During the 1700s views towards children were rather different than today. Although they were changing from previous eras. After the 1750s there was a boom in illegitimate children caused by the increased mobility of young people due to the rise of the cottage industry. This meant that many children were being born outside of marriage. Many of these young single mothers were unable to raise the children themselves and so would leave the child bundled up outside of a hospital, church or foundling home. The child would then be raised in a foundling home. It should also be noted that one-third of these babies were from married couples, suggesting that many families could not afford to raise more children. Even in the best of situations, children raised in a foundling home only had a 50% survival rate.
An example of how to give a baby away.
However, overall, children did not have wonderful survival rates during this time. One in five was likely to die, and the mortality rate was higher in poorer areas. Therefore women would have many children to counteract the deaths, around half of the women of this time had six or more children. The high mortality was due to a lack of medical knowledge (and even concern) by midwives, doctors and parents. At this time, little could be done to save a sick child or prevent one from catching a disease. Unfortunately though, adults did not do much to help the infants and young children to survive. After all, the prospect of losing one's child, would push a person to not grow emotionally attached. Therefore parents would sometimes abuse or neglect their children in a variety of ways.
One was the use of wet nurses by the upper middle class and aristocracy. These higher class women saw nursing their own child as beneath them, and so hired someone else to do the job. Unfortunately, this meant the wet nurse often had to neglect her own child for the newcomer. Additionally, some wet nurses would let their clients' babies die in order to get onto another job. Poorer women tended to nurse their own children, but in some areas of Russia, babies were given just a sweetened rag to suck on. Predictably, this practice resulted in about half of the babies not making it past their first year.
Sweetened rags do not do this.
Additionally, some other parents would outright kill or abandon their child, because a baby meant another mouth to feed which was sometimes not feasible. While the Church did decry infanticide, it was still prevalent. One common method was "overlaying," during which parents would smother the infant they placed in their bed. Other children were left to foundling homes, as previously discussed.
Even if parents wanted to keep the child, the attitude at this in the early 1700s was "spare the rod and spoil the child." However, some thinkers of this time challenged these ideas and called for more love in raising a child such as Rousseau in Emile. Education of children also become more prevalent during this time, although illiteracy still remained common.
Friday in class we talked about Adam Smith, who was an 18th century forerunner of economic liberalism and unregulated capitalism. Recently we were exposed to the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau, who believed that all individuals should act in a way that is best for their community as a whole, or the "general will." Smith's ideas about economics and mercantilism are extensively divergent of what philosophers like Rousseau claimed was best for society. Think of the popular song "Started from the Bottom" by Drake.. (don't worry I got the clean version)
Although Drake may not be the most iconic person to look up to, the message in his song parallels Adam Smith's economic theory. He advocated the practice of free trade, which allowed a person to exchange and to interact with whoever he wished. This was not the case with the relationship between Great Britain and the colonies through mercantilism. The colonies would provide raw materials for the mother country, Britain would manufacture goods and then sell the finished product back to the colonies. This was far from a symbiotic relationship. Britain exploited the colonies, imposed high tariffs for imported goods, and restricted trade with other foreign countries. The whole basis behind mercantilism was to export more than one imports to increase wealth, profits, and power at an international level.
Adam Smith was very critical of this system. He proposed that a free-market economy leads to economic well-being and individual self interest. Government should be limited, or "laissez-faire," in order to allow an individual's potential to shine and to increase the wealth of both the rich and the poor. He created a famous metaphor, that of the "invisible hand," which describes a person's ability to self-regulate the marketplace. People are fully capable of making their own profits and maximizing them, without the need of government intervention. However, government did have 3 duties...
1.) Defend against foreign invasion
2.) Maintain civil order with courts and ensure police protection
3.) Sponsor public works that did not profit private investors
So basically, freedom in economic life is the solution to poverty. If you follow your own self interest and work hard, you can advance and improve your life. A staunch proponent of ruthless individualism, Smith once said that "Individual ambition serves the common good." As Drake describes in his song, "say I never struggled, wasn't hungry, yeah I doubt it." Now he's "on the road making half a million for a show." Now, in the spirit of Christmas, I thought this cartoon was funny...
Now is the moment you've all been waiting for. In addition to Adam Smith, we also talked about marriage and the family in the 18th century. This conversation was awkward; therefore, I will refrain from my usual sexual jokes and going into substantial detail (maturity at its finest). I will "hit on" (lol) the major points...
-Most families married late because they wanted to wait until they could support themselves economically. Many times, this meant waiting for fathers to die in order to secure the inheritance.
-Boys and girls both worked away from home to learn independence. Service to other families was the most common job for single girls, where they were often sexually exploited by their masters.
-Although many people did have premarital sex and many girls did "put out" often (lol), there was a low rate of illegitimate births until 1750. Most people used different forms of contraception, or got married shortly thereafter. Communities condemned and criticized premarital sex. Couples who engaged and were caught were often victims of harsh publicity.
-Between 1750 and 1850, however, there was an illegitimacy explosion. There is much debate about why this occurred, but there are 2 central theories:
1.) The growth of cottage industry created new opportunities for earning a living, opportunities not tied to land. Love became freer and more extensive as cottage industry grew.
2.) The needs of a growing population sent many people to towns and cities in search of employment. Here, people were not victims to village judgement and harsh treatment as they had been in the past. New opportunities for love came about.
Those are the main points... I'm sorry I tried to contain myself as much as possible.
The putting out system in Europe was when people gave their goods to others and then sold them when the others were done assembling them. For example, a country would send some ice cream, some chocolate chips, and glasses, for instance, to other countries to have it made into a delicious milkshake (yumm). It was then returned to them. Then they sold the "milkshake" to others for their enjoyment and to make a profit. The two places were mostly friends with some benefits on each side. Putting out, however euphoric, was quite a risky business.
Putting out started as a private industry, making money on the side with only a few people involved. Then, because there were not enough results, the people expanded their business and put out to a lot more people which made them a lot more money. Since the population explosion (due to lack of deaths), there were many people to provide for so the putting out system was the perfect way to please them!
*** Here is a chart (specifically of England) that shows the death and birth rates:
The putting out system also started because of enclosures (the fencing off of plots). People now had common land or pastures for sheep and oxen to graze which boosted the industries. For example, England was able to increase their wool industry because of this. Because wool doesn't grow on trees, landowners had to keep sheep to shave the wool off of.
Look how cute! :) (Pretend those lines are fences)
The enclosures helped with this. They, however, also had some disappointments. Land was becoming scarce so people found more industries which led to the putting out system.
Who participated in putting out you ask? Well, the lower class workers of all ages who needed money from the enclosure system used it mostly. Even old spinsters put out. Old, young, the system was universal in this aspect. The people were desperate to become like the wealthy, the aspiring Nantucket red panted class. However, many people conflicted due to this lust. Sometimes the ones putting out took away the advantages of pay from the workers who actually assembled it. People wanted to be wealthyThe wealthier class who "just stepped off the boat from Nantucket" (Maura) didn't need to put out to get money. They didn't need the money anyway (all the snobby prepsters!), but they could still put out at their leisure if they had the urge to.
I mean look at them! The wealthy (prepsters in our day and age) had the aura and looks of a financially well off person.
The putting out system however widely practiced, wasn't supported by all. The guilds were jealous of the people using the putting out system. The putter outers were getting everything, while the guilds were getting nothing. They were not as attractive to the customers. While the guilds did have luxurious products, they were expensive. In the putting out system, while there was a plethora of products being sold, they were cheap. There was not a high standard for the products.
So all in all from the land to the sea, from the bees to the birds, the putting out system, with all its benefits and controversies, was just your average run of the mill industry!
Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, 80% of Europeans made their livings as farmers. Unfortunately, ineffective techniques and poor conditions often caused crop failures which inevitably led to famines and poor economies.
This is what I imagine the sad farmers looked like when their crops failed.
The Agricultural Revolution modernized and commercialized farming in Europe with the help of new techniques. The techniques, such as crop rotation and selective farming, were products of the scientific revolution.
Crop Rotation
By alternating growing different types of crops, soil exhaustion and fallow were lessened, improving crop yields.
One of the most important developments of the Agricultural Revolution was the enclosure of the land, particularly in England. Some believed that in order to improve farming, farmers had to consolidate their lands into one fenced in area, rather than occupy several scattered fields.
Opinions differ as to whether or not this consolidation of the lands was beneficial to the common person.
Pro-enclosure:
Supporters of enclosure (the wealthy) believed that this system would improve farming because the new techniques could be easily applied, making farming more efficient. The wealthy land owners benefited directly from this system because they produced higher crop yields and could charge higher rents. After the enclosure acts, many poor farmers lost their own land, so they had to work the land of the wealthy. This gave the laborers relative stability because it provided secure jobs. This officially marked England's transition into a market-oriented agricultural society with the addition of a landless proletariat (working class). England was growing up and on its way to becoming capitalist (aww).
Anti-enclosure:
Adversaries of enclosure believed that this system hindered social mobility. Because the wealthy tended to monopolize the land, they poor seemed to have few opportunities to improve economically. Obsessed with a making a profit, large land owners leased their land to middle-class farmers who relied on the proletariat to work the land. Laborers worked long hours and became entirely dependent on cash wages.
Katie Coyne's Opinion:
I think that, while it seemed as though the lower class had lost its social mobility, life after enclosure was more stable for everyone. Previously, people essentially shared the land (*cough* communism) and farmed rather haphazardly. Their dated techniques provided inconsistent crop yields which led to famines and distress. With the help of the newer techniques and the enclosure, farming became much more lucrative and successful--not to mention famines became less common. While many did not own land themselves, they had stable jobs working the land. I believe that a certain degree of economic stability can eventually lead to social mobility. Once one has a relatively stable job, he can attempt to move up economically. For this reason, I think that, theoretically, the lower and middle classes should have had more social mobility after enclosure than before.
Our knowledge
of imperialism began in freshman year. When the explorers went… well exploring, they did so for the reasons
of Gold, God, and Glory. We were
told time and time again about these pioneers, their explorations, and the many
treasures they discovered. What we had yet to realize was that these men were imperialists
in every sense of the word. Imperialism is the belief in empire-building, in
order to gain more land for the country. Imperialism is the goals of Gold, God,
and Glory put into practice.
The Early 16th Century vs. The 18th Century
Remember Jamestown
and the settlement at Roanoke? Yeah, that’s kind of what’s going on here. England and Spain had the same goal in mind, expansion
of the crown and the monarchy. So they set out to discover new land and claim
it for their country [Because Land = Power
= Money (Thanks Katie)] But… more money equals more problems…
Thanks for the graph Biggie.
It’s like the French and Indian war all
over again. (Refresher- the French and the Indians weren’t fighting against each other… I’m still not over the name)
ANYWAY. A country expands and annoys some people. Columbus annoyed the “Indians”,
just like the colonists annoyed the Native Americans after Thanksgiving…
Basically...
So
what is going on now is not “Round One” of imperialism, we've seen it many times before. And the one thing that binds every part of imperialism is….
Wait for it…
MONEY!
(Shocking, I know.)
Specifically mercantilism, as can be
observed in the Triangle Trade Route.
I'd reccomend putting this on mute and then watching it.
The Enlightenment brought to light many great philosophers who affected people intellectually and culturally. They affected people of all classes; including the leaders of countries. The period of Enlightenment brought a generation of enlightened absolutists. What is an enlightened absolutist? An enlightened absolutist is a leader who embraced the ideas of Enlightenment such as religious toleration, the right to hold private property, and more studies into the sciences and education. Also, more freedom of the press and speech was given to the population.
Frederick (II) the Great came to power in Prussia in 1740. The first thing Frederick accomplished was invade and conquer the German lands of the Habsburgs, Silesia. With this step Frederick doubled the population of Prussia. Frederick was able to keep this land with the help of Peter III during the 7 Years' War. Frederick brought Enlightenment to the people as a way to strengthen his state. He allowed his subjects the freedom of philosophical and religious tolerance (except Judaism, of course). He improved schools and allowed them to publish their findings in order to continue to educate people. In his government, Frederick created a more honest legal system and abolished the torturing of prisoners. Next Frederick created the reconstruction of agriculture after the 7 Years' War. Though Frederick did not like the idea of serfdom, he needed to use it to support his country.
Frederick truly differed from past rulers when he "justified monarchy in terms of practical results and said nothing of the divine right of kings." This embodies the enlightened belief of the practical use of knowledge to govern opposed to the blind faith of a divine ruler to govern.
Catherine the Great of Russia came to power in 1762 after overthrowing her husband Peter III. Catherine brought the Enlightened period to backward Russia by "westernization". In this process Catherine brought architects and sculptors to Russia from Western Europe. Her next step was a domestic reform where she improved education, strengthen local government, and abolished torture(very similar to Frederick the Great). She allowed a little religious toleration. She also condemned the idea of serfdom but because of a peasant rebellion lead by Emelian Pugachev, Catherine needed the help of the nobility to control the peasants.
Maria Theresa came to power in Austria in 1740. The War of the Austrian Succession included the loss of Silesia to Prussia leading to reforms. She believed that reforms were the path to a stronger state. Maria first attacked the power of the papacy in politics by limiting it. Next she improved her government by making a more centralized bureaucracy and created a new tax system where even the nobles were taxed. Maria truly differed from other rulers of her time by reducing the power of lords over serfs. Her son, Joseph II gave religious tolerance and rights to Protestants and Jews. Following in his mothers path, Joseph II abolished serfdom in Austria in 1781 and decreed that all peasant labor obligations be converted into cash payments. Sadly these measures were rejected by nobility and the peasants causing an uproar after Joseph's untimely death. His brother Leopold II had to demolish Joseph's edicts.
Another name for an enlightened absolutist is a benevolent dictator. But are they the same thing? An enlightened absolutist is someone who uses the ideas of the enlightenment to better their government and kingdom while a benevolent dictator is someone who helps their populace with the intent to make their life better. I believe that the enlightened absolutists were not the same as benevolent dictators. The rulers of Prussia, Russia, and Austria wanted to improve their country in every way but knew in order to do so they needed to adapt to the times and use the technique of knowledge to efficiently run a kingdom. They did not have the intent of improving the lives of the people with their inability to abolish the oppressive serfdom. In the end, many of the absolutists were able to improve their countries with intelligence, hard work, and enlightenment.
Today in class we reviewed philosophy during the Enlightenment, specifically focusing on Kant and Rousseau, which was rather confusing. We started off by discussing some Kant.
Pictured: Kant
He gave us a pretty nice definition of what is Enlightenment, namely that it was "man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity."
Pictured: Not Kant
Now, the hard part comes, defining Kant's definition! Basically, to Kant, immaturity wasn't making dirty jokes all the time, rather it was not using your head and not thinking independently. Kant believed (with just reasons) that many people were "immature" in this manner and simply were content with being ignorant.
This show justifies Kant's argument
For Kant the main reason the majority of people were not enlightened was simply because they were too lazy to improve themselves or too afraid to step outside their boundaries. It should also be noted he pretty much thought all women were unenlightened because in this time it was not acceptable for them to think very independently. However, Kant believed that the public could gradually become enlightened. He said that this could be accomplished by the leadership of the few enlightened guardians of thought. In other words he meant that he believed in an enlightened ruler who would then seek to enlighten his subjects. He did not believe that it could work the other way around, that the enlightened subjects make the rulers enlightened. To Kant this would lead to conflict in which the rulers (or guardians) would become even more prejudiced and less reasonable in reaction to the uprising.
Kant also on clarified that enlightenment only really needed the freedom of the public use of reason, and that the freedom of the private use of reason did not matter as much. Private use of reason means basically whether you adhere to the duties of your job. If you are for example, a soldier, Kant would still expect you to obey orders, as it is your job. In this aspect, he believed a person could be restricted to follow what was needed of them by society. However, Kant said that you should still be able to discuss your thoughts freely in the public and employ your reason. He mainly advocated therefore for what we would know as the freedom of the press.
Pictured: Not Kant, Actually Rousseau
We also briefly talked about Rousseau. Rousseau was another Enlightenment era philosopher, but he differed from Kant in a few ways. Like Kant, Rousseau believed that people should have individual freedom of expression of thought. One was that he had a somewhat more positive view on the basic nature of humanity. He also did not trust in rationalism as much. To him, because humanity was already good, trying to "civilize" someone could actually be hurtful to their freedom.
Rousseau also went beyond just wanting to have an enlightened ruler. Rousseau believed that a ruler did not derive their right to rule from force, God or nature but rather sovereignty should lie in common interests of the populace, known as general will. This idea of the general will led to the belief in popular sovereignty, wherein the people ruled themselves. These ideas would become incredibly influential.
Think of the scientific revolution as the first apple tree that John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) ever planted. The apple was a fruit that Americans had not been exposed to before. Just as Johnny Appleseed introduced the apple tree to large areas of the United States, the scientific revolution introduced the world to new ideas.
-Tree = Scientific Revolution
-Scientific Revolution produces new ideas
-New ideas = apples
The scientific revolution was the single most important factor in the creation of the new views brought about during the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Although the "fresh" ideas (fresh apples lol) of the time were diverse and often conflicting, three central concepts stand at the core in the apple of Enlightenment thinking.
Society split between 3 different groups, groups that I like to call the "PPP" or the P times 3 because it rhymes. (People, Public, Philosophes) By 1775, most of Western Europe's educated elite had embraced the new ideas of the Enlightenment. These educated and enlightened people were simply referred to as "the public." In turn, there was the great majority of the population, or the common people, who were simply referred to as "the people." (Or the hoi polloi for Maria) The philosophes, or simply the intellectuals, were the ones in charge of making Enlightenment thought accessible to this wide range of people. However, these philosophe dudes were very demeaning and almost paternalistic over their poor audiences. They honestly believed that they "were bringing the light of knowledge to their ignorant fellow creatures...and that the great majority of the common people were doomed because they lacked the money and the leisure to look beyond their bitter struggle with poverty." Basically, I think that these philosophes were very optimistic of themselves, yet very pessimistic of human nature. In order for society to progress in a positive direction (one of the 3 parts of the apple), the intellectuals must commit themselves to educating and informing the ignorant masses. Of course though, it was for their own good and for the good of society...There were no benefits for the fatherly philosophes at all! (sarcasm).
A perfect example of a paternalistic, pessimistic philosophe is Francois Marie Arouet, AKA Voltaire. Before I continue.. I digress...
Not only did Voltaire believe that human beings are rarely worthy to govern themselves, but he also rejected the idea of social and economic equality. Servants would always be lesser than their masters, there was no changing that. Voltaire's belief in the unequal nature of humans severely clashed with Church doctrine. Christ's message of "loving God and your neighbor as yourself" would not fly according to Voltaire.
Therefore, I think these philosophes had good intentions by wanting to improve and to advance society with the new ideas of the Enlightenment. However, they did not approach the situation in the correct manner. As usual, the common people didn't really matter and the elite was better than everyone else, the usual. To be completely honest though, I don't understand why Voltaire thought he was the man. He did have a pretty girly name after all... how embarrassing.
The scientific revolution had 3 main causes:
1) Universities: the course of philosophy, newly developed, encouraged a new way of thinking. It was a minor branch of science but it was the instigator of the idea of science
2) Math: humanists studied the classics and with it came math. People back then wanted to solve the problems that arose in ancient times. By solving these problems, they began the progression of science.
3) Navigation: it was very difficult to find the longitude during this time. Science was needed to make such an instrument and help with the efficiency of ships.
*** A chronometer(left) is the instrument that measures longitude, not a sextant (sorry Maria!). That however measures the latitude. VS.
Eventually, the scientific revolution resulted in empiricism and Cartesian dualism.
Empiricism (we like this concept!)
Since we didn't have a concrete definition of this in class (ironic isn't is) here is what Bing's dictionary has to say:
application of observation and experiment: the application of observation and experiment, and not theory, in determining something
philosophical belief regarding sense-derived knowledge: the philosophical belief that all knowledge is derived from the experience of the senses
Using the 5 senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, hear, in case you need a reminder) scientists at this time had concrete understanding of life. For example, since we are not sciency people, I'll use food as my example.
1) Sight- One can see that potato chips can be grooved, thin, or kettle
2) Touch- One can feel the rough, fried texture
3) Smell- One can smell the potato chips...they smell like potatoes
4) Hear- One can hear the crunching of the potato chips when others eat them
5) Taste- One can taste the saltiness
Hungry yet?
Now back to science. So as you can see, at this time is was very easy to believe in the things we can physically come in contact with. The experience of eating potato chips is just as real as Locke's tabula rasa belief. Everyone writes his/her life with the experiences. If one chooses to make his or her life about potato chips so be it. It is the things in our life, the things we experience that mold us.
Another theory, unlike empiricism, is the Cartesian dualism (we don't like this one)
It is made up of two concept: inductive and deductive reasoning.
Inductive: Johnny doesn't wear a wedding ring, he is single
Deductive: Johnny is a bachelor, all bachelors are single, Johnny is single
This concept relates to the scientific method as well. The hypothesis is inductive (inferred) while the conclusion is deductive (based on facts).
Finally, all this concrete evidence lead to the questioning of the church. The church was semi ok with the idea of science in the beginning because it didn't pose much of a threat. However, as time went on, the church and humanity was no longer the center of the world and physical experiments were proving some of the church's beliefs wrong. Since the ways of the church were questioned, the church leaders feared that their other doctrines would be questioned. It was a challenge of authority between scientists and the religious leaders at this point. It was a battle they couldn't afford to lose.
While science is annoying and, occasionally, emotionally distressing, it is very important (yes, I admitted it, Maria). The Scientific Revolution officially marked Europe's transition from a religious, doctrinal way of thinking to a scientific, logical one. During the Middle Ages, there was little scientific advancement. People faithfully accepted the Church's explanation of the world and how it worked. During the Renaissance, this began to change as people began to study Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato. Finally, during the Scientific Revolution, thinkers like Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton began to really question the accepted explanations of the world. This led to many important discoveries, but, more importantly, to a change in thought that would influence the modern development of Europe.
Nicolas Copernicus
Copernicus disproved the geocentric theory that placed earth at the center of the solar system and replaced it with the heliocentric theory in which the Earth was simply one of a number of plants orbiting the sun.
Because of lack of physical evidence and public support, Copernicus had difficulty having his theory accepted. He was denounced by religious leaders, especially Protestant ones. Martin Luther said: "the fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside down (598).
Here is a fun video to clarify the Heliocentric Theory:
Galileo
Galileo revised the subject of Physics through his use of the experimental method, an ancestor of our scientific method. He used this to formulate the law of inertia, which states that an object continues in motion forever unless stopped by an external force. In the same way, a stationary object can not move unless affected by another force.
Galileo also found evidence to support Copernicus's heliocentric theory by examining space through a telescope. Many theologians denounced Galileo as a heretic. However, Pope Urban VIII permitted him to write about his theories as long as he did not discredit the one that "actually existed". He wrote The Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of World which openly defended the views of Copernicus. As a result, he was tried for heresy by the Church and recanted.
Isaac Newton
Newton developed many theories to explain how the world worked. However, none are so revolutionary as his law of universal gravitation. This states "that every body in the universe attracts every other body in the universe in a precise mathematical relationship, whereby the force of attraction is proportional to the quantity of matter of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" (601). [I directly quoted that from the book because I have no idea what it means and therefore could not explain it in my own words]. Many scientists believe that this is the basis of modern scientific discovery.
Here is another fun video to describe the concept of gravity:
The contributions of these scientists truly began modern scientific discovery. Without them, our society would be unrecognizable.
To conclude this blog post, I have posted a video of arguably the best scientists of the 21st century, maybe even the best ever:
Peter the Great ruled Russia from 1628 until his
death in 1725. During his reign he tried to improve Russia in every aspect. He organized
a better military by banning nepotism and unjust promotions amongst army
officials. Peter also used the nobles for personal gain and power. Peter the Great
transformed Russia into a force to be reckoned with. But was Peter just copying
Louis XIV?
So here wa have Versailles...
And here we have Saint Petersburg...
There
are many parallels between Russia and France, are they simply coincidences or
something more? Louis had Versailles, Peter had Saint Petersburg. Peter wanted
a modern version of Versailles to showcase his power. Both Louis and Peter
stripped nobles of power and ignored the peasants. The rich got richer and the
poor got poorer, just like everywhere else. Peter was interested in
westernizing Russia, but to an extent. That extent was to be determined by him
and his interests. What Peter felt was good for Russia, was good for Russia. When
he came into power Russia was a small fish in a big pond. When his reign came
to an end, Russia was without a doubt a predator.
Yay for Russia, not so much for that green fishy...
Overall
Peter's actions and policies were very beneficial for Russia and its citizens-
the peasants were still poor (but who really cares about them anyway?). So,
although Peter may have been a copycat, he still lived up to being Peter the
Great.
As Katie has said in class, Russia was big, cold, and angry. But they were angry for the right reason.
In the thirteenth century the mongols, lead by Chinggis Khan, invaded and ruled eastern Europe and Russia with his "Golden Horde".
Khan did not kill but used the Russian princes as tools. The princes were a key instrument to collect the taxes and control the populace.
But one man thought he could overcome the mongols. That man was Ivan (III) the Great who broke the yoke of the mongols that suffocated Russia. He rose within the princes and took Russia back.
Ivan ruled until his son Ivan (IV) the TERRIBLE took over.
Ivan reigned with an intent to control every aspect of his country. This resulted in a suppression of his subjects. Ivan made all his subjects depend upon himself for land and jobs. He created a service nobility where hereditary of private property was eradicated. Ivan also began a war with Poland-Lithuania, wasting much money. With the death of his beloved Anastasia Ivan struck even harder upon his country. Muscovite boyars were killed by mysterious men on horses and these purges continued for much of his reign. The Cossacks created an independence from Russia as a free group.
Ivan's death created chaos over Russia because his son was killed (by Ivan). This began the "Time of Troubles". Many reached for power until the nobility took control once more and placed Ivan's nephew Michael Romanov who reestablished the tsarist autocracy. This reign ushered the rule of Peter the Great.
Peter the Great was an angel compared to his distant relative Ivan the Terrible. Peter believed in a monarchical autocracy and improved his military in order to westernize Russia. Peter strongly believed in territorial expansion. To improve his military knowledge Peter traveled unofficially on a tour of western European capitals. This began Peter's (secret) alliance with Denmark. This became helpful when Russia began a war against Sweden.
Now why did Peter want land of Sweden so much? Sweden held St. Petersburg and ports to the Baltic Sea which appeared very similar to Versailles of France. This war was Russia's next step to becoming fully westernized. Peter was like a young teenage girl who was catching onto the "preppy" trend (like many girls in our school). Preppy clothing is expensive. And so is modernizing a country. One piece of the puzzle was bought at a time. Some land conquered here and better clothing for the people there. A long champ purse here and a monogrammed necklace there, Russia was slowly becoming modernized like the rest of Europe. With a growing military power and a new cultural change in fashion in Russia, Peter was becoming closer and closer to western countries.
VS. 
