OCC CIV NOTES 10/12
sorry, these notes kinda suck...
Midterm covers everything UP TO section on tues
three questions- 1 paragraph each
-you choose three of five or six
-primarily based on lectures
-not date-based, because that's shitty
-mostly topical questions (not really stupid fact-based questions)
for this week- read GINSBURG, NIGHT BATTLES (CHAPTERS 1, 3, 4)
Montaigne- first psychologist (kinda)
-first person to be really introspective in any way
-freud goes to Montaigne and Shakespeare for foundations of modern psychology
-Rembrandt was the other one
-rembrandt was the one guy who represented human beings accurately rather than idealistically
carnival was a big part of life during the time
-ended with a huge battle between 'carnival' and 'lent'
-carnival involves the consumption of huge amounts of food and drink
-contrasted with the piety of the church
-role reversal was huge during carnival (people would dress up as clerics, clerics as people)
-lots of eating, drinking
-lots of sex
-lots of violence
-oftentimes the rich would actually give to the poor
-people would save up for the carnival
-they save up for this time so that they can have more than enough, something to remember fondly
clerics spent a large amount of their time collecting tithe
-they would go around house to house and take a tenth of their possessions
kids played games during carnival
second marraige, when it happens, is jeered, people dont like it
-remarraige is common, but still has huge hostility attached to it
ritual humiliations were the way that community norms were set
-often also used to criticize people with more than them (it was allowed to mock those in authority)
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
CONLAW NOTES 10/11
Marshall doesn't really address the question of why judicial review isn't mentioned at all in the constitution (whoopsies... maybe there was a reason he didnt...)
Marshall's task was to transfer the idea of 'constitutional supremacy' into 'judicial supremacy' to 'judicial review'
here's how he did it-
-1st- established the constitution was higher law
-2nd- established tha the constitution is SUPERIOR law
-3rd- established that the constitutional supremacy clause is ENTRENCHED
-if you take these arguments together and put them in a WRITTEN constitution,
-the underlying theory of a written constitution is that an act 'repugnant to the constitution' is void
-continues by saying that judges as well as legislatures must conform to the constitution in deciding cases or controversies
-the judges have to decide in favor of the constitution
-therefore, 'it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'
-judges cannot enforce a law that is repugnant to the constitution
constitution is paramount to federal law
government has enumerated power
that the judiciary checks the government is in the constitution
the leap from those principles to EXCLUSIVE judicial review is NOT persuasive
why?
-this is a government of limited and delegated powers. why is the court not so limited and delegated?
-are the legislature and the executive also given constitutional review powers? possibly.... all branches of gov't at some point claimed constitutional interpretations
-marshall's argument of the judicial oath is ridiculous, because the rest of the government takes the same oath
an opinion or parts of an opinion that exceed what is necessary to decide the case- obiter dicta
-technically speaking, the only parts of an opinion that matter are those directly pertinent to the case itself, the rest is just filler
-does NOT carry the weight of precedent
-BUT, if a later court likes it, they'll still use it
departmental theory of judicial review- each department has the authority to interpret constitution in their own interest
-most historians believe that marshall didnt want to take judicial review as far as it happened to go
-one of the reasons for this was that the political situation was very tenuous
-marshall expected to be impeached for his political beliefs, so he probably didnt actually want to be so bold
Marshall doesn't really address the question of why judicial review isn't mentioned at all in the constitution (whoopsies... maybe there was a reason he didnt...)
Marshall's task was to transfer the idea of 'constitutional supremacy' into 'judicial supremacy' to 'judicial review'
here's how he did it-
-1st- established the constitution was higher law
-2nd- established tha the constitution is SUPERIOR law
-3rd- established that the constitutional supremacy clause is ENTRENCHED
-if you take these arguments together and put them in a WRITTEN constitution,
-the underlying theory of a written constitution is that an act 'repugnant to the constitution' is void
-continues by saying that judges as well as legislatures must conform to the constitution in deciding cases or controversies
-the judges have to decide in favor of the constitution
-therefore, 'it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'
-judges cannot enforce a law that is repugnant to the constitution
constitution is paramount to federal law
government has enumerated power
that the judiciary checks the government is in the constitution
the leap from those principles to EXCLUSIVE judicial review is NOT persuasive
why?
-this is a government of limited and delegated powers. why is the court not so limited and delegated?
-are the legislature and the executive also given constitutional review powers? possibly.... all branches of gov't at some point claimed constitutional interpretations
-marshall's argument of the judicial oath is ridiculous, because the rest of the government takes the same oath
an opinion or parts of an opinion that exceed what is necessary to decide the case- obiter dicta
-technically speaking, the only parts of an opinion that matter are those directly pertinent to the case itself, the rest is just filler
-does NOT carry the weight of precedent
-BUT, if a later court likes it, they'll still use it
departmental theory of judicial review- each department has the authority to interpret constitution in their own interest
-most historians believe that marshall didnt want to take judicial review as far as it happened to go
-one of the reasons for this was that the political situation was very tenuous
-marshall expected to be impeached for his political beliefs, so he probably didnt actually want to be so bold
OCC CIV NOTES 9/8
GENERAL SPANISH/EUROPEAN HISTORY CIRCA 1492 ON
Muslims entered Iberia in 711
11th century- reconquest began (crusades)- culminates in christian conquest of seville
conquest of gibraltar in 14th century
grenada remained moorish stronghold into 15th century
Marriage of isabella and ferdinand formed "Spain"
Bastille had extnesive trade networks--- maritime tradition centered on seville--
MUCH OF COURSE ABOUT MARITME POWERS OF EUROPE
1470s, ferdinand and isabella defeat portugal
1492- they launch a crusade against Moorish stronghold of grenada
grenada- major silk production, pretext provided by grenadan attack on minor christian stronghold
10 year civil war led by nobles against ferdinand and isabella- too much power in the hands of the monarchy
monarchs were able to get lots of money from the church by launching a crusade
-monarch powers centered on the military, when holy war was launched it united church and monarchy
ottoman empire began to expand, took constantinople, made europe scared of losing overland trade routes
1480- turks captured a southern italian town, sparked a crusade
ferdinand- in response to capture of italian town he sent a fleet to italy
isabella- member of the francsican order- envisioned conquest of islam, liberation of jerusalem, conversion of the jews-- second coming of christ.
spain also directed crusades against northern africa in 1493
in late 14th, over 200,000 jews in spain, around 1391- over half of these jews converted out of fear of persecution
many of those who had 'converted' continued to practice judaism, priests preached against these people
pushing for an 'inquisition' to cull the 'heretically depraved' people who adopted christianity but did not practice
1460s- prevention of jews from building synagogues
1470s- jews must wear badges
1480s- jews must live in walled ghettos
spanish inquisition established in 1478 in seville (1481)
began to spread very quickly
by law- inquisition only applied to 'conversos'- people who werent actually christian, but in reality actually very anti-semetic
march 31, 1492- jews expelled from castille and aragon because of their 'bad influence' on actual christians
given 4 months to get the hell out- over 50,000 of them
many jews went to portugal, expelled in 1497
others went elsewhere in europe- continued to be expelled
ended up either in the netherlands or eastern europe
pope responded to this by declaring ferdinand and isabella as- 'athletes of christ'
ferdinand- new charlemagne
pressing the monarchs to reconquer northern africa
ferdinand believed that asia only was 3500 miles from the canary islands, ptolemaic science believed that circumference was much much less than it was
spanish motivation for funding columbus- religious (converting indians), fear of ottomans cutting off land routes to china and india, to beat portugal to eastern asia (they went around africa)
columbus wrote a book of revelation himself, dating beginning of the end of times with fall of grenada
-signed his letters with "christ bearer"
-called himself another messiah
-expected nobility and high office from his journeys (gold is 'most excellent')
-still, central purpose was religious, conversion of savages
-gold from his voyage was to be spent on conquest of holy places (jerusalem)
colombus's voyages undertaken out of a militant, intolerant christianity (wanted to establish a 'universal christian empire')
-funded by taxes on indulgences, etc
columbus's voyages spurred a whole lot of voyages to the americas, conquering mexico, etc
portugal conquered the coasts of brazil
CORTEZ' EXPEDITION
most difficult battle is against tlaxcaltecs (wtf?)
cortez reaches tenochtitlan, is cautiously invited in
-takes montezuma prisoner
-governor of cuba decides to recall him, cortez refuses, says he's acting as the king
-small cuban force sent out to fight him, cortez defeats them
-in his absence, his men kill a bunch of aztecs, a little war starts again inside tenochtitlan
-cortez reenters city, joins his besieged men, montezuma is killed, cortez forced to retreat to tlax-something, loses almost half his men in this retreat
-decides to lay siege to tlax-whatever, after a few months, the city falls, is captured by cortez
AZTECS-
capital- tenochtitlan- about 200,000 people (would have been the 3rd largest city in europe)
one of largest american empires
huge marketplace in the center of the city, held about 60,000 people (more people than lived in london or seville)
spanish soldiers were awestruck by the massive city, huge population, amazing buildings
aztec society was heavily heirarchical
monarchs, nobles, free commoners, serfs (worked for nobles), and slaves (some because of debt obligations)
dress and jewelery was restricted by class
highest class was the ruler (descended from the gods themselves)- lived in palace
there were royal gardens, aviaries, zoos
nobody could look at the emperor's face at all, even nobles had to sweep the ground before him as he walked
aztec society centered on warfare (death on battlefield highly valued)
warfare was extensively ritualized, outcome preordained but unknown at the beginning
to prevail by numbers alone or treachery was unthinkable
-before a war started, target cities would be sent food and weapons, to make sure they werent too weak
only hand-to-hand combat was valorized, but there were bowmen
nobles, high officials wore huge costumes
goal of each warrior was to incapacitate opponents and take them prisoner for sacrifice
tribute was also extremely important
between 10 and 20 million people in the aztec empire, hundreds of thousands of people in the army alone
warfare was undertaken for conquest, tribute, territory, and sacrifices
aztecs believed in hundreds of gods, human sacrifices were undertaken to satiate them, and to postpone the end of the world (compare to spanish desire to hasten end of the world)
aztec history was cyclical- events had already happened before, were only being repeated now
over 5000 priests were in the city to prophecize determine fortunes based on birthdays, etc
believed that quetzelcoatl (their main god) had ruled before, left towards the sun (east), but would return again
HOW DID SPANISH BEAT AZTECS
horses unknown, scared the hell out of aztecs
horses trained to rear on hind legs to scare infantrymen
even though weapons were outnumbered, they were used extremely effectively
spanish also possessed cannon- also cared the hell out of aztecs, as well as killing them en masse
aztec rulers so scared and confused by cannon that they even ordered their painters to paint it
spanish fought during seasons that aztecs did not usually fight with
spanish never equalized the battle by providing weapons
spanish lied often, makes no sense to aztec warriors who don't lie
spanish fought to kill, while aztecs fought to capture (huge disadvantage for aztecs)
spanish fought for religious reasons (to replace idolatry with monotheism)
spanish fought with desire for fame, riches, spoils (often stole wives of aztec warriors)
spanish fought in fear of the outcome if they didnt win (human sacrifice, cutting out still-beating hearts, ugh)
spanish fought with siege warfare- starved the people in the city (spanish siege warfare was extremely effective)
aztec society was heirarchical and based on precedent- couldnt adapt to new situtations quickly
montezuma decides that aztec forces will not attack until he specifically commands it
aztec attack doesnt occur until the spanish attack a religious festival
THINK ABOUT importance of allies.
GENERAL SPANISH/EUROPEAN HISTORY CIRCA 1492 ON
Muslims entered Iberia in 711
11th century- reconquest began (crusades)- culminates in christian conquest of seville
conquest of gibraltar in 14th century
grenada remained moorish stronghold into 15th century
Marriage of isabella and ferdinand formed "Spain"
Bastille had extnesive trade networks--- maritime tradition centered on seville--
MUCH OF COURSE ABOUT MARITME POWERS OF EUROPE
1470s, ferdinand and isabella defeat portugal
1492- they launch a crusade against Moorish stronghold of grenada
grenada- major silk production, pretext provided by grenadan attack on minor christian stronghold
10 year civil war led by nobles against ferdinand and isabella- too much power in the hands of the monarchy
monarchs were able to get lots of money from the church by launching a crusade
-monarch powers centered on the military, when holy war was launched it united church and monarchy
ottoman empire began to expand, took constantinople, made europe scared of losing overland trade routes
1480- turks captured a southern italian town, sparked a crusade
ferdinand- in response to capture of italian town he sent a fleet to italy
isabella- member of the francsican order- envisioned conquest of islam, liberation of jerusalem, conversion of the jews-- second coming of christ.
spain also directed crusades against northern africa in 1493
in late 14th, over 200,000 jews in spain, around 1391- over half of these jews converted out of fear of persecution
many of those who had 'converted' continued to practice judaism, priests preached against these people
pushing for an 'inquisition' to cull the 'heretically depraved' people who adopted christianity but did not practice
1460s- prevention of jews from building synagogues
1470s- jews must wear badges
1480s- jews must live in walled ghettos
spanish inquisition established in 1478 in seville (1481)
began to spread very quickly
by law- inquisition only applied to 'conversos'- people who werent actually christian, but in reality actually very anti-semetic
march 31, 1492- jews expelled from castille and aragon because of their 'bad influence' on actual christians
given 4 months to get the hell out- over 50,000 of them
many jews went to portugal, expelled in 1497
others went elsewhere in europe- continued to be expelled
ended up either in the netherlands or eastern europe
pope responded to this by declaring ferdinand and isabella as- 'athletes of christ'
ferdinand- new charlemagne
pressing the monarchs to reconquer northern africa
ferdinand believed that asia only was 3500 miles from the canary islands, ptolemaic science believed that circumference was much much less than it was
spanish motivation for funding columbus- religious (converting indians), fear of ottomans cutting off land routes to china and india, to beat portugal to eastern asia (they went around africa)
columbus wrote a book of revelation himself, dating beginning of the end of times with fall of grenada
-signed his letters with "christ bearer"
-called himself another messiah
-expected nobility and high office from his journeys (gold is 'most excellent')
-still, central purpose was religious, conversion of savages
-gold from his voyage was to be spent on conquest of holy places (jerusalem)
colombus's voyages undertaken out of a militant, intolerant christianity (wanted to establish a 'universal christian empire')
-funded by taxes on indulgences, etc
columbus's voyages spurred a whole lot of voyages to the americas, conquering mexico, etc
portugal conquered the coasts of brazil
CORTEZ' EXPEDITION
most difficult battle is against tlaxcaltecs (wtf?)
cortez reaches tenochtitlan, is cautiously invited in
-takes montezuma prisoner
-governor of cuba decides to recall him, cortez refuses, says he's acting as the king
-small cuban force sent out to fight him, cortez defeats them
-in his absence, his men kill a bunch of aztecs, a little war starts again inside tenochtitlan
-cortez reenters city, joins his besieged men, montezuma is killed, cortez forced to retreat to tlax-something, loses almost half his men in this retreat
-decides to lay siege to tlax-whatever, after a few months, the city falls, is captured by cortez
AZTECS-
capital- tenochtitlan- about 200,000 people (would have been the 3rd largest city in europe)
one of largest american empires
huge marketplace in the center of the city, held about 60,000 people (more people than lived in london or seville)
spanish soldiers were awestruck by the massive city, huge population, amazing buildings
aztec society was heavily heirarchical
monarchs, nobles, free commoners, serfs (worked for nobles), and slaves (some because of debt obligations)
dress and jewelery was restricted by class
highest class was the ruler (descended from the gods themselves)- lived in palace
there were royal gardens, aviaries, zoos
nobody could look at the emperor's face at all, even nobles had to sweep the ground before him as he walked
aztec society centered on warfare (death on battlefield highly valued)
warfare was extensively ritualized, outcome preordained but unknown at the beginning
to prevail by numbers alone or treachery was unthinkable
-before a war started, target cities would be sent food and weapons, to make sure they werent too weak
only hand-to-hand combat was valorized, but there were bowmen
nobles, high officials wore huge costumes
goal of each warrior was to incapacitate opponents and take them prisoner for sacrifice
tribute was also extremely important
between 10 and 20 million people in the aztec empire, hundreds of thousands of people in the army alone
warfare was undertaken for conquest, tribute, territory, and sacrifices
aztecs believed in hundreds of gods, human sacrifices were undertaken to satiate them, and to postpone the end of the world (compare to spanish desire to hasten end of the world)
aztec history was cyclical- events had already happened before, were only being repeated now
over 5000 priests were in the city to prophecize determine fortunes based on birthdays, etc
believed that quetzelcoatl (their main god) had ruled before, left towards the sun (east), but would return again
HOW DID SPANISH BEAT AZTECS
horses unknown, scared the hell out of aztecs
horses trained to rear on hind legs to scare infantrymen
even though weapons were outnumbered, they were used extremely effectively
spanish also possessed cannon- also cared the hell out of aztecs, as well as killing them en masse
aztec rulers so scared and confused by cannon that they even ordered their painters to paint it
spanish fought during seasons that aztecs did not usually fight with
spanish never equalized the battle by providing weapons
spanish lied often, makes no sense to aztec warriors who don't lie
spanish fought to kill, while aztecs fought to capture (huge disadvantage for aztecs)
spanish fought for religious reasons (to replace idolatry with monotheism)
spanish fought with desire for fame, riches, spoils (often stole wives of aztec warriors)
spanish fought in fear of the outcome if they didnt win (human sacrifice, cutting out still-beating hearts, ugh)
spanish fought with siege warfare- starved the people in the city (spanish siege warfare was extremely effective)
aztec society was heirarchical and based on precedent- couldnt adapt to new situtations quickly
montezuma decides that aztec forces will not attack until he specifically commands it
aztec attack doesnt occur until the spanish attack a religious festival
THINK ABOUT importance of allies.
OCC CIV NOTES 9/8
GENERAL SPANISH/EUROPEAN HISTORY CIRCA 1492 ON
Muslims entered Iberia in 711
11th century- reconquest began (crusades)- culminates in christian conquest of seville
conquest of gibraltar in 14th century
grenada remained moorish stronghold into 15th century
Marriage of isabella and ferdinand formed "Spain"
Bastille had extnesive trade networks--- maritime tradition centered on seville--
MUCH OF COURSE ABOUT MARITME POWERS OF EUROPE
1470s, ferdinand and isabella defeat portugal
1492- they launch a crusade against Moorish stronghold of grenada
grenada- major silk production, pretext provided by grenadan attack on minor christian stronghold
10 year civil war led by nobles against ferdinand and isabella- too much power in the hands of the monarchy
monarchs were able to get lots of money from the church by launching a crusade
-monarch powers centered on the military, when holy war was launched it united church and monarchy
ottoman empire began to expand, took constantinople, made europe scared of losing overland trade routes
1480- turks captured a southern italian town, sparked a crusade
ferdinand- in response to capture of italian town he sent a fleet to italy
isabella- member of the francsican order- envisioned conquest of islam, liberation of jerusalem, conversion of the jews-- second coming of christ.
spain also directed crusades against northern africa in 1493
in late 14th, over 200,000 jews in spain, around 1391- over half of these jews converted out of fear of persecution
many of those who had 'converted' continued to practice judaism, priests preached against these people
pushing for an 'inquisition' to cull the 'heretically depraved' people who adopted christianity but did not practice
1460s- prevention of jews from building synagogues
1470s- jews must wear badges
1480s- jews must live in walled ghettos
spanish inquisition established in 1478 in seville (1481)
began to spread very quickly
by law- inquisition only applied to 'conversos'- people who werent actually christian, but in reality actually very anti-semetic
march 31, 1492- jews expelled from castille and aragon because of their 'bad influence' on actual christians
given 4 months to get the hell out- over 50,000 of them
many jews went to portugal, expelled in 1497
others went elsewhere in europe- continued to be expelled
ended up either in the netherlands or eastern europe
pope responded to this by declaring ferdinand and isabella as- 'athletes of christ'
ferdinand- new charlemagne
pressing the monarchs to reconquer northern africa
ferdinand believed that asia only was 3500 miles from the canary islands, ptolemaic science believed that circumference was much much less than it was
spanish motivation for funding columbus- religious (converting indians), fear of ottomans cutting off land routes to china and india, to beat portugal to eastern asia (they went around africa)
columbus wrote a book of revelation himself, dating beginning of the end of times with fall of grenada
-signed his letters with "christ bearer"
-called himself another messiah
-expected nobility and high office from his journeys (gold is 'most excellent')
-still, central purpose was religious, conversion of savages
-gold from his voyage was to be spent on conquest of holy places (jerusalem)
colombus's voyages undertaken out of a militant, intolerant christianity (wanted to establish a 'universal christian empire')
-funded by taxes on indulgences, etc
columbus's voyages spurred a whole lot of voyages to the americas, conquering mexico, etc
portugal conquered the coasts of brazil
CORTEZ' EXPEDITION
most difficult battle is against tlaxcaltecs (wtf?)
cortez reaches tenochtitlan, is cautiously invited in
-takes montezuma prisoner
-governor of cuba decides to recall him, cortez refuses, says he's acting as the king
-small cuban force sent out to fight him, cortez defeats them
-in his absence, his men kill a bunch of aztecs, a little war starts again inside tenochtitlan
-cortez reenters city, joins his besieged men, montezuma is killed, cortez forced to retreat to tlax-something, loses almost half his men in this retreat
-decides to lay siege to tlax-whatever, after a few months, the city falls, is captured by cortez
AZTECS-
capital- tenochtitlan- about 200,000 people (would have been the 3rd largest city in europe)
one of largest american empires
huge marketplace in the center of the city, held about 60,000 people (more people than lived in london or seville)
spanish soldiers were awestruck by the massive city, huge population, amazing buildings
aztec society was heavily heirarchical
monarchs, nobles, free commoners, serfs (worked for nobles), and slaves (some because of debt obligations)
dress and jewelery was restricted by class
highest class was the ruler (descended from the gods themselves)- lived in palace
there were royal gardens, aviaries, zoos
nobody could look at the emperor's face at all, even nobles had to sweep the ground before him as he walked
aztec society centered on warfare (death on battlefield highly valued)
warfare was extensively ritualized, outcome preordained but unknown at the beginning
to prevail by numbers alone or treachery was unthinkable
-before a war started, target cities would be sent food and weapons, to make sure they werent too weak
only hand-to-hand combat was valorized, but there were bowmen
nobles, high officials wore huge costumes
goal of each warrior was to incapacitate opponents and take them prisoner for sacrifice
tribute was also extremely important
between 10 and 20 million people in the aztec empire, hundreds of thousands of people in the army alone
warfare was undertaken for conquest, tribute, territory, and sacrifices
aztecs believed in hundreds of gods, human sacrifices were undertaken to satiate them, and to postpone the end of the world (compare to spanish desire to hasten end of the world)
aztec history was cyclical- events had already happened before, were only being repeated now
over 5000 priests were in the city to prophecize determine fortunes based on birthdays, etc
believed that quetzelcoatl (their main god) had ruled before, left towards the sun (east), but would return again
HOW DID SPANISH BEAT AZTECS
horses unknown, scared the hell out of aztecs
horses trained to rear on hind legs to scare infantrymen
even though weapons were outnumbered, they were used extremely effectively
spanish also possessed cannon- also cared the hell out of aztecs, as well as killing them en masse
aztec rulers so scared and confused by cannon that they even ordered their painters to paint it
spanish fought during seasons that aztecs did not usually fight with
spanish never equalized the battle by providing weapons
spanish lied often, makes no sense to aztec warriors who don't lie
spanish fought to kill, while aztecs fought to capture (huge disadvantage for aztecs)
spanish fought for religious reasons (to replace idolatry with monotheism)
spanish fought with desire for fame, riches, spoils (often stole wives of aztec warriors)
spanish fought in fear of the outcome if they didnt win (human sacrifice, cutting out still-beating hearts, ugh)
spanish fought with siege warfare- starved the people in the city (spanish siege warfare was extremely effective)
aztec society was heirarchical and based on precedent- couldnt adapt to new situtations quickly
montezuma decides that aztec forces will not attack until he specifically commands it
aztec attack doesnt occur until the spanish attack a religious festival
THINK ABOUT importance of allies.
GENERAL SPANISH/EUROPEAN HISTORY CIRCA 1492 ON
Muslims entered Iberia in 711
11th century- reconquest began (crusades)- culminates in christian conquest of seville
conquest of gibraltar in 14th century
grenada remained moorish stronghold into 15th century
Marriage of isabella and ferdinand formed "Spain"
Bastille had extnesive trade networks--- maritime tradition centered on seville--
MUCH OF COURSE ABOUT MARITME POWERS OF EUROPE
1470s, ferdinand and isabella defeat portugal
1492- they launch a crusade against Moorish stronghold of grenada
grenada- major silk production, pretext provided by grenadan attack on minor christian stronghold
10 year civil war led by nobles against ferdinand and isabella- too much power in the hands of the monarchy
monarchs were able to get lots of money from the church by launching a crusade
-monarch powers centered on the military, when holy war was launched it united church and monarchy
ottoman empire began to expand, took constantinople, made europe scared of losing overland trade routes
1480- turks captured a southern italian town, sparked a crusade
ferdinand- in response to capture of italian town he sent a fleet to italy
isabella- member of the francsican order- envisioned conquest of islam, liberation of jerusalem, conversion of the jews-- second coming of christ.
spain also directed crusades against northern africa in 1493
in late 14th, over 200,000 jews in spain, around 1391- over half of these jews converted out of fear of persecution
many of those who had 'converted' continued to practice judaism, priests preached against these people
pushing for an 'inquisition' to cull the 'heretically depraved' people who adopted christianity but did not practice
1460s- prevention of jews from building synagogues
1470s- jews must wear badges
1480s- jews must live in walled ghettos
spanish inquisition established in 1478 in seville (1481)
began to spread very quickly
by law- inquisition only applied to 'conversos'- people who werent actually christian, but in reality actually very anti-semetic
march 31, 1492- jews expelled from castille and aragon because of their 'bad influence' on actual christians
given 4 months to get the hell out- over 50,000 of them
many jews went to portugal, expelled in 1497
others went elsewhere in europe- continued to be expelled
ended up either in the netherlands or eastern europe
pope responded to this by declaring ferdinand and isabella as- 'athletes of christ'
ferdinand- new charlemagne
pressing the monarchs to reconquer northern africa
ferdinand believed that asia only was 3500 miles from the canary islands, ptolemaic science believed that circumference was much much less than it was
spanish motivation for funding columbus- religious (converting indians), fear of ottomans cutting off land routes to china and india, to beat portugal to eastern asia (they went around africa)
columbus wrote a book of revelation himself, dating beginning of the end of times with fall of grenada
-signed his letters with "christ bearer"
-called himself another messiah
-expected nobility and high office from his journeys (gold is 'most excellent')
-still, central purpose was religious, conversion of savages
-gold from his voyage was to be spent on conquest of holy places (jerusalem)
colombus's voyages undertaken out of a militant, intolerant christianity (wanted to establish a 'universal christian empire')
-funded by taxes on indulgences, etc
columbus's voyages spurred a whole lot of voyages to the americas, conquering mexico, etc
portugal conquered the coasts of brazil
CORTEZ' EXPEDITION
most difficult battle is against tlaxcaltecs (wtf?)
cortez reaches tenochtitlan, is cautiously invited in
-takes montezuma prisoner
-governor of cuba decides to recall him, cortez refuses, says he's acting as the king
-small cuban force sent out to fight him, cortez defeats them
-in his absence, his men kill a bunch of aztecs, a little war starts again inside tenochtitlan
-cortez reenters city, joins his besieged men, montezuma is killed, cortez forced to retreat to tlax-something, loses almost half his men in this retreat
-decides to lay siege to tlax-whatever, after a few months, the city falls, is captured by cortez
AZTECS-
capital- tenochtitlan- about 200,000 people (would have been the 3rd largest city in europe)
one of largest american empires
huge marketplace in the center of the city, held about 60,000 people (more people than lived in london or seville)
spanish soldiers were awestruck by the massive city, huge population, amazing buildings
aztec society was heavily heirarchical
monarchs, nobles, free commoners, serfs (worked for nobles), and slaves (some because of debt obligations)
dress and jewelery was restricted by class
highest class was the ruler (descended from the gods themselves)- lived in palace
there were royal gardens, aviaries, zoos
nobody could look at the emperor's face at all, even nobles had to sweep the ground before him as he walked
aztec society centered on warfare (death on battlefield highly valued)
warfare was extensively ritualized, outcome preordained but unknown at the beginning
to prevail by numbers alone or treachery was unthinkable
-before a war started, target cities would be sent food and weapons, to make sure they werent too weak
only hand-to-hand combat was valorized, but there were bowmen
nobles, high officials wore huge costumes
goal of each warrior was to incapacitate opponents and take them prisoner for sacrifice
tribute was also extremely important
between 10 and 20 million people in the aztec empire, hundreds of thousands of people in the army alone
warfare was undertaken for conquest, tribute, territory, and sacrifices
aztecs believed in hundreds of gods, human sacrifices were undertaken to satiate them, and to postpone the end of the world (compare to spanish desire to hasten end of the world)
aztec history was cyclical- events had already happened before, were only being repeated now
over 5000 priests were in the city to prophecize determine fortunes based on birthdays, etc
believed that quetzelcoatl (their main god) had ruled before, left towards the sun (east), but would return again
HOW DID SPANISH BEAT AZTECS
horses unknown, scared the hell out of aztecs
horses trained to rear on hind legs to scare infantrymen
even though weapons were outnumbered, they were used extremely effectively
spanish also possessed cannon- also cared the hell out of aztecs, as well as killing them en masse
aztec rulers so scared and confused by cannon that they even ordered their painters to paint it
spanish fought during seasons that aztecs did not usually fight with
spanish never equalized the battle by providing weapons
spanish lied often, makes no sense to aztec warriors who don't lie
spanish fought to kill, while aztecs fought to capture (huge disadvantage for aztecs)
spanish fought for religious reasons (to replace idolatry with monotheism)
spanish fought with desire for fame, riches, spoils (often stole wives of aztec warriors)
spanish fought in fear of the outcome if they didnt win (human sacrifice, cutting out still-beating hearts, ugh)
spanish fought with siege warfare- starved the people in the city (spanish siege warfare was extremely effective)
aztec society was heirarchical and based on precedent- couldnt adapt to new situtations quickly
montezuma decides that aztec forces will not attack until he specifically commands it
aztec attack doesnt occur until the spanish attack a religious festival
THINK ABOUT importance of allies.
OCC CIV NOTES 9/29
Population of the Hispaniola;
1490- ~3,700,000
1508- 92,000
1510- 65,000
1514- 28,000
1518- 15,600
1540- 250 (holy shit)
indians being held in slavery was basically a pretty standard concept
portugal and spain divvied up the americas, portugal scored brazil
spanish would enslave the natives, even send them back to spain
sepulveda is the person las casas will debate against
theorists believed that poor education men at that the natives cannot care for themselves
-as christians, they have to care for the 'childlike imbeciles'
Barbarian- basically anybody outside of their own country
-they considered anyone who didn't form valid civil societies barbaric, inferior
-they believed that even though all were men, there were many ways to lose your privileges of manhood
-acting poorly meant that you were bestial, not truly human
Civil Slavery was accepted as practical, needed to be done, and just
-people were enslaved as punishments, or when captured in war
-natural slavery was different, basically meant that the greeks (or anybody) could enslave an entire other civilization
-natural slaves lack reason, cannot make deliberate choices or moral actions
-it was therefore completely moral and necessary to enslave these 'natural slaves'
People thought everybody else were barbarians-
-english thought the irish were barbarians
-nobles thought the poor were 'brutes'
All of creation was organized in a chain- from God through animals, with man in the middle
Colonists argued that the natives were 'natural slaves' to get over the fact that they had no historical claim to them
SEPULVEDA- another theorist
-mexicans and aztecs were 'most human' of the indians, but still inhuman and slaves
-sepulveda argued that cortes was brave and wonderful and montezuma was a fool
VITORIA- another theorist
-argued that since the indians could not govern themselves in a 'civil republic' they were no better than animals
-they were unworthy of self-rule, even though they had cities, mostly because they sacrificed humans
las casas renounced his rights to all his native slaves
-became a minister/priest
-went back to spain to attempt to convince the king that the treatment of the natives was completely unjust
-attempted to set up colonies that coexist with the indians
-at least one of these ends in slaughter of the settlers by the indians
-he influenced the laws of 1542 for the treatment of indians
-provided for the eventual abolition of native slavery
-restrictions on work hours, etc
-these laws were at least partially revoked because of revolts in the colonies
-became known as the 'friend of the indians' and the 'conscience of their civilization'
-his works allowed the people not friendly to spain to think of spain as tyrants and killers
-spawned 'the black legend'
Note the way las casas shapes his accounts, not just the accounts themselves
-las casas argues that the conquests were not christian acts
-those who were killing were not 'true christians'
-believes that when they killed the natives without baptism, the indians were condemned to hell
-believes that the spanish crown has a right over the lands (as per the pope's donation)
-but believes that they have to treat the natives correctly
-is basically waiting for god's judgement
Population of the Hispaniola;
1490- ~3,700,000
1508- 92,000
1510- 65,000
1514- 28,000
1518- 15,600
1540- 250 (holy shit)
indians being held in slavery was basically a pretty standard concept
portugal and spain divvied up the americas, portugal scored brazil
spanish would enslave the natives, even send them back to spain
sepulveda is the person las casas will debate against
theorists believed that poor education men at that the natives cannot care for themselves
-as christians, they have to care for the 'childlike imbeciles'
Barbarian- basically anybody outside of their own country
-they considered anyone who didn't form valid civil societies barbaric, inferior
-they believed that even though all were men, there were many ways to lose your privileges of manhood
-acting poorly meant that you were bestial, not truly human
Civil Slavery was accepted as practical, needed to be done, and just
-people were enslaved as punishments, or when captured in war
-natural slavery was different, basically meant that the greeks (or anybody) could enslave an entire other civilization
-natural slaves lack reason, cannot make deliberate choices or moral actions
-it was therefore completely moral and necessary to enslave these 'natural slaves'
People thought everybody else were barbarians-
-english thought the irish were barbarians
-nobles thought the poor were 'brutes'
All of creation was organized in a chain- from God through animals, with man in the middle
Colonists argued that the natives were 'natural slaves' to get over the fact that they had no historical claim to them
SEPULVEDA- another theorist
-mexicans and aztecs were 'most human' of the indians, but still inhuman and slaves
-sepulveda argued that cortes was brave and wonderful and montezuma was a fool
VITORIA- another theorist
-argued that since the indians could not govern themselves in a 'civil republic' they were no better than animals
-they were unworthy of self-rule, even though they had cities, mostly because they sacrificed humans
las casas renounced his rights to all his native slaves
-became a minister/priest
-went back to spain to attempt to convince the king that the treatment of the natives was completely unjust
-attempted to set up colonies that coexist with the indians
-at least one of these ends in slaughter of the settlers by the indians
-he influenced the laws of 1542 for the treatment of indians
-provided for the eventual abolition of native slavery
-restrictions on work hours, etc
-these laws were at least partially revoked because of revolts in the colonies
-became known as the 'friend of the indians' and the 'conscience of their civilization'
-his works allowed the people not friendly to spain to think of spain as tyrants and killers
-spawned 'the black legend'
Note the way las casas shapes his accounts, not just the accounts themselves
-las casas argues that the conquests were not christian acts
-those who were killing were not 'true christians'
-believes that when they killed the natives without baptism, the indians were condemned to hell
-believes that the spanish crown has a right over the lands (as per the pope's donation)
-but believes that they have to treat the natives correctly
-is basically waiting for god's judgement
OCC CIV NOTES 9/28
Read LAS CASAS A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INDES
do your fucking paper, you tool
paper #1 due a week from friday
5-6 page paper
use quotations form the text
pick one of the three questions
do NOT use other sources (only the text)
Lecture. shut up and lecture. please
COLONIZATION
expansion of europe resulted in massive migrations
-some were free migrations, but many were forced
-including some of the europeans themselves, most of the american indians, lots of africans
-created new countries, trade routes, routes of communication, wealth
-hume, marx, AND smith all believed that the discovery of america was responsible for massive upheaval in europe
-also invloved huge biological exchange- the columbian exchange
-huge exchange of animal and plant life
-unfortunately, huge amounts of disease basically screwed over the americas
-there were 17 disease epidemics in spain between 1520 and 1600 ALONE
-in the worst parts of europe, life expectancy was as low as 18 or 19
-but the people in america had NO resistance to these diseases
-population went from 80 million to 10 million in 60 years (largely as a result of disease)
-settlers believed this was 'divine intervention'
-only one major disease went the other way- syphilis
-plants and animals also went back and forth, flourished
-wheat, melons, oranges, lemons, jesus shut up all went to americas
-most significant was sugarcane
-by 1610 there were more than 400 mills in brazil alone (mostly run by slaves)
-pre-conquest, there were NO rideable animals in the americas
-pigs multiplied like rabbits, as did horses
-cowboy culture evolved from here
-as early as the 1570s, herds of 150,000 cattle were common
-this basically meant that vegetarian tribes got screwed over, lost their land
-sheep also spread rapidly
-the ability of the americans to raise massive amounts of meat made them the best-nourished people in the world
-americans shipped food back to europe, quadrupled the population
-massive population growth only happened three times in world history- invention of tools, agriculture, discovery of the new world
-by 19th century, maize becomes the principal agricultural product of eastern europe
-it grows where other things cant, because its too dry
-potatoes were huge as well
-mesoamerica just got raped
EFFECTS OF THE CONQUEST
huge, HUGE, mortality
they just got shanked. ew.
motolinia wrote accounts of the conquests, believed the diseases were a set of plagues from God
-1st plague was smallpox
-3rd plague was starvation
-2nd plague was that of the great number who died in conquest
-why'd he skip 2 and go back to it?
in 1519, a group of dominicans wrote to the king
-they really didnt like the attitude of the settlers towards the natives
-killing babies?? all over the fucking place. jeez
Las Casas was initially a settler, but BECAME a spanish priest/minister
next 7 plagues in motolina's account came as a result of the conquests
-5th plague was the taxes on the indians
-when the natives couldnt pay taxes, they'd have to sell their children to pay them
-4th plague was that of the overseers
-those bastards just shanked the indians
-7th plague was building of mexico city
-8th plague was the building of the mines (lots of slavery)
-9th plague was the indians having to work in the mines
-encomienda was a big principle
-basically slavery, with a teeny tiny wage, while massively overworked
overriding desire was to acquire wealth, possibly to acquire nobility
-the soldiers wanted to acquire huge amounts of wealth to return to spain as nobles
slavery in the mines was really really shitty
-dead people were EVERYWHERE, they just lied where they fell
rebuilding the city (plague 7) was massively labor-intensive
-basically 1/4 of the city was left intact, the rest was rebuilt
-cities were rebuilt in european style (i guess?)
-power was according to where you lived, middle = most power
-indians lived outside the towns
huge program of christianization began
-12 franciscan priests came into the new world (imitation of the apostles)
-christianity was going to 'redeem itself' in the new world
-they destroyed all native beliefs, idols, etc
-this ended up so bad that the indians basically stopped procreating
last plague
-10th plague was the division of the spaniards
-the spaniards would compete with eachother, even though they were all supported by the crown
-the crown wanted to make sure that the maltreatment of the natives was restrained
-also that the riches in the new world didn't create new nobles to challenge themselves
by 1570s, the worst abuses of the encomiendas were checked by the crown
there are lots of spanish justifications for spanish conquests
-las casas rejects ALL BUT ONE
-the one that he doesn't argue against was the argument that the pope has jurisdiction over the lands of pagans
-so he could basically grant the rights to the lands of the world to whoever they wanted
-but the terms of the grantings themselves say SPECIFICALLY that you cannot maltreat the natives
Read LAS CASAS A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INDES
do your fucking paper, you tool
paper #1 due a week from friday
5-6 page paper
use quotations form the text
pick one of the three questions
do NOT use other sources (only the text)
Lecture. shut up and lecture. please
COLONIZATION
expansion of europe resulted in massive migrations
-some were free migrations, but many were forced
-including some of the europeans themselves, most of the american indians, lots of africans
-created new countries, trade routes, routes of communication, wealth
-hume, marx, AND smith all believed that the discovery of america was responsible for massive upheaval in europe
-also invloved huge biological exchange- the columbian exchange
-huge exchange of animal and plant life
-unfortunately, huge amounts of disease basically screwed over the americas
-there were 17 disease epidemics in spain between 1520 and 1600 ALONE
-in the worst parts of europe, life expectancy was as low as 18 or 19
-but the people in america had NO resistance to these diseases
-population went from 80 million to 10 million in 60 years (largely as a result of disease)
-settlers believed this was 'divine intervention'
-only one major disease went the other way- syphilis
-plants and animals also went back and forth, flourished
-wheat, melons, oranges, lemons, jesus shut up all went to americas
-most significant was sugarcane
-by 1610 there were more than 400 mills in brazil alone (mostly run by slaves)
-pre-conquest, there were NO rideable animals in the americas
-pigs multiplied like rabbits, as did horses
-cowboy culture evolved from here
-as early as the 1570s, herds of 150,000 cattle were common
-this basically meant that vegetarian tribes got screwed over, lost their land
-sheep also spread rapidly
-the ability of the americans to raise massive amounts of meat made them the best-nourished people in the world
-americans shipped food back to europe, quadrupled the population
-massive population growth only happened three times in world history- invention of tools, agriculture, discovery of the new world
-by 19th century, maize becomes the principal agricultural product of eastern europe
-it grows where other things cant, because its too dry
-potatoes were huge as well
-mesoamerica just got raped
EFFECTS OF THE CONQUEST
huge, HUGE, mortality
they just got shanked. ew.
motolinia wrote accounts of the conquests, believed the diseases were a set of plagues from God
-1st plague was smallpox
-3rd plague was starvation
-2nd plague was that of the great number who died in conquest
-why'd he skip 2 and go back to it?
in 1519, a group of dominicans wrote to the king
-they really didnt like the attitude of the settlers towards the natives
-killing babies?? all over the fucking place. jeez
Las Casas was initially a settler, but BECAME a spanish priest/minister
next 7 plagues in motolina's account came as a result of the conquests
-5th plague was the taxes on the indians
-when the natives couldnt pay taxes, they'd have to sell their children to pay them
-4th plague was that of the overseers
-those bastards just shanked the indians
-7th plague was building of mexico city
-8th plague was the building of the mines (lots of slavery)
-9th plague was the indians having to work in the mines
-encomienda was a big principle
-basically slavery, with a teeny tiny wage, while massively overworked
overriding desire was to acquire wealth, possibly to acquire nobility
-the soldiers wanted to acquire huge amounts of wealth to return to spain as nobles
slavery in the mines was really really shitty
-dead people were EVERYWHERE, they just lied where they fell
rebuilding the city (plague 7) was massively labor-intensive
-basically 1/4 of the city was left intact, the rest was rebuilt
-cities were rebuilt in european style (i guess?)
-power was according to where you lived, middle = most power
-indians lived outside the towns
huge program of christianization began
-12 franciscan priests came into the new world (imitation of the apostles)
-christianity was going to 'redeem itself' in the new world
-they destroyed all native beliefs, idols, etc
-this ended up so bad that the indians basically stopped procreating
last plague
-10th plague was the division of the spaniards
-the spaniards would compete with eachother, even though they were all supported by the crown
-the crown wanted to make sure that the maltreatment of the natives was restrained
-also that the riches in the new world didn't create new nobles to challenge themselves
by 1570s, the worst abuses of the encomiendas were checked by the crown
there are lots of spanish justifications for spanish conquests
-las casas rejects ALL BUT ONE
-the one that he doesn't argue against was the argument that the pope has jurisdiction over the lands of pagans
-so he could basically grant the rights to the lands of the world to whoever they wanted
-but the terms of the grantings themselves say SPECIFICALLY that you cannot maltreat the natives
OCC CIV NOTES 9/22
Utopia- pp 1-135
is he gonna lecture on a book we havent read yet....
why is he talking about utopia??? for christ's sake, let us freaking read it!
England- governed by monarchy, with a very powerful nobility
-parliament is essentially powerless
-clerics in the church farmed huge tracts of land, farmed them using 'serfs'
-theft was extremely harshly punished
-steal 1 shilling's worth of goods- you were executed
Moore lived in a craaaazy time..
-should philosophers serve the king if the king is evil?
revival of classical texts...
some people were actually better than others
-nobility was in the blood
-nobility meant that you could be a better person (because you were richer than everybody else)
-only the truly noble can ever be 'truly noble'
Utopia- no theft... whatever... i really dont want to do work.
Utopia- pp 1-135
is he gonna lecture on a book we havent read yet....
why is he talking about utopia??? for christ's sake, let us freaking read it!
England- governed by monarchy, with a very powerful nobility
-parliament is essentially powerless
-clerics in the church farmed huge tracts of land, farmed them using 'serfs'
-theft was extremely harshly punished
-steal 1 shilling's worth of goods- you were executed
Moore lived in a craaaazy time..
-should philosophers serve the king if the king is evil?
revival of classical texts...
some people were actually better than others
-nobility was in the blood
-nobility meant that you could be a better person (because you were richer than everybody else)
-only the truly noble can ever be 'truly noble'
Utopia- no theft... whatever... i really dont want to do work.
OCC CIV NOTES 9/21
Buy Erasmus-Luther
European Rennaisance
Renn-> late 14th century- late 16th century
comments about european social structure mid 15th century are true throughout europe, not just italy
most european societies were kind of poor commercially
early european societies were EXTREMELY hierarchical
-between 2-5% of the people owned ~95% of land
-most of wealth was based on land, not commercial wealth
-the wealthy groups were either exempt from taxes or heavily subsidized
-that means that the poor bore a ridiculous amount of the tax burden
-taxes were taken in kind, not in money, by tax collectors
-everybody hated tax collectors, who took clothes, crops, etc
-collectors would have to be accompanied by soldiers, otherwise they'd be abused and tortured
-the rich lived extremely well during this period
-huge retinues of servants, massive kitchens, etc
-average land of estate for the middle class of gentlemen in england was ~6000 acres
-the poor usually owned 1/4 acre (if they owned anything at all)
-poor made ~6-7 pounds/year on land worth 3 pounds
-rich made tens of thousands
-the poor made less than what they needed simply to pay for food, clothing, rent, firewood, etc
-charity ended up becoming an extremely important source of income for the poor
-european society was a christian corporation of three estates-
-lowest-> poor
-middle-> gentlemen
-highest-> clergy
-sumptuary laws restricted what people could eat, how they could dress, etc by class
-"everyone must wear clothing suitable to their station in order that they could recognize who he or she is"
-if you wore gold clothing or thread (only royal clothes could have this) you were executed for treason
-"virtue of nobility was transmitted through blood"
-if you were born into a noble family, you were physiologically superior to the commoners
There was an increase in wealth in the 16th century
-merchants were getting richer with commercial wealth
-but as soon as merchants got enough wealth, they'd educate their kids to be nobles and gentlemen, rather than merchants
-oldest sons were trained for war, younger sons for the church
Tournaments were revived in europe
-to participate, you had to prove you had at least EIGHT noble ancestors
-the cost of entrance to ONE tournament could build SEVENTEEN ships of war
average life expectancy was in the low 30s IF you discounted infant mortality
-~25-50% of infants died in the 1st year of life
-this basically wasnt correllated to class at all
-old age was dated from ~35
-Erasmus lived until he was 70, but described himself as 'old, dried up' in his 30s
-life was short because of massive amounts of diseases and lack of medicines
-~10% of population might die in an epidemic year, more in cities
-little sanitation, most cities just dumped shit into rivers and streets
-expensive and difficult to heat water, obtained soap
-most people never washed. EVER
-they'd wear herbs in their clothes to attract lice, etc to ONE point, so that they wouldnt itch all over
-basic medicine involved bloodletting. bad idea
-basic plague treatment involved incarcerating victims with their families
-significant starvation and malnutrition
-1 out of every 5 or 6 harvests failed (and not even regularly- sometimes they'd fail one after another)
-city leaders would send soldiers out into the country to steal food from the farmlands
-country people would often fight the soldiers to the death or starve
-if you were rich, you could have meat every day, and vegetables from gardens
-the poor basically ate meat only a few times a year
-vegetarian diets are sustainable, but the peasants didnt really have the right vitamins and nutrients
-because there were no eggs or milk, beer and wine were huge parts of diets
-average child or adult consumed SEVERAL PINTS of beer or wine equivalent EVERY DAY
-wars were fought with increasingly large armies, but ill-paid armies
-this means that armies would have to steal food from the people
-often carnivals or festivals ended in massacre
-there was a huge welcoming of violence and cruelty in society
-criminals were butchered publicly or mutilated, their body parts displayed in cities
-in 1488, the citizens of one city protested when someone's death was too quick, rather than long and torturous
society is mostly rural (outside of italy and the netherlands)
-most people lived in towns of ~100, cities numbered ~10,000
-in 1500, london only had 50,000 people
-paris was ~150,000 people, but was only city in france besides leon with population over 10,000
-in order to stay constant in population, cities had to constantly import people (because mortality was so so high)
-literacy was very very low outside cities, and not too great even inside cities (excluding italy)
-travel was extremely expensive, most people live within 15 miles of where they were born
-travel was also extremely dangerous, because of highwaymen and bandits
-it was much much easier to travel by sea rather than by land
-huge amount of fatalism and conservatism
Buy Erasmus-Luther
European Rennaisance
Renn-> late 14th century- late 16th century
comments about european social structure mid 15th century are true throughout europe, not just italy
most european societies were kind of poor commercially
early european societies were EXTREMELY hierarchical
-between 2-5% of the people owned ~95% of land
-most of wealth was based on land, not commercial wealth
-the wealthy groups were either exempt from taxes or heavily subsidized
-that means that the poor bore a ridiculous amount of the tax burden
-taxes were taken in kind, not in money, by tax collectors
-everybody hated tax collectors, who took clothes, crops, etc
-collectors would have to be accompanied by soldiers, otherwise they'd be abused and tortured
-the rich lived extremely well during this period
-huge retinues of servants, massive kitchens, etc
-average land of estate for the middle class of gentlemen in england was ~6000 acres
-the poor usually owned 1/4 acre (if they owned anything at all)
-poor made ~6-7 pounds/year on land worth 3 pounds
-rich made tens of thousands
-the poor made less than what they needed simply to pay for food, clothing, rent, firewood, etc
-charity ended up becoming an extremely important source of income for the poor
-european society was a christian corporation of three estates-
-lowest-> poor
-middle-> gentlemen
-highest-> clergy
-sumptuary laws restricted what people could eat, how they could dress, etc by class
-"everyone must wear clothing suitable to their station in order that they could recognize who he or she is"
-if you wore gold clothing or thread (only royal clothes could have this) you were executed for treason
-"virtue of nobility was transmitted through blood"
-if you were born into a noble family, you were physiologically superior to the commoners
There was an increase in wealth in the 16th century
-merchants were getting richer with commercial wealth
-but as soon as merchants got enough wealth, they'd educate their kids to be nobles and gentlemen, rather than merchants
-oldest sons were trained for war, younger sons for the church
Tournaments were revived in europe
-to participate, you had to prove you had at least EIGHT noble ancestors
-the cost of entrance to ONE tournament could build SEVENTEEN ships of war
average life expectancy was in the low 30s IF you discounted infant mortality
-~25-50% of infants died in the 1st year of life
-this basically wasnt correllated to class at all
-old age was dated from ~35
-Erasmus lived until he was 70, but described himself as 'old, dried up' in his 30s
-life was short because of massive amounts of diseases and lack of medicines
-~10% of population might die in an epidemic year, more in cities
-little sanitation, most cities just dumped shit into rivers and streets
-expensive and difficult to heat water, obtained soap
-most people never washed. EVER
-they'd wear herbs in their clothes to attract lice, etc to ONE point, so that they wouldnt itch all over
-basic medicine involved bloodletting. bad idea
-basic plague treatment involved incarcerating victims with their families
-significant starvation and malnutrition
-1 out of every 5 or 6 harvests failed (and not even regularly- sometimes they'd fail one after another)
-city leaders would send soldiers out into the country to steal food from the farmlands
-country people would often fight the soldiers to the death or starve
-if you were rich, you could have meat every day, and vegetables from gardens
-the poor basically ate meat only a few times a year
-vegetarian diets are sustainable, but the peasants didnt really have the right vitamins and nutrients
-because there were no eggs or milk, beer and wine were huge parts of diets
-average child or adult consumed SEVERAL PINTS of beer or wine equivalent EVERY DAY
-wars were fought with increasingly large armies, but ill-paid armies
-this means that armies would have to steal food from the people
-often carnivals or festivals ended in massacre
-there was a huge welcoming of violence and cruelty in society
-criminals were butchered publicly or mutilated, their body parts displayed in cities
-in 1488, the citizens of one city protested when someone's death was too quick, rather than long and torturous
society is mostly rural (outside of italy and the netherlands)
-most people lived in towns of ~100, cities numbered ~10,000
-in 1500, london only had 50,000 people
-paris was ~150,000 people, but was only city in france besides leon with population over 10,000
-in order to stay constant in population, cities had to constantly import people (because mortality was so so high)
-literacy was very very low outside cities, and not too great even inside cities (excluding italy)
-travel was extremely expensive, most people live within 15 miles of where they were born
-travel was also extremely dangerous, because of highwaymen and bandits
-it was much much easier to travel by sea rather than by land
-huge amount of fatalism and conservatism
OCC CIV NOTES 9/15
Check google calendar for HW (which sections to read)
In renaissance italy- humanities were the education of choice for those who went into civic service
cicero- most important roman thinker
-the humanities (history, philosophy, etc) are the most important things for a person
-inspired people to subordinate their own good to that of the whole
Florence
-was a republic for a long time
-fought for it from 1390 onwards
-until 1492, the de Medicis basically own florence
-is a republic for a good 20 years, until de Medicis own it again
-1527- break free again, are subordinated to the de Medicis once again
-Writers of the renaissance said that florence would fall because of its dependence on mercenaries
-Aristotle argued for a citizen's army, rather than mercenary army
-"aim of a soldier must be glory, not wealth"
-"mercenaries think of nothing but their own safety, citizen armies think of liberty"
-liberty was hugely built up during this time
-in the form of a constitution guaranteeing rights to individuals, allowing them to celebrate their liberty
-at the same time, writers agonize over the eventual fate of their liberty
-corruption, factions, are the chief factors that writers thought would tear apart their democracy
-most factions, writers thought, would be based on socio-economic divisions
-for Cicero- even the word 'virtue' came from MAN (vir- man)
-one cannot be a man without virtue
-the aim of education was to create a man
-writers revived the goddess fortuna (fortune)
-they argue that fortune is a huge player in human affairs
-but there was a way that fortune could be subdued- by being virtuous
-writers argue that fortuna was a goddess, and so could be wooed by a manly man
-"fortune favors the brave"
-whereas before, things happened by 'divine providence'- God owned everything- now man has some say in his fate again
-in order to conquer fortune, the manly man needed to use violence ('cuff and maul her')
-princely manuals stressed that glory was the ultimate aim of the rulers (and fortune was largely what determined this)
-however, virtue was extremely important here
-also, piety was required, they need christian fate
-rulers must be liberal, magnificent, merciful
-must be generous to your people, build lots of stuff
-must be slow and reluctant to punish, pardon often
-debate over whether ruler should be feared or loved- tips towards love
-ruler must be honorable, honest
-honorability was the cornerstone of a ruler's power
-rather than good of country, longevity of the regime was the ultimate end
-if a ruler was a bad one, he would be punished in the afterlife, if not in this world
-Machiavelli
-single most important renaissance writer
-wrote both a work to princes AND one about republics
-Discourses was the most important writing on republicanism to be transmitted to england, and then on to america
-as much as he's celebrated, he challenges huge numbers of conventional themes
-'the ends justify the means'
-Machiavelli is spoken of as the first important Realist (writes of humans as they are, rather than as they should be)
-in 1500, a tiny florentine city revolts, florence sends its mercenaries to quash the rebellion, mercenaries desert
-Machiavelli is called 'mr. nothing', as second chancellor (head diplomat) to... france?
-Machiavelli is later sent to Borgia (one of heads of papal states?) to negotiate on the behalf of Florence
-borgia sends one of his lieutenants to be cruel to a city to be conquered
-lt. is too cruel, borgia executes him (even though he ordered the cruelty himself)
-then borgia is betrayed by the new pope, imprisoned
-machiavelli concludes that the words of others are never to be believed over his own
-in 1506, pope has succeeded in conquering a few cities
-by 1510, pope wants to drive france out of italy, pope takes florence
-machiavelli is imprisoned as a supporter of the old republic, rather than the new de Medici gov't
-after a while, he's let out after a general amnesty by the new de Medici pope
-machiavelli decides to write a work to curry him favor with the new pope (the Prince)
-for M., war is the chief aim of any ruler, the chief thing to be focused on
-M believes in realism (if a ruler makes it his business to be good among many bad men, he will be destroyed)
-ignores the christian objection that such a prince will be punished
-believes that a wise prince will know when evil must be done
-the defining characteristic of a wise prince is the ability to do whatever is necessary to maintain his republic
-for M, one must not be hated, but FEARED as a ruler
-borgia was the exemplar of this
-if you make yourself feared, subjects will obey you, if loved, they will find ways to betray you
-in one significant way, the prince was a failure- it didnt curry favor with the de Medicis
-then he goes to write about republicanism
-cities never grow and flourish until they are liberated
-they grow great ONLY if the people control them
-in ONLY republics is the good of the people thought of
-takes rome and athens as examples
-for machiavelli, what is necessary is just (ALMOST 'the ends justify the means')
-for cicero, there are things you shouldnt do even to defend your country
-for machiavelli, there are no such things
-republics also need a central religion, something to rally them to their cities
-christianity was a failure in this respect, roman religions were MUCH preferable
-government also must be a 'mixed govt'
-most of the time, this is thought of as harmony, no factions
-but for machiavelli, this means discord at every step
-by their discord, and each looking out for themselves, all of their aims will be served
-cities also need to expand in order to secure their future
-to control your environment and reduce threats
-roman policies of conquest are the best ever designed by a government
-you need policies allowing large-scale immigration, alliances abroad, and large armies
-wars should be short, and massive, and fought by CITIZENS, not by mercenaries
Check google calendar for HW (which sections to read)
In renaissance italy- humanities were the education of choice for those who went into civic service
cicero- most important roman thinker
-the humanities (history, philosophy, etc) are the most important things for a person
-inspired people to subordinate their own good to that of the whole
Florence
-was a republic for a long time
-fought for it from 1390 onwards
-until 1492, the de Medicis basically own florence
-is a republic for a good 20 years, until de Medicis own it again
-1527- break free again, are subordinated to the de Medicis once again
-Writers of the renaissance said that florence would fall because of its dependence on mercenaries
-Aristotle argued for a citizen's army, rather than mercenary army
-"aim of a soldier must be glory, not wealth"
-"mercenaries think of nothing but their own safety, citizen armies think of liberty"
-liberty was hugely built up during this time
-in the form of a constitution guaranteeing rights to individuals, allowing them to celebrate their liberty
-at the same time, writers agonize over the eventual fate of their liberty
-corruption, factions, are the chief factors that writers thought would tear apart their democracy
-most factions, writers thought, would be based on socio-economic divisions
-for Cicero- even the word 'virtue' came from MAN (vir- man)
-one cannot be a man without virtue
-the aim of education was to create a man
-writers revived the goddess fortuna (fortune)
-they argue that fortune is a huge player in human affairs
-but there was a way that fortune could be subdued- by being virtuous
-writers argue that fortuna was a goddess, and so could be wooed by a manly man
-"fortune favors the brave"
-whereas before, things happened by 'divine providence'- God owned everything- now man has some say in his fate again
-in order to conquer fortune, the manly man needed to use violence ('cuff and maul her')
-princely manuals stressed that glory was the ultimate aim of the rulers (and fortune was largely what determined this)
-however, virtue was extremely important here
-also, piety was required, they need christian fate
-rulers must be liberal, magnificent, merciful
-must be generous to your people, build lots of stuff
-must be slow and reluctant to punish, pardon often
-debate over whether ruler should be feared or loved- tips towards love
-ruler must be honorable, honest
-honorability was the cornerstone of a ruler's power
-rather than good of country, longevity of the regime was the ultimate end
-if a ruler was a bad one, he would be punished in the afterlife, if not in this world
-Machiavelli
-single most important renaissance writer
-wrote both a work to princes AND one about republics
-Discourses was the most important writing on republicanism to be transmitted to england, and then on to america
-as much as he's celebrated, he challenges huge numbers of conventional themes
-'the ends justify the means'
-Machiavelli is spoken of as the first important Realist (writes of humans as they are, rather than as they should be)
-in 1500, a tiny florentine city revolts, florence sends its mercenaries to quash the rebellion, mercenaries desert
-Machiavelli is called 'mr. nothing', as second chancellor (head diplomat) to... france?
-Machiavelli is later sent to Borgia (one of heads of papal states?) to negotiate on the behalf of Florence
-borgia sends one of his lieutenants to be cruel to a city to be conquered
-lt. is too cruel, borgia executes him (even though he ordered the cruelty himself)
-then borgia is betrayed by the new pope, imprisoned
-machiavelli concludes that the words of others are never to be believed over his own
-in 1506, pope has succeeded in conquering a few cities
-by 1510, pope wants to drive france out of italy, pope takes florence
-machiavelli is imprisoned as a supporter of the old republic, rather than the new de Medici gov't
-after a while, he's let out after a general amnesty by the new de Medici pope
-machiavelli decides to write a work to curry him favor with the new pope (the Prince)
-for M., war is the chief aim of any ruler, the chief thing to be focused on
-M believes in realism (if a ruler makes it his business to be good among many bad men, he will be destroyed)
-ignores the christian objection that such a prince will be punished
-believes that a wise prince will know when evil must be done
-the defining characteristic of a wise prince is the ability to do whatever is necessary to maintain his republic
-for M, one must not be hated, but FEARED as a ruler
-borgia was the exemplar of this
-if you make yourself feared, subjects will obey you, if loved, they will find ways to betray you
-in one significant way, the prince was a failure- it didnt curry favor with the de Medicis
-then he goes to write about republicanism
-cities never grow and flourish until they are liberated
-they grow great ONLY if the people control them
-in ONLY republics is the good of the people thought of
-takes rome and athens as examples
-for machiavelli, what is necessary is just (ALMOST 'the ends justify the means')
-for cicero, there are things you shouldnt do even to defend your country
-for machiavelli, there are no such things
-republics also need a central religion, something to rally them to their cities
-christianity was a failure in this respect, roman religions were MUCH preferable
-government also must be a 'mixed govt'
-most of the time, this is thought of as harmony, no factions
-but for machiavelli, this means discord at every step
-by their discord, and each looking out for themselves, all of their aims will be served
-cities also need to expand in order to secure their future
-to control your environment and reduce threats
-roman policies of conquest are the best ever designed by a government
-you need policies allowing large-scale immigration, alliances abroad, and large armies
-wars should be short, and massive, and fought by CITIZENS, not by mercenaries
OCC CIV NOTES 9/14
Early 15th century- Italy wasn't an actual country, but a collection of cities
by 1500- Italy had 2 cities with over 100,000 cities
by 1550- italy had 20 cities had over 50,000
160,000 in venice
60-70,000 people in many other cities in Italy
1/5 of italy is mountain, 3/5 is hilly
-this discourages agriculture, pushes people towards cities naturally
Naples was largest city in all western europe
In ALL Europe excluding Italy, there were less than 20 cities with population of >25,000
-Italy was massively urban
-most of these cities were self-governing republics
-13 universities in Italy
-in the universities, professors are paid very well, university education is a prerequisite for civic office
-cities are devoted to providing a good education to civic leaders
-education includes math, science, arts, grammar, etc
-leads to unusually high NUMERACY, as well as literacy
-these universities were the best in europe, better than Oxford, Cambridge, or anything else in Europe
Italian cities had lots of craft workshops and guilds
-this fosters literacy and numeracy in the lower classes as well
In rest of Europe, vast majority of population is illiterate, lives in rural countryside
-contrast with Italy, where most are literate, and live in cities
Italy is ideally suited geographically for trade with Ottomans, persians, egyptians, etc
-this is because of the fact that Italy physically sticks way out into the mediterreanean, fosters sea trade
-has huge areas of coast
-many of largest cities in Italy were port cities (including Naples and Venice, two of largest cities in Europe)
-Venice was largest port city in Europe
-Spices through venice are a huge import into Italy, and out into Europe
-in 1500, 2.5 million pounds of spices were exported from Alexandria ALONE into venice ALONE
Italians also dominated European banking, as well as trade (one leads to the other)
-Florence was the center of banking
-banking built the Medici family's fortune
-In the rest of Europe, it's difficult to raise taxes from poor citizens
-European kingdoms would go to Italy to borrow money (no national banks)
-Italy basically owns money supply for all of Europe
In many ways, Italy was a capitalist society (the first of its kind)
-however, Italy is still not yet an industrialized country
-commercially and financially, italy is capitalisitic, however
Even as early as 15th century, Italians have developed INSURANCE!
-insurance and limited liability invented as early as the 15th century!
-you could actually take out insurance on ships and cargoes
-encouraged investment
-Limited liability invented-
-you could invest in a company without fear that your entire fortune would be taken away if the company fails
-essentially selling stock?
-hugely important for investment
Italians end up consuming massive amounts of goods
-Italians live in luxury not seen elsewhere in europe
-with this comes discussion of tastes, connoseuirship (sp?)
-italians, who live in cities, place unusually high emphasis on being civilized and urbane
When printing becomes widespread, the change is unbelievable
-number of works in circulation explodes
-Large european library before printing was invented had 600 books in it
-in the entirety of europe c.1440- there was a TOTAL of 100,000 books
-by 1500, there were an estimated 9,000,000
-Italy becomes a center of printing of books, even though germany invented it (because they had the manuscripts)
-books which were once 'lost' (only one copy existed in one monastery, whatever) now became massively widespread
-Italy becomes center of printing of classical texts and wisdom
-begins to attract scholars to discuss and analyze the new books
-out of this comes a much much greater appreciation of classical times (greco-roman times)
Italy looks to its past of greatness (rome, etc)
-Italy preserves even the rubble of its former excellence (roman ruins)
-the Roman palaces were turned to vineyards, circus maximus was a vegetable gardens
-constant reminder of how great they could still become again
Italy was an extremely unusal convergence of many factors that contributed to its greatness
-massive trade
-huge cities
-center of printing
-center of banking (provides capital)
-surrounded by rubble of former greatness
-re-emergence of study of classical roman times
All of these contribute to the italian renaissance
renaissance progress
-rebirth of those arts and things which were once great
-resurgence in the liberal arts
-painting, sculpture, rhetoric, learning of history, music, etc
-in middle ages, when humans were celebrated, they were celebrating the immortal soul
-in renaissance, humans celebrated free will
-human struggle was far more valued than before
-astrology was attacked, people determine their own fates
-adjectives heroic, divine, immortal were applied to men, rather than gods
-the idealized figure of man was immortalized, revered
-the sense of the individual was greatly fostered here
-people begin thinking much more about the human individual state
-autobiographies were written much much more often
-popes, historians, even goldsmiths wrote autobiographies
-people begin to think that even they themselves are interesting
-art is beginning to try to convey the emotional states of those portrayed
-portraits are becoming one of the dominant art forms of the period
-joined by the landscape and the still-life
-artists begin to dissect even humans, sketch human anatomy
-mirrors begin to become more important, interesting
-with a mirror, people start to think more about themselves, how they look, how others percieve them
-portaits begin to try to depict reality much much much more faithfully
-familiarity with the classics was pretty much a requirement for a gentleman
-one must be a 'universal man' or a 'renaissance man'
-an individual must have an ease of taste, appreciation of music, sculpture, artifacts, know history, sciences, etc
-one must be learned, but must not appear to have spent EFFORT to get that way
-the courtier was the chief book written during the period that outlines these sorts of things
-renaissance man- one who knows and loves everything, but who doesnt make you feel inferior
-the courtier was joined by many other books establishing acceptable etiquette for gentlemen
-good manners were essential
-from italian renaissance comes the fork, rather than using just your fingers and a knife
-people came from all over europe to learn these sorts of things (etiquette, knowledge, etc)
-these sorts of practices were geared towards those with money
-many people in italy could afford this, because trading brings wealth to even the lower classes
-outside of italy, however, only the upper classes of the land-based economies could afford this
-basically landowners, high classes
-this means that the vast majority of the population outside of italy were peasants, or 'the rude people'
Early 15th century- Italy wasn't an actual country, but a collection of cities
by 1500- Italy had 2 cities with over 100,000 cities
by 1550- italy had 20 cities had over 50,000
160,000 in venice
60-70,000 people in many other cities in Italy
1/5 of italy is mountain, 3/5 is hilly
-this discourages agriculture, pushes people towards cities naturally
Naples was largest city in all western europe
In ALL Europe excluding Italy, there were less than 20 cities with population of >25,000
-Italy was massively urban
-most of these cities were self-governing republics
-13 universities in Italy
-in the universities, professors are paid very well, university education is a prerequisite for civic office
-cities are devoted to providing a good education to civic leaders
-education includes math, science, arts, grammar, etc
-leads to unusually high NUMERACY, as well as literacy
-these universities were the best in europe, better than Oxford, Cambridge, or anything else in Europe
Italian cities had lots of craft workshops and guilds
-this fosters literacy and numeracy in the lower classes as well
In rest of Europe, vast majority of population is illiterate, lives in rural countryside
-contrast with Italy, where most are literate, and live in cities
Italy is ideally suited geographically for trade with Ottomans, persians, egyptians, etc
-this is because of the fact that Italy physically sticks way out into the mediterreanean, fosters sea trade
-has huge areas of coast
-many of largest cities in Italy were port cities (including Naples and Venice, two of largest cities in Europe)
-Venice was largest port city in Europe
-Spices through venice are a huge import into Italy, and out into Europe
-in 1500, 2.5 million pounds of spices were exported from Alexandria ALONE into venice ALONE
Italians also dominated European banking, as well as trade (one leads to the other)
-Florence was the center of banking
-banking built the Medici family's fortune
-In the rest of Europe, it's difficult to raise taxes from poor citizens
-European kingdoms would go to Italy to borrow money (no national banks)
-Italy basically owns money supply for all of Europe
In many ways, Italy was a capitalist society (the first of its kind)
-however, Italy is still not yet an industrialized country
-commercially and financially, italy is capitalisitic, however
Even as early as 15th century, Italians have developed INSURANCE!
-insurance and limited liability invented as early as the 15th century!
-you could actually take out insurance on ships and cargoes
-encouraged investment
-Limited liability invented-
-you could invest in a company without fear that your entire fortune would be taken away if the company fails
-essentially selling stock?
-hugely important for investment
Italians end up consuming massive amounts of goods
-Italians live in luxury not seen elsewhere in europe
-with this comes discussion of tastes, connoseuirship (sp?)
-italians, who live in cities, place unusually high emphasis on being civilized and urbane
When printing becomes widespread, the change is unbelievable
-number of works in circulation explodes
-Large european library before printing was invented had 600 books in it
-in the entirety of europe c.1440- there was a TOTAL of 100,000 books
-by 1500, there were an estimated 9,000,000
-Italy becomes a center of printing of books, even though germany invented it (because they had the manuscripts)
-books which were once 'lost' (only one copy existed in one monastery, whatever) now became massively widespread
-Italy becomes center of printing of classical texts and wisdom
-begins to attract scholars to discuss and analyze the new books
-out of this comes a much much greater appreciation of classical times (greco-roman times)
Italy looks to its past of greatness (rome, etc)
-Italy preserves even the rubble of its former excellence (roman ruins)
-the Roman palaces were turned to vineyards, circus maximus was a vegetable gardens
-constant reminder of how great they could still become again
Italy was an extremely unusal convergence of many factors that contributed to its greatness
-massive trade
-huge cities
-center of printing
-center of banking (provides capital)
-surrounded by rubble of former greatness
-re-emergence of study of classical roman times
All of these contribute to the italian renaissance
renaissance progress
-rebirth of those arts and things which were once great
-resurgence in the liberal arts
-painting, sculpture, rhetoric, learning of history, music, etc
-in middle ages, when humans were celebrated, they were celebrating the immortal soul
-in renaissance, humans celebrated free will
-human struggle was far more valued than before
-astrology was attacked, people determine their own fates
-adjectives heroic, divine, immortal were applied to men, rather than gods
-the idealized figure of man was immortalized, revered
-the sense of the individual was greatly fostered here
-people begin thinking much more about the human individual state
-autobiographies were written much much more often
-popes, historians, even goldsmiths wrote autobiographies
-people begin to think that even they themselves are interesting
-art is beginning to try to convey the emotional states of those portrayed
-portraits are becoming one of the dominant art forms of the period
-joined by the landscape and the still-life
-artists begin to dissect even humans, sketch human anatomy
-mirrors begin to become more important, interesting
-with a mirror, people start to think more about themselves, how they look, how others percieve them
-portaits begin to try to depict reality much much much more faithfully
-familiarity with the classics was pretty much a requirement for a gentleman
-one must be a 'universal man' or a 'renaissance man'
-an individual must have an ease of taste, appreciation of music, sculpture, artifacts, know history, sciences, etc
-one must be learned, but must not appear to have spent EFFORT to get that way
-the courtier was the chief book written during the period that outlines these sorts of things
-renaissance man- one who knows and loves everything, but who doesnt make you feel inferior
-the courtier was joined by many other books establishing acceptable etiquette for gentlemen
-good manners were essential
-from italian renaissance comes the fork, rather than using just your fingers and a knife
-people came from all over europe to learn these sorts of things (etiquette, knowledge, etc)
-these sorts of practices were geared towards those with money
-many people in italy could afford this, because trading brings wealth to even the lower classes
-outside of italy, however, only the upper classes of the land-based economies could afford this
-basically landowners, high classes
-this means that the vast majority of the population outside of italy were peasants, or 'the rude people'
OCC CIV NOTES 10/5
Go buy Montaigne's essays
Authority of the Catholic Church had been essentially unchallenged up until Protestantism showed up
-there were minor challenges, but nothing effective at all
-the Protestant reformation was a HUGE challenge
-protestantism begins as a protest (makes sense, right) by a Catholic priest, Martin Luther
-he printed and circulated 95 criticisms of the Catholic church as it stood
-believed that the church had been corrupted since the time of christ, especially the hierarchy (read: pope)
-believed that the church was too focused on rituals, etc rather than individual belief
-the main example of this was 'indulgences'
-originally they were to allow people who couldn't physically go on crusades to let poor people go
-then they evolved into 'get out of jail free cards'
-essentially you pay the church money and get yourself or your relatives out of purgatory
-church basically became profit-driven
-example- papacy declares that warfare for territory gain is ok
-church fields own armies, owns huge tracts of its own lands
-Erasmus was in many ways the 'cleverest catholic', also raised a huge number of criticisms
-believed that the church was too focused on enforcing attendance and profit, rather than the people's salvation
-the bible wasn't even available in the vernacular, but only in latin and greek
-called for a reform of the church back to the primitive forms of worship, like they did in the years immediately after the death of christ
-Erasmus wished that everything he'd written had been burned, because Luther took them and got the idea that you needed to BREAK from the church
-Luther takes Erasmus's ideas and adds some of his own, which he claims he got from a 'conversion experience'
-luther was of a sect which believed that humans were innately sinful, including himself
-believed that he was too sinful, continually punished himself, lived austerely
-he says his conversion experience was experienced while reading the bible before giving a university lecture
-found a quote in the bible that jumped out at him- FAITH AND FAITH ALONE
-this became the central tenet of Lutheran Protestantism
-people are sinful. they can do nothing at all to change their fate by work or deeds, EXCEPT having faith
-the bible became the SOLE SOURCE of religious authority
-everything that the church or human authority says are only the work of a human church that is prone to error
-christians must be certain of his faith to be saved
-Believed that everything happened for a reason, and as a direct result of the will of God
-the world is ruled by satan- there is no free will here, you're satan's unless God wills otherwise
-since grace comes directly from scripture, there is NO NEED for priesthood
-believed that all believers were priests
-attacked the priesthood and monasteries
-whipped up on confessional, believed that Christ had died for our sins, there was no need to re-apologize
-Protestantism abolished the sort of cults around the Virgin Mary and the saints as idolatry
-there were seven sacrements in catholicism, but only two were actually mentioned in the bible
-protestantism took just those two- baptism and communion
-but transsubstantiation was BS for protestants, wine and wafer remain wine and wafer
-Catholicism replies angrily...
-luther goes against a millenium of the church, church doctrine, traditions, etc
-believed that so many people couldn't be wrong, especially when put in contrast with just one man on the other side
-scripture was not clear whether humans had free choice, in the catholic view
-but Luther's interpretation violates other parts of scripture
-most importantly, the idea that good deeds get moral reward
-also, how is God's justice just if God himself forces the actor to do wrong?
-if free will is done away with, there is no way that God can possibly be just
-they believe that Satan entices man, not takes them as proxies
-men could still resist the temptations of satan
-between 1517 and 1520, luther nails his objections to the door and wirtes three attacks on catholicism that begin to define protestantism
-by the time the three works were combined, it was clear he was attacking the entirety of catholicism
-luther gets excommunicated in 1520, luther calls the pope 'the antichrist'
-luther gets called to defend his beliefs by the holy roman emperor, arrested and about to be killed, but the ruler of saxony gets him off, because of his soverignty
-protestantism spreads like wildfire
-some places protestantism is declared official religion, other places not, but it infiltrates everywhere
-basically becomes Lutheran protestantism in the north, in the south, you get more Calvinism
-calvinism is much more austere, takes out every picture, statue, and song not based on psalms (believed that they are basically idolatry)
-many places in europe convert from above (kings and queens convert, aid in the conversion of their citizens) as well as from below (the people convert, pressure royalty to convert)
-by 1524, a peasant rebellion began in germany and spread real quick
-they claim that they were inspired by Luther
-wanted religious reforms FIRST, and then their own benefits SECOND
-believed that protestantism was egalitarian
-Luther responds to the peasants
-wrote that the peasants were wrong to rebel, called on the nobility to cut down the peasants
-baptism frees the soul, not body or property
-applauds the peasants' defeat in 1525
-this was an example of his support of SECULAR authority, rather than religious authority- believed that secular authority could reform religion
-Reformation gains support in 3 ways
1) appeals to those whose authority is increased by it
-the people who'd gain land by dissolution of the pope, etc
-especially true in england
2) appealed to those who were successful in worldly affairs
-protestantism was an essentially capitalist ethos
-for calvin, you're predestined for either salvation or damnation
-the only way to know was through outward success, so get rich for God!
3) appealed to women, because it improved their condition hugely
-this was part of why the priests hated it, because it unduly advantaged women
-women get literate through protestantism
Go buy Montaigne's essays
Authority of the Catholic Church had been essentially unchallenged up until Protestantism showed up
-there were minor challenges, but nothing effective at all
-the Protestant reformation was a HUGE challenge
-protestantism begins as a protest (makes sense, right) by a Catholic priest, Martin Luther
-he printed and circulated 95 criticisms of the Catholic church as it stood
-believed that the church had been corrupted since the time of christ, especially the hierarchy (read: pope)
-believed that the church was too focused on rituals, etc rather than individual belief
-the main example of this was 'indulgences'
-originally they were to allow people who couldn't physically go on crusades to let poor people go
-then they evolved into 'get out of jail free cards'
-essentially you pay the church money and get yourself or your relatives out of purgatory
-church basically became profit-driven
-example- papacy declares that warfare for territory gain is ok
-church fields own armies, owns huge tracts of its own lands
-Erasmus was in many ways the 'cleverest catholic', also raised a huge number of criticisms
-believed that the church was too focused on enforcing attendance and profit, rather than the people's salvation
-the bible wasn't even available in the vernacular, but only in latin and greek
-called for a reform of the church back to the primitive forms of worship, like they did in the years immediately after the death of christ
-Erasmus wished that everything he'd written had been burned, because Luther took them and got the idea that you needed to BREAK from the church
-Luther takes Erasmus's ideas and adds some of his own, which he claims he got from a 'conversion experience'
-luther was of a sect which believed that humans were innately sinful, including himself
-believed that he was too sinful, continually punished himself, lived austerely
-he says his conversion experience was experienced while reading the bible before giving a university lecture
-found a quote in the bible that jumped out at him- FAITH AND FAITH ALONE
-this became the central tenet of Lutheran Protestantism
-people are sinful. they can do nothing at all to change their fate by work or deeds, EXCEPT having faith
-the bible became the SOLE SOURCE of religious authority
-everything that the church or human authority says are only the work of a human church that is prone to error
-christians must be certain of his faith to be saved
-Believed that everything happened for a reason, and as a direct result of the will of God
-the world is ruled by satan- there is no free will here, you're satan's unless God wills otherwise
-since grace comes directly from scripture, there is NO NEED for priesthood
-believed that all believers were priests
-attacked the priesthood and monasteries
-whipped up on confessional, believed that Christ had died for our sins, there was no need to re-apologize
-Protestantism abolished the sort of cults around the Virgin Mary and the saints as idolatry
-there were seven sacrements in catholicism, but only two were actually mentioned in the bible
-protestantism took just those two- baptism and communion
-but transsubstantiation was BS for protestants, wine and wafer remain wine and wafer
-Catholicism replies angrily...
-luther goes against a millenium of the church, church doctrine, traditions, etc
-believed that so many people couldn't be wrong, especially when put in contrast with just one man on the other side
-scripture was not clear whether humans had free choice, in the catholic view
-but Luther's interpretation violates other parts of scripture
-most importantly, the idea that good deeds get moral reward
-also, how is God's justice just if God himself forces the actor to do wrong?
-if free will is done away with, there is no way that God can possibly be just
-they believe that Satan entices man, not takes them as proxies
-men could still resist the temptations of satan
-between 1517 and 1520, luther nails his objections to the door and wirtes three attacks on catholicism that begin to define protestantism
-by the time the three works were combined, it was clear he was attacking the entirety of catholicism
-luther gets excommunicated in 1520, luther calls the pope 'the antichrist'
-luther gets called to defend his beliefs by the holy roman emperor, arrested and about to be killed, but the ruler of saxony gets him off, because of his soverignty
-protestantism spreads like wildfire
-some places protestantism is declared official religion, other places not, but it infiltrates everywhere
-basically becomes Lutheran protestantism in the north, in the south, you get more Calvinism
-calvinism is much more austere, takes out every picture, statue, and song not based on psalms (believed that they are basically idolatry)
-many places in europe convert from above (kings and queens convert, aid in the conversion of their citizens) as well as from below (the people convert, pressure royalty to convert)
-by 1524, a peasant rebellion began in germany and spread real quick
-they claim that they were inspired by Luther
-wanted religious reforms FIRST, and then their own benefits SECOND
-believed that protestantism was egalitarian
-Luther responds to the peasants
-wrote that the peasants were wrong to rebel, called on the nobility to cut down the peasants
-baptism frees the soul, not body or property
-applauds the peasants' defeat in 1525
-this was an example of his support of SECULAR authority, rather than religious authority- believed that secular authority could reform religion
-Reformation gains support in 3 ways
1) appeals to those whose authority is increased by it
-the people who'd gain land by dissolution of the pope, etc
-especially true in england
2) appealed to those who were successful in worldly affairs
-protestantism was an essentially capitalist ethos
-for calvin, you're predestined for either salvation or damnation
-the only way to know was through outward success, so get rich for God!
3) appealed to women, because it improved their condition hugely
-this was part of why the priests hated it, because it unduly advantaged women
-women get literate through protestantism
MACRO NOTES 9/11
macro- big view
micro- decisions of individuals-not only single person
3 main aspects of macro-
-economic growth
-long/short term
-unemployment
-unemployment during great recession- over 25%
-in europe, many countries- ~10% (double US rate)
-unemployment not 100% a bad thing, but still pretty shitty
-in Japan, when unemployment rose, people started killing themselves en masse
-unemployment up, bad social stresses go up
-inflation
-US inflation rates pretty decent- ~2%/year
-1970s- Ford talked about inflation as 'public enemy #1'- it was ~10%
-by worldwide standards, 10% is really really low (in some cases- preWWII germany, argentina, russia c.1990)
-zimbabwe world champion of inflation!!! they're #1!!
Paul Krugman- Economics professor at Princeton, writes for NY Times
-believes that even though aggregate SOLs are going up, the increases in GDP, etc, the major benefits are going to a very small portion of the economy (rich people)
GDP- basically a measure of a country's economic output
definition- Market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time
USA GDP 2004- lots of trillions
GDP ONLY includes final goods, not intermediate goods
macro- big view
micro- decisions of individuals-not only single person
3 main aspects of macro-
-economic growth
-long/short term
-unemployment
-unemployment during great recession- over 25%
-in europe, many countries- ~10% (double US rate)
-unemployment not 100% a bad thing, but still pretty shitty
-in Japan, when unemployment rose, people started killing themselves en masse
-unemployment up, bad social stresses go up
-inflation
-US inflation rates pretty decent- ~2%/year
-1970s- Ford talked about inflation as 'public enemy #1'- it was ~10%
-by worldwide standards, 10% is really really low (in some cases- preWWII germany, argentina, russia c.1990)
-zimbabwe world champion of inflation!!! they're #1!!
Paul Krugman- Economics professor at Princeton, writes for NY Times
-believes that even though aggregate SOLs are going up, the increases in GDP, etc, the major benefits are going to a very small portion of the economy (rich people)
GDP- basically a measure of a country's economic output
definition- Market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time
USA GDP 2004- lots of trillions
GDP ONLY includes final goods, not intermediate goods
MACRO NOTES 9/26
Restrictions on foreign trade and investment are the worst for economic growth
benefits of free trade, foreign investment:
-gains from competitive advantage (monopolies are bad)
-competition for domestic industry (spurs innovation, better service)
-technological spillovers, diffiusion
arguments on the other side:
-protect domestic industries so they can grow
-'neo-colonialism'
Economic growth-
-differences between countries
-growth over time- this means improvements in productivity
-in US, growth is ~2 or 3%/ year
Restrictions on foreign trade and investment are the worst for economic growth
benefits of free trade, foreign investment:
-gains from competitive advantage (monopolies are bad)
-competition for domestic industry (spurs innovation, better service)
-technological spillovers, diffiusion
arguments on the other side:
-protect domestic industries so they can grow
-'neo-colonialism'
Economic growth-
-differences between countries
-growth over time- this means improvements in productivity
-in US, growth is ~2 or 3%/ year
MACRO NOTES 9/25
savings is a factor in the wealth level of the economy
-you need either savings or foreign investment
what determines savings?
-who the hell knows?
-why do some countries have high savings?
-rapid growth leads to high savings
-that might be why many of the east asian tigers have relatively high savings rates
-they form 'habits' of saving while they grow, it carries them onwards
-this is because they get used to a certain lifestyle, so when their income rises, they have money they dont know what to do with, so they save
-this gives rise to a "virtuous cycle," where the economy grows so people save, so the economy grows more
what determines foreign investment?
-political/legal situation is one factor
-war, political instability, unclear property rights, weak judicary, corruption, bureaucracy
-economic situation is also a factor
-wages are much cheaper, people more willing to work
-this can be overridden by the political/legal situation
-being poor can lead to political/legal problems, which in turn keeps you poor. which just sucks
Population growth is yet another factor here
-high population growth is bad for economic growth
-means that keeping all else equal, per-capita statistics go down
-poor countries tend to have high population growth
Most countries have roughly the same access to technology... what?
-some countries can produce things better than other countries
-during 1970s- japanese cars, etc
-in general, production information and technology gets out
-but some countries decrease their productivity a lot by interfering in the economy
-free markets better in general here
-example- USSR had pretty decent education levels, high amounts of human, physical capital, natural resources
-they failed because the government basically sucked at regulating the economy
-best contemporary example is N.Korea and S.Korea- S.Korea is free market while N.Korea has central planning, and so sucks
savings is a factor in the wealth level of the economy
-you need either savings or foreign investment
what determines savings?
-who the hell knows?
-why do some countries have high savings?
-rapid growth leads to high savings
-that might be why many of the east asian tigers have relatively high savings rates
-they form 'habits' of saving while they grow, it carries them onwards
-this is because they get used to a certain lifestyle, so when their income rises, they have money they dont know what to do with, so they save
-this gives rise to a "virtuous cycle," where the economy grows so people save, so the economy grows more
what determines foreign investment?
-political/legal situation is one factor
-war, political instability, unclear property rights, weak judicary, corruption, bureaucracy
-economic situation is also a factor
-wages are much cheaper, people more willing to work
-this can be overridden by the political/legal situation
-being poor can lead to political/legal problems, which in turn keeps you poor. which just sucks
Population growth is yet another factor here
-high population growth is bad for economic growth
-means that keeping all else equal, per-capita statistics go down
-poor countries tend to have high population growth
Most countries have roughly the same access to technology... what?
-some countries can produce things better than other countries
-during 1970s- japanese cars, etc
-in general, production information and technology gets out
-but some countries decrease their productivity a lot by interfering in the economy
-free markets better in general here
-example- USSR had pretty decent education levels, high amounts of human, physical capital, natural resources
-they failed because the government basically sucked at regulating the economy
-best contemporary example is N.Korea and S.Korea- S.Korea is free market while N.Korea has central planning, and so sucks
IP NOTES 9/27
Review Session is Hodson 110 between 7 and 8 on Wed Oct 4
Stuff from Last Time
it has become EXTREMELY difficult to conquer and occupy a nation
-this has come about as a direct result of the development of nationalism
two views for a nation-
1) one-nation, one-state
-this is a more liberal view
-national determination is a type of group democracy
-interestingly, because of this, BOTH US and USSR were in favor of colonial self-determination (anti-imperialism)
2) US idea- civic/public
-US is not founded on ethnic or religious character, but on an ideology of liberty
-citizenship is ABSTRACT, not based on bloodlines
-open to anyone, regardless of their origin
-there is ethnicity, but we have a multi-ethnic polity that expresses itself in different ways
-here, the liberty leads to diversity
-diversity leads either to conflict or toleration
-in america, this ends up meaning that toleration is emphasized front and center
-europeans have been moving towards this since WWII
Cosmopolitanism is another national identity theory
-in 19th/20th century, new cosmopolitanism is created
-the argument is that there is now a 'global village'
-this comes from advancements in technology, makes the world smaller
-this argument is set out by Bateson, Smith argues the other side
Another argument- set out in the 1990s, ideological polarization between capitalism and communism is gone
-will be replaced by a 'clash of civilizations'
-identifies 6-7 civilizations, and will be the most important conflict of the 21st century
-there are some problems with his assumptions
1)west != christendom
2)there are conflicts within civilizations as well as alliances without
3)civilizations that seem to be united are actually patchworks
4)he believes that civilizations are based on different religions, and that they clash in some way
-problem here is that the core ethical structures of religion are all extremely similar, so they should actually cooperate
Power Analysis
Hard vs Soft
Hard Power:
-geographical
-technological
-population
-millitary force
Middle Power:
-economics
Soft Power:
-organization
-leadership
-ideology
Realists typically focus on HARD POWER when they talk about 'power matters most'
Distribution vs Composition of Power
Distribution is understood to be a quantity of power, much like a pile of money- clearly quantifiable
Composition is understood to be a qualitative measure of power
-as if each type of power is a different tool, good for different things
-kind of like asking how many triremes is equal to a certain number of hoplites- like comparing apples and oranges
Geopolitics is primarily focusing on compositional variations and hard power
Varieties of Geopolitics
Three major people in political SCIENCE (not theory)
-aristotle, machiavelli, montescue
Social darwinism kind of pops out of these kind of philosophies
-nation-states compete with eachother for 'lebensraum' or living space
-exactly like darwinist 'survival of the fittest'
Materialism-
-commonly a motive of an agent (people want things)
-different in geopolitcs
-CONTEXTUAL MATERIALISM is whats up
-geography interacting with technology constitutes the environment within which human action occurs
geo +techno + other factors yield system border + other factors + character of actors
Geography
-'climate is the first and greatest empire'
climate is the most important thing in geographic power
nearly ALL of the important geographic and political powers come from the northern temperate zone (historically, anyways)
-disease comes directly from climate
-one idea- ecological imperialism
-only in the temperate zones did the europeans colonize successfully (NOT in the tropics)
-single most important factor in ^^ is disease
-basically kills everybody everywhere, rapes the shit out of everybody
-estimated that 90% of the total population in the new world died of disease
-Africa is the most tropical continent, stayed uncolonized for longest
-because they'd just get raped by disease
-one of most important- malaria
Review Session is Hodson 110 between 7 and 8 on Wed Oct 4
Stuff from Last Time
it has become EXTREMELY difficult to conquer and occupy a nation
-this has come about as a direct result of the development of nationalism
two views for a nation-
1) one-nation, one-state
-this is a more liberal view
-national determination is a type of group democracy
-interestingly, because of this, BOTH US and USSR were in favor of colonial self-determination (anti-imperialism)
2) US idea- civic/public
-US is not founded on ethnic or religious character, but on an ideology of liberty
-citizenship is ABSTRACT, not based on bloodlines
-open to anyone, regardless of their origin
-there is ethnicity, but we have a multi-ethnic polity that expresses itself in different ways
-here, the liberty leads to diversity
-diversity leads either to conflict or toleration
-in america, this ends up meaning that toleration is emphasized front and center
-europeans have been moving towards this since WWII
Cosmopolitanism is another national identity theory
-in 19th/20th century, new cosmopolitanism is created
-the argument is that there is now a 'global village'
-this comes from advancements in technology, makes the world smaller
-this argument is set out by Bateson, Smith argues the other side
Another argument- set out in the 1990s, ideological polarization between capitalism and communism is gone
-will be replaced by a 'clash of civilizations'
-identifies 6-7 civilizations, and will be the most important conflict of the 21st century
-there are some problems with his assumptions
1)west != christendom
2)there are conflicts within civilizations as well as alliances without
3)civilizations that seem to be united are actually patchworks
4)he believes that civilizations are based on different religions, and that they clash in some way
-problem here is that the core ethical structures of religion are all extremely similar, so they should actually cooperate
Power Analysis
Hard vs Soft
Hard Power:
-geographical
-technological
-population
-millitary force
Middle Power:
-economics
Soft Power:
-organization
-leadership
-ideology
Realists typically focus on HARD POWER when they talk about 'power matters most'
Distribution vs Composition of Power
Distribution is understood to be a quantity of power, much like a pile of money- clearly quantifiable
Composition is understood to be a qualitative measure of power
-as if each type of power is a different tool, good for different things
-kind of like asking how many triremes is equal to a certain number of hoplites- like comparing apples and oranges
Geopolitics is primarily focusing on compositional variations and hard power
Varieties of Geopolitics
Three major people in political SCIENCE (not theory)
-aristotle, machiavelli, montescue
Social darwinism kind of pops out of these kind of philosophies
-nation-states compete with eachother for 'lebensraum' or living space
-exactly like darwinist 'survival of the fittest'
Materialism-
-commonly a motive of an agent (people want things)
-different in geopolitcs
-CONTEXTUAL MATERIALISM is whats up
-geography interacting with technology constitutes the environment within which human action occurs
geo +techno + other factors yield system border + other factors + character of actors
Geography
-'climate is the first and greatest empire'
climate is the most important thing in geographic power
nearly ALL of the important geographic and political powers come from the northern temperate zone (historically, anyways)
-disease comes directly from climate
-one idea- ecological imperialism
-only in the temperate zones did the europeans colonize successfully (NOT in the tropics)
-single most important factor in ^^ is disease
-basically kills everybody everywhere, rapes the shit out of everybody
-estimated that 90% of the total population in the new world died of disease
-Africa is the most tropical continent, stayed uncolonized for longest
-because they'd just get raped by disease
-one of most important- malaria
IP NOTES 9/26
Political Identity and Nation
state is public face, nation is internal political structure, people, etc
DEFINITION: Nation is a group of people who think of themselves as a nation
-...wtf
-dominant phenomenon is that people think of themselves as members
DEFINITION: Nationalism is an ideology that holds that the nation should be the dominant political association above all others, and that each nation should have a state
-nation uber alis?
nation is not the only form of political identity
Types of political identity
religions are huge here, as well as nations
nations are big too
liberal form- civic/public form of identity
cosmpolitanism/civil ideas
-nation is only one of the types of political identity
Elements of nation
-previously: race
-place (nation is a locale)
-language (nation is a common language)
-to be members of an effective civic community, you must share a language (with exceptions, of course)
-there are ~5000 languages in the world, not all of these have a political identity
-HISTORY vs MEMORY
-history is what happened in the past (objective)
-memory is a highly selective VIEW of what happened in the past, a narrative
The Constructed Primordial
one important thing in the form of a nation is to be primordial (created by nature in some way)
-the nation claims that it existed before political existence
-generally these are forged (faked or created as in IRON)
-FORGED means that many of the things that bring the nation to being focus on war
Patterns Across Space and Time
Empires, Civilizations, and Ethnicity
Until recently, the nation was NOT the dominant player in world politics
most people lived in large empires for most of history
-these empires tended to be massive, containing many ethnicities
-they tended to be polyglot
-the elites were mostly trans-national, and configured around many religions
European Origin
the idea of a NATION formed in the 19th century in europe
-there were STATES before, but not NATION-STATES
-in the french revolution of 1789, the nation was unified with the stateh
-during the french revolution, the vast majority of the people gained franchise, became major actors
-for the first time, the public face of the state connected with the internal form of the nation
-this is hugely advantageous for france
-french military gets massively effective (read: napoleon, etc), because the people have a vested interest in the state
-Italy and Germany also begin to form states
-these are different because they are EXPLICITLY nation-state building
-bismarck consolidates germanic peoples, same thing happens in italy
Globalism: Nationalism vs Imperialism
KEY POINT:
Nationalism spread to the world as the only method for colonized powers to throw off the yoke of european dominance
-the first one of these is the US, 1770s
-then comes latin america during the 1820s
-this only works because they're able to see themselves as NATIONS to mobilize their people
-this trend globalizes during the 1950s, 60s with Asia, Africa, Middle East
-these people didn't actually have the concept of a NATION persay before, but they emulate the europeans to counteract them
-hilariously ironic
-wars of liberation are the key force against imperial powers
Explanations (I): Nationalism & Modernity
Enlightenment vs Romanticism
enlightenment- "the template of the modern"
-an appeal to reason
-understood to be universal in its application
-focused on progress
-political identity tended to be cosmopolitan
THE NATION COMES INTO EUROPEAN THOUGHT AS A REBELLION AGAINST THE ENLIGHTENMENT
key figures:
-John Roussau
-Burke
-Herder
romanticism-
-appeal to sentiment or emotion rather than reason
-appeal to particular rather than universal
-focus on tradition rather than progress
-patriotism rather than cosmopolitanism
the key figures argue that romanticism is STRONGER than enlightenment
contradiction here: the CONTENT of the nation is starkly ANTI-MODERN, but yet the nation is the modern form of association
Democratization and Literacy
in the past, bulk of population is non-political
-masses dominated by the elite
-dominant trend in democratization is that more and more people get enfranchised
the masses come onto the political scene speaking the VERNACULAR
-this means that the nation gains a national language, rather than only elites speaking elite languages
-with capitalism, printing presses print books that people want to buy
-this means that the common language explodes onto the scene
-"print culture" is founded
Specialization and Differentiation
with modernization and ^^, people urbanize, move into cities
-this means that there's a huge amount of interaction between people
-interaction goes way up
-huge increase in socioeconomic stratification
-rise in functional differentiation
-there are a huge number of TASKS that people do, they differentiate according to the occupational niches that exist
the nation is the 'software' through which increasingly specialized and differentiated peoples are able to interact
-the national is related to the modern because it is FUNCTIONAL
-its only there because it works so well in providing commonality
Secularization
one of key factors in the modern world is displacement of the role of religion
-in the past, religions were totalistic
-told people exactly what they did and who they were
-basically comprehensive answers to all questions ever
the modern world is characterized by the subversion of the cosmology of religion
-modern science is largely credited with this subversion, people just didnt believe anymore
-there was a disenchantment with religion
the enlightenment expectation was that religion would be replaced by cosmopolitan association
-this didnt happen
-the national partially displaced religion instead
-nationalism filled the hole that science had left with its destruction of religion
Explanations (II): States, War, and Nations
Official Nationality
States build nations, its just what they do
-gives them legitimacy
-nation-building involves the destruction of other forms of identity
-happens though education, as well as the military
The holy trinity of Realism
there's a hugely important triangular relationship between the nation, state, and war
-states make war (to legitimize themselves, nation-building)
-war sanctifies a nation (helps to FORGE it) (blood-sacrifice legitimizes the nation)
-the nation legitimizes the state (increases the military power of the state)
-states make war again! yay positive feedback loops!
ALSO WORKS BACKWARDS
-extreme nationality intensifies the character of war
-wars make states (more wars build more states)
-states can also build nations (they get the warrant to supress competing political identities, etc)
Consequences: Internal and External
because of these positive feedback loops, we get HYPER-NATIONALISM
-when we have extreme nationalism, we get extreme violence
-the enemy gets so villified that its forced to be eradicated
-when INTERNAL, this is ETHNIC CLEANSING
-either get them to leave or kill them all
-this is a largely modern phenomenon, because of the national identity
-when EXTERNAL, this is massive war
-war becomes more frequent and more violent
-increase in suspicion and mistrust, decrease in cooperation and commonality
Political Identity and Nation
state is public face, nation is internal political structure, people, etc
DEFINITION: Nation is a group of people who think of themselves as a nation
-...wtf
-dominant phenomenon is that people think of themselves as members
DEFINITION: Nationalism is an ideology that holds that the nation should be the dominant political association above all others, and that each nation should have a state
-nation uber alis?
nation is not the only form of political identity
Types of political identity
religions are huge here, as well as nations
nations are big too
liberal form- civic/public form of identity
cosmpolitanism/civil ideas
-nation is only one of the types of political identity
Elements of nation
-previously: race
-place (nation is a locale)
-language (nation is a common language)
-to be members of an effective civic community, you must share a language (with exceptions, of course)
-there are ~5000 languages in the world, not all of these have a political identity
-HISTORY vs MEMORY
-history is what happened in the past (objective)
-memory is a highly selective VIEW of what happened in the past, a narrative
The Constructed Primordial
one important thing in the form of a nation is to be primordial (created by nature in some way)
-the nation claims that it existed before political existence
-generally these are forged (faked or created as in IRON)
-FORGED means that many of the things that bring the nation to being focus on war
Patterns Across Space and Time
Empires, Civilizations, and Ethnicity
Until recently, the nation was NOT the dominant player in world politics
most people lived in large empires for most of history
-these empires tended to be massive, containing many ethnicities
-they tended to be polyglot
-the elites were mostly trans-national, and configured around many religions
European Origin
the idea of a NATION formed in the 19th century in europe
-there were STATES before, but not NATION-STATES
-in the french revolution of 1789, the nation was unified with the stateh
-during the french revolution, the vast majority of the people gained franchise, became major actors
-for the first time, the public face of the state connected with the internal form of the nation
-this is hugely advantageous for france
-french military gets massively effective (read: napoleon, etc), because the people have a vested interest in the state
-Italy and Germany also begin to form states
-these are different because they are EXPLICITLY nation-state building
-bismarck consolidates germanic peoples, same thing happens in italy
Globalism: Nationalism vs Imperialism
KEY POINT:
Nationalism spread to the world as the only method for colonized powers to throw off the yoke of european dominance
-the first one of these is the US, 1770s
-then comes latin america during the 1820s
-this only works because they're able to see themselves as NATIONS to mobilize their people
-this trend globalizes during the 1950s, 60s with Asia, Africa, Middle East
-these people didn't actually have the concept of a NATION persay before, but they emulate the europeans to counteract them
-hilariously ironic
-wars of liberation are the key force against imperial powers
Explanations (I): Nationalism & Modernity
Enlightenment vs Romanticism
enlightenment- "the template of the modern"
-an appeal to reason
-understood to be universal in its application
-focused on progress
-political identity tended to be cosmopolitan
THE NATION COMES INTO EUROPEAN THOUGHT AS A REBELLION AGAINST THE ENLIGHTENMENT
key figures:
-John Roussau
-Burke
-Herder
romanticism-
-appeal to sentiment or emotion rather than reason
-appeal to particular rather than universal
-focus on tradition rather than progress
-patriotism rather than cosmopolitanism
the key figures argue that romanticism is STRONGER than enlightenment
contradiction here: the CONTENT of the nation is starkly ANTI-MODERN, but yet the nation is the modern form of association
Democratization and Literacy
in the past, bulk of population is non-political
-masses dominated by the elite
-dominant trend in democratization is that more and more people get enfranchised
the masses come onto the political scene speaking the VERNACULAR
-this means that the nation gains a national language, rather than only elites speaking elite languages
-with capitalism, printing presses print books that people want to buy
-this means that the common language explodes onto the scene
-"print culture" is founded
Specialization and Differentiation
with modernization and ^^, people urbanize, move into cities
-this means that there's a huge amount of interaction between people
-interaction goes way up
-huge increase in socioeconomic stratification
-rise in functional differentiation
-there are a huge number of TASKS that people do, they differentiate according to the occupational niches that exist
the nation is the 'software' through which increasingly specialized and differentiated peoples are able to interact
-the national is related to the modern because it is FUNCTIONAL
-its only there because it works so well in providing commonality
Secularization
one of key factors in the modern world is displacement of the role of religion
-in the past, religions were totalistic
-told people exactly what they did and who they were
-basically comprehensive answers to all questions ever
the modern world is characterized by the subversion of the cosmology of religion
-modern science is largely credited with this subversion, people just didnt believe anymore
-there was a disenchantment with religion
the enlightenment expectation was that religion would be replaced by cosmopolitan association
-this didnt happen
-the national partially displaced religion instead
-nationalism filled the hole that science had left with its destruction of religion
Explanations (II): States, War, and Nations
Official Nationality
States build nations, its just what they do
-gives them legitimacy
-nation-building involves the destruction of other forms of identity
-happens though education, as well as the military
The holy trinity of Realism
there's a hugely important triangular relationship between the nation, state, and war
-states make war (to legitimize themselves, nation-building)
-war sanctifies a nation (helps to FORGE it) (blood-sacrifice legitimizes the nation)
-the nation legitimizes the state (increases the military power of the state)
-states make war again! yay positive feedback loops!
ALSO WORKS BACKWARDS
-extreme nationality intensifies the character of war
-wars make states (more wars build more states)
-states can also build nations (they get the warrant to supress competing political identities, etc)
Consequences: Internal and External
because of these positive feedback loops, we get HYPER-NATIONALISM
-when we have extreme nationalism, we get extreme violence
-the enemy gets so villified that its forced to be eradicated
-when INTERNAL, this is ETHNIC CLEANSING
-either get them to leave or kill them all
-this is a largely modern phenomenon, because of the national identity
-when EXTERNAL, this is massive war
-war becomes more frequent and more violent
-increase in suspicion and mistrust, decrease in cooperation and commonality
IP NOTES 9/20
Definition and components of a state
LO STATO vs RES PUBLICA
def. 1 of State- political association or order
def. 2 of State- government apparatus
-contains dept of war, finance, foreign ministry, and interior ministry, as well as others
def. 3 of State- govt apparatus + territory + the people within = COUNTRY
modern state has BORDERS, this was not always so
def. 4 of State- a polity which is recognized as sovereign by other states
-sovereign both INSIDE and OUTSIDE
-inside- population recognizes it as a state
-outside- unit is AUTONOMOUS
def. 5 of State- has the "monopoly of violence" inside the state
-a state is a system of 'arms control'
-the armed people are SUBORDINATE to the arms of the state
def. 6 of State- hierarchical authority (or hier-state)
-state on top, people on bottom, like a pyramid
def. 7 of State- state + legitimacy
-state is a human community that claims the LEGITIMATE monopoly on violence
-different from #5- is LEGITIMATE
-people have to approve
-state protects the people
-gives a sense of national identity
-accountable to the people (root of legitimacy) (this is basically a liberal view, not realist)
def. 8 of State- state = nation + state
-nation is a people or group of people who think they have something in common
-state is an authoritarian structure
-NATION-STATES are the dominant form of construction of government and hierarchy today
Feudal-Medieval System
450-1000-> dark ages
1000-1500-> medieval ages
Military Format
Reasons that this comes about-
-dominance of cavalry over infantry
-because of invention of stirrup
-allowed horse to become a shock weapon
-from this, knights evolved
-castles then evolved
-annihilates siege warfare
structure of system
-bottom- serfs (people bonded to the land)
-middle- feudal lords
-high- kings
-highest- holy roman emperor
-transcendent- pope
center of gravity here is at the middle (with the lords)
-while all report to the pope, the lords had most actual power
-this means that there are ~1000 political units
-political units are NOT territorially contiguous (could own serfs from all over the place, overlaps)
-there is NO sovereignty
Security outcomes-
-serfs were repressed, opressed
-people are poor
-very little commerce, also huge amounts of political units, not enough wealth to go around
-very insecure
-endemic warfare
-even though there was a code of chivalry and a catholic code of conduct
Political System
Political states come about because of GUNPOWDER
reasons:
-dominance of knights disappears
-infantry > knights
-cannons are developed as well
-cannon > castles
-money, technology, organization > land, skill
this shifts center of gravity to the KINGS, rather than lords
-serfs become subjects or citizens of KINGS rather than lords
-this builds states
-happens all over europe
-lords are marginalized, as is the HRE and pope
-# of political units decreases tremendously
-state-building is this
Security Outcomes
economic revolution happens
-size of political unit ^^, order ^^, wealth, towns ^^
-leads to huge improvements in commerce
this is c.1648
-settlement of 30 years war (peace of westphalia)
-westphalia is among the KINGS, not feudal lords
-one of key points of westphalia is a primitive separation of religion and politics
Gunpowder Revolution
Military Revolution
China, Russia, Near East, India- Mings, romanovs, ottomans, mongols
in europe, there's also an attempt to consolidate into a single political power
-by hapsburgs, bourbons
-this doesnt work
-everywhere else, this works perfectly
-NOT EUROPE
-the universal monarchies of europe (rome, greece) just doesnt work again in europe
-in europe there was a 'republic'- a PLURAL POLITICAL ORDER
-WHY?
-topographical fragmentation
-everywhere else, military power goes all over the place very easily
-in europe, rivers, english channel, mountains, etc PREVENT movement of power
State-Building
Between 1500-1900, europeans basically establish a global hegemony
why?
-in europe, there is competition (both militarily and economically) between states
-competition builds technological and organizational dynamism
-dynamism beats stagnation any day
-there's no internal competition in other universal monarchies
-no market capitalism in other monarchies
Sovereignty & Westphalian System
dakl
European Anomoly
dkd
European Global Supremacy
dkd
The Liberal Anomoly
Continental Autocratic vs Maritime Liberal
dominant system- autocratic, authoritatian
however- in europe, britain and holland are different (mostly britain, though)
-in britain, liberalism wins out
-1688- glorious revolution, commoners win
-parliament > king
-why doesnt this usually work?
-armies are usually the instrument of monarchical power
-britain DOESNT HAVE an army, it has a NAVY
-navies CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO BEAR against the commoners
-king loses
-britain is protected by geographic isolation from the rest of britain
State-system & Capitalism
Capitalism is extremely rare in the world
-most of the time, kings, rulers, just take what they need
-in europe, this is different
-lots of water, whole lots of trade
-capital flight-> capital can run away from autocrats taking their stuff
-capital can run away to merchant-run holland and britain
-capital and trade build up HUGELY in these two countries
The irony of state strength
Which states will be strong?
-in one sense, autocrats are strong
-in this sense- liberal states are weak (rulers have very little power)
-in another sense, liberal states are EXTREMELY strong
-1680-1815- britain and france go to war 7 times
-britain wins 6 of 7 times (only time they lose is in American Revolution)
-how do they win?
-they can MOBILIZE FORCE more effectively
-they can purchase armies, fleets, because the kingdom has money
-in france, if you loan the king money you dont get it back
-in england, if you loan the govt money YOU GET IT BACK WITH INTEREST
-england establishes a bank, can take out loans
-has HUGE liquid capital!
-this works because the people realizes that they're just loaning themselves money
-this works out very well
Definition and components of a state
LO STATO vs RES PUBLICA
def. 1 of State- political association or order
def. 2 of State- government apparatus
-contains dept of war, finance, foreign ministry, and interior ministry, as well as others
def. 3 of State- govt apparatus + territory + the people within = COUNTRY
modern state has BORDERS, this was not always so
def. 4 of State- a polity which is recognized as sovereign by other states
-sovereign both INSIDE and OUTSIDE
-inside- population recognizes it as a state
-outside- unit is AUTONOMOUS
def. 5 of State- has the "monopoly of violence" inside the state
-a state is a system of 'arms control'
-the armed people are SUBORDINATE to the arms of the state
def. 6 of State- hierarchical authority (or hier-state)
-state on top, people on bottom, like a pyramid
def. 7 of State- state + legitimacy
-state is a human community that claims the LEGITIMATE monopoly on violence
-different from #5- is LEGITIMATE
-people have to approve
-state protects the people
-gives a sense of national identity
-accountable to the people (root of legitimacy) (this is basically a liberal view, not realist)
def. 8 of State- state = nation + state
-nation is a people or group of people who think they have something in common
-state is an authoritarian structure
-NATION-STATES are the dominant form of construction of government and hierarchy today
Feudal-Medieval System
450-1000-> dark ages
1000-1500-> medieval ages
Military Format
Reasons that this comes about-
-dominance of cavalry over infantry
-because of invention of stirrup
-allowed horse to become a shock weapon
-from this, knights evolved
-castles then evolved
-annihilates siege warfare
structure of system
-bottom- serfs (people bonded to the land)
-middle- feudal lords
-high- kings
-highest- holy roman emperor
-transcendent- pope
center of gravity here is at the middle (with the lords)
-while all report to the pope, the lords had most actual power
-this means that there are ~1000 political units
-political units are NOT territorially contiguous (could own serfs from all over the place, overlaps)
-there is NO sovereignty
Security outcomes-
-serfs were repressed, opressed
-people are poor
-very little commerce, also huge amounts of political units, not enough wealth to go around
-very insecure
-endemic warfare
-even though there was a code of chivalry and a catholic code of conduct
Political System
Political states come about because of GUNPOWDER
reasons:
-dominance of knights disappears
-infantry > knights
-cannons are developed as well
-cannon > castles
-money, technology, organization > land, skill
this shifts center of gravity to the KINGS, rather than lords
-serfs become subjects or citizens of KINGS rather than lords
-this builds states
-happens all over europe
-lords are marginalized, as is the HRE and pope
-# of political units decreases tremendously
-state-building is this
Security Outcomes
economic revolution happens
-size of political unit ^^, order ^^, wealth, towns ^^
-leads to huge improvements in commerce
this is c.1648
-settlement of 30 years war (peace of westphalia)
-westphalia is among the KINGS, not feudal lords
-one of key points of westphalia is a primitive separation of religion and politics
Gunpowder Revolution
Military Revolution
China, Russia, Near East, India- Mings, romanovs, ottomans, mongols
in europe, there's also an attempt to consolidate into a single political power
-by hapsburgs, bourbons
-this doesnt work
-everywhere else, this works perfectly
-NOT EUROPE
-the universal monarchies of europe (rome, greece) just doesnt work again in europe
-in europe there was a 'republic'- a PLURAL POLITICAL ORDER
-WHY?
-topographical fragmentation
-everywhere else, military power goes all over the place very easily
-in europe, rivers, english channel, mountains, etc PREVENT movement of power
State-Building
Between 1500-1900, europeans basically establish a global hegemony
why?
-in europe, there is competition (both militarily and economically) between states
-competition builds technological and organizational dynamism
-dynamism beats stagnation any day
-there's no internal competition in other universal monarchies
-no market capitalism in other monarchies
Sovereignty & Westphalian System
dakl
European Anomoly
dkd
European Global Supremacy
dkd
The Liberal Anomoly
Continental Autocratic vs Maritime Liberal
dominant system- autocratic, authoritatian
however- in europe, britain and holland are different (mostly britain, though)
-in britain, liberalism wins out
-1688- glorious revolution, commoners win
-parliament > king
-why doesnt this usually work?
-armies are usually the instrument of monarchical power
-britain DOESNT HAVE an army, it has a NAVY
-navies CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO BEAR against the commoners
-king loses
-britain is protected by geographic isolation from the rest of britain
State-system & Capitalism
Capitalism is extremely rare in the world
-most of the time, kings, rulers, just take what they need
-in europe, this is different
-lots of water, whole lots of trade
-capital flight-> capital can run away from autocrats taking their stuff
-capital can run away to merchant-run holland and britain
-capital and trade build up HUGELY in these two countries
The irony of state strength
Which states will be strong?
-in one sense, autocrats are strong
-in this sense- liberal states are weak (rulers have very little power)
-in another sense, liberal states are EXTREMELY strong
-1680-1815- britain and france go to war 7 times
-britain wins 6 of 7 times (only time they lose is in American Revolution)
-how do they win?
-they can MOBILIZE FORCE more effectively
-they can purchase armies, fleets, because the kingdom has money
-in france, if you loan the king money you dont get it back
-in england, if you loan the govt money YOU GET IT BACK WITH INTEREST
-england establishes a bank, can take out loans
-has HUGE liquid capital!
-this works because the people realizes that they're just loaning themselves money
-this works out very well
IP NOTES 9/19
Athens, Sparta are a prototype of what happens over and over and over again
-1st athens v sparta
-carthage v rome
-britain v france/germany
-usa v csa
-us v germany
-us v ussr
-all follow the same structure
-commercial/liberal/maritime vs agricultural/authoritarian/land power
-up through rome, authoritarian wins, but afterwards, the LIBERAL society wins
Sparta
sparta is a garrison state
-at the age of 6, males are taken from their family and put into barracks until 30, to prepare for war
-there were no distinctive spartan individuals
-individual initiative was subordinate to the greater good
-why?
-spartans were the first to innovate and produce the hoplite, premier greek warrior
-they immediately went and conquered fertile messina
-they forced the helots to work and till the land for them, made them serfs
-helots outnumbered spartans 10 to 1
-this makes spartans extremely afraid that the helots would revolt
-spartans emphasize stability and tradition, to minimize their problems with the helots, etc
-when athens threatens Megara, spartans see this as a threat to them directly (because it cuts off a trade route)
-sparta has no treasury, coinage, walls, or fleet
-all it's got is basically a massive army
Athens
first democracy extremely liberal
-actually pretty close to a direct democracy
-people actually vote on policy
-juries, high positions were determined by LOT
-they'd actually choose their government at random
-they also had ostracism
-they'd vote every few years or so
-if you won the vote, you got exiled for ten years
-this is to protect against tyranny
-generals were the only officers chosen by election
-funeral oration of pericles is basically the only systematic defense of democracy in the classical world
-Athens is actually tolerant of individual variance
-democracy may not be the most efficient way of doing things, but its essential for the human spirit (liberality)
-fosters prosperity (material goods!)
-greek society is cosmopolitan
-optimism (about human nature)- we follow laws because we reason that its a good thing, not because of blind tradition
-justifies hegemony ("our city is the educator of helots")
-those who are subordinate to athens are actually benefited by athens
-war happens because of fundamentally different regime structures
-democracy vs authoritarianism
2nd image theory
-sparta is losing power, while athens is gaining
-basically, because athens will eventually surpass sparta, the time for war is while sparta is still stronger than athens
-this argument basically assumes that sparta and athens are the only two powers in the region
-however, persian empire is a huge factor here, indeed helps to end the war
-it's not actually athens v sparta, its actually delian league v peloponnesian league
-athens + allies v sparta + allies
-because the leagues are not monolithic, smaller states' foreign policy can drag much bigger states into war
-this can be seen again- cuban missile crisis
Civil War
-war isn't actually spartans v athenians
-it's actually a greek civil war- democrats v oligarchs
-this transfers to the present, too
-WWII- worldwide civil war between facism and liberal democracy
-cold war- worldwide civil war between socialism/communism and liberal democracy
-yay democracy
Interaction and war: perception and process
Historical analogies
-huge inaccuracies in analogies
-best seen in athenian invasion of sicily
-proponents of sicilian invasion say that sicilians will be like ionians- divided
-completely wrong, invasion was a disaster
-same type of claims (faulty historical analogies) even made today ('things are like another WWII!)
Foreign policy decisionmaking
-different people making foreign policy decisions for personal gain (always bad)
-athenian foreign policy is volatile (change their mind over and over again)
Accidents
-"fog of war" comes about from this war
-longer the war lasts, the more accidents will determine the outcome
-example
-there are walls around athens, so spartans can't get in
-this means that everybody from outside has to get into the walls
-they bring plague with them
-oops
Fear
-rational or irrational- the whole war is based on fear
Morality and Power
-"the strong do what they want, and the weak do what they must"
-pure power politics
-why does athens lose?
-internal strife
-pure power politics take over AT HOME
-leads to factionalization
-koine greek
Athens, Sparta are a prototype of what happens over and over and over again
-1st athens v sparta
-carthage v rome
-britain v france/germany
-usa v csa
-us v germany
-us v ussr
-all follow the same structure
-commercial/liberal/maritime vs agricultural/authoritarian/land power
-up through rome, authoritarian wins, but afterwards, the LIBERAL society wins
Sparta
sparta is a garrison state
-at the age of 6, males are taken from their family and put into barracks until 30, to prepare for war
-there were no distinctive spartan individuals
-individual initiative was subordinate to the greater good
-why?
-spartans were the first to innovate and produce the hoplite, premier greek warrior
-they immediately went and conquered fertile messina
-they forced the helots to work and till the land for them, made them serfs
-helots outnumbered spartans 10 to 1
-this makes spartans extremely afraid that the helots would revolt
-spartans emphasize stability and tradition, to minimize their problems with the helots, etc
-when athens threatens Megara, spartans see this as a threat to them directly (because it cuts off a trade route)
-sparta has no treasury, coinage, walls, or fleet
-all it's got is basically a massive army
Athens
first democracy extremely liberal
-actually pretty close to a direct democracy
-people actually vote on policy
-juries, high positions were determined by LOT
-they'd actually choose their government at random
-they also had ostracism
-they'd vote every few years or so
-if you won the vote, you got exiled for ten years
-this is to protect against tyranny
-generals were the only officers chosen by election
-funeral oration of pericles is basically the only systematic defense of democracy in the classical world
-Athens is actually tolerant of individual variance
-democracy may not be the most efficient way of doing things, but its essential for the human spirit (liberality)
-fosters prosperity (material goods!)
-greek society is cosmopolitan
-optimism (about human nature)- we follow laws because we reason that its a good thing, not because of blind tradition
-justifies hegemony ("our city is the educator of helots")
-those who are subordinate to athens are actually benefited by athens
-war happens because of fundamentally different regime structures
-democracy vs authoritarianism
2nd image theory
-sparta is losing power, while athens is gaining
-basically, because athens will eventually surpass sparta, the time for war is while sparta is still stronger than athens
-this argument basically assumes that sparta and athens are the only two powers in the region
-however, persian empire is a huge factor here, indeed helps to end the war
-it's not actually athens v sparta, its actually delian league v peloponnesian league
-athens + allies v sparta + allies
-because the leagues are not monolithic, smaller states' foreign policy can drag much bigger states into war
-this can be seen again- cuban missile crisis
Civil War
-war isn't actually spartans v athenians
-it's actually a greek civil war- democrats v oligarchs
-this transfers to the present, too
-WWII- worldwide civil war between facism and liberal democracy
-cold war- worldwide civil war between socialism/communism and liberal democracy
-yay democracy
Interaction and war: perception and process
Historical analogies
-huge inaccuracies in analogies
-best seen in athenian invasion of sicily
-proponents of sicilian invasion say that sicilians will be like ionians- divided
-completely wrong, invasion was a disaster
-same type of claims (faulty historical analogies) even made today ('things are like another WWII!)
Foreign policy decisionmaking
-different people making foreign policy decisions for personal gain (always bad)
-athenian foreign policy is volatile (change their mind over and over again)
Accidents
-"fog of war" comes about from this war
-longer the war lasts, the more accidents will determine the outcome
-example
-there are walls around athens, so spartans can't get in
-this means that everybody from outside has to get into the walls
-they bring plague with them
-oops
Fear
-rational or irrational- the whole war is based on fear
Morality and Power
-"the strong do what they want, and the weak do what they must"
-pure power politics
-why does athens lose?
-internal strife
-pure power politics take over AT HOME
-leads to factionalization
-koine greek
IP NOTES 9/13
9/13
Thucydides
jesus. so long. so much reading.
Intro
Why read Thucydides?
-Th. is the 'classic' polysci book
-has IP even changed substantively since th.?
-almost all political science is derived from th., even hobbes translated him
-winston churchill even found time in wwii to read th.
-th.'s book is about the fate of the first free society (athens was the first democracy)
~520BC- emergence of athenian democracy
~490/480BC- greeks are able to expell the persians TWICE
~480-~400 BC- golden age of greece
~333BC- macedonia owns greece, then alexander the great goes and conquers persia
Who is Thucydides?
-we know nearly nothing about him
-all we know is written by he himself in his book
-he was a general, served in a disastrous battle, was forced into exile
-during his exile, he wrote the book
-book 8 is a draft
-there is no conclusiion to his book, no analysis
-associated with pericles
Worldview and Method
Th. wrote this during the greek enlightenment
-period where philosophy, natural sciences, medicine, etc were founded. this is the foundation of western civilization
Secular v. Religious
-Th. writes his account WITHOUT gods coming in and affecting the outcome
-this is new, contrast with Homer and Herodotus (both of these guys have gods as actors)
-Th. recognizes the power of religion, however
-actors are influenced by gods, but not directly controlled by them
-western cannon begins with the first page of thucydides (Hume? Kant confirms)
Materialism: Physis v. Nomos
physis- nature
nomos- law/convention
natural philosophers advanced the idea that we could observe human nature by setting aside the nomos
they argue that physis (human nature) is CONSTANT over time
Th. claims that there are three things that drive human nature:
1)fear
2)honor
3)self-interest
-NOTHING changes these
-we can expect to see in the future the exact same patterns as a manifestation of these three points of human nature
thucydides is pre-socratic
SOCRATES claims that there are "natural laws", th. does not
Dialectics- Thesis, Antithesis & Synthesis
Sophists- wandering teachers, taught rhetoric
-LOGOS (speech) was the key talent valued in athenian politics (the ability to persuade)
-all arguments are formed in terms of three parts-
-thesis
-antithesis
-synthesis
-th. sets up his entire book as a series of pairs (thesis & antithesis), and something coming out of the pairs (synthesis)
this leads to a few simplist arguments from the book
-realist argument- power trumps morality
-comes from the Melian Dialogue
-melians ask athenians not to massacre them, athenians do anyways
-problem with this is that power is thesis, morality is antithesis, where is synthesis?
Medical Model: Genesis, Crisis, & Resolution
-Hippocrates- 'father of modern medicine'
-wrote the hippocratic oath
-his work 'airs, waters, and places'- was his looking for sources of diseases in those three things
-he gives us a model for disease
-early medicine was more observational than practical
they thought of disease in three stages-
-genesis
-crisis
-resolution
th. sets up his book in this way as well (following the medical model)
th. says that the actors he favors are gifted with 'prognosis'
prognosis- ability for foresight
Tragedy
-tragedy for the greeks was not the same as today
had to have a 'hero', an exemplar
hero had to have a fatal flaw
flaw leads to disaster
-in th.'s account, ATHENS is the heroic figure
-lots of flaws in greek tragedy, most common is HUBRIS (or arrogance)
stages:
-success
-overconfidence
-miscalculation
-catastrophe
-th. organizes his book in the form of a tragedy
-culmination of th.'s tragedy comes near end of book5- melian dialogue, melians get slaughtered
-afterwards, in book 6, athenians filled with hubris, decide to invade sicily, catastrophe occurs (entire invading force is destroyed)
Origins of Civilization
-originially, there was a golden age, afterwards there is only decline (classical view)
-th. views this exactly opposite
-in the beginning there was great disorder, insecurity, poverty
-things only get better, there has been substantial progress
-th's theory of origin (nasty, brutish, and short) is used by hobbes as the 'natural state'
-key figure in this ascension from brutality is MINOS
-minos does this with a concentration of military power
-forms a navy, drives out barbarians, forms a nation-state
That's why this is a primal realist text
Geopolitics: Geography and Technology
Geography- Land and sea
in geopolitics- FIRST look at the lay of the land
-greece is characterized by fragmented topography (lots of islands)
-contrast this with egypt, mesopotamia
both of these are river basins, lots of land
because of this, there has always been single actors (no insulation, therefore no natural barriers)
this gives single rulers, single states
Greece becomes a natural seat for a myriad city-states, all independent
-Persian empire at this point is freaking huge
-how did greeks win?
-battle of marathon- greeks use natural topography to outwit persians
-battle of salamis- greeks again use natural topography to outwit persians in naval battle
-another key feature here is SEA TECHNOLOGY
-every 50 miles you transport something overland doubles the cost of that good
-this means that greece has massive advantages in commerce, due to abundance of sea transport
this is only PRIOR to invention of railroad
Land warfare: infantry and oligarchy
-Soldiers WERE citizens.
-those who fought were those who ruled
-During Homeric period (bronze age)
bronze is expensive, as are horses
this period is a narrow oligarchy (because everything is so expensive)
-THEN iron was developed
iron was MUCH cheaper than bronze, also much much stronger
the central military force in greece is the hoplite during 700sBC
hoplites are trained in phalanxes (groups), given iron weapons, HIGHLY trained
cheapness of iron, necessity for more hoplites makes this age a BROADER oligarchy
Sparta embodies this (perfect example)
an assembly of hoplites rules
Maritime Warfare: navies, commerce, and democracy
-in athens, the key development was the TRIREME
expensive, yes, but also dependent on large numbers of highly trained oarsmen
this makes people, even though they have no wealth at all, extremely important
this leads to more open democratic method
Economy
-Greek mode of economy rests on slavery
-this means that WAR PAYS
defeated armies give slaves, who then give wealth.
9/13
Thucydides
jesus. so long. so much reading.
Intro
Why read Thucydides?
-Th. is the 'classic' polysci book
-has IP even changed substantively since th.?
-almost all political science is derived from th., even hobbes translated him
-winston churchill even found time in wwii to read th.
-th.'s book is about the fate of the first free society (athens was the first democracy)
~520BC- emergence of athenian democracy
~490/480BC- greeks are able to expell the persians TWICE
~480-~400 BC- golden age of greece
~333BC- macedonia owns greece, then alexander the great goes and conquers persia
Who is Thucydides?
-we know nearly nothing about him
-all we know is written by he himself in his book
-he was a general, served in a disastrous battle, was forced into exile
-during his exile, he wrote the book
-book 8 is a draft
-there is no conclusiion to his book, no analysis
-associated with pericles
Worldview and Method
Th. wrote this during the greek enlightenment
-period where philosophy, natural sciences, medicine, etc were founded. this is the foundation of western civilization
Secular v. Religious
-Th. writes his account WITHOUT gods coming in and affecting the outcome
-this is new, contrast with Homer and Herodotus (both of these guys have gods as actors)
-Th. recognizes the power of religion, however
-actors are influenced by gods, but not directly controlled by them
-western cannon begins with the first page of thucydides (Hume? Kant confirms)
Materialism: Physis v. Nomos
physis- nature
nomos- law/convention
natural philosophers advanced the idea that we could observe human nature by setting aside the nomos
they argue that physis (human nature) is CONSTANT over time
Th. claims that there are three things that drive human nature:
1)fear
2)honor
3)self-interest
-NOTHING changes these
-we can expect to see in the future the exact same patterns as a manifestation of these three points of human nature
thucydides is pre-socratic
SOCRATES claims that there are "natural laws", th. does not
Dialectics- Thesis, Antithesis & Synthesis
Sophists- wandering teachers, taught rhetoric
-LOGOS (speech) was the key talent valued in athenian politics (the ability to persuade)
-all arguments are formed in terms of three parts-
-thesis
-antithesis
-synthesis
-th. sets up his entire book as a series of pairs (thesis & antithesis), and something coming out of the pairs (synthesis)
this leads to a few simplist arguments from the book
-realist argument- power trumps morality
-comes from the Melian Dialogue
-melians ask athenians not to massacre them, athenians do anyways
-problem with this is that power is thesis, morality is antithesis, where is synthesis?
Medical Model: Genesis, Crisis, & Resolution
-Hippocrates- 'father of modern medicine'
-wrote the hippocratic oath
-his work 'airs, waters, and places'- was his looking for sources of diseases in those three things
-he gives us a model for disease
-early medicine was more observational than practical
they thought of disease in three stages-
-genesis
-crisis
-resolution
th. sets up his book in this way as well (following the medical model)
th. says that the actors he favors are gifted with 'prognosis'
prognosis- ability for foresight
Tragedy
-tragedy for the greeks was not the same as today
had to have a 'hero', an exemplar
hero had to have a fatal flaw
flaw leads to disaster
-in th.'s account, ATHENS is the heroic figure
-lots of flaws in greek tragedy, most common is HUBRIS (or arrogance)
stages:
-success
-overconfidence
-miscalculation
-catastrophe
-th. organizes his book in the form of a tragedy
-culmination of th.'s tragedy comes near end of book5- melian dialogue, melians get slaughtered
-afterwards, in book 6, athenians filled with hubris, decide to invade sicily, catastrophe occurs (entire invading force is destroyed)
Origins of Civilization
-originially, there was a golden age, afterwards there is only decline (classical view)
-th. views this exactly opposite
-in the beginning there was great disorder, insecurity, poverty
-things only get better, there has been substantial progress
-th's theory of origin (nasty, brutish, and short) is used by hobbes as the 'natural state'
-key figure in this ascension from brutality is MINOS
-minos does this with a concentration of military power
-forms a navy, drives out barbarians, forms a nation-state
That's why this is a primal realist text
Geopolitics: Geography and Technology
Geography- Land and sea
in geopolitics- FIRST look at the lay of the land
-greece is characterized by fragmented topography (lots of islands)
-contrast this with egypt, mesopotamia
both of these are river basins, lots of land
because of this, there has always been single actors (no insulation, therefore no natural barriers)
this gives single rulers, single states
Greece becomes a natural seat for a myriad city-states, all independent
-Persian empire at this point is freaking huge
-how did greeks win?
-battle of marathon- greeks use natural topography to outwit persians
-battle of salamis- greeks again use natural topography to outwit persians in naval battle
-another key feature here is SEA TECHNOLOGY
-every 50 miles you transport something overland doubles the cost of that good
-this means that greece has massive advantages in commerce, due to abundance of sea transport
this is only PRIOR to invention of railroad
Land warfare: infantry and oligarchy
-Soldiers WERE citizens.
-those who fought were those who ruled
-During Homeric period (bronze age)
bronze is expensive, as are horses
this period is a narrow oligarchy (because everything is so expensive)
-THEN iron was developed
iron was MUCH cheaper than bronze, also much much stronger
the central military force in greece is the hoplite during 700sBC
hoplites are trained in phalanxes (groups), given iron weapons, HIGHLY trained
cheapness of iron, necessity for more hoplites makes this age a BROADER oligarchy
Sparta embodies this (perfect example)
an assembly of hoplites rules
Maritime Warfare: navies, commerce, and democracy
-in athens, the key development was the TRIREME
expensive, yes, but also dependent on large numbers of highly trained oarsmen
this makes people, even though they have no wealth at all, extremely important
this leads to more open democratic method
Economy
-Greek mode of economy rests on slavery
-this means that WAR PAYS
defeated armies give slaves, who then give wealth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
