so hey fam great to be back only to realize i had to do the blog (@maeve sorry for making you do it yesterday)

BUT GUESS WHAT WE GET TO TALK ABOUT MY FAVORITE (and kalyna's least favorite) COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUSSIA...

oh don't forget the finishing of prussia (lol i kid i kid lily and erin frances)

ANYWHO'S I'll start with the end of prussia topics bc chronological order in presentations...

KING FREDERICK WILLIAM I, so mr. yarnall aptly asked us, why do we care?

I can't really answer why you might care, but he was important because he made prussia the third best military IN THE WORLD (thats pretty impressive)

way to go prussia 

he had a super large and powerful military, but somehow managed to stay out of wars... it was because everyone was scared of prussia... they knew that they were the best and they didn't need to challenge them to find out... again, up top for prussia...

side note: king frederick william i liked his men to be tall... REALLY tall 

the one downside of king frederick william i was that he wasn't really big into the arts... cue the transition into baroque architecture that keeps coming up and no one is quite sure why!

anyway, lets take a little jog back into the bazillion other fredericka in prussia (we accept lily's apology even though its not really her fault). 

king frederick i was super into louis xiv and his extravagance so he sort of started a period in prussia where all his nobles were building castles (he even built a castle that our own lovely lily has been too!) we couldn't decide the word, but his style was like an omage / ode to louis 

but frederick william i didn't exactly like art (you know the whole thinking for your own thing, he wasn't a fan of) so he sort of "reversed"

one last thing, why was prussia better than louis xiv --> prussia (aka frederick william i) had way more control than louis so he sort of crushed any opposition 

OKAY WE FINALLY FINISHED PRUSSIA... MOVING ONTO RUSSIA!!!!

so russia is just over there being conquested by the mongols... aka THE MONGOLS ARE ONE THE REASONS THAT RUSSIA IS SO DIFFERENT!

so the mongol yoke (not egg yolk @brielle) --> used princes to control people, really only wanted the money

then ivan iii (ivan the great) comes in and is like whoa i am way better than the khan I'm gonna take over.....

ivan the great takes over and becomes the tsar! 

SOOOOO EXCITING RIGHT?

the russians wanted to make it a third rome... cue quote about two romes falling but how there won't be a fourth rome... and its sort of important to remember why they wanted to be a third rome

rome is a symbol of power, but is also a distinctly european ideal, so it shows the russians were still influenced by the europeans

also ivan iii made religion of russia orthodoxy (not islam bc he wanted to drink) THIS IS ONE OF THE THREE PILLARS OF RUSSIAN ABSOLUTISM

THE THREE PILLARS OF RUSSIAN ABSOLUTISM ARE:

ORTHODOXY (the religion of russia as i just mentioned above)

AUTOCRACY  (another word for absolutism, its the name for a gov with a tsar/supreme leader)

NATIONALISM (thinking that there is nothing better than your country, like nothing, and everything should become like your own country)

look at those beautiful columns/pillars

this whole orthodoxy thing become important later on when nikon tries to create a reform in the church and the people of russia are just not having it --> they become old believers

the fact that the church was broken up kind of weakened the russian state and absolutist bc once again, orthodoxy was a pillar of russia. 

anyway, ivan iv (ivan the terrible) takes over... his reign is divided into two parts because one part was spent conquering the lands of russia and the second part was spent conquering the people of russia... aka the second part he was trying to learn to control them

so for more info on ivan's gain of land you can look at brielle's and i's smore...

moving on to the time of troubles... why was this time so terrible???

so ivan the terrible died, wouldn't that be a good thing??? NO because he had killed his own son, and russia was left with no tsar to rule so everyone/everything went into pure chaos... poor ivan, he went sort of crazy after his wife died early on in his reign. 

so we didn't get to baroque sad day... that'll be on tomorrow's blog! 

Eastern Europe

 Europe was pretty much the same through and through with only minor digressions in some areas... BUT then the black plague sweeps the continent causing deaths and labor shortages and West (England, France, Spain, etc.)  and East (Austria, Russia, and Prussia) begin to differ drastically.
What were the differences of Western and Eastern Europe? 

• treatment of peasants  
• the West dealt with the labor shortage by raising wages and allowing peasants more liberties including but not limited to the a say in the government 
• the East reverts to the serfdom of the past but with even more oppression including 
• being tied to one lord for ones entire life 
• serfs were tortured if they tried to escape (their ears would be nailed to a pole and then they would be given a knife and had to cut their own ear off ~very extra~)

(similar to the Christmas Story but 100x worse)

• working longer for lesser pay 
• hereditary subjugation --> the descendants of one family line all belonged to the same lord (aka if Frank had a kid his kid would be tied to the lord and so on and so forth) 
• NO say in government--> estates and representative governments were demolished (this was not just for peasants the King in Prussia did it to everyone to enhance his power and gain control over the "power of the purse" which the estate held. but it did effect the peasants)
• nobles 
• the nobles of the West were weaker because the King had more control over them (i.e. Louis XIV's court)
• the eastern nobles had more power because of the consolidating of serfdom (aka making the action of strengthening the serf system by embedding it into society or rather the nobles "sinking their claws into the serfs" 

(nobles--> bird / branch--> serfs) 

*summary--- the west had stronger serfs and weaker nobles while the east had stronger lords and weaker serfs*

• economy
• the West had a better economy because they practiced mercantilism and had a better location 
• location
• access to seaports
• affected more directly by the Renaissance 
• more civilized in thought and action because of this 
• the East did not have a strong economy because of its bad location which neglected to provided the population with a multitude of seaports (aka advantageous trade routes) and the true Renaissance which would have then sparked more development in intellectual thought   
• less civilized in thought and action because of this 

Austria

• What's it made of? 
• the hereditary provinces  
• Austria (Vienna and stuff) 
• Bohemia (Czechs) 
• Hungary

 

• ruled by the Habsburg family (famous for ruling Holy Roman Empire/ German Empire) 
• ruling characteristics:   
• imposed taxes 
• standing armies for internal and external matters 
• dealt with other states as they pleased 
• separated into separate political jurisdictions which can be boiled down to small cities -> medium-size states--> larger territories 
• the 3 regions (Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary) made the empire diverse and powerful 
• 3 separate political and social environments united under one monarch to form the empire
• Pragmatic Sanction issued by Charles VI strengthened the empire by stating it must remain in one piece and be handed down to a single heir 
• Internal conflict
• keeping the diverse regions together as one 
• external conflict
• the Austrians had to fight to defend and extend their borders and religion 
• the empire was predominantly Catholic because the ruling family was 
• the Catholics fought the Protestant Czechs and the Ottoman Turks who were Muslim 
• The Turks 
• Austria bordered the Ottoman Empire which can be seen as a help and a hinderance to the development of absolute monarchy in Austria 
• help--> common enemy that helped unite the empire 
• the Austrians feared the Turks bc of the different religion and because most captured Christian boys were put into the army in the worst rank (basically set up to be killed) 
• the Turks had an interesting rulers called Sultans who were like kings but better because they supported protected the peasants from greedy officials 
• hinderance--> time and effort that was used to fight the Turks could have been used to dissolve the internal problems 
• conflict could also be found between Austrian thought and Western European thought 
• the West was progressing into scientific and intellectual thoughts while Austria was stuck in the age old warfare over religious differences 
• Do they like art? 
• yes, they enjoyed the Baroque style that Louis XIV began 
• the Habsburg were influential in spreading it in the empire 
• the Turks destroyed some of it (bc it was Catholic) when they invaded so the Habsburg's had to rebuild it 
• mostly seen in architecture but also painting, decoration and music 

Prussia 

• What is it made of? 
• what is today the central part of Germany 

• it is oddly spread out which creates many borders and internal areas where problems could arise 

(people's thought on the Prussian Empire) 

• How did they move from German prisoners to an absolute monarchy?
• nobles with land replaced the princes- notably the Hohenzollern Family who through dukes, the elector of Brandenburg, and the Estates (representative body)
• dukes dies-- elector of Brandenburg and Estates put their ~dukes~ up for power and the elector win and then Fredrick William becomes the "Great Elector"
• Who were the absolutists? 
• Great Elector Fredrick William 
• wants unify 3 provinces (Brandenburg, Prussia, German territories along the Rhine)
• standing army 
• helped by constant war and Junkers--> nobles who were willing to give up political power as long as the go to keep special privileges 
• really gets the ball rolling for an absolute monarchy in Prussia -- he lays the cement for the foundation 
• King Fredrick  
• the king title means the absolute monarchy was in place 
• wanted to expand arts 
• he gathers the supplies to build the house (absolute monarch) on the foundation 
• King Fredrick William I 
• more into military than arts 
• created the best army in Europe
• citizens were blindly obedient, a centralized bureaucracy was created, and absolutism spread  
• calls Prussia Northern Sparta 

• he builds the house (established the absolute monarchy)

Monarchy and the Enlightenment

SO the big question of the day was: Was the monarchy enlightened? 

A few answers: (since there's never just one)

• Some people who became enlightened were doing it just for their themselves- like in a selfish way 
• For example: Some of the monarchs said they supported the enlightenment and were enlightened just to get the support of the people and therefore gain power. 

• What sort of actions would name an absolutist leader "enlightened"? 
• enlightened absolutists would let their people use their own reason 
• Therefore they could usually practice whatever religion they wanted (except for Judaism of course) 
• One problem with this was that any absolutists who were in favor of enlightenment usually had to quarrel with Parliament a little- because Parliament wasn't really into the whole let's make Europe great again thing

Side Note!!: 

• Parlement v. Parliament 
• PARLEMENT- a judicial body located in France 
• PARLIAMENT- a representative body located in England 

So now back to absolutism and the Enlightenment: Could an absolutist monarchy really be enlightened? 

- Well, no. 

- This is mainly because for a monarchy to be in favor of enlightenment and therefore in favor of all people using their own reason, that would make the monarchy a constitutional one 

- Bottom line: A constitutional monarchy is NOT absolutism so there can be no enlightened monarchy. 

But where does this leave Catherine the Great? 

- True- she is known as a constitutional monarch, but how? and why? 

- Catherine allowed her people education through reforms and the publication of the Encyclopedia, HOWEVER, she still kept them in line and showed who really was in charge 

- she was also a big fan of domestic reform, and expanding the borders (she put the state first, a characteristic of a monarch) 

- so basically, she did it all 

she was also way better than Peter, mostly because Peter the Great westernized Russian armies, but it was Catherine who westernized the thinking of the Russian nobility

Other Important Monarchs that you should probably know: 

Fredrick: 

• Good old Freddy was a big old hypocrite 
• He condemned serfdom, but then didn't actually free anyone from it 
• yet another example of a ruler saying they are for something just to gain power 
• The reason he didn't end up acting on his words was because freeing people from serfdom would undermine his own power

Maria Therese: 

• she went into a lot of expensive wars, something a monarch happens to do very often 
• as Lily said, she "started the wave of enlightened absolutism" 
• She also had three pretty cool reforms: 

1. Limited the influence of the papacy 
2. sought to improve agriculture 
3. series of administrative reforms to strengthen the central bureaucracy

Joseph II: 

• a revolutionary Habsburg 
• he was the son of Maria Therese 
• He continued to support the state like his mother
• In terms of religion, he wanted Catholicism to be the guiding force of faith but was tolerant to other religions, even Judaism and Protestantism (gasp!) 
• He too, like Fredrick, wanted to abolish serfdom
• the difference between the two is that Joseph actually tried, even though he failed 
• This is the weird part- the reason he failed at abolishing serfdom was not only because the upper class were against it, but the workers enslaved by serfdom didn't even want to be freed! 
• What?! 
• basically, the serfs didn't know any other life outside of serfdom, and they feared that if they were freed from it, they would no longer have jobs and the monarchy would never be able to pay all of them 

* due to the fact that I am unable to find the exact map in the book that you all requested, here is a different but similar one* 

So, the European leaders were trying to get rid of Poland by slicing it up and dividing it among themselves 

Now, for some laughs:

The emotional stages of when Yarnall assigns a test the last day before break: (told through gifts of Aro)

Stage 1: Shock




Stage 2: anger



Stage 3: Hysteria





Stage 4: acceptance and realization that in two days you will be in a food coma anyway

Philosophes of the Enlightenment

- Some philosophes during the Enlightenment didn't even like to stick with the ideas of the other Enlightenment thinkers, and started to branch out with their own thoughts.

David Hume

• Although he was totally into coming up with one's own thoughts, his ideas were undercutting the whole Enlightenment he was a part of.  

How, then, did David Hume undermine the Enlightenment?
             -- To start, let's look at Hume's basic beliefs :
-  One of Hume's prominent beliefs was that the human mind was made up of a bundle of impressions. These impressions, however, came from sense experience. Therefore, because our mind joins different sense experiences together, it has all these impressions inside it.

              -  I know, this probably isn't helpful in explaining how he undermined the Enlightenment.

So, in other words:  

-  Hume essentially believed that any ideas you have had to have come from senses, or something you've experienced. When you answer a question, you wouldn't be solely using reason, but rather concrete senses. So, because he was  deemphasizing any role reason played in your decisions/thought, Hume undermined the whole "reason over all" idea of the Enlightenment.

                                    - But does that mean that Hume denied reason?

                   -No, Hume didn't deny abstract things like reason, or freedom. He just believed in /emphasized concrete thoughts that could be proven through the senses rather than abstract feelings/ideas.

-One more thing about Hume --> did he believe in miracles?

                - Yes, but not in the same way most considered what miracles are. He weighed if something was a miracle based on testimony and what has happened in nature. If the testimony was more credible than not and the event had never happened in nature, Hume believed it was a miracle.

                   - Hume wasn't the only philosophe though...

Jean-Jacques Rousseau , General Will, and Education

          - Rousseau wrote the Social Contract  where he talks about the general will. The general will reflected all common people.

                   -Idea wasn't the same as Hobb's Leviathan --> because Rousseau believed the people = holders of power as opposed to the monarch. Also, the will of the people was sacred, and any changes could only be made based on what the people  not the monarch was saying

- Also, Rousseau believed that education was needed to teach children how to live--> idea contained in Emile

- Rousseau was also into the idea of being untouched by society as being the best route.  People had to be protected from society because society ruins the person --> have to get back to nature.

            That was a lot about the guys of the Enlightenment, but women played an important role too

Women and the Enlightenment

- They weren't technically allowed to participate in public intellectual settings

- Set up salons (not to be confused with ones for hair ) -->which provided social elites a place to talk about their ideas without leaders knowing

- Women ---helped spur the Enlightenment thinkers to develop their ideas further 

Enlightenment? Enlighten me

• Let's shed some LIGHT on the Enlightenment

• But First! Time for a Blast from the Past

REMEMBER POLITIQUES??

It's okay neither do I

• Quick Recap: Politques were moderates that ended the War fo 3 Henry's by putting state over religion - a famous one was HENRY IV

So now the big question...

• Are philosophes and politiques the same???
• No - but they're SIMILAR
• They both want to protect France and maintain the monarchy & both called RADICAL by their contemporaries

What people contemporaries thought of philosophes & politiques

It's just the HOW that's different:

• 1) Politiques - save France w/ ABSOLUTE monarchy w/ all power in king
• Culturally = Tunnel vision into politics and government

• 2) Philosophes - save France w/ CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy that put more power in parliament and gave monarch residual (leftover) power.

• Culturally = Intellectual group with more broad vision of life

• Now Second! "ARE YOU HAPPY??"

How rich ppl felt during Enlightenment

"Actually I kinda am" -The Rich

• SO were people of Enlightenment pessimistic????
• WELL HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE???

• If You Got $$$ - You're part of the PUBLIC
• Enlightened people are upset about your current ignorance BUT have hope you to get smarter & independent

• IF You Broke - You’re a HOI POLLOI (part of the PEOPLE)

• Enlightened people have no hope because you can’t look past your poorness and survival (don't have time to fit into the new world-view)

• Thirdly! What did these PHILOSOPHES promote???

Their views on GOVERNMENT:

• Montesquieu
• Tried finding out how state could promote liberty
• Wanted balance of power between parliament (rich) and king (king wouldn't have too much control)

Balancing vegetables like Montesquieu's gov would balance power

• BUT how is this different from Locke's views (remember him?) ?????

• THEY WERE BOTH INTO LIBERTY

Difference is in HOW they wanted government to protect liberties

• Locke thought liberty could be protected under monarchy as long as people could revolt when government failed to do its job.

• Montesquieu thought monarch couldn’t be trusted to have power alone so wanted it shared w/ electorate → constitutional monarchy

• But constitutional sounds like republic

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE????

• how is it not a republic?

• Constitutional Monarch - Monarch not elected
• Republic - all people in government are elected.

Their (philosophes') view of GOD

• Voltaire
• God = Distant creator
• Earth like clock put in motion by God, and then let go without interference

• Now remember wayyyy back to Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Edwards (Puritan)

Is this Voltaire's God?

• No
• Edwards says God saves followers
• Voltaire says God is not present since universe runs like a machine

Edwards dealing with Voltaire's perception of God

The Scientific Revolution

So the first name we should associate with the Scientific Revolution is....
SIR ISAAC NETWON! 
       ayyyy this guy was the greatest. And why, exactly, was he the greatest? Mainly because he built off of other scientists work. Sir Isaac not only made sense of these theories and ideas, but further progressed them, making him one of the most important figures of this time. 




What were the causes of the "Scientific Revolution?"
1. Universities 

what I am assuming Scientific Revolution college parties were like

Science was able to really emerge from these new "liberal arts" programs. Although the Medieval Times did have Universities, the combined vocational training and philosophical thinking/learning proved to make great human beings.



2. Revolution stimulated scientific progress
           There was a rebirth of the classics and people rediscovered humanism.

            Under this second cause, patronage also came up. People essentially used their money to buy   into certain ideas and people. Great times:)

3. Navigational Problems
            The terms longitude (England) and latitude (Portugal King) came about.

4. Better ways of obtaining knowledge of the world

In conclusion, just as Isaac Newton looked at the past and furthered their ideas, so did the Revolution.

Another big topic we discussed today was Empiricism: 

This is basically learning from experience. (John Locke is a prime example)










The Question of the Day: What is the difference between Inductive and Deductive Reasoning? (literally just tell us Yarn we're dumb and don't know anything)

Deductive Reasoning starts with a general theory, statement, or hypothesis and then works its way down to a conclusion based on evidence.

The result must be true

 

Inductive reasoning starts with a small observation or question and works it's way to a theory by examining the related issues.

The result is probably true 

Goes with empiricism

Scientists thinking they and the Church be homies. 

So... was the Church okay with all of this Science-y stuff?     

Fun Fact: Yes, actually. Do not listen to me in class, for I thought they did not :)

The Church was able to find a middle ground with the Scientists...

But then they messed with heaven. SMH.

  As soon as they hear that angels aren't controlling the heavens, church says nuh uh.

What is the difference between the Renaissance and Revolution?

Renaissance: abstract, all about humans and how amazing everyone is

Revolution: scientific, mathematical, breakthroughs by smart people

Basically, the Renaissance tried to imitate the classics. The Revolution, on the other hand, took the knowledge from the classical era and progressed it, furthering the developments and ideas. 

What is enlightenment?

• Not let people influence you

• 

  literally every man at this point
  
  
  
  

  Escaping self-immaturity
• Using your own intelligence
• Challenging yourself to think on your own
• You’ve been trained by the dominant guardians what is believed to be right or wrong
• Women did not even the option to be enlightened
• It's easy for someone to do the thinking for you
• They are cowards
• the most beautiful sex? Men
• SEXISM

Finally... this is at least one of us every day. Shots are a firing. I expect donuts at least once a week.

Yarn, I think you're up for this week. Thanks for volunteering:)

CHAPTER 18: THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 

1.) How was the scientific revolution the origin of both the modern world and modern mentality? 

• So previously, religion and science needed to be connected - or relate to one another as science was a branch of theology
• Aristotelian view suggested a motionless earth that was fixed at the center of the universe 
• BUT NOW  
• Copernicus --> He said the sun, rather than the Earth, was at the center of the universe (Heliocentric System - not Geocentric)
• He theorized that the stars and planets - including Earth - revolved around FIXED SUN

2.) SO HOW/WHY DID RELIGIONS RESPOND?!?!? 

• A.) Protestants:
• Martin Luther WAS MAD! He said "as the Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun stand still and NOT the Earth." 
• Protestants interpreted their sacred texts LITERALLY so they believed in a Geocentric universe 
• B.) Likewise, John Calvin and his followers condemned Copernicus for his radical hypothesis
• C.) Catholics:
• response was mild at first - they had never fully interpreted the Bible literally - but they still declared his theory false in 1616
•  
• POOR COPERNICUS (BUT HE DID GET SOME FRIENDS TO BACK HIM UP!)  

3.) SO WHO HELPED OUT COPERNICUS TO PROVE HIS HYPOTHESIS?!? 

• Brahe:
• He observed stars and planets w/ the naked eye 
• His greatest contribution = DATA - but he had a limited understanding of MATH 
• he supported Copernicus somewhat in that he stated all the planets revolved around the sun and that the entire group of sun and planets revolved around the earth-moon system 
• Kepler:
• Brahe's assistant 
• brilliant mathematician ==> formulated 3 laws of Planetary Motion 
• He demonstrate that 
• 1.) the orbits of the planets around the sun are elliptical rather than circular 
• 2.) planets do not move at a uniform speed in their orbits 
• 3.) the time a planet takes to make its complete orbit is precisely related to its distance from SUN 
• HIS Contributions were monumental 
• Kepler PROVED THE RELATIONS OF A SUN CENTERED UNIVERSE YAY

(<-- Copernicus)

• Galileo Galilei:
• On a another note --> this MAN Challenged the ideas of MOTION!
• He used the Experimental Method to prove his hypotheses
• He conducted controlled experiments to find out what actually happens rather than speculating
• He formulated the LAW OF INERTIA:
• rest was not the natural state of objects
• and as Lily explained in class --> the objects are forever in motion until they are stopped by an external force
• In addition to motion - he was fascinated by astronomy --> used telescope to discover the first 4 MOONS OF JUPITER 
• unfortunately - Galileo was forced to renounce his scientific beliefs before ecclesiastical judges 

SO BOTTOM LINE: As new scientists/astronomers/ mathematicians made breakthroughs in the laws of the universe --> Critical, modern, scientific method BEGAN TO EMERGE.