth and power. Amongst the abuses, one of the most serious was the holding of multiple offices. This is how they got to the infamous indulgence. Lack of education of the clergy: during the Middle Ages, there were very few Bibles. The majority of clergy would not have access to a Bible. There was a lot of misinformation; the Church's teachings were not being followed. With the invention of the moveable type printing press, this became better, but the problems still existed. People did not ask questions about the clergy's "housekeepers." They forbade clerical marriage in 1000 CE because they wanted to keep priests and whatnot from giving their children special benefits. These people did not really exercise an influence until almost a generation after the Reformation began. The College of Cardinals and the Pope were working together to keep the "apple cart" upright. Pope Paul IV was elected (1534?) and that was the beginning of the reformation of the Church. He also called the Council of Trent, a great Church council, those of which are rarely called. There was not another great Church Council until the 1960s. The Council was comprised of several hundred Church leaders. Many Italian clergies could get to the Council quickly. It curbed/eliminated abuses within the Church, it sought explicitly to reaffirm all of the basic teachings of the Church of Rome and to reject, most emphatically, the new theologies of the protestant reformed churches. Rejected the doctrine of salvation solely by faith. There was some talk of trying to reach a compromise, but this got absolutely nowhere. In defining itself more precisely and emphatically against the reformation, it saved itself. If it had tried to compromise, it would have been seen as weak, uncertain. The new kind of popes, the Council of Trent, the establishment of new religious orders. It's almost tempting to call these Crusading orders. These were not like what we found in the Reconquista or in the Middle East. These were comprised of individuals who sought to win back souls for the true church. Jesuit leader, renowned for their dedication, their fearlessness, and their dedication to the Church. They faced certain death if they were caught. Usually, it was a slow and excruciating death. Jesuits exercised a great deal of influence within the Church. Many relied on them because they were the best people to be found. They did much to restore the faith of the Church and to provide it with new leadership. These measures met with a considerable amount of success. Popes have traditionally been leery of calling councils because it can limit his authority. The course of Reformation struggles was largely determined by the policies and political skills of the powerful monarchs of Europe. Using England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire as examples, describe the course of these conflicts and the role monarchs played. Why were Henry IV of France and Elizabeth I of England able to achieve success in uniting their lands while Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire was not? The first war of religion was named the Schmalkaldic War (the League of Protestants princes was known as the Schmalkaldic League). It was focused largely within the Holy Roman Empire. It was a 21-year struggle and ended with the peace of Augsburg in 1555. It established a principle of ceius regio eius religio ("whose region his religion"). The 381 separate territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The rulers of each one who determine whether they would adhere to the Church of to the Reformators. They gave a decree of religious freedom to 381 people. This was a significant settlement, because it gave a political authority the right to determine the choice of religion to its people. This gave much less weight to the Holy Roman Empire. This furthered the division of Germany. The Schmalkaldic War was ended by the peace of Augsburg (1531-1555: Correct date!). Between Charles V (holy roman empire) and the protestant princes within the empire. Charles was not able to unite the empire. He had to agree to the religious division of the empire: "His region his religion." There was no political authority capable of imposing his will upon the Holy Roman Empire. There was no one willing to make a compromise, either. The result, then, was divisions. After the peace of Augsburg, Charles divided his empire, recognizing that it was too much for anyone to rule. So, it was divided into two groups: The Spanish Habsburg (Italy, Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, the Low Countries, and the New World) and the Austrian Habsburgs (Holy Roman Emperor title passed on; this position was elected within six rulers within the Empire. It was all agreed that the head of the Habsburg family was the one they would select). The Low Countries aren't exactly Spanish. Charles V called the Low Countries "home." By the late 1580's, the Huguenot wars were known as the war of the three Henrys. There were three influential Henrys at this time. They all assassinated each other. The French succession suddenly became very clear. The next in line was Henry of Navane, the leader of the Protestant forces. Henry was determined to bring a religious settlement to France. He was related to the royal family, his legitimacy as the next king was not questioned. He was Protestant, and most of the French people were Catholic. So, Henry converted. He said, "Paris is well worth a mass." To secure the French throne and be truly recognized by all the people of France, it was well worth converting to Catholicism and celebrating Catholic mass. The conversion was probably not too difficult for Henry. He was a lapsed Protestant. He also wanted to ensure the safety and security of his former Protestant co-believers. So, in 1598, he issued the Edict of Nantes. Nantes was the capital of Brittany. By the Edict of Nantes, Protestants were given all the same civil and legal rights as Catholics. Protestants were given freedom of conscience, but their right to worship was restricted. They could have only a maximum of two churches in any district in France, and there could be no Protestant churches in any of the great cities in France. This was a conscious effort to appease Catholics who were afraid that the Protestants would use their new freedom to gain new converts. The Protestants were given the right to fortify 200 places in France so they would feel secure. The Edict of Nantes is interesting because it shows the extent of the hostility and shows that Henry placed primary importance on bringing about a religious settlement. Between 1598 and 1610, Henry of Navane (who was now Henry IV of France, a member of the Bourbon dynasty) worked very hard to bring about an economic recovery of France. "I want to make France so prosperous that every peasant would have a chicken in the pot for Sunday dinner." He was one of the few European monarchs to express and then act on things that would improve the lives of the ordinary people of his realm. The Bourbon eventually fell during the French revolution. By achieving a broadly based settlement, Henry could bring about a religious change. England; Henry VIII had established the Church of England with a Catholic theology. Henry died in 1546, and was succeeded by his son Edward VI (1546-1553). He reigned for about 7 years. Edward had been raised a Protestant. He was very much under the influence of Thomas Cranmer, the head under Edward. He was secretly married, and traveled with his wife in the trunk. As soon as Henry died, Cramner made the Church more protestant. He allowed the clergy to marry, so his wife could come out of the trunk. He adopted the practice of two sacraments rather than seven, and the services should be in English. Edward was never a particularly robust young man. He never lived long enough to achieve any kind of real influence over the government. He was succeeded by his half-sister, Queen Mary (1553-1558). Henry passed all kinds of legislation to try and ensure the succession that they wanted. Mary was devoutly Catholic. By all accounts, her religious beliefs were sincere and very strong. Being Catholic was also important to her for personal political reasons. The Church of England had declared her illegitimate. It had disgraced her and her mother. Mary came to the throne determined to restore the "true church" to its proper place. This did not go over well. The English were accustomed to the Church of England. Henry had confiscated Church lands (income producing lands). Henry had sold it to English farmers, creating a land-owning class that was loyal to his new independent church for strong property reasons. This was not all about money, and money could not fully be ignored. In the values of early modern Europe, killing serfs was hardly worth noting. But when you stared to persecute or kill people who held property, that was something else. Mary did persecute some of them, and threatened more. She is known today as Bloody Mary. She wasn't any bloodier than other rulers, however. She also married Philip II of Spain. This, given the very strong sexist attitudes at the time, caused many people to fear that England would become nothing more than the puppet of Spain. Mary is more a tragic figure than anything else. She died very lonely and was not missed by many people at all. Elizabeth, the daughter of Ann Berlin and Henry VIII, succeeded Mary. Elizabeth was extremely intelligent, capable, and intuitive. She was determined to bring about a religious peace to England. Her religious beliefs were stronger than Henry of Navane. She wanted to try and achieve a broadly based settlement that would encompass as much as the English population as possibly. So she had the 39 articles written. She was successful, to a remarkable extent. The theology gets to the core of Christianity, and helps restore a religious peace. She believed her subjects' religious views were their own personal business. She made sure she knew who was which religion. But as long as they kept their views private, she would accept that. She would drive her advisors crazy because they often urged her to take a strong position on one thing or another. Edward VI made it more protestant, Mary brought Catholicism, and then Elizabeth gave the broad settlement.

In this course, we have studied four events that have been termed "revolutions:" the Scientific Revolution, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. Describe the main outlines of each and their short term and long-term consequences and place them in descending order of importance for the broader history of Western Civilization with a clear explanation for your order.

I think it is possible to make an argument for many of these as being more important than some others; I'm more concerned with your explanation or rationale for that order. They are four very different kinds of revolutions. Scientific is intellectual; nothing happened that you could really see. The Industrial Revolution was economic; that produced factories and cities that you could see. The French Revolution was a political revolution; you could also see. What was the title that French people gave each other during the revolution? Citizen. That is a political status; comrade (communist) is social. Now, there were political consequences and social consequences to each; but they each had their main focus. Most Important: Scientific. Without this revolution and the schools of thought that came from it, none of the following history of Western Civilization would have been possible. After the Reformation, the idea of accepting a doctrine other than what the ruler said would be unacceptable. The schools of thought that came from the Scientific Revolution (rationalism?) were essential for continuing Western Civilization. Industrial Revolution: this shows a tangible result of the scientific revolution; people are putting concepts and ideas into practice. But, they are still under oppression from their governments, and the result of this is shown in the next two revolutions. Russian Revolution: This social revolution shows another advancement of the concept of rebellion against an oppressive government. The people are recognizing that their government is incompetent, and they are doing something about it. They know that their abilities industrially can be better. As talked about in class, their revolution was genuine. They didn't know what would have under Stalin. That can be seen as a regression of Western Civilization, as the people were starving and dying. The Russian Revolution is the ultimate display of a demand for a better life, but because it would not have been possible without the scientific and industrial revolutions leading the laymen into a position of power (granted, this took a long time; the scientific revolution was only for the elite but it led to the industrial revolution which put the concepts into the hands of the everyman), it is listed as third. French Revolution: Because this revolution was political, it was important. Now that the idea of believing something other than your country's ruler has told you is an accepted idea, rebelling for your rights shows a further advancement of Western Civilization. However, this revolution was a less successful endeavor. The Bourbon family returned to power in France after the revolution. While they were attempting to change the world, the results were not seen immediately.

The rise of Prussia was one of the great surprises of the Old Regime and in the 20th century became one of the most controversial. Explain why Prussia was able to achieve a position of power at this time and how the historiography of Prussia has changed since the end of WWII.

It came from nowhere, its population was miniscule; it was out in the boondocks of Germany. England was a secondary power; but still important; France was emerging from the religious wars and it was gaining power. Small country devastated by the 30 years' war without any major prospects. Due to the ability of its rulers and the house of Hohenzohen, the great elector, Frederick the 1 acquired the title soldier king. They just lucked out. Heredity is a pretty stupid way of selecting your leaders; but they had a good run. Some effective rulers, some more than others. They weren't all great, but they were at least good. Frederick the great acquired the title soldier-king; two of whom were outsider, one was good, the other was faire. Remember how other regions within Germany get sidetracked; which countries were they both involved with. Hanoverians; king of England, etc. They were not Germans, they were Prussians, Saxons. Prussians just never had a chance to go somewhere else. The reason why the history of Prussia is so controversial is because the history of the 20th century portrays Prussia as the harbinger of authoritarianism and totalitarianism (that's what led to Nazism; it goes back 300 years) after WW2, that is in public opinion at the time. In 1945, most people believed that. In 1947, the Allies abolished Prussia. The Prussians, Germans, anywhere did not have any rights. Even under those circumstances, they had to abolish Prussia. Since then, it has changed. How do you blame Frederick the Great for the Nazis? The Nazis had portrayed themselves as being as "great" as the Prussians. The postcard was Nazi propaganda. They had tried to tie the Nazis to the old Prussian tradition. Germans have in some ways changed. Germany has been a successful democracy for as long as I can remember (60 years). Memories of the war have faded. It has been a force for stability in Europe. The Nazis lied about a lot of things; one of them was the history of Prussia. On the 300th anniversary, people said a lot of nice things about Frederick. It was a tolerant state, a state of law and justice, it was highly cultured; it was more than authoritarianism. In the late 19th century, the African American leader WEB DuBois studied in Germany and wrote how much more tolerant the German people were towards him than any American people he had ever met. Attitudes of the past are shaped by experiences of the present. That's why we study historiography. The importance is to understand why we believe the things we do.

Define capitalism, contrast it with earlier economic systems and describe the interpretations for its rise in Europe.

It is an economic system for the production and distribution of goods based upon the law of supply and demand (or the market economy). Not fulfilling your role in society, but rather getting a job. To traditional economies, that was scary. How do you know someone is going to fulfill that job? They could not conceive of that; it was the power of capitalism. It was innovative, it was changing. People could see how they could make money out of that. The systems based on tradition showed that you were born into your function in society (like the system of place). The second way was through slavery. There was not a society in antiquity that did not have a large slave population.

Describe the characteristics of the second wave of the Industrial Revolution and contrast them with the first. How did this phase contribute to the decline of classical liberalism?

It was feeding off the first one, it was more widespread (Germany became the center). It was more technological, scientific, sophisticated. It revolutionized transportation and lighting. Internal combustion engine: automobiles. Cities were far cleaner and safer than they had ever been before. In doing all of these things, it helped to raise the standard of living in Europe. This is stated from 1850-1900. You can't give an absolute date. Because of the growing costs and complexity of the Industrial revolution, they now sought tariffs to protect them, they looked to subsidies to foster different kinds of economic development. The clear point is that it isn't laissez faire, when you're calling on your governments. Laissez faire economics gained its popularity in England in the 19th century; they didn't have the competition.

What were the major issues and turning points in the British constitutional conflict of the 17th century and why was England an exception to the Continental pattern of absolutism?

James the I all the way to ? Major issues: in the first stage of the long parliament (1640-42) when Charles I was forced to sign a number of laws which greatly enhanced the power of parliament in the making of laws (the triennial; 50 days every 3 years and could not be dissolved by its own consent; the king could not rule without parliament, he was dependent for money). Those laws became part of the British constitution. The execution of the king. That was an expression of parlimanetial authority. Parliament did not have any executive authority. We have no means to control the dispersement of money; we need someone to carry out those laws. They executed the king only because they felt he had become untrustworthy. They tried to do a parliametny thing, they went to the Protectorate, and eventually to Charles II. 3: The glorious revolution where they again changed the monarchy to not allow Catholics (bringing the protestant Stuarts to power; the act of settlement and unity confirmed that and that's what important here). Parliament is asserting its authority to control the selection of the monarchy, but they still need the monarchy. It's not for another century until they come to a position where they don't need the monarchy. It was an exception because it was an island, so it didn't need a strong army. The continental states needed a strong army. If there was a conflict, they had a military power to back them up. That didn't happen in England.

Describe the characteristics of the Enlightenment and explain what impact it had on the practice of government in the 18th century.

Laws governing human relationships as there are laws governing natural sciences (legal codes, economic and political relationships). These laws can be discovered the same way the natural ones were; through observation and reason. In order to do this, we have to free our minds of prejudices (meaning tradition and faith). "Dare to be free." Emmanual Kahnt. If we apply this then we will be hopefully be able to improve the conditions of life; not create a utopia or a perfect world, but just to make things better, and that was good. They still justified monarchy. They were not anarchists. We should absolutely have kings. Voltaire lived as a guest of Frederick the Great for two years to try and influence them. Why? Not because we've always had kings or that God gave us kings; rather, because society is composed of different groups and elements with their own particular interests. We can see that in society. In order for society to function, we have to have something that stands above that that can harmonize the relationships and that is not tied to any one of them. So, they were for monarchy because monarchy was not tied to special interests. Whether or not this was an accurate view is questionable. But, I'm more interested in having you understand their logic, methodology, and their approach. This change is apparent with enlightened despotism. There, the idea was that you have the beginnings of the welfare concept replacing the warfare concept. In the 18th century the government rules to maintain order, and an army, but also to maintain the welfare of the people. And that was a radical idea.

Describe conditions of daily life in early modern Europe and explain why "the good old days" were in fact anything but.

Life expectancy, there was a decline in the standard of living because the population grew. Aspects of everyday life: food, clothing, housing, disease, famine, etc.

Describe the characteristics of the Renaissance and explain how each illustrates the growing secularism of the age.

Rebirth of Secularism: Capitalism: key point—capitalists claimed that economic systems were subject to its own body of laws and principles. They were seen as the law of physics: they were neither moral nor immoral, religious or secular. They took economics out of the social and political realm. This wasn't assigned based on where their parents were. It gave people a degree of personal freedom. Politics: lots of tiny communes that were completely self-regulating. Between 1100 and 1400-1450, successful communes expanded to the point where the Italian peninsula was dominated by 5 city-states in 1500. Venice, Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples. Out of these political struggles, you have the emergence of a more secular politics. Political power in the signori: most powerful Medici. Lorenzo Medici: patron of art, he opponents tried to assassinate his brother and him. Lorenzo survived and proceeded to wipe out the entirety of the clan that attempted the assassination. There are no ethical or moral tools here. MACHIAVELLI Secularization of the Church: Alexander the VI (pope) who was a member of the Borgia family. He had at least two children. One of them he appointed as a cardinal when the kid was a teenager. He is a model for the degradation of the papacy. Julius II (early 16th century) had his own suit of armor. He liked to take the condottari into battle. Not really the peaceful idea, here. They were not very different from other heads of states. Their behavior was the norm for the period. Fidelity, loyalty, etc. were not expected. The popes, if anything, were probably better than many of the rulers in Europe at this time. How did the Church get to this state of affairs? In 1087, William the Conqueror decided he wanted to know who owned what in his realm. So he had a census (the Doomsday book) taken all over the kingdom. Nobody could escape. William found out that he personally owned 25% of the territory of England. The Church owned another 25%. Not just the buildings on which churches stood. Schools, hospitals, monasteries, convents, and income producing properties (pastures, vineyards, fields, etc.) Patrons had given this income producing property to the Church over time. We don't know about the continent: but it wouldn't be unrealistic to say that it was 20-25% in Europe too. No king approached the wealth and power of the Church. So, the Church became the object of political struggles (The Avignon Papacy). The conflicts here were most unchristian. In the 15th century, the Church was united again. The papacy returned to Rome. The Church wouldn't be the plaything of secular rulers. They got leadership that was smarter and better than them. Diplomats, politicians, military leaders, administrators (people who understand what Machiavelli was talking about). Alexander the VI became the pope this way. So, the Church came to be seen as simply another political power. It was somewhat different, because the position was not inherited. Two of the popes were of the Medici family. North of the Alps we see a process of consolidation as well. They were still corporate states with highly decentralized corporate systems. Education: humanism-an educational program. The word does not appear in the Renaissance. We get it from the tutors of the educational program known as humanists. Specific subjects: grammar (Latin), rhetoric (public speaking and expression), history (the study of one's own past, specifically in Italy, the study of one's own city-state), poetry, and moral philosophy. This program did not do math and science, largely because the statistics weren't important outside of business, and science was as superstitious as anything else. They were not highly regarded. The purpose was highly specific. Emerged as an educational program for the elite who would be responsible for leading the state. A program of civic education. The educated would fulfill their place in society. They had to have the kinds of skills necessary to aid their communities. Are you literate? Can you convince others of what you believe? Humanists believed very much in the usage of history. Poetry was a highly regarded form of expression. Moral philosophy to provide an underpinning for the actions that you wish to follow. Religion is missing; they weren't advocating atheism. It was just that religion was not a quality necessary to provide the leadership needed for the community to survive and flourish. It was a very narrow educational program. Great artists wouldn't have had this: they wouldn't be able to conceive what they would do with it. The implications for this were enormous. During the Middle Ages, the purest Christians were monks. Now, we have a new program that is concerned with worldly activity. This program is also morally good. It is training people to lead the community and provide for the security and prosperity of the citizens. In reality, this was the Renaissance version of community service. The humanists were training people to live moral lives in a new context. "The monk no longer had a monopoly on virtue" Dennis Hay. You can be engaged in civic, worldly activities and also be morally virtuous. There definitely was a change in the style of living. These are not 21st century people; they were still concerned with religious affairs. There was also a shift, a change. A new focus on being polite: The book of the Courtier by Castiglione. This was a very idealized image of how a society was supposed to act. Also shows the importance of books. 1450-1550: some 28,000 different titles were produced. Known as the incunabula. To have books was now seen as a status symbol. Even a mercenary captain would collect books as a symbol of status. Humanist education (Final element): North of the Alps, humanism was more traditional. It is sometimes called Christian humanisms. They were more concerned with church matters, affairs, and religious questions. This distinction has traditionally had too sharp a line. This is not to say there hasn't been a difference in orientation. Erasmus of Rotterdam was born out of wedlock and spent his childhood in an orphanage. Emphasized inner spirit as opposed to the material wealth of the Church. His greatest work was In Praise of Follyˆ. Attacks the materialism and the wealth of the Church satirically. Julius II is supposed to be the peaceful man, yet he sees him as someone who is attacking other Christians. Some see it as a precursor of the reformation, but Erasmus did not see it that way. Erasmus refused to participate in the division of Christendom. He is a remarkable early humanist. Summary: It came together by a change in the style of living - Dennis Hay.

Describe the reasons for the rise of napoleon and his contributions to the development of modern France. Does he represent the culmination or destruction of the French revolution? Explain your viewpoint and why you think the way you do.

Self-government; he wrecked the revolution. Reforms; then he helped it. He put people in jail who said things he didn't like, and promoted people based on ability, not birth. Rise: military ability and the army corps system; he was able to utilize and bring in many people into his system based on their ability and talents; he used former monarchists, a former member of the committee of public safety, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish officials in his puppet states, he gave them opportunities for political and social advancement which they never would have had under former rulers. He created a system that was always intended to benefit France first, but which still offered others more opportunities than their old regimes did.

Describe the character of the February 1917 Revolution in Russia, why it led to a virtual state of anarchy throughout the nation, and how the Bolsheviks were able to seize power the following October and eventually win the Russian Civil War.

The February Revolution was a genuine, honest, spontaneous uprising of the Russian people against the great slug of the century. Tsar Nicolas II was as bad as you can imagine. The people was that there was no one in place to take over. The duma selected some of its members to form a provisional government. They took this seriously; they weren't elected to deal with the political and social problems. Just to keep things going the way they are; keep the war going because they were allied with those against Germany. Then, we will have an election for a constitutional assembly. Then, that body will meet and write up a constitution. Then, we will give it to the Russian people to approve it. If it is approved, there will be elections for a new government; that government will deal with the problems. Meanwhile, everyone is going to hell in a hand basket. This just was not a time to try something like this. They believed that the problem was that the people had existed under a stifling autocratic government; the solution was not to install another autocratic leader. The point is that when you have a government with this attitude, its not a good situation. The Bolsheviks, in the meantime, are planning to seize Russia. They had the Red Guards under Leon Trotsky who planned a traditional assault on the headquarters of the Russian government. They do so. The October Revolution was simply a seizure of power by a small group using force. Because they were a minority and had so much opposition, a civil war broke out between the reds and the whites (the communists v. everyone else). The reds won because they were better organized and disciplined. The whites were fragmented; socialists, nationalists, conservatives. Lenin (the leader of the Bolsheviks) proved to be a very good war director; he focused on those things that "we have to do" and he wasn't going to be distracted. We have to have people who know how to run an army and move troops; thus, the old tsarous "military specialist" officers (Trotsky pushed for this). They appointed political connassieurs to ensure they didn't betray them. Lenin forced them to sign the peace treaty with Germany. If the Bolsheviks didn't sign that treaty, the Germans would take Petrograd and Moscow and stop the revolution. Lenin argued that Germany would lose WWI in the end and Russia would get it back; and that happened. Then there was war communism, the ruthless economic policy. It wasn't going to work in the long run, but the economy had collapsed. The communist hadn't destroyed; the tsarous incompetence had destroyed it.

Describe the reasons for the fall of Soviet communism in 1989.

The Soviets esetablished their control over Eastern Europe after WWII. They wanted it as a buffer zone against the west; they had been invaded twice by the Germans in the 20th century. They wanted to be able to exploit Eastern Europe and its resources for their own economic recovery. Stalin may have hoped to establish this control indirectly; the problem was that his behavior was so bad at the end of the war, that whatever sympathy communism would have had (and there was some, a significant minority). There were 100,000 railroad cars that were looted; the mass raping of women created a large deal of hostility. So, Stalin was forced to instill autocratic control of Eastern Europe. His successors found that in order to maintain their control; they would have to start to subsidize east European industries (e.g. oil prices sold to E Europe at a loss). It forced the USSR to maintain large forces in Eastern Europe, by the 1980s, they were spending 25% of the GDP on their armed forces. Under Reagan, where we had a buildup, we may have had just about 5%. This was a big drag on their economy; which wasn't efficient to begin with. Collectivized agriculture didn't work; it never worked. Industry was highly centralized; rigid, inadaptable. The Soviets made impressive gains in the 20s and after WWII largely because they used new sources that were not normally used and putting them for economic development. By sometime in the 70s, that would no longer work. All you labor was being used; all of your resources were being tapped. Now, you had to be more efficient. It took 2-3x as much coal and steel for the Soviet union to produce 1000$ of GDP as it did in any of the countries in Western Europe. They just weren't efficient, and they had no way to become so; they couldn't measure efficiency. So, you have these economic problems coupled with the cost of maintaining an empire. These economic problems were structural. It wasn't until Gorbachev that you have some willing to tackle them; he used "openness" and 'restructuring." We can't address problems directly if people are afraid they will end up in a gulag for voicing their opinion. When he started doing that, the system started to unravel. The countries of Eastern Europe started to break away. Gorbachev thought that if he started doing things right, people would repay them with loyalty. But, most thought that the communists couldn't do anything right and so the countries started to leave. Gorbachev did not send out the tanks. I do not believe that the Soviet system would have collapsed if Gorbachev had been willing to use brute force (not when it did, anyways).

Explain why the first world war developed into an extended stalemate and how and why this changed the relationship between the peoples of Europe and their governments.

The armies were too big to be defeated easily. They set out to destroy each other in battle. The British lost 450,000 men in the Battle of the Somme. That's got to be an army. What happened was that the countries were totally mobilized, had these huge military forces, and they just went about slaughtering each other; neither side could gain a decisive advantage. In order to sustain these armies in the field, they had to totally mobilize their countries, create a home front. The military machines became the 400-pound gorilla in the rowboat. It dictated everything. Everything had to be pushed to this gross consumer; this meant the complete reorganization of the economies. The law of supply and demand wouldn't work with this. Everybody would go bankrupt, and they weren't willing to do that. The stalemate was produced by the mammoth armies, the growth of the home front to sustain those armies, and then the realization that they might win on the home front through submarine warfare, blockades, etc. Economic and political warfare. How did it change the relationship? The government became enormous, people accepted it: They called it war socialism. They had to have rationing to make sure there was equitable distribution of food. Governments, in the name of the war effort, came to exert enormous control over societies.

Describe the reasons for the appeal of Nazism to the German people. How are WWII and the Holocaust logical and necessary expressions of Nazi ideology?

The essence of the Nazi message was that they were out to recreate the German sense of national community. The appeal was not because of the Versailles treaty or something like that. Every political party in Germany attacked the Versailles treaty that ended WWI. The Nazis were able to focus that sense of community. "This group has a political party, that group does...why do we need that? We are one people!" The Nazis were going to rise against that; many referred to the Nazis as a movement. They were above, they were apart from the parties of the Weimar Republic. They were going to restore this sense of unity and cohesiveness; this sense of German society. That had enormous appeal. The Nazis never stayed at the most expensive hotel in town; you don't want to separate yourself from the people. The Germans didn't fully realize that part of the Nazi program to create and renew the German community was to purify it and to strengthen it. That meant to get rid of alien elements (jews); to strengthen it meant to go to war (the ultimate test of a nation's manliness). Through war they would get living space; resources to flourish. They did not come out and advance these programs immediately; the were anti-Semitic, but they put this idea of the "national people's community" in the forefront. The concept excluded other people, and had certain connotations. If you were not what they called "ethnic German," you were to be excluded from society. Their definition of Jews were based on race; it had nothing to do with religion. The Holocaust was to get rid of the Jews because they were poison in the system; war was the way to strengthen the government. This would give them the living space to flourish.

Describe the reasons for the ultimate Allied victory in WWII. To what extend did the goal of "unconditional surrender" influence the course of the way by either prolonging the conflict by making the Germans fight harder or shorten the war by keeping the allies united? Explain your answer.

The key to the Allied victory is unity of the Allies. Despite what you hear sometimes, America didn't win the war by itself. 2/3 of all the Germans killed were killed on the Eastern front. There were more British fighting Germans than Americans until June 8, 1944; the second day after the invasion at Normandy. We all contributed; and that's the key. What was the basic ingredient for that? Unconditional surrender. It was crucial, because you have to ask yourself the question: if you don't have unconditional surrender, you have to have conditional surrender. The Cold War showed us that without unconditional surrender we might well have had a disruption of the Alliance and that would have made it a lot harder to defeat Germany. We would have to have decided in October 1942 to invade Northern Europe in 1943; we would have to worry about keeping the Russians out of Berlin. That's just asinine. It didn't make the Germans fight harder. 25,000 Germans surrendered 5 months after unconditional surrender was announced.

Describe the achievements of the constitutional monarchy between 1789 and 1791 and explain why it ultimately failed despite the fact that it was widely popular at the beginning of this period.

This goes to the committee of the Republic. The declaration of the rights of man (how did it take away individual persons privileges; they were equal before the law. It took away all the privileges of the nobility. Being a noble before this meant that you had certain rights because of that noble status that other people did not have. From wearing swords to being exempt from taxes, they were treated differently. Now, everyone had to pay the taxes. The administrative reorganization of France; ending provinces, creating departments. The importance of these two together is what destroyed all the local privileges and rights of the different provinces; giving the French government new and greater power. They created the constitution with a monarch who has a suspensive veto; a one-house legislature elected by people who had property (not a democratic forum). Then there was the church settlement; the confiscation of church property which created such chaos. The monarchy failed because you can't have a constitutional monarchy when the monarch doesn't believe in the constitution. Louis XVI demonstrated that in the flight to Varennes and the letter which he left behind where he totally trashed the assembly and the constitution. This shows the moderation in some ways of the constitutional assembly. When they captured Louis and brought him back; they lied, and created the fiction that the king had been kidnapped and hauled off. It was widely known that that was a lie. But, they didn't want to turn the country upside down. So, we have to create this lie to get it through.

Describe the reasons from the decline of classical liberalism in the second half of the 19th century and their effect on European politics.

This is an overview question. I gave you five reasons for the decline. Describe each generally: 2nd wave of industrial revolution, rise of Marxian socialism, the military revolution, the emergence of new ideologies (social Darwinism, irrationalism/anti-modernism), and the new conservatives and the new liberalists. Military revolution was as a result of German unification. The other countries realized they had to have new military machines to stay up with the Germans: specifically, they had to adopt the draft/conscription (curb on individual freedom), created general staffs (deeply involved in military planning, laying out railroads, etc.) Threatened the public laissez faire economics standard.

Describe the work of the major scientists of the 15th through the 17th centuries in the fields of astronomy, mathematics and scientific methodology, and explain how Galileo perceived the relationship between these discoveries and the word of God.

This is the question that's from the text. Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho, Brahe, Dekart, Bacon, Harvey, Newton. Be able to describe exactly what each of those individuals contributed. Galileo and word of God: Galileo did not see any contraction in his theories. He thought they were both stating the same truth in a somewhat different way. The glory of God is revealed no less in the workings of the universe than it is in the workings of the Bible.

Describe the ideas of the major philosophs in the fields of political science, history, economics, and social criticism and explain how they helped to undermine the Old Regime. How did women contribute to the spread of the Enlightenment?

Voltaire: social criticism (he also wrote some histories); history: Gibbon. Political science: Montesquieu. History: Gibbon. Economics: Adam Smith. Social criticism: Voltaire, Rousseau. Women: Mary Woolstonecraft and her critique from a very feminist perspective. She was the only one of the philosophs who attacked monarchy (that was just another form of male oppression). The salon movement was very much controlled by women; they were the hostesses. They invited the people. Undermine the old regime: the old regime was based upon the principle that the main justification for doing things (between governments, society, laws, whatever) was because a) we had always done it or b) God said we should do it that way. The Enlightenment said "No, that doesn't make sense." We do things that way because society operates according to certain laws and principles, and that we can discover those laws and principles through observation and reason. And something, for example monarchy, can be justified in the old regime (we always had a king, God gave us a king). Philosophs said no, you need to keep society together and keep someone above those competing groups. The only thing we have to do that is a monarchy, so that's why we have the monarch. Many refused to recognize that; so it undermines the old regime.

Describe the characteristics of 17th and 18th century absolutism and explain how they contributed to a growing sense of national awareness.

curbed the independent power of the nobility (they were rivals to the power of the king, he made them agents of the king), created an independent royal administration (the indenent of France), mercantilism, permanent standing armies (the measure of a nations power was the size of its armed forces; they cost money because they were permanent now. The point was that if you lived in a country and you wanted protection you relied upon the kings troops. Being the subject of the king was more important than being the subject of the lord), religious uniformity (religion ceased to be a factor in international affairs, but rulers continued to believe that if they didn't believe his version of salvation, he wouldn't believe any of his laws, so you had to impose your beliefs), cultural glorification (rulers out of fortresses and into palaces). How did they lead? The monarch was the centerpiece of all of these things. Mercantilism was an attempt to take the realm; the land that it ruled. Suddenly you want to make it into a single economic unit. Louis XIV and Colbert wanted France to dominate the high culture of Europe; whatever was best would be made in France.