Thesis Practice 1

In the Treaty of Utrecht, Austria was the most benefited because it gained land from Italy to the Netherlands.

Dutch Republic Free Response Essay

Discuss the ways the 17^th-century Dutch Republic differed from its neighbors, telling how these differences contributed to the country’s success.

The Dutch Republic was “an island of plenty in a sea of want.” It provided much for the merchant class, whose trade, banking, and storage surpassed most others in Europe. It differed from countries around it. The Dutch Republic was powerful in trade, banking, and the arts which set it apart from its neighbors, but France was a more successful country and neighbor to the Dutch than the Dutch Republic was during this time.

The Dutch Republic was a well establish and organized country that did very well for itself during the 17^th century. Its merchant class contributed immensely to its success, whose hands power gathered in. The merchant class provided patronage for the arts, and artists typically created landscapes, seascapes, and still lifes. The Dutch looked down upon the French, naming their excess living “loose-living.” In the Dutch Republic, excess was considered sinful, so the people lived comfortably but not flagrantly. The Dutch East India Company traded with different countries and the Dutch began settling on the coast of South Africa. The Dutch gained many achievements; however, France was more powerful and had more control than the Dutch did.

During the 17^th century, France was controlled by Henry IV, Louis XIII, and Louis XIV. The rule of Henry IV set up the path to France’s rise in Europe. The French set up ties with other countries, trading with both India and Madagascar. With domestic peace after the French nobility was weakened and Louis being able to be an absolute monarch, Louis XIV caused the borders of France to be expanded to include many other reigions. France was the dominant power in Europe during the reign of King Louis XIV. While the Palace of Versailles was said to be extravagant, many imitations were created all over Europe, which proves that it was in fact found to be impressive by many. The War of Devolution brought gains of land to France. Simon Vouet characterized the French Baroque, and French classical architecture was admired by many, even before the Palace of Versailles was built. France became the culture center of Europe during this time; therefore, in this aspect making it greater than the Dutch Republic. The French navy was greater than most, even England’s, being improved from 25 ships to almost 200. The size of the army itself was also increased considerably. France was very powerful during the 17^th century.

During the reign of Louis XIV, France was the dominant power in Europe. Louis XIV was one of the most dominant figures in French history, and he was the most powerful monarch in the 17^th century. France was more powerful than the Dutch Republic was. Louis XIII was able to put politics ahead of religion, make the middle class powerful, and limit the power that the Habsburgs had. With France’s absolute monarchy, it was able to be powerful and controlling to a popular degree. France was able to expand its control and holding to other countries, increasing its power. The Dutch Republic was a powerful country, but not to the extent that France was during this time.

Both the Dutch Republic and France expressed their achievement and ability to be powerful countries. They were strong, well organized, and used the resources available to them during this time. During the 17^th century; however, France’s power reigned through and it was the most powerful country, especially during the reign of Louis XIV, which was the second half of the 17^th century. The Dutch was more powerful than most of its neighbors, but it was not more powerful than France, its one neighbor that utilized its authority with a better ability.

Edited: Galileo Free Response Essay

"Why are the trials and tribulations of Galileo often considered both predicative of the future of Western Civilization as well as a perfect encapsulation of the context of his own time?"

Galileo is known as the “father of science.” He is a famous scientist, who, to this day, still provokes debate and controversy over his beliefs. Galileo studied the microscope, was an advocate for the Copernican theory, and named the moons of Jupiter after the Medici. Galileo was a well known scientist, but he gained more credit than he deserved because during the time of his life others were creating scientific ideas that were just as inventive as his were, and within a short period of time, the scientific revolution would have occurred, even without Galileo.

Galileo was one who advocated the Copernican theory. He was in favor of Nicolas Copernicus, a man who lived before Galileo and invented the heliocentric model of the universe. The Copernican theory stated that the sun is at the center of the universe. The Copernican theory also explained the order of the planets and that Earth has three rotations: daily, annually, and the annual tilting of its axis. Galileo received so much attention because he defended Copernicus and the Copernican theory. He discussed Copernicanism in his books and was finally asked not to teach or advocate the Copernican theory after being brought in front of an audience. Galileo was made very famous because he defended the Copernican theory, but he was not the one who came up with the innovative ideas. Galileo merely accepted the theory to be true, while Nicolas Copernicus was the one who changed the course of history by introducing these facts of the universe and planets. Copernicus should receive credit for his ideas, rather than Galileo receiving credit for defending them. Without Nicolas Copernicus bringing about his ideas of heliocentricism, Galileo would have had nothing to defend and nothing to advocate to the public. Galileo did not come up with the Copernican theory; he simply believed in what it said. It was Nicolas Copernicus who really deserved credit for his ideas.

It is true that Galileo can be credited with advancing science during his time and offering new ideas to be accepted or rejected, but others during his time had already begun thinking in these terms. A 16^th century French essayist asked the question, “What do I know?” and answered, “Nothing.” Later both a French man and an English man looked further than thinking about the information and ideas presented to them in the past. Instead, they taught new ways to obtain knowledge. They practiced methods that could be applied to nature, new inventions, and improving ways of life. Francis Bacon, the English man who looked further than thinking about the past, came up with the empirical method and from his ideas emerged the possibility of “progress.” Descartes was the French man who looked further than thinking about the past, and he said people should start with a blank slate in order to learn the basics of things and then increase in the difficulty of what one was learning. He divided everything into mind and matter, which was the physical world and the spiritual world. He believed that matter could be described mathematically. After Bacon and Descartes, men such as Kepler, Galileo, and Newton used their ideas to further their thinking and mathematical and scientific achievement. Without Bacon, Descartes, and their thinking, Galileo would not have made as many improvements as he did. Galileo’s work was based off of other men who should have received more credit than they did. Galileo received the credit for work in which he used other’s ideas and would not have been able to produce without those ideas.

The scientific revolution was going to occur, with or without Galileo’s inventions or ideas. The world, with its advancements and new ideas, was ready for a revolution. There were people just as smart, if not smarter, as Galileo who could take the world into a new chapter of science. Isaac Newton, for example, was a man who invented the law of universal gravitation. Many men in the field of medicine improve science, and Vesalius was even the founder of biological science. He was the first to assemble a human skeleton. William Harvey explained blood circulation; Marcello discovered blood corpuscles and bacteria, and Regnier described ovaries. Edward Jenner achieved the biggest medical advancement. These men, along with many others during their time not mentioned, would have made the scientific revolution happen. Galileo did not need to be involved.

Although Galileo was a man who is said to be a ‘hero’ of science, his inventions only contributed partially to the scientific revolution, and many of his ideas were based off of other people that should receive the same amount, if not more credit than Galileo did.