Semester Exam Questions

1. How did the patchwork nature (i.e. random border drawing of new holdings) of the later empires (i.e. British and French) eventually lead to the decolonization of their various holdings around the world?

2. Compare and contrast the pre and post French Revolution ideas in regards to the nation and national identity.

Adam Smith Excerpt

1. A simple system of natural liberty in which people are allowed to spend their capital in pursuit of any (legal) interest the please.   This system serves to stimulate and promote economic growth.

2. According to Smith, government involvement in the economy serves only to stifle its growth, rather than to promote economic growth (which is actually the intention of the government, to promote growth).

3. The ideas of Montesqueiu (separation of of powers reference regarding the responsibilities of the sovereign) and Rousseau (concept of inequality: i.e. the workers’ responsibilities compared to the monarch or sovereign’s responsibilities).

4. Division of labor is the division of the certain tasks required to make a product among a number of workers.  It allows each worker to work on one specific part of the construction, rather than creating the whole item (basically, the workers form an assembly line, which increases efficiency).

5. Smith talks about the roughly eighteen distinct manufacturing operations required to make a pin, and how each worker is responsible for at most two tasks, thereby increasing efficiency.

6. Smith talks about how each individual worker would be able to produce maybe one pin/day if he was working alone (due to lack of skill), whereas the ten workers together produced 48000 pins in one day, due to the division of labor (a worker need only be familiar with one or two parts of the pin’s construction).

7. The division of labor allows for the use of less skilled workers, since each worker only needs to be familiar with the construction for, at most, two parts of the object being produced (in this case, the pin).

Industrial Revolution Preconditions

There were several preconditions that laid the ground work for the industrial revolution.  One of these factors was increased population growth.  From the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century, the world population increased by about 700 million, from 950 million in 1800 to 1.6 billion in 1900.  This increase in population led to an increase in the demand for food and energy sources.  Improved whaling techniques and technologies, allowing whalers to hunt more efficiently and to hunt previously untouchable species of whale, began to meet the additional energy demands.  Improvements in agriculture allowed for a massive increase in food output without giving over a large amount of land specifically to the production of food.  Finally, improvements and new developments in food preservation technologies allowed food to transported over larger areas, and allowed the foods to be preserved for a much longer amount of time.  These improvements paved the way for the industrial revolution, since improvements in food and energy production without an increased demand for manpower to maintain those high outputs allowed a large amount of the new population to work in other areas.  The most important factor was probably the new developments in agricultural technology, since it allowed many of the new population to work somewhere other than the fields to produce goods other than food.

French Revolution Secondary Source Evaluation

I chose to analyze The World: A History by Filipe Fernandez Armesto. This source is a textbook, so it cannot exactly go into a very great amount of detail on every single topic in history (otherwise it would be an encyclopedia, not a textbook).  This source does, however, provide a fairly good amount of information on the French Revolution.

Mr. Armesto’s textbook does do several things very well.  It does explain some of the causes of the French Revolution, such as the pent up rage of the peasants over high taxes and their desire to be released from the “traditional obligations of peasants and the traditional privileges of lord’s…” (Armesto 758).  This source also highlights the major eras and phases of the revolution.  The text moves from the eras of the Liberal Revolution (1789-1792), to the Radical Revolution (1793-1794), to the Thermidorian Reaction (1795-1798), and finally to the Napoleonic Era (1799-1815).  It talks about some of the different developments during the French Revolution, such as the ‘imprisonment’ of Louis XVI by the National Assembly and the eventual execution of the whole royal family in 1793.  This text also talks about the primary figures in the Revolution, such as Louis XVI, Napoleon, and some of the radical revolutionaries like Marquis de Sade.  This source also uses more casual explanations of the Revolution to creative a solid, cohesive narrative.  He highlights only the bigger, more important parts of the Revolution and focuses less on random trivia and facts, which lends itself to the production of a cohesive narrative.  Finally, this source is a pretty authoritative one (it is a textbook, after-all).

There are a few shortcomings to this source.  While it does provide a large amount of information, I don’t think that it goes into enough detail regarding some of the developments presented in the book.  For example, while it can be inferred from the line “In 1793, the royal family was executed” (758) that Louis XVI was executed in 1793, the text does not specifically state this.  I think that this event must be stated explicitly, due to the importance of the event in the Revolution and in history as a whole, since it is one of the first times that a monarch was executed by the people of his state (Charles I of England has the dubious honor of being the first to claim this achievement).  This source does not present any real argument regarding the French Revolution, only presents the fact that it happened.  It talks about some of the events of the Revolution, some of the major factors that led to the Revolution, and the major eras, developments, and individuals of the Revolution, but never does it present and argument on the Revolution.  Since the source does not even present an argument on the revolution, it does not use its authoritative position as a textbook to buttress its argument.  It does, however, use its authoritative status to buttress its explanation of the French Revolution (causes, effects, etc.).

Finalized Research Question

How did the slave trade affect the societies of the coastal African kingdoms of Ashanti, Dahomey, Kongo, and Akwamu?

This final question evolved from, first, my realization that my first question was much too broad.  It would be very difficult to answer, since I included all the different aspects (economic, cultural, societal, etc.) and all the kingdoms.  I also realized that it was not contact with the Europeans that caused changes in the African kingdoms, it was the profits they could gain from becoming slave trading states that changed their ideologies.

Our textbook will provide a little bit of information for all the kingdoms I chose. The book The Atlantic Slave Trade: Affects on Economies, Societies, and Peoples in Africa, the Americas, and Europe also seems to have a large amount of information on the particular topic I chose.  The Slave Voyages website also contains a wealth of information useful for any question on this topic, especially the maps of major areas of Africa that were involved in the slave trade and the major areas of embarkation of slaves in Africa.  These maps show the areas where the kingdoms I chose resided as being major traders of slaves.

Possible Research Questions

1. How did contact with Europeans affect the coastal African kingdoms such as Kongo, Ashanti, Angola, etc. (socially, economically, etc.)?

The effects detailed in the readings were very great, and all showed shifts in culture and ideologies (such as the increased maritime experience gained by the West African peoples, where before they had generally avoided the open ocean).  Exploration of this topic would prove interesting for many reasons, including the aforementioned example.

2. How did varying religious and cultural ideologies among the different African kingdoms affect slave trading?

The Atlantic History source details several rather interesting conclusions on different kingdoms slave trading policies, along with connections to the proportion of slaves those regions shipped across to the Americas, as a direct relation to these varying ideologies.

Crosby Article

In his article “Ecological Imperialism: The Overseas Migration of Western Europeans as a Biological Phenomenon”, Alfred Crosby addresses the success of European demographic conquest in many foreign lands, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Uruguay (to name a few).  He discusses how the takeovers were not necessarily related to human demographic conquest, but also included the replacement of native animals, plants, and diseases by their European counterparts, introduced by the European settlers.  In the article, Crosby asks why the European takeover was so successful in areas like the United States, Canada, Argentina, etc., and why it failed so dismally in other areas, such as Africa and tropical America.  This is a significant question to ask because the reasons behind this trend are not readily apparent, and it is extraordinarily important in historical terms, since the demographic dominance of these areas has obviously directed their histories.

Crosby states that one of the primary reasons for the success of the European settlers was the ability of their animals to adapt quickly to their new surroundings.  Crosby even goes so far to say that, to a certain degree, “the success of Europeans as settlers was automatic as soon as they put their tough, fast, fertile, and intelligent animals ashore.”  The animals provided necessities for the settlers, such as food, and also provided them with a vast amount of capital (Crosby).  This allowed the settlers to survive and expand in the areas they had settled.  Crosby provides a large amount of evidence regarding European presence, both human and animal, in various regions of the world.  For example, he provides specific statistics regarding the sheep population in Australia and New Zealand over a period  of years after their introduction to the region (by 1989 there were apparently over 55 million sheep living in New Zealand, up from about a quarter of a million in 1840).

Crosby’s argument is very persuasive.  He provides a copious amount of evidence to back his claims.  The statistical data alone is more than persuasive enough.  I don’t think he overlooks anything, though he is quick to write off technological superiority as a reason for the demographic conquest.  Disease may have killed a lot of the native populations in the various regions, but so did guns.  However, I don’t call this an oversight on his part, due to the fact that he is exploring the demographic conquest as a biological phenomenon (so technology doesn’t play a part in his argument).  Crosby has a similar approach to our beloved Felipe Fernandez Armesto in that they both focus on the ecological effects of various historical events, and also pay a lot of attention to the environment as an explanation for various events and occurrences in history.

Wikipedia Project- Final Draft

The Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082 was a trade and defense pact signed between the Byzantine Empire and the Republic of Venice, in the form of an imperial chrysobull issued by EmperorAlexios I Komnenos. This treaty, which provided the Venetians with major trading concessions in exchange for their help in the Byzantine Empire’s wars against the Normans, would have a major impact on both the Empire and the Republic that would dictate their histories for several centuries to come.

Stipulations of the Treaty

The Byzantine Empire made a large number of trade concessions to the Republic of Venice in exchange for military support against the Normans who were invading and conquering various Byzantine holdings in and outside the Empire.  According to the treaty, the Byzantines would allow the Venetians the right to trade throughout the empire without the imposition of taxes.[3]  The Venetians would also be allowed control of the main harbor facilities of Byzantium (Constantinople), along with control of several key public offices.[2]  The treaty also granted various honors to the Doge of Venice, along with an income.[3] Finally, the Venetians were granted their own district within Byzantium, with shops, a church, a bakery, and various housing areas for any Venetians living within the city.[4]

In exchange for these trade concessions the Byzantine Empire requested military support from the Venetians, especially in the form of ships, since the Empire had no real navy to speak of.

Consequences of the Treaty

The military aid promised by the Republic of Venice never really arrived.  The Venetians did not really do anything to halt the Normans, but reaped great benefits from the new trade advantages they now enjoyed due to the treaty.[2]  The Byzantine Empire’s ability to recuperate after loses was significantly reduced, due to the immense revenue the Empire had given up when it allowed the Venetians to trade freely without the imposition of taxes. This stifled the Empire’s power of recuperation, and ultimately started its terminal decline. [2]

References

• 1. George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1968.
• 2. Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, London: Routledge, 1998.
• 3. Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
• 4. Olivia Remie Constable, Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World: Lodging, Trade, and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• 5. John Mark Nicovich, “The Poverty of Patriarchate of Grado and the Byzantine-Venetian Treaty of 1082”, The Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 24, Issue 1, New York: Routledge, 2009.

Wikipedia Project Draft

The Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082 was a trade and defense pact signed between the Byzantine Empire and the Republic of Venice, in the form of an imperial chrysobull issued by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. This treaty, which provided the Venetians with major trading concessions in exchange for their help in the Byzantine Empire’s wars against the Normans, would have a major impact on both the Empire and the Republic that would dictate their histories for several centuries to come.

Stipulations of the Treaty

The Byzantine Empire made a large number of trade concessions to the Republic of Venice in exchange for military support against the Normans who were invading and conquering various Byzantine holdings in and outside the Empire.  According to the treaty, the Byzantines would allow the Venetians the right to trade throughout the empire without the imposition of taxes.  The Venetians would also be allowed control of the main harbor facilities of Byzantium (Constantinople), along with control of several key public offices.  The treaty also granted various honors to the Doge of Venice, along with an income. Finally, the Venetians were granted their own district within Byzantium, with shops, a church, a bakery, and various housing areas for any Venetians living within the city.

In exchange for these trade concessions the Byzantine Empire requested military support from the Venetians, especially in the form of ships, since the Empire had no real navy to speak of.

Consequences of the Treaty

The military aid promised by the Republic of Venice never really arrived.  The Venetians did not really do anything to halt the Normans, but reaped great benefits from the new trade advantages they now enjoyed due to the treaty.  The Byzantine Empire’s ability to recuperate after loses was significantly reduced, due to the immense revenue the Empire had given up when it allowed the Venetians to trade freely without the imposition of taxes. This stifled the Empire’s power of recuperation, and ultimately started its terminal decline.

References

• George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1968.

2. Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, London: Routledge, 1998.

Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Olivia Remie Constable, Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World: Lodging, Trade, and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

John Mark Nicovich, “The Poverty of Patriarchate of Grado and the Byzantine-Venetian Treaty of 1082”, The Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 24, Issue 1, New York: Routledge, 2009.

Wikipedia Project: References

Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, London: Routledge, 1998.

Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Olivia Remie Constable, Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World: Lodging, Trade, and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

John Mark Nicovich, “The Poverty of Patriarchate of Grado and the Byzantine-Venetian Treaty of 1082”, The Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 24, Issue 1, New York: Routledge, 2009.

The other sources I found will probably not get used, since they don’t contribute any other meaningful information that has not already been contributed by the sources above.