We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together (Or Are We?)

Or are we Taylor..? Let's find out.

 

The English Civil War

The English Civil War started when Charles I decided to dissolved Parliament.  Even though they had the power of the purse (which he later realized he needed).  So from 1629 to 1640 there was no House of Lords OR House of Commons. Charles I only went running back to Parliament (like a 'sorry' ex-boyfriend) when he realized that he had hit the debt ceiling and could not wage war on Scotland.  So Charles ran to Parliament and pretty much had to give in and face reality... he was wrong. He thought he could be the absolute ruler... NOPE.  But instead of kissing and making up Parliament thought it would be best to convict Charles of high treason and behead him. Well... That could have gone better.

The Commonwealth

Anyway- after Charles I was out of the picture, the commonwealth was created.  Oliver Cromwell was put in chards of the government. He was quite the monarch (pretty ironic considering previous events). Cromwell wound up banning everything remotely fun and the people of England started to get fed up with him. Luckily (not for Cromwell) he fell ill with malaria and died.

 

 

Ignore the fact that this is David Cameron. Just think "Happy British People"

*Read the following conversation on British accents*

Parliament Member #1: "YAY"

Parliament Member #2: "Well who's  going to rule now?"

Parliament Member #1: "I hadn't thought of that"

Parliament Member #2: "What about Charles I's son?"

Parliament Member #1: "You mean Charles II?"

Parliament Member #2: "Yes!"

Parliament Member #1: "Well I guess so... MAYBE if we seem really sorry about executing his father"

And so Charles II was put in charge and was "the king that brought back partying"

 

 

 

You could pretty much sum up this whole post by remebering one thing; there was anarchy in the UK.

England vs. France? = P!nk vs. Lennon?

After the chaos of the religious war, France and England were considered two of the biggest world powers.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyugRSmW2GRbheR6ii4Q1-PcS8hkzMxFPzniCtGcY3BF-knCE0D82UmeoEyi9b2IK5cgn-HFCchzmbN32u_AsA7waDYYJ7aOaQZoqgHjbcKEYs1OFGwvpP1KDfxfWMVvECsf3PedqSMnZX/s1600/France-and-UK-cheapest-among-Mobile-Broadband-Nations.png

France was guided by King Louis XIV. A charming fellow, he was able to bring an "Age of Magnificence" to France through art and his guidance. Though Louis held an absolute monarchy he was able to control the nobility. How? you may ask. Well Louis asked and used ideas from the nobility (who filled Parlement). With each other's help they were able to reach goals useful to both parties in.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Louis-xiv-lebrunl.jpg

On the other hand, James I governed his kingdom a little differently. The precedent to James I, Queen Elizabeth, had left big shoes to fill. Queen Elizabeth's negotiation skills and understanding of others allowed her to be regarded as one of the best monarchs of England even calling her time the Elizabethan Era. James I did not hold a prestigious air like Queen Elizabeth. While waving to the crowds he got tired and threatened to drop his breeches "so they can cheer at my arse." Regarding his actions in government, James I strongly believed in the divine right that God had picked the ruler of England, who was himself. This caused King James I to antagonize his Parliament and refuse all their offers of help. At the same time, general revenue increased. When land was taken from the monasteries, it was sold off to the general public at the time. This new fertile land increased wool production and agriculture resulting in a boom of trade and exports. This new revenue created a growing power by the common people and James I became even more uncomfortable with the nobility.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/shakespeare/images/players/king-james1.jpg

James I and his self-righteous nature can be compared to Pink's song "So What". In this song she explains that though her boyfriend broke up with her, she is still a rock star and therefore does not care. James I thought that though his nobility rebels against him, he is still the king (by divine right) and therefore does not care nor listen to the nobility or Parliament.

Louis XIV can be compared to John Lennon and his song "Imagine" (bear with me). In his song, Lennon explains that if everyone put their differences aside they would be able to work together for a common cause and their would be peace. Louis XIV convinced the nobility to place aside their difference to work together for a world that they both wanted to live in.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/10/john-lennon-peace.jpeg

http://theandrewmiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/pnk.jpg

Both countries attempted new ways at governing their people. Eventually these monarchies will sway from absolutism and toward a constitutionalism similar to ours today in America.

Absolutist State? Good Idea?

Today we discussed various philosophers points of view on absolutism. Although they both agreed that the basic "state of nature" of man was not ideal, they have vastly different ideas on how to approach that problem. Louis XIV would have liked Hobbes's ideas. He felt that people need a strong government to basically keep everyone from killing everyone else. Hobbes felt that a ruler was also given power by God, which further added to his authority.

The other philosopher we discussed, Locke, felt that the purpose of government was to rule justly and protect the rights, properties, and lives of men. Locke  believed that a "civil government" was only present when people could appeal to it for just decisions, which was not the case under absolute monarchies. Paradoxically, he felt that men living under an absolute ruler were just as much in a state of nature as those living under monarchy and should throw off an unjust rule. His ideas would go on to strongly influence the fathers of the United States of America and give them justification for their revolt.

Another topic discussed was the Edict of Nantes (continued). Turns out that it was only a temporary grant of religious freedom as Louis XIV decided to do away with it. But why would he do this when the Huguenots did not present a huge political threat and actually were skilled laborers who helped the struggling French economy?  King Louis believed that the Huguenot cities compromised the unity of France and were too independent. As someone striving to be an absolute ruler it would make sense for him to want to do away with unnecessary separations. Additionally, this decision was highly popular and helped to improve his public image, especially among the aristocrats. I imagine Henry IV would not have approved of Louis XIV at all.

Finally, we shall discuss mercantilism, which was advocated Jean-Baptiste Colbert as the best economic strategy. It was based off the idea that economically, everything was pretty much a zero-sum game. This meant that no new money was being added into the system (with the exception of silver and gold coming in from the Americas.) Therefore, one should try to get as much as that money as possible so everyone else gets as little as possible. Basically, sharing = bad. This would be achieved by exporting more than one imported.

The blocks are money, the child is France

For those who need reminding we need to do Question 4 for the Edict of Nantes passage, Questions 3 and 4 for the Bossuet passage, Question 3 on the Colbert passage, Questions 3 and 4 on the Hobbes passage, and Questions 1 through 3 on the Locke passage.

Pluto...Pet or Planet?

France certainly reached its peak of absolutist development with the reign of Louis XIV. Commonly referred to as the "Sun King," Louis dominated his age with the magnificence of his court, the brilliance of his culture, and his remarkably long life. Because of Louis XIV's achievements, the late seventeenth century has also coined the title "Age of Magnificence." One of Louis's most significant government innovations within France was his cooperation with, and his "complete domestication" of the nobility. Before I continue.. I spent a solid 20 minutes searching google for a funny cartoon of our good friend Louis. I thought this would be appropriate for some side entertainment. 

The words "cooperation" and "domestication" bring me to my main point. If Louis was the "Sun," then were the noblemen his pets...

(Mickey = Louis. Pluto = Noble. If it wasn't clear enough already)

or were the noblemen his planets?

What I am trying to ask is this.. Did Louis control his nobles or did they work together? My answer is the complete opposite of what Mr. Yarnall wants to hear (sorry, don't hate me)... The nobles were both planets and pets. The same way one "domesticates" a pet, Louis "domesticated" the nobles with his royal court at Versailles. He required all the great nobility of France to live in Versailles, for at least part of the year, during social, political, or economic dangers. This court system was used as a manipulative tool for Louis, as well as an undermining of power of the great nobility. It was an honor to be a part of such an exclusive council. If a nobleman was caught speaking poorly of the king, Louis's spies would report the offense to him. That nobleman would then be excluded from the court, thereby losing his privilege of attending the councils. For this reason, nobles aimed to stay within Louis's favor. He, the owner, controlled his dog, Pluto. Although Louis controlled the nobles from this viewpoint, he collaborated with them during the councils. They had the right to advise the king, as well as to participate in the royal government. In this way, the nobles were like the planets because they function together with the sun to form the solar system. 

Basically, Louis XIV was a brilliant leader. He secured the nobles' cooperation, and the nobles enjoyed the status and grandeur in which they lived.

P.s. This is irrelevant but I loled. 

Power has become the wrecking ball

                     


               

                         Sovereignty = POWER!










































































































.....but there's more! Sovereignty is formally defined as when the state has monopoly over the instruments of justice (judicial courts, armies, etc. ).

 France possessed a sovereign monarchy which was seen as a step forward (by the aristocrats). This wasn't meant to say that the monarchy had all the power, for that would be totalitarianism (a very different concept!). For example, the aristocrats could create an army, but the king's army would be more powerful and stronger so there would be no point (bye bye aristocrat army!).
Although not as pretty as Katie's, here is a chart that shows the powers of France.

  MOST POWERFUL                                                                                           LEAST  POWERFUL 
King => Royal Army => Aristocrats +legislative  => Aristocratic army  => Working class=> Witches
                                                                                                                                                                      

****** NOTE FOR THE MATHMATICIANS: the arrows in this do not actually mean =>   I just couldn't figure out how to make a normal arrow....


How did the monarchy (king) get all this power you ask? Well, it all started with God. The kings claimed to come into rule through divine right. (Can't forget Kiersten's diagram!)
                                                         Ma                                Now
                                                         God=>law                King <=God
                                                           King          People
                                                           People       King
                                                                 

 

 In other words, God chose the king, but the king could create his own laws that would hold the people's best interest in sight. Society was put on the back burner though because the kings cared mostly for their personal gains. However, monarchs claimed, despite the truth, that "The sovereign is representative of his state. He and his people form a single body. Ruler and ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united" (Frederick II of Prussia). Even without the "head" (due to selfish acts, taxation, etc.) his rule was still affective because of how much power the monarch had. Take the headless horseman as an analogy:
     (Just in time for Halloween!)
http://otherworldmystery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/the-headless-horseman-pic.gif

The headless horseman isn't a complete person without his head, but he is still a very terrifyingly powerful character that children run screaming from every Halloween. Although the people he had killed may not like him anymore(just maybe), it doesn't diminish the amount of power he has. The horseman's ruthless control over the opposition of society to the horseman/monarch just shows that it the power has gone to his head...literally!

The other reason for the sovereignty of the monarchy was that aristocrats were exempt from taxes. The aristocrats made, if you will, a collaboration. The peasants now had to pay for everything therefore becoming an pillar to the throne. The peasants however were not too thrilled about this....

http://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/KING%20PEASANTS%20USING_23233

Eventually, though, the peasants no longer had any money to give. This started the downfall of the powerful, sovereign, selfish monarchy of France.

Let's All Blame the Witches

As in most of history, men, at this time, believed [wrongly] that they were superior to women in every way, from intelligence to morality to strength. 

Strong religious fervor as a result of the Reformation and consequential devastating religious wars incited the leaders of the time to search for a scapegoat for the economic and social problems that resulted from these wars.  Powerful European men tend to find scapegoats for social and economic issues of their times---note Hitler blaming the Jews for the economic issues following World War I. The leaders in the 1500s blamed women who they deemed witches. 

According to Chief Justice Coke of England, "a witch was one who hath conference with the devil to consult with him or to do some act" (514). The women who fell under this category tended to be widows or women who had never been married between 50 and 70 years old, were crippled, and often practiced medicine or midwifery. They also tended to have "sharp tongues and were quick to scold". 

Many of these widowed women inherited land, and this was intimidating to men. Additionally, both widows and women who had never been married were not under the supervision of men and were therefore "suspect" because "men were superior to women".  This is combination with a history of misogyny in the Church caused the witch hunts, in which between 50,000 and 100,000 women were executed during the 16th and 17th centuries. 

In summary, the witch hunts occurred because Europeans sought a scapegoat for all of the devastation caused by the religious wars. Because of men's predisposed hatred of women, they were able to justify executing women who were "socially marginal", and, therefore, influenced by the

 Devil. 

The hunts were, at their core, an exposition of men's hatred of human women because, regardless of what's on American Horror Story, witches do not exist.  

Religious Wars and Exploration

We have been told multiple times since Freshman year that the three main reasons for exploration were Gold, God and Glory. What we neglected to realize was that many religious wars began for the same reasons.  The Thirty Years war began over a conflict between the Catholics and Protestants. It was in essence a fight over who had the best religion. Most religious wars are started on that premise. Which religion reigns supreme? Every religion wanted land because land = influence = power = money.  The churched benefited from influence, because when you are influential you can charge $120 for a t-shirt...

AND IT SOLD OUT.

Now with exploration, the countries set out for gold, god and glory... in that order. Christopher Columbus set out in search of the West Indies. He was oblivious to the fact that he was actually in the Caribbean. Nonetheless, he enslaved the natives and was overall a bad guy. Today he is blamed for taking the credit away from the explorers before him, but we are the ones giving him credit. Anyway, Columbus was nasty, in essence he was the father of the Atlantic Slave Trade.  This trade route benefited the Europe, not the New World. Europeans got money (and syphilis) and the natives got smallpox and were forced into slavery.

Also, Maria mentioned llamas... I'm still not 100% sure how this ties in, but I couldn't resist.

 

Spanish Armada leads to The Thirty Years' War

I believe we all remember what was discussed in class on Friday but if you forgot here is a helpful diagram (created by Katie) to refresh your memory.

But if you were not in class on Friday (Maura) here is a bit more depth into the topic of Spain and the Spanish Armada.  As a result of religious strife in the Netherlands, Queen Elizabeth of England sent money and troops to aid Protestant rebellion against the catholic suppression from Spain. Elizabeth became involved because of decreased trade of wool, the death of William the Silent, and the collapse of Antwerp.

Angered by these actions, Spain became determined to invade England with her great and powerful Spanish Armada. Spain planned to invade through the English Channel. When ideas were put into action, the Spanish Armada, though small and swift, was defeated by the English because of storms, spoiled food, and inadequate ammunition. This defeat prevents Philip II from uniting western Europe with religious force. Phillip's loss is one of the many reasons of religious tensions in the Thirty Years' War.

The Thirty Years' War became the became the breaking point for religious tension that was building in Europe during the early to middle 1600's.
Though the Peace of Augsburg states the faith of the prince is the religion of the subjects, many groups, such as the Calvinists, disregarded this proclamation. As these events became more heated, two groups were formed, the Protestant Union and the Catholic League.

http://www.xtimeline.com/__UserPic_Large/72421/evt101009123700065.gif

Tension broke initially in Bohemia, the first phase of the Thirty Years' War. The Bohemian civil war fought over religious liberty and independence from the Habsburg rule. The Catholic League led by Ferdinand fought with the Protestant Union ruled by Frederick within Bohemia. Ferdinand won at the Battle of the White Mountain and continued to forcible convert the entirety of Bohemia with Jesuit missionaries.

The second (Danish) phase, with the ineffective Danish King Christian IV, resulted in multiple victories for Catholicism. On the Protestant side, General Wallenstein was the first sign that this war of religion was straying from its initial purpose. Wallenstein became more focused on generating his own army and empire with the aid of emperor Ferdinand.

The third (Swedish) phase, with the help of the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus, began small victories for the protestant side at Breitenfeld and Lutzen. But with the death of Gustavus and the defeat of the Swedes at the Battle of Nordlingen, the French needed to step in.

With the French came the final phase, where the Protestant French came to aid the Swedes. After countless years of fighting, peace arrived in October 1648. The Peace of Westphalia recognized independent authority of 300 German princes and allowed Calvinism, Catholicism, and Lutherism to coexist (only under the Augsburg Agreement).

http://anubisstudios.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/batalla_fleurus_1622.jpg

Religion and the State

Henry IV (or Henri, also known as Henry of Navarre) helped to usher in a slightly more "tolerant" age and brought the Bourbon family into power as the feeble Valois family declined. Henry decided that his state, France, was more important than his religion (Protestantism), and that "Paris was worth a mass." Meaning he would convert to Catholicism if that meant he could be king. Under Henry IV the Huguenots, French Calvinists, were recognized by the French government and allowed to live in certain fortified cities in the Edict of Nantes. For awhile at least, Henry helped to stave off the implosion of France.

They call me daddy long legs

Meanwhile in Germany, similar problems were also brewing between the Protestant and Catholic factions. The Peace of Augsburg had developed problems. While it allowed nobles to choose the religion, Lutheranism or Calvinism, of their land but  it did not recognize the growing number of Calvinists in Germany. Also, religious pluralism was not allowed within a noble's land. Meaning if he had chosen Catholicism then you could get in trouble for choosing Lutheranism. Additionally political tensions among the various nobles in the general area of the Holy Roman Empire had been brewing for years. Religious tensions just served as a catalyst for war. Finally in Bohemia the infamous Defenestration of Prague occurred that started off the Thirty Years War. Two Catholic officials of the unpopular Ferdinand II had been thrown out a window. Whether their survival can be attributed to a pile of soft manure or angels; well, that would depend on your religion. This marked the beginning of the first part of overly convoluted war.

Civil Wars Galore!

After Henry II's death, the French monarchy became very weak. Henry's heirs were quite incompetent to say the least; Francis II died after 17 months (It's kind of hard to rule when you're dead), Charles IX was only 10 years old (His mother, Catherine, ruled in his place), and Henry III was not exactly a clergyman's definition of moral. "Henry III divided much of his attention between debaucheries with his male favorites and frantic acts of repentance." As a result, the French monarchy took advantage of these weaknesses and used religion as a "cloak" for their independence. This resulted in the "War of the Three Henrys," a civil conflict between Catholic Henry of Guise, Protestant Henry of Navarre, and King Henry III who succeeded his brother Charles. Although I am somewhat plagiarizing Maria's diagram, let's just pretend I came up with it.

In addition to the civil wars in France, there was also some trouble occurring in the Netherlands. For ten years, between 1568 and 1578, civil war raged between Catholics and Protestants and between the seventeen provinces and Spain. As a result, the ten southern provinces, the Spanish Netherlands (future Belgium), remained under the control of Spain. The seven northern provinces (led by Holland, which by the way isn't a country?!?!?!?!?!) formed the Union of Utrecht and declared their independence from Spain in 1581. Here is a handy dandy map to try to make sense of all this:

Elizabeth in England had her own dilemma in deciding whether or not to assist the United Provinces in their quest for independence. She finally decided to intervene because of 4 main reasons:

1. England needed the wool produced in the Low Countries; therefore, the wars hurt the English economy.

2. With the fall of Antwerp, Catholicism would sweep through the Netherlands. She feared that a Spanish invasion in England would be next. 

3. Since William the Silent died, there was an elimination of a Protestant leader.

4. And last but not least, if Spain gained more land, they would automatically gain more power. 

I must reference Katie Coyne's words of wisdom...Land=Power=Money.

The wrecking ball that ruined France

10. 8. 13

Like many former Disney stars, France society rapidly declined in the 16th century. People thought there was just as much hope in France as Miley Cyrus (see below). The two are quite comparable....

http://lifestylewithjay.com/goodbye-hannah-montana-hello-miley-virus-can-fame-and-innocence-truly-not-go-together/ 

Miley Cyrus changed due to fame but what happened to France!? Well, the biggest problem, after France lost Hasburg-Valois wars, was economics. The economics "came in like a wrecking ball" and added to the further decline of France. Because France was in heavy debt and needed money to build a strong army, they taxed the lower class who often couldn't pay. When this was not effective, they used faith for money thus combining the church and state. The Church wasn't any stronger however.

SIDENOTE: Due to such a drastic change in economy, people suffered from starvation, poverty, and even religion.
 

 http://www.comicartcollective.com/detail.cfm?page=A941AA6E-BD16-43D4-A7AB368E8C4FED9E


The second problem was the Huguenots (like garlic knots but not as good). They definitely were not as good according to the Catholics because they exiled and killed them. When in doubt just kill everybody! (Which by the way just caused more problems). "Instead of using force [the Catholics] should’ve let [them] win". However, the Church believed Catholicism and Calvinism could not coexist (NO RELIGIOUS PLURALISM!!) This led to St. Bartholomew's day massacre.
See picture below....

 
http://plaskettfamilytree.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/stbartholomew.jpg

Too Late, Church, Too Late

                          The Council of Trent occurred in response to the Protestant Reformation.

There, they addressed and mended many of the grievances that Luther had voiced. 

1. Clerical Pluralism 

Bishops were forced to live in their own dioceses and had to actually attend to their duties there. 

2. Selling of Indulgences and Excessive Papal Wealth 

3. Education 

Catholics encouraged widespread learning of the Bible, and achieved this through the teaching of the Jesuit priests.  

The Council was successful in terms of changes within the organization of the Church, but occurred  much too late. 

By the time these decisions were made and enforced, Protestantism had already been established throughout Europe. 

Additionally, the Church refused to change anything in the doctrine, including transubstantiation.  However, if the Church had addressed the organizational problems earlier, Luther may have accepted the few doctrinal issues which he had voiced, and remained apart of the Catholic Church.  

The Creation of the Anglican Church... Political or Religious?

Henry VIII was the second monarch of the Tudor dynasty. He was power hungry and some would even say a brat. Between his six wives and the killing of Thomas Moore, we can see a trend.

Basically... divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived

http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/szocki/projects/mid_term_projects/spring_08/klotzbach/images/wives.jpg

 When he wanted an annulment from his wife Catharine of Aragon and Pope Clement told him no, Henry broke away from the Catholic Church. He created the Anglican Church, with none other than himself as the leader. Some argue that his reason for breaking away was for the annulment, others would say his decision was far more political. Henry VIII wanted more power, so he simply consolidated the two main sources of authority . Instead of his subjects listening to both him and the Pope, he transformed himself into a Papal figure. He was now the ruler of Church AND State, in essence turning a monarchy into a theocracy.

It's All Fun and Games Until Someone Starts a Reformation

As Luther began to gain followers, other religious groups began to appear and spread out of Lutherism under the name of being a Protestant.

There were the Calvinists...

http://memegenerator.net/instance/26561319

...and the Anabaptists.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3s49kb/

These new religions resulted in many riots and groups being persecuted such as the Anabaptists who Luther himself called out as heretics because of their belief that women should take part in the Church, the pacifist path, and the complete separation of Church and State.

Charles V (otherwise known as "Chuckie") was known as the "last medieval emperor" because of his dreams of uniting the entirety of Europe under his "Christendom" instead of focusing solely on his own country and its problems. His ideals did not match with other countries and Europe bloomed with new religions(such as the Calvinism and Anabaptism). As a result, Charles V and his country of Germany fell behind. He soon realized that he could not save everybody with Christianity...

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3rgsxa/