The King of France, Not Paris

Baroque: is often thought of as a period of artistic style that used exaggerated motion and clear, easily interpreted detail to produce drama, tension, exuberance, and grandeur in sculpture, painting, architecture, literature, dance, theatre, and music



King Louis can also be added to this definition. He embodied the state, therefore he would do anything to make himself --> thus his state, better. 

He was not the king of Paris, but the king of France. 



Ran France in absolute monarchy. 
           He used the nobles. Louis made them feel important so that they could not rebel against him. Given duties like lighting the candle in his royal chamber were only for the "elite", even though the job itself was pretty degrading. 

The nobles if they knew what about Louis using them

Why would the nobles rebel if they were allowed to live in Versailles and given all of these amazing "advantages"? 

ALSO KNOWN AS: fake friending:) Louis was basically Regina George. 







Many people may ask why Louis didn't just rule with fear, like the Russian tzars. 
             In my personal opinion (honestly could be wrong), Louis just wasn't confident enough. 
           

A huge part of the King Louis' life was the Fronde, where a rebellion was held against Louis's father in Paris. People came into the young prince's bedroom and "scared him" -led to a constant paranoia and eventual breakdown. 


Another big topic that was spoken of was How Things Were Changed or If They Stayed The Same

Colbert: 
He wanted to change the way things were run. 
The government controlled the economy for a while, and spoke of using gold to back up the currency. 
He invested heavily in Mercantilism. 
Mercantilism: where a country exports more than it imports. 
            The country thus gets more money, but it cannot rely on other countries

France

            This made France extremely self-sufficient. 
                 They produced everything in their own country and made money by exporting. 
Yet the state is also always looking for a balanced trade
             But balance does not mean equal:) 
Trade is a zero sum game. 
      While France is making money, another country is losing money. Anti-trade supporters usually believe in this. 


The Edict of Nantes: Revoked

The Huguenots were extremely upset, yet by the revocation of the Edict, they were once again reminded that it was only a temporary submission. 

To sum it up: One King, One Law, One Faith. Louis would not tolerate the Huguenots because he was a Catholic, and because of absolutism, all of France therefore was Catholic. 
       The different religions were disuniting France, and that could not happen. 

Because the Huguenots were in fortified towns and cities, they were a power within themselves.
        This could be a threat to the King of France.



Class Wrap-Up: 

Absolutism in the French Monarchy: Louis XIV, Sully, & Richelieu 

Paris is worth a mass. 

Henry IV converted to Catholicism but we already knew that.

1.) WHO WAS A LARGER THREAT TO POPE'S POWER --> HUGUENOTS OR KING LOUIS XIV? (2 main threats to absolutism - nobility and church)

• Well, they each possessed different types of power
• King --> power of the state
• Huguenots --> power of the nobles/masses/could cause reformation 
• King and Pope had a balance of power because:
• if Pope agreed to the Divine Right/Absolute Power of the King then he would not question the King's authority--> NOT THAT BIG OF A THREAT
• not one was overpowering the other - rather they were kind of working together 
• While Huguenots could try to over throw the Cath Religion through reformations/violence
• SO IN CONCLUSION: Erin as my witness --> Huguenots are a larger threat

(Low-key us trynna agree on who was a bigger threat)

2.) What was the foundation of French absolutism built upon?

1. Built upon sand. 
1. Things are unstable economically 
2. it is the finances that make French absolutism built upon shifting sands! 
1. Through lowering taxes = peasants are happy 
2. keeping Nobles in check by keeping them preoccupied with essentially trivial jobs
3. keeping ministers happy by giving them power in the state
2. By King gaining love of his people --> he had the ability to develop the characteristics of an absolute ruler 

(King Louis XIV for being "AWESOME") 

3.) Economics/Finances with Sully & Richelieu

• Henry IV lowered taxes on the overburdened peasants --> in compensation for lost revenue - he introduced paulette - an annual fee paid by royal offices to guarantee heredity in their offices
• Sully --> combined indirect taxes on salt, sales, and transit and leased their collection to FINANCERS
• revenue increased because of this revival in trade
• he subsidized the Company for Trade w/ the Indies
• started country-wide highway system
• SULLY = ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

• WHILE RICHI OVER HERE IS TRYNNA SUBORDINATE EVERYONE LIKE EW STOP 

• Richelieu set in place the cornerstone of French absolutism
• Richelieu's policy was the total subordination of all groups and institutions TO THE FRENCH MONARCHY
•  how did Richelieu and Sully's intentions differ?? 
•  Richelieu = subordination under french monarchy for political POWER 
• Sully = intentions centralize around France's economic prosperity as a country
• French foreign policy under Richelieu was aimed at the destruction of the fence of Habsburg territories that surrounded France
• he signed a treaty in 1631 w/ Gustavus Adolphus promising French support against the CATHOLIC HABSBURGS in 30Years' War. :)  
• BUT DID RICHELIEU MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO FIX ECONOMIC ISSUES OF THE TIME???

 (@ Richelieu on solving economic issues)
I mean he did do some stuff like: 

• temporarily solved financial problems by securing the cooperation of local elites
• the central government shared the proceeds of tax revenue with the local powers - however this backfired because it limited French Absolutism LOL 

Friday Oct. 21 Class

What is absolutism?

The belief that the king has absolute power to rule because God gave it to him (called "divine right")

The 3 documents about absolutism:

Richelieu, Political Testament, 1638

• not intended for general public-- just for Louis XIII
• author was the king's favorite ministers (politically) and was a churchman (religously) 
• played an important role in developing absolutism in 17th century France
• in favor of absolutism because he wanted to give King Louis XIII power who would then give him power
• absolutism would restore the power of the King and the entirety of France after the civil war-----get rid of Huguenots
• saving the state will save the church-- no separation (note that the state comes before the church)

Saint-Simon, Memoirs, 1691-1701 

• intended for public to read
• author came from lower nobility under Louis XIV
• St. Simon gave the impression that absolutism could work, but it was not under Louis XIV
• "God had given him all that was necessary for him to be a good King, perhaps also to be a fairly great one. All his faults were produced by his surroundings."--- translation--he could have been a great king, but fell short of it
• St. Simon believed the King was too focused on minor, petty details (like what the army wears and who shows up to dinner) and was too easily swayed by compliments ( the nobles at court knew this so they complimented him to gain power) 
• the king also set himself up for an overthrow because the entire county was too focused on riches and lavish and was close to having no money ---- "This folly, sustained by pride and ostentation, has already produced widespread confusion; it threatens to end in nothing short of ruin and a general overthrow."

(the court to King Louis XIV)

Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Politics Taken From the Very Words of Holy Scripture, 1679 (first translated into English, 1707) 

• intended for the public 
• author was a bishop under Louis XIV
• Kings are given the authority to rule by God --- they are the earthy representation of God 
• the people must not disrespect the King because God put the King on the throne--- if one disrespects the King, they are disrespecting God and will have to deal with Him (God)
• with this being said, the king must respect the people he is ruling and do good for them-- kings must rule with "fear and self-restaint"

Absolutism made kings super powerful, even more than they were in the Middle Ages. They feared that the church or the nobles would damper their power.  Bureaucracies, composed of career officials appointed and solely accountable to the king, were made as a safeguard against the church and nobles. French bureaucracies were usually made up of members of the middle class and recognized that they served the state, and did not hold private positions. 

lets save the native americans from savagery 

(or do we need to save ourselves from savagery) 

So if we remember we started off the class talking about how the idealogical side of Indians... we then decided we had no idea what that meant so we moved on...

SO IMPORTANT FOR THE AP EXAM: WHEN COMPARING PIECES OF WORK, OR JUST READING ANY WORK, IDENTIFY WHO THE AUDIENCE IS!!!!

so montaigne... 

its Mon-TAIN not Mon- TAGNA

His whole point was "Who is the real savage here" 

He DID condemn the indians for cannibalism 

yes i did just use two willy wonka gifs in one post

but he did make the point that watching people get torn limb from limb could possibly be more savage. Also, were they actually savage? It was most likely that the Europeans didn't know how to mesh with the Indians... they had never really encountered such a foreign culture before, so they decided kill them all, you know, the usual. 

we then went back to the idealizing indians and we sort of understood that so that was good...

de las Casa --> said that we should stop killing Indians for gold while using religion as a ruse for it... 

Back to the super important AP exam tip: who were these guys audiences?

Montaigne was much broader in scope, didn't mention specific people: he was mainly addressing europeans as a whole, trying to break the stereotype of indians

de las Casa was very specific, mentioning Charles V, trying to go above the conquistadors heads, to enact his change... you know he had a great plan, just enslave the africans. and as mr. yarn all put it well, truly a man of God.  

basically: montaigne - broad; de las case - narrow

_________________________________________________________________________________

finally, montaigne is more important than de las casa bc although he wasn't appreciated in his time, he set the ball rolling with skepticism for things to come in later centuries... aka THE ENLIGHTENMENT and THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION... 

said no one ever to montaigne 

Society and Sorcery

So after Christopher Columbus founded the new world in 1492, the Spanish people inflicted their societal standards on pretty much everyone. They had their own social pyramid:

1. Penninsulares (people born in Spain and of pure Spanish blood) were at the top
2. Creoles, who were people of Spanish blood born in the Americas 
3. Mestizos, who were born of a European and Native (mixed blood) 
4. Natives, who were at the bottom of the chain no matter what because they didn't have an ounce of Spanish blood in them 

So basically the entire Spanish society was based on race and blood, which is the most unfair thing ever. 

The Spanish also had their government organized: 

• Viceroyalties were made--> they were administrative divisions with a viceroy in charge of each of them 
• The four Viceroyalities were: 

1. New Spain 
2. New Grenada 
3. Peru 
4. La Plata 

THE PRICE REVOLUTION 

• This next topic involves the thing that I still don't get and have to be re taught every year- inflation 
• Inflation means that the prices of goods raise really high and so the value goes down 

Why did this happen? 

• The most probable cause for inflation is population growth: 
• Because there are more consumers-the prices raise because everyone wants the goods and there is a high demand for them 
• More demand means prices go up 

CHANGING ATTITUDES 

How were their attitudes changed? 

• So at this time, the Europeans are really feeling themselves. They think they are the absolute best at basically everything. 
• Then they find the new world, and they're like "Wait we don't know everything about everything?..."
• This was a HUGE reality check for them- and the clash between their culture and beliefs and the natives' threw Europeans for an even bigger loop 
• They didn't understand why there would be anyone that wouldn't follow their beliefs 

The Europeans really looked down on the Natives: 

• They viewed them as savages, or as Lily so intelligently put it, eternal children 
• They were viewed as savages because the Europeans thought that they chose to make the wrong decisions regarding societal standards and religious beliefs even though they are capable of the right decision- therefore they are uncivilized 
• They were viewed as eternal children in that they don't know the difference between right and wrong, and they need constant guidance to convert 

THE WITCHES 

The women that were being accused of witchcraft at this time were not actual witches... Then why were they being accused? 

• A witch was a woman who was working with the devil to do harm against her enemies 
• Suspicion would be raised against women if they were not conforming to societal standards, for example being unmarried 
• Belief in witches was pretty popular at this time because they just got finished with all these religious wars-so they basically thought that if there were groups that didn't believe in God the same way, there must be groups that believe in the devil
• If a woman was accused of being a witch, she was put on "trial"-which basically meant she was guilty and going to be killed because no one was ever pronounced innocent 
• They also WANTED to believe that these women were witches, because then it gave them more proof that God was real--> because if the devil is real then God of course is 

European Exploration

So, following the end of the Thirty Years' War, Europeans started a push to explore beyond their borders.

(Real)Motives for this action:
1. WEALTH
- Many countries (such as Spain) used religion to veil their true motives for the "Age of Exploration"--> in fact, the use of religion often "supplied the pretext and gold the motive"

- Although some explorers were, in part, religiously motivated , many outwardly admitted that profit was the reason for their voyages.

 - At the heart of this period of exploration was money and how to accumulate it through new lands/valuable trade

 -The only problem with fulfilling this motive for wealth through trade stemmed from issues to the east

The Trade Problem:
- Since the Crusades (11th -13th century) the Europeans were really into the spices and silks that they could buy from the  Indies (not to be confused with India)
- However, two empires stood in the way of European traders getting into the spice market to gain wealth:
1. The Ming dynasty : in China, the new dynasty threw out all foreigners (aka the Europeans) from their Mediterranean ports. Because the Europeans had always used this known eastern route, the closing of these ports left them with the only other option to sail south or west.

2. The Ottoman Turkish Empire : while the Turks were conquering Asia Minor and slowly moving west, the European traders still may have been able to find a way to use them in trade-- had that method been most profitable
            -B/c the Turks would have just been an extra middleman in the process of the European markets getting spices and silks, traders would have to lose more than they gain ; therefore, it gave them more incentive to cut the Turks out and find a direct route to the  Indies.

-So, European nations started to look for a more direct route to the Indies by sailing westward

'Solving' the Trade Problem (aka Means) :
- Coinciding with the Renaissance,  many of these would-be explorers reaped the benefit of curiosity.
- Smaller/faster ships (caravel) were built ; the astrolabe and magnetic compass improved measurements of latitude and location
- Also, the popular practice of centralizing the  power in the monarchy helped provide a strong backing in  funds for those willing to explore the oceans
            -Funding was key to the success of these voyages b/c sailors couldn't afford the risk to even hope of getting a reward.

Explorer: Christopher Columbus:
- He may have sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but he didn't know where actually came ashore .
-Thinking he reached the "Indies" , Columbus sailed onto the West Indies.

-Although making many mistakes (like calling the natives , "Indians", etc) his discovery set off the beginning of new trade networks and a more global community.

As a Result:
To what extent, as they expanded their land, did Europeans narrow their views on the world?

- Previous View of the World : In the Renaissance, there was a return to the glory of man  and all he was capable of achieving. Humans were regarded in the highest esteem. Different talents were celebrated and encouraged among European society.

- Taking this Renaissance view, the European view during the "Age of Expansion" was limited. In this way of thinking, only European men, rather than all men, were worthy of praise. The more people they came in contact with in the new world, the more Europeans narrowed their view of subjugating other races. The natives were not equals, their accomplishments were looked on as primitive, and their differences seen as inferior to the European race.

• So NOW the 30 YEARS' WAR

Me in School

• Catholics thrown out of window - starts 30 Years' War

Me when I get a job

• religious war? - 30 Years’ War - all conflicts difficult to untangle religion from politics

4 phases:

1. Bohemia - Similar to Netherlands (Dutch) revolt?? 
1. Both wanted independence, both wanted separation of politics and religion.
2. Difference = Netherlands won and Bohemia failed.
2. Danish - 
1. Wallenstein thinks more of self than actual Catholic movement - expresses division Catholic camp - religious war not so much about religion.  
3. Swedish - 
1. Adolphus - Death marks to entrance of French for Protestants
4. French - 
1. helped Protestant rather than Catholics - shows it is not religious war - political barrier greater than religious differences

• Why did 30 Years’ War end?? - 
• Low population, low resources, Germany ruined to satisfaction of France, exhaustion (LASTED 30 YEARS).

30 Years' War and then add 30 years

• Two Peaces: Same but different
• Peace of Augsbury (1555) - recognized Catholic and Lutheranism
• Peace of Westphalia - recognized Calvinism too

****NOT religious TOLERANCE****

• Peace of Westphalia - Why turning point for politics, society, and religion?
• Previously it had decisive winner, now not so clear, shaped geography of Europe.
• Self determination (like Woodrow Wilson w 14 points) for German princes - took power away from emperor
• Reduces role of Church in Europe politics (almost separation of church and states)

Politiques and the Netherlands

We started off Friday's class with a short discussion about politiques

      They were basically the people who said that if we could have a strong monarchy AND a strong toleration of the French Huguenots, all would be well in the world.

What Henry would not want the Catholics to do

                 Our famous King, Henry of Navarre, was a strong believer in this idea.

• He wouldn't want the Catholics to ruin the Protestants or vice versa

BUT the most important topic of Friday's class revolved around the Netherlands.


         So basically our beloved Chucky V inherited 17 provinces which made up the Netherlands. 

These 17 provinces were extremely prosperous due to trading

• Antwerp: a huge trading section
• Trade mostly with England (wool!) 

Yet as prosperous as they were, the Netherlands could not seem to unite. Chucky V was recognized as their "king"but each state still had its own taxes and laws. 

The Netherland states's problems could also be categorized as just another religious conflict in our textbook. 

• Chucky V was a Catholic King, and wanted everyone to be Catholic with him. Yet as   Lutheranism was circulating, the country was leaning more towards Protestantism.
• Charles responded with condemnation, but never fully ordered for the states to be JUST Catholic
• So as Charles gets older, his son Philip inherits the land. 
• The Dutch could not forgive Philip for being Spanish 
• Although they were not completely unified under Charles, the Dutch had a respect for him. Yet, Philip, coming from their enemy (and Catholic) country, did not sit well with them. 

The worst thing Chucky V could do for the Netherlands? Die.

The low countries are Belgium and Holland (hint: looking at the map won't help you find that out)

      The Northern Provinces of the Netherlands was highly defensible because of their canals and "sluices"- which is a gate controlling the flow of water. 

• Whomever (Belgium or the Northern Provinces) controlled the sluices, essentially controlled the world. 
• Several times, the Northerners flooded/broke their sluices on purpose as a defence mechanism so that the Belgians couldn't invade.

So as the Northerners are in control of the sluices, there are still people who want to break away from them. 

           These people call on England to help them out. 

• some of you may be wondering: "Now WHY would England help them out?"                   

Essentially, there are 3 (4?) reasons: 

• England's trade route (for wool) 
• William was murdered, thus eliminating a Protestant leader that the Dutch admired
• Collapse of Antwerp: This signalled a Catholic sweep-if the United Provinces went back to Catholicism, they would go back to Spanish rule. 
• This would be the beginning of the end of English Protestantism 
• Finally, they were scared of Spanish Invasion. 

By supporting the United Provinces of the Netherlands, they would be making enemies with Spain, who at the time was the world power. (Think of the Spanish Armada and its power). 

Was it weird that England got themselves involved? 

       Yes and No. Queen Elizabeth was not involved for the religious reasons, but for the political. 

        Overall, the benefits of the possible outcome outweighed the risks for England. 

Of course, Philip is now angry about all of these events. 

Yet England comes out victorious after many years of fighting, and this is really only because Spain lost to "themselves" 

           several fluke accidents helped England to win, and our beautiful textbooks site fireships (lighting a ship on fire and sending it into others) as a main contribution to Spain's defeat. 

This was the beginning of the end for Spain as a world power. Philip couldn't impose religious unity, and the economics of Spain plummeted. 

Highlights of the Class: 

We missed you Hughes and Marve <3

Helpful Hint: There is a full European map on the back of the textbook! 

Julia and Maeve got me very sick! Thanks guys! 

SO RELIGIOUS WARS AND OVERSEAS EXPANSION ARE SOOOO OBVIOUSLY CONNECTED RIGHT?!?!??! no. 



But they are. Because most religious wars that were taking place at this time were caused by countries such as France and Spain coveting fragmented lands such as Italy = "overseas expansion"

 we also established that Yarn hates the french and that's why he didn't allow Maeve to eat her croissant in class but allows "cheerios" which are *cough* English *cough* #subtle!


ANWAY in 1559 France and Span signed Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis --> ended the Habsburg(Spain)-Valois (french)Wars

• Spain won --> Spain gained "overseas expansion" of ITALY 
• "so wait Brielle why is this war involved in this chapter if its not religious?" you're. right. it doesn't. But there serious similarities between Germany and Italy - both were fragmented lands at this time and monarchies wanted to overpower the weak territories

ORIGINS OF DIFFICULTIES IN FRANCE:

- To pay for the Habsburg-Valois wars, Francis I tried two new devices to raise revenue: the sale of public offices and a treaty with the papacy

- ALSO there was the Concordat of Bologna - Francis agreed to recognize supremacy of the papacy as a universal council (Side not with the Conciliar Movement if you need the reference) 

§  Conciliar movement no good in France

The Conciliar Movement was a Christian reform movement in the 14th and 15th centuries in the Roman Catholic Church which held that final authority in spiritual matters resided with the Church as a corporation of Christians, embodied by a general church council, not with the Pope.- in return - French crown gained the right to appoint all French bishops 

this gave the monarchy a LOT OF REVENUE AND POWER OVER THE CHURCH (which Francis needed money for standing army) 
- Problem was that Francis chose rich people not people that would best serve church or loyal people
- established France as CATHOLIC NATION! 
but this imbalance and corruption that the agreement caused --> made Calvinism appealing to nobles

• Calvinism drew converts from among reform-minded members of the Catholic clergy - the industrious middle classes and artisan groups // those who desired change went to Calvin

Religious Riots and Civil War in France:
So why was France so messed up??? THE FEEBLENESS OF THE FRENCH MONARCHY WAS THE SED FROM WHICH THE WEEDS OF CIVIL VIOLENCE SPRANG!

1. weak sons of Henry II could not provide strong/necessary leadership 
2. Catherine de' Medici --> wanted civil and religious peace so if her sons controlled the gov - her actions were for POLITICAL MOTIVES 
1. French nobility took advantage of the monarchial weakness!!!!
1. Religious Pluralism remember that??!!!  (when there are more than one religion being practiced in a country) WELL countries AKA FRANCE at this time wanted one national religion in order to exert more power, take control of then papacy and get more revenue. SOOO there was little to no religious toleration out of fear of a religious rebellion that would overthrow the monarchy.
2. 40-50% population converted to Calvinism 
3. night before a wedding for French Calvinist (Huguenot) - leader of Catholic aristocracy, Henry of Guise, had him attacked --> SLAUGHTER FOLLOWED 
4. Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre --> led to CIVIL RELIGIOUS WAR IN FRANCE 

Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre led to War of the Three Henrys – civil conflict among factions led by Cath Henry of Guise, Protestant Henry of Navarre, and King Henry III – who succeeded tubercular Charles IX..... Guise wanted “Holy League” not only to destroy Calvinism but also replace Henry III with member of Guise fam!!!!!

o   Death of Cath de Medici / assassination of Guise  and Henry III à paved way for accession of Henry of Navarre à  Henry IV

- so because he won and therefore GOT CONTROL OF FRANCE HE GAVE UP PROTESTANTISM AND CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM! 

Edict of Nantes à 1598 granted to Huguenots liberty of conscience and liberty of public worship in 150 fortified towns  - this was a step towards internal peace which was necessary after years of domestic tension/violence

From Class on 9/28/16

SORRY FOR NOT POSTING THIS EARLIER BUT I'M AN IDIOT AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK A COMPUTER!




















Anyway...


CALVIN!

• He was at the same time as Luther
• But because Calvin's ideas lasted longer and had more of an impact, he is credited with having the most influence on the future in terms of the reformation
• (not really fair to Luther since he, ya know,  got the whole ball rolling 

• 
  

• Not only is Calvin's reputation much different than his buddy Luther, but so are his beliefs
• As opposed to Lutheranism, Calvin said that one cannot have just good works and faith to achieve salvation. 
• Instead, God had already decided who was going to heaven and who was not. 
• This is called PREDESTINATION 
• So basically, if you are a Calvinist, you don't have free will because to have that is taking away power from God, and you have no idea whether you're going to heaven or hell BUT you must continue to do good works because then it will appear as if you are part of the elect (those who are b-lining it to heaven once they kick it) 

So your are probably thinking, "Why in the heck would anyone want to follow this religion?!" 

Ok so: 

• Women wanted to follow him because he allowed them to be part of the congregation. This gave them something to do instead of just sitting at home 
• Calvin also created Geneva, the first model Christian society, that seemed to be absolutely perfect and therefore seemed attractive to a lot of people
• Calvin was a great public speaker - he influenced peopled through that 
• Calvinism was also very attractive to the upper class 
• this is because Calvin stated that if you were successful, you are predestined for heaven
• this made the rich people think that if they joined, they would immediately become a part of the elect, which they usually did 
• Basically the majority of the people who joined Calvinism thought that they were going to heaven, because why would you ditch Catholicism if you thought you were going to hell? You wouldn't. 

There are two main off-shoots of Calvinism: 

1. Puritans 
2. Hugeanots 

ANABAPTISTS 

• They were considered suuuuuuper radical 
• Why? 
• Separation of Church and State 
• They believed in religious toleration and allowed women to be part of the ministry 
• They wanted their followers to be able to choose whether to be baptized or not- so they waited until they were adults 
• They took Luther's teachings as symbolic, not literal 
• They got some mad backlash for all this, and are basically like the hippies of the Reformation 

THE ENGLISH REFORMATION 

• Basically started because Henry didn't want to follow the papal supremacy 
• This was more for social reasons rather than reform- he wanted to get a divorce but the pope wouldn't let him
• So he starts his own Church (Anglican) and bans the Catholic Church from existing in England 
• They based their religion off of the Book of Common Prayer

The Lollards became prominent during this time:

• they opposed church wealth, veneration of saints, and prayers for the dead. 
• stressed individualism and the interpretation of the Bible 
• the working class was attracted to them 

The 35 minutes class

Do Luther's actions qualify as continuity or revolution? 

If you side with continuity: 

• "Luther said 'he's not changing the questions, he's changing the answer'"- Lily. This means that other people had been wanting restoration of the Church so it would be free of corruption like it was in the early ages. These people had asked questions before him. He is breaking the pattern and putting forth helpful answers to these questions. 

• The idea of a corrupt free Church wasn't new thus it wouldn't be a crazy idea 

If you side with revolution:

• He did put his own twist on it by not accepting all 7 Sacraments as legit and  saying the Pope was not the head of the Church or in Lily's words "the main dude." 

Family Trees 

(jokes) 

Religious one: 

• the Great Schism happens in 1054 and this is the 1st time there's a different Christian faith other than Catholicism !!!
• the main ones (for our purposes) that come after this split are: 

1. Lutheran 

2. Anglican 

3. Calvinism 

Royal one: 

• there's a whole bunch of intertwining roots (get it) (lol). the main ones are:

1. Ferdinand and Isabella (of Spain) 
2. Henry VIII (of England) 
3. Elizabeth (of England) 
4. Charles V (the Holy Roman Emperor)

• another powerful family was the Habsburgs of Austria from which Charles V came. they conquered many lands through marriage and fighting

Saint Teresa of Avila 

• girl power 
• she reformed her convent from low-key partiers and materialists to calm, prayer, and loving people

(check out Erin's blog for a brush up on Luther's soul-- inner and outer) 

SO THE IRISH WERE CATHOLIC AND EASTERN EUROPE WAS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN WE ALL ANTICIPATED

the class when we started talking about whether the reformation in eastern europe was a success

So eastern Europe is made up of Poland, Bohemia, Hungary. Eventually protestantism made its way into their society, but most people were not happy about it (ESPECIALLY THE POLISH)

You see, the book summarizes it very nicely by saying that religious differences are often settled by ethnic background. Which is exactly what happened with the polish. Poles hates germans. The germans like Lutheranism. Ergo, the poles hate lutheranism. So the reformation was a total failure in poland (agreed?) BUUUUUTTT the Polish did start to like Calvinism (mainly because it was French). Yet success and failure in the reformation was measured by whether or not the Catholic Church lost power, and it didn't in Poland. I'll leave it up to you to decide though.

In Hungrary we decided that it was a short term success, because they converted, but then... reverted?? so in the end, also a failure. 

Also super important: THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION AND COUNTER REFORMATION

(NO THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING)

The difference being that the Catholic reformation wanted to reform the church and make it better while the counter reformation just wanted to get rid of protestantism. To make it easy to remmeber

Catholic = strengthen church

Counter = weaken protestantism

the reformations can be summarized in three major events/occurences:

1. council of trent --> it was advertized to be a reconciliation with the protestants, but it was really just the Catholic church saying that it would evaulate the protestant's points to see if they fit into the church. SPOILER: THE PROTESTANT POINTS DONT. The CC found that they were right and reaffirmed the sacrements, and transubstantiation. 

the Catholic Church at Trent 

2. new religious orders -->  a revival in catholicism; wanted to teach people about the joys of Catholicism. example would be the Jesuits.
     - mix of counter and catholic reformations... depending on the religious order

3. the inquisition (the holy office) --> basically forcing people to come back from catholicism... yeah oops...
        - it was more anti-protestant than pro-catholic.... just get rid of the protestants and lives become easier

just for you Lily ;)

Notes From the Class about the class:

1. Abby was extremely happy that Canada won some hockey game (are we suprised they won? lmk)

2. Julia has been vegetarian since February and has a heart of gold. 

3. Lily has an extremely complicated family history that I will never be able to understand.