Peter the Great and Catherine the Great

The reigns of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great were some of the most successful in the history of Russia. Before them, Russia had been behind the times, and not able to compete with the European powers of the late seventeenth and eighteenth century. The political and social reforms that occurred during the reigns of these two great rulers greatly influenced Russia, making it extremely powerful and very modern. When Peter became the Czar, he did many things helping Russia, including creating a powerful army. The reigns of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great sparked the extremely successful Russian reforms, giving Russia much more political power and putting it in a group with the European powers of the time.

                Peter the Great made many political changes to Russia. First of all, Peter moved the capital of Russia to St. Petersburg, a city named after him. This symbolized the changing of Russia, how it would become a new and powerful country under him. He was very determined to do the best for Russia, and would stop at nothing to meet his goal. He also greatly expanded the army. He wanted Russia to have just as powerful of an army as the leading powers in Europe did. Peasants were forced to join the army, even though joining was pretty much a death sentence. A Navy was also started for Russia. With his new military forces, Peter was able to expand Russia westward. When he died, Russia was already well on its way to becoming a great country.

                Catherine the Great also had some of the same ideas as Peter. She also had a goal in mind for the country, and would stop at nothing to get it. Building off of what Peter had started, she brought the Enlightenment to Russia. She was very interested in the arts, and introduced a lot of art into Russia. Using Peter’s armies, she continued to expand Russia to be what it is today. She did a lot for the political power of Russia, and further increased the government’s control over the provinces. Russia also had a lot more influence in European affairs during Catherine’s rule. She finished off the things that Peter could not and was a remarkable female ruler, very skilled in many areas.

                The reforms that Peter and Catherine brought upon Russia were very influential. The military expansion brought much power and land to Russia. The introduction of many arts, by Catherine, was also very helpful to the education of the people. Russia’s influence in European affairs was basically the goal of both Peter and Catherine. They wanted to bring Russia out of the dark ages and into the modern world. They wanted Russia to be able to compete in the top countries of Europe. They were strong enough rulers to make this happen.

                Russia would still be stuck in the medieval times if it were not for Peter and Catherine. Their groundbreaking decisions and actions caused Russia to rapidly move forward in the world. They set their minds to making it become powerful, and it happened. Russia became one of the most powerful countries of the time. Because the reigns of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great brought about so many reforms, Russia was grouped in with the European powers, just like they had hoped for. 

Notes 1/24- Peter the Great

• Battle of Poltava
• Peter expands territory along the Caspian sea at the expense of the turks
• Russia's participation in European affairs had been very minimal
• Peter the great opens up Russia to western Europe
• Duma
• Peter identified himself with the Russian people
• Had a very unhappy childhood

Free response 2: Protestant reformation

Free Response 2:

P 1- introduction:

                Thesis: The Protestant Reformation took a huge toll on both the government and the people; the people had to rebel, but it made the power of the country decrease and made the life of the people even more difficult, although it was for the greater good.

People were being mistreated

a.       Henry VIII

The government executed people for rebelling

Power of the state decreased

P 5- Conclusion

                Restate thesis: The Protestant Reformation took a huge toll on both the government and the people; the people had to rebel, but it made the power of the country decrease and made the life of the people even more difficult, although it was for the greater good.

The Protestant reformation in the first half of the sixteenth century greatly impacted the countries of Europe. Henry VIII, a very selfish, absolute ruler, sparked this reformation. He mistreated his people, and most of all, did not give them freedom of religion. The people could not just sit there and be treated like this. The Protestant Reformation took a huge toll on both the government and the people; the people had to rebel, but it made the power of the country decrease and made the life of the people even more difficult, although it was for the greater good.

                England was the central area of the revolution. Henry VIII started it with passing the Act of Supremacy. This gave him complete control of not only the state, but the church as well. He did this for his own selfish reasons: the church would not let him divorce his wife, so he took over. Along with putting heavy taxes on the people, he confiscated Catholic land and monasteries, destroying them. If the people could not trust in their king to help and protect them, they only had God to trust in. Even their faith was being taken away from them though, so they had many marches and pilgrimages trying to prove their point to the king. He simply kept rejecting them, thinking he was gaining power and doing well for the country, but in reality he was destroying it.

                The King’s way of suppressing the revolts was to execute anyone who tried to go against him. He tried over 200 people and 65 percent were found guilty and then executed. He ignored the letters they wrote, pleading for him to change his ways. He told his people that they were lucky to be spared, because they were committing treason. The people kept revolting, even throughout Henry’s entire reign, into his daughter’s. Mary, the Catholic, did not allow for religious freedom either. Even her sister Elizabeth supported the Protestant reformers, leading to her being thrown into jail. It seemed as though nothing could stop the government from making the people’s lives miserable.

                The government had another way of seeing it. Both Henry and Mary thought they were doing the best thing for the country. They saw the people as disrespectful for what they have done for them. Having their people constantly revolting and attacking was slowly draining their power, too. They could not find any other way to stop this than executing people. Executions only made the people more angry, though. It seems as though neither side could with.

                Though reformations like this one are not good for the government or the people, history could not be the same without them. The people are proving a point, and after enough time, the point will get across. The protestant reformation nearly destroyed England, but the government was corrupted and needed to be set straight. The world can never improve without going out of the lines sometimes. 

Exam: DBQ

DBQ:

P 1- Intro

                Thesis: The participants in the March of Grace were worried about the dependability of the authorities and believed them to be corrupted; they simply wanted religious freedom and protection from their king, who seemed to ignore all of their needs.

P 2- What the king and authorities were doing to the Catholics and other citizens

a.       The King confiscated catholic lands and monasteries.

b.      He put on heavier taxes.

c.       He would not stop the Scots from robbing them.

a.       (Doc 4) and (Doc 5) for the above^^^

P 3- What the People wanted to accomplish and the march itself.

a.       They wanted the king to pay attention to them and comply to their needs.

P 4- The executions and rejection of the king and what the king responded to their pleas (Doc 9)

P 5- Conclusion

                Restate thesis: The participants in the March of Grace were worried about the dependability of the authorities and believed them to be corrupted; they simply wanted religious freedom and protection from their king, who seemed to ignore all of their needs.

                In 1534, King Henry VIII passed the Act of Supremacy, making him the total ruler over the church and state. He now could control all religion in England. This started the protestant reform, because many citizens were unhappy with what he was doing to the country. His Lord Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, passed many laws that made life for the people very unhappy. He put on heavier taxes, confiscated Catholic land, and destroyed monasteries. Some Catholic monks wrote a poem describing how the King was simply letting them be robbed and robbing them himself, among other things, and that he was spoiling the kingdom (Doc 4). The people realized that they needed to protest, thus starting the Pilgrimage of Grace in October of 1536. The participants in the March of Grace were worried about the dependability of the authorities and believed them to be corrupted; they simply wanted religious freedom and protection from their king, who seemed to ignore all of their needs.

                The citizens knew that the authorities were becoming corrupted. Henry VIII simply took over the church because he was unhappy that they would not divorce him from his wife, Katherine of Aragon. His Lord Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, was on the King’s side, and they made life miserable for the people. Robert Aske, one of the marchers, wrote a letter that was to be presented to the King’s court. It gave a list of all the doings of the king that the people disagreed with and asked him to consider making some changes (Doc 5). It even asks for the king to “have Thomas Cromwell, the Lord Chancellor, punished as a subverter of the good laws of this realm. This may seem out of line, but it was very necessary for the citizens. They were being treated unfairly because of the king’s selfish desires, and they knew that they could not just watch him destroy the kingdom.

                The marchers performed a series of armed demonstrations and had many gatherings, trying to prove a point. They marched around England, going to many different towns and carrying the banner depicted in document three. They were strict about letting people join them, as well. The oath that people had to say in order to join started out with the words: “You shall not enter into our Pilgrimage of Grace for worldly gain. Do so only for your love of God, for the Holy Catholic Church militant, for the preservation of the King and his heirs, for the purification of the nobility, and to expel all evil counselors” (Doc 1). The people know that they have nothing to depend on but God, and the king is trying to take even that away from them. A proclamation shared at several gatherings tells of their reliance on God: “Because the rulers of this country do not defend us from being ruled by thieves and Scots, we have to rely on charity, faith, poverty, and pity” (Doc 2). The people banded together and marched around for months, until February of 1537. However, the journey was not easy. The king worked against them the entire time.

                When the king received some of the complaints and saw the rebellions occurring, he responded to his people. “Let it be confessed that you, the King’s subjects and commoners, have recently committed a rebellion that might have ruined your country….. Nevertheless, the royal majesty, duly informed that your offenses proceed from ignorance and false tales, is inclined to extend his most gracious pity and mercy towards you and to grant you his free pardon provided that you heartily repent your offenses and make humble submission to his highness” (Doc 9). Not only is he ignoring the people’s requests, he is simply telling them to go back to their normal lives and that they are lucky to be pardoned. The king also started putting protestors on trial and executing them if they are found guilty. The statistics in document ten say that 65 percent of the people that are tried were convicted and executed. These people were a mix of gentlemen, clergy, and commoners. Robert Aske, the writer of the letter to the king which asked him to change his ways, was among the people executed. His final testimony before he was executed talks about how the monasteries can no longer give help to the poor or to travelers and can no longer do things for the common good of the people (Doc 11). The powerful country was quickly going down the drain.

                King Henry VIII is now remembered as one of the worst kings of England. He was an absolute ruler. Most of his actions were selfish and made life worse for the people, and his passing of the Act of Supremacy sparked the Protestant reformation. He did not have the good of England in mind when he was making decisions; he simply wanted power and the ability to do whatever he wanted. The participants in the Pilgrimage of Grace were right to be worried about the dependability of the authorities, because the King did not give them the freedom or rights that they deserved. 

Exam Free Response 1: Number 1, Comparing Elizabeth I and Isabella I

Free Response 1:

P 1- Intro

                Thesis: Both Elizabeth and Isabella were extraordinary rulers with very different methods, beliefs, and religious policies, but when compared, their intentions were in fact very similar.

P 2- Elizabeth’s religious policies

a.       Protestant

b.      Searched for religious peace.

P 3- Isabella’s religious policies

a.       Catholic  

b.      Searched for religious unity

P 4- Comparing the two-

a.       Even though they had different religions, they both wanted religious peace.

P 5- Conclusion

                Restate thesis: Both Elizabeth and Isabella were extraordinary rulers with very different methods, beliefs, and religious policies, but when compared, their intentions were in fact very similar.

                Elizabeth I, Queen of England, was a very different type of ruler than Isabella I of Spain. While they both were amazing rulers and made great changes in their countries, while they ruled, they were also very different. Elizabeth was a Protestant, and Isabella was Catholic. Even though they had different religious beliefs, however, and very different methods, they both strived for religious peace. Both Elizabeth and Isabella were extraordinary rulers with very different methods, beliefs, and religious policies, but when compared, their intentions were in fact very similar.

                Elizabeth I was a Protestant, and she succeeded her Catholic sister, Mary. Mary had been a not very well liked ruler, with not much religious tolerance, therefore causing lots of Protestant rebellions. Elizabeth, though not on the throne, was still important at that time, and was even suspected of helping out some of the rebelling Protestants, for which she was thrown in jail. When she finally came to the throne, she was well liked and accepted by all of the people. In fact, they were extremely happy that Mary would not be on the throne anymore. She was grateful for this opportunity to stop the religious rebellions, and when she was told that she was now the queen, she said “This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.” While in charge, Elizabeth did change the religion of England to Protestantism, but she also kept the Catholics in mind. In everything she did that related to Protestantism, she threw in a little something for the Catholics, to keep them happy and keep the religious piece. She cared so much about her kingdom, putting the country before herself. She believed that even though she “had the body of a weak and feeble woman, she had the heart of a King, and a King of England, too!” There was nothing that she could not do; she was determined to make this country the best that she could, all on her own.

                Isabella I of Spain, on the other hand, believed in very different things from Elizabeth. She was a Catholic. She ruled in complete equality with her husband, and together they accomplished many great things for their country. The thing they strived for the most, however, was religious unity. She wanted all of the people of Spain to be the same religion. She wanted to rid her country of other religions, and many were forced to convert to Catholicism and be baptized, leave the country or be killed. Though this obviously was not pleasant for a lot of citizens, seeing as they were being forced into something they did not want to do, it did make for religious peace. Because there would be only one religion throughout the country, the country would indeed be unified by their religion. This did, in the end, make the country stronger. Isabella wanted to do what was best for her country.

                Elizabeth and Isabella, as you can see, both wanted their country to be strong. They both wanted to have peace throughout their country on the religious basis. They both just wanted to do what was best. However, their methods were polar opposites. Elizabeth tried to make everyone, of all religions, happy, while Isabella tried to make everyone into one religion. Isabella had a more hash way of achieving her and Elizabeth’s common goal, but in the end, it did work out for both of them. This indicates their different ruling styles. Elizabeth was bent on handling the country by herself; she would never marry, just so that she could focus on ruling and be independent. Isabella believed that ruling equally with her husband was very important. Either way, both of these women had a great influence over their countries and were well liked by many.

                Elizabeth and Isabella are two of the most well-known rulers in Europe. They are always remembered for the great achievements they accomplished. They managed to keep the peace in their countries while advancing forward in the world. Although Elizabeth and Isabella’s styles were opposites, they had the same goal; one which both women, with much determination, were able to reach. 

DBQ

Scientists today have it much easier than did the scientists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These of the past did in fact make a multitude of amazing advances, but they could have had more of an opportunity if it were not for the standards of their time. Many social restraints kept them from moving forward, and they did not have such freedom as the scientists of today simply take for granted. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the work of scientists was sometimes aided by the government or the church through the funding of experiments by patrons and nobility, but, as a whole, was negatively affected because of pressures from the church and government to not go against their teachings and many other restrictions. 


Many of the significant experiments performed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were funded by authorities of the church or government. Sometimes even noblemen funded experiments, if they happened to be intrigued by science. One scientists, Nicolaus Copernicus, writes a letter to Pope Paul III in which he praises him for his love of science: "you are regarded as the most eminent by virtue of the dignity of your Office, and because of your love of letters and science" (Doc 1). Scientists were often not the most wealthy men back then, and so without the aid of the patrons many of their groundbreaking discoveries would not have been possible. However, even such a great help created restrictions. Because these noble men were paying for their work, scientists had to greatly respect them and let them approve everything they do. "My book is still in your hands and subject to your private judgement," writes French scientist Marin Marsenne to his patron (Doc 5). Sometimes these patrons did not approve everything, even if it was correct. They simply did not want anyone going against what they said or taught.

The church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the main authority in many countries. They controlled the education of the people, among many other things. If a scientist, like Galileo for example, went against their teaching and compromised their power, they would not be happy.

Midterm review

• Galileo
• Kepler- Danish astronomer. Improved the Dutch telescope even more than Galileo. 
• Copernicus- Believed, against Aristotle, that the sun was the center of the universe, not the Earth. 
• Poland
• 
  
• Lack of the centralized authority leaves a power vacuum, which leaves it very vulnerable to attack
• Suleiman the Magnificent- led the Ottoman empire through the first half of the 16th century
• Charles VI- reigned in the first half of the 18th century ********
• Pragmatic sanction
• He was going to pass on the Empire to his daughter, since he didn't have and heir. 
• Prussia
• Absolutism
• Hohenzollern Family
• Brandenburg
• Estates
• Frederick William
• Frederick, King of Prussia
• Frederick William I 
• Russia
• Ivan the Terrible
• Romanov
• Michael Romanov
• Peter the Great
• Built the city of Saint Petersburg
• Explorers
• Prince Henry the Navigator
• Bartholomew Diaz
• Pedro Cabral
• Vasco de something- went through the isthmus of panama
• Hernando Cortez- fought the Aztecs in Mexico
• Magellan- First guy to circumnavigate the globe
• 
  

What to study

1, Definitions for bold faced words in Kaplan

2. The people mentioned in Kaplan

3. Go back and read your blog

4. Go to the BBC site and read through English history, especially the Tudors and the civil war and revolution

5. Go back to Kaplan, and look at what it says about the Italian Renaissance, and the Reformation

6. Wikipedia- renaissance- reformation

7.  Protestant reformation on Wikipedia

8. Age of discovery, explanation and conquest on Europe

9. Go back through your blog and look at the primary sources