Hist 202 Midterm 1 Part 1 - History 202 with Hardy at Brigham Young University - StudyBlue Good to have you back! If you've signed in to StudyBlue with Facebook in the past, please do that again. Hist 202 Midterm 1 Part 1 Hist 202 Midterm 1 Part 1 Kristi L. How long was the reign of the Safavid Empire? 1500-1600. (16th and 17th century) Where was the Safavid Empire? Persia/Iran. What branch of islam was the Safavid empire? Shii'a islam as a unifying zone What are some of the characteristics of the Safavid Empire? -Created a stronghold between the east and west. -Intolerant religious views When was the decline of the Safavid empire and when did they fall? The Ottomans took over the Safavid empire in the early 16th century. What type of nation was the Ottoman empire considered? Gunpowder nation. They had significant firepower. Who were the Ottomans? Turkish military regime empire based in Anatolia. What division of Islam were the Ottomans?

Sunni division. The rise of the Ottomans was closely related to the decline of a another civilization. What was that civilization? Byzantium In 1453 and important event happened in the Ottoman empire. What was this event? They conquered Constantinople and Constantine the emperor was killed. Under which ruler was Constantinople rebuilt? Mehemet the conquerer. Why did the Ottoman empire keep conquering lands? They had significantly more firepower so they could. In the 16th century the Ottomans were disturbing the peace with a new nation. What was it? Did they win? The Austrian nation/ Habsburgs. Under the rule of Ferdinand I. Did the Ottoman empire ever make peace with the Habsburgs? Yes, in 1606. Because they drew even in the fight What nation was the lead in precious metals in the 16th century? What did this fund? The Ottoman empire. It helped fund their fiscal military state. Advertisement What was significant about the battle of Kosovo? Who were the two clashing powers?

-Fought between Serbians and Ottomas -Signified death of Prince Lazar and point of pride in the Serbs for defeating a gunpowder nation Who ordered the building of the Topkapi palace? Mehemet II What was the significance of the Topkapi Palace? -Solidified the Ottoman empire Who protected the Topkapi Palace? The Janissaries. Where is the Topkapi Palace located? Instanbul/ Constantinople What was the Holy Roman Empire? - Formed in 962 -Loose confederation of Germanic States. Who controlled the Holy Roman Empire in the early 1500s? The Habsburg empire. What was the reconquista? -Portugal and Spain conquer the Iberian Peninsula and take it back from the muslims in the 15th century. When did the reconquista end? 1492, when the Muslim King handed over Granada to the Christians. What was the inquisition? Institution formed to combat heresy, formed in the 12th century under Pope Gregory What happened in the inquisition? You were prosecuted and tortured if they deemed you as heretic.

(Think Jan Huss.)Banned book list that contained heretic material. -How they proved if you were Catholic or not. Think of King Henry at Navar. What would be an example of absolutism? Absolute Monarchy. -Louis XIV of France who built to palace at versailles. What was the significance of Versailles? -Status and intrigue Who was the political head of Western Christianity and the counterpart to Suleyman? Charles V. Who formed an alliance with the Ottomans which terrified the Habsburgs? France What was an embarrassing moment for Phillip II ruler of Spain? He couldn't afford the Protestant war, had to declare bankruptcy. And sue for peace with the Ottomans. Who expelled the Moriscos that were living in Spain and why was this bad? Phillip II expelled them because they were not the most sincere in their conversion. They in turn are welcomed with Open arms in the Ottoman Empire. Who made mention of a reformation before Martin Luther. -Wyclif -Jan Huss What was the Protestant reformation? An antipapal movement that was trying to reform the Catholic church. Began shortly after the black death Who was the key player in the Protestant reformation and why? What did he do?

Martin Luther a German Monk. He posted the 95 theses on the door of the catholic church What was a result of the reformation? Many new religious beliefs caused great divides in the fiscal military kingdoms. And vicious religious wars. Who translated the Bible to English and was opposed by the church of England? John Wyclif. What did Martin Luther teach? There was corruption in the catholic church. You could be saved by faith and knowledge of the scriptures. The priesthood should be available to all men. No Saints, no celibacy, repressed by church In the 16th century what was one of the largest small revolts? The German Peasants war. Fought because they had injustices in the system. Luther called them unchristian but recognized their injustices When did the Council of Trent take place? The 16th century What was the Council of Trent responding to? The protestant reformation What was the St. Bartholomews day massacre? -16th century -Margaret marries Henry from Navar (Who was a Calvinist) which sparks the killing of many Calvinists. -Converted to Catholicism but it was in vain so he was assassinated.

Who were the Anabaptists? -Reclusive and amish like religious group. -Adult baptism -Catholics and Zwingli tortured them for AB. Who founded the Jesuits? -Religious work is not necessarily spiritual What was presbyterianism and who would be considered responsible for it? -Decentralized version of the Catholic church that focused on small parishes. -Roots can be traced back to Calvin. When did the majority of the witch hunts/ trials take place? During the 30 years war when famine, disease, and drought plagued Germany. -Blamed everything on witches. -A religious group in the Netherlands. Church of England Who were the Puritans? - Radical Religious group that demanded change and the abolition of Anglican hierarchy. What caused the thirty years war? Unhappy protestants threw two catholic officials out of the window. But in the bigger picture just religious and political turmoil between Catholics and Protestants in Germany. France and Sweden win What ended the 30 years war? The Peace of Westphalia. -Strict member of the parliament that led England after Charles I was executed. -Puritan -Picked new parliament but basically ruled by himself. Creoles Mexican born descendants of European immigrants.

Powerful elite born in America. Mestizos Children of European fathers and native mothers Which Spanish conquistador conquered Peru and the Incan empire? Francisco Pizzaro. Which Spanish Conquistador was responsible for the fall of the Aztec Empire? Hernan Cortes 11 St Bartholomews Day Massacre The St Bartholomews Day - AP EUROPEA - 109 View Full Document 11. St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations, followed by a wave of Roman Catholic mob violence, both directed against the Huguenots, during the French Wars of Religion. The massacre took place six days after the wedding of the king's sister to the Protestant Henry III of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France). Lasting several weeks, the massacre extended to other urban centres and the countryside. 12.

Peace of Augsburg: After 1530, when Emperor Charles V attempted to reduce the growing Lutheran heresy, the Lutheran princes banded together in 1532 in the Schmalking League, and between 1546 and 1555 a sporadic war was waged, eventually culminating in the compromise in 1555, the Peace of Augsburg, which This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version. View Full Document allowed each prince to decide the religion of his subjects, forbade all sects of Protestantism other than Lutheranism, and ordered all Catholic bishops to give up their property if they turned Lutheran. 13. Charles V: The young Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, successor to Ferdinand and Isabella. Heir to the wealth of the New World. In 1521 summoned Luther to the Diet of Worms to give an account of his writings, and declared Luther an outlaw. Condemned Luther to death. After 1530 he tried to reduce the growing heresy, but the Lutheran princes banded together against him and out of this conflict grew the Peace of Augsburg. 14.

Elizabeth I (England): Daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Succeeded her half-sister Mary Tudor to the throne of England as Queen. Under her rule, the Anglican Church assumed its distinctive character, neither Roman, nor Reformed. Although it remained a state Church under her monarchy, she changed her title from Supreme Head to Supreme Governor. 15. Dutch Revolt: he Dutch Revolt or the Revolt of the Netherlands (156 8[1] –1609), was the partially successful revolt of the Seventeen Provinces in the Low Countries against the Spanish Empire. It led to the formation of the independent Dutch state of the Netherlands. 16. Mary Queen of Scots: Mary Queen of Scots, married into the French royal family, and the Scots feared that she might deliver Scotland to the French. In 1550, civil war broke out in Scotland. When Mary Queen of Scots returned the next year, she found it in the lap of Protestant "heresy". Over the next few years Knox, the passionate preacher of Calvinism, and Mary came to symbolize the Reformation conflict: Protestant against Catholic. Events in Scotland moved in Knox’s direction.

Even though Mary and her descendants tried to turn back the clock, Scotland remained the most devoutly Calvinist country in the world. 17. Puritans: Exiles who were forced to flee England under the reign of "Bloody Mary", returned under the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603). They had read their Bibles and had developed their own ideas about a true reformation in England, differing from Elizabeth’s establishment. 18. This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document. TERM UPB Colombia AP EUROPEA 109 - Spring 2010 EUROPE 1. How did the evolution of the institution of serfdom in the Eastern differ f Western Evolution of Serfdom St. Bartholomew's Massacre - THE ST. BARTHOLOMEWS DAY MASSACRE OF 1572 AS St. Bartholomew's Massacre St. Bartholomew's Massacre - THE ST. BARTHOLOMEWS DAY... SCHOOL View Full Document THE ST.

BARTHOLOMEW’S DAY MASSACRE OF 1572 AS PUBLIC POLICY HISTORY INTRODUCTION: The Massacre can be considered as policy in at least two ways: - as one event in larger royal policy on religion - as a policy in itself: response to crisis of attempted assassination of Admiral Coligny. What was the problem? (initiation) The French royal problem of religion in 1572 The larger problem and immediate problem (Same as religious uniformity issue in Rome 1 st -4 th C?) What context mattered? In France, the king was considered the most holy king in all of the world, and a direct pipeline to God Therefore the crown is enacting God’s word Protestants and Catholics were warring for many years before this Previous policy against Protestants Edict of 1551-to be a protestant makes one seditious and a heretic This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document You are any enemy of state and of the Church Wedding in 1572 was a policy ploy to create peace between the two groups If people displease God then the people will suffer Many French Catholics saw Protestantism as a displeasure to God The Protestant Reformation Protestant religion causing problems all over Europe Average Catholic Frenchman generally did not like the Protestant b/c weren’t supporting the king, dressed differently, did not participate in festivals, etc. Geopolitics France is not an empire that encompasses Christianity People are watching and invested in what France is doing in this situation and possibly help or take advantage of II. Info and Alternatives (estimation) How did the King’s “estimation” of protestant response to Coligny attack matter? (info/perception’s importance in “preemptive” moves) Took responsibility for the attack because he said if he did not attack preemptively the protestants would have attacked him himself Who else is “estimating”—gauging own situation, others’ likely acts?

The crown The crown seems to see this as the perfect time to launch an attack against the protestants Protestants are all within a close vicinity because of this glorious occasion of marriage between a catholic and protestant royal However this seems to be moreso the stance of the Queen along with some of the Dukes (i.e. Guise) that are powerful. This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document. TERM The Akosombo River Dam Project and Nkrumah UCSB The Akosombo River Dam Project and Nkrumah Historical Context Discovered while still The Akosombo River Dam Project and Nkrumah St Bartholomew's Day Massacre | Article about St Bartholomew's Day Massacre by The Free Dictionary St Bartholomew's Day Massacre | Article about St Bartholomew's Day Massacre by The Free Dictionary (redirected from St Bartholomew's Day Massacre) Also found in: Wikipedia . St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre thousands of French Huguenots murdered for their faith (1572). [Fr. Hist.: EB, VII: 775] Want to thank TFD for its existence?

Tell a friend about us , add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster's page for free fun content . Link to this page: Ramus, Petrus References in periodicals archive ? 1572: The St Bartholomew's Day massacre took place in Paris when thousands of French Huguenots were killed by order of the Catholic French court. Community shares family's grief Delighted, she summonsed him to Paris and ordered he build it for her at the Palace of the Tuileries in 1566, but France was a hotbed of political and religious unrest and he fled in fear of his life in the August of 1572 at the start of the St Bartholomew's Day massacre when once more religious intolerances boiled over.

Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre - Aug 24, 1572 - HISTORY.com Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre Share this: Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre Author Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre URL Publisher A+E Networks King Charles IX of France, under the sway of his mother, Catherine de Medici, orders the assassination of Huguenot Protestant leaders in Paris, setting off an orgy of killing that results in the massacre of tens of thousands of Huguenots all across France. Two days earlier, Catherine had ordered the murder of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, a Huguenot leader whom she felt was leading her son into war with Spain. However, Coligny was only wounded, and Charles promised to investigate the assassination in order to placate the angry Huguenots. Catherine then convinced the young king that the Huguenots were on the brink of rebellion, and he authorized the murder of their leaders by the Catholic authorities. Most of these Huguenots were in Paris at the time, celebrating the marriage of their leader, Henry of Navarre, to the king’s sister, Margaret.

A list of those to be killed was drawn up, headed by Coligny, who was brutally beaten and thrown out of his bedroom window just before dawn on August 24. Once the killing started, mobs of Catholic Parisians, apparently overcome with bloodlust, began a general massacre of Huguenots. Charles issued a royal order on August 25 to halt the killing, but his pleas went unheeded as the massacres spread. Mass slaughters continued into October, reaching the provinces of Rouen, Lyon, Bourges, Bourdeaux, and Orleans. An estimated 3,000 French Protestants were killed in Paris, and as many as 70,000 in all of France. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew’s Day marked the resumption of religious civil war in France. Related Videos The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre Translate into: Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese Last updated Feb. 24, 2002 Believe it or not.....the ancient Irish records talk about a "Senior Patrick" who died on August 24, 465. This, we believe, is the home-going date of the Real St.

Patrick versus March 17 for the death of Palladius!! The Scots (Irish) missionaries had great success in France during the Dark Ages. One of the greatest, Johannis Scotus Erigena, was founder of the University of Paris. An Eyewitness Account of the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre by Franï¿½ois Dubois From the Musï¿½e Cantonal Des Beaux-Arts, Lausanne Switzerland August 24, 1572, was the date of the infamous St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France. On that day, over 400 years ago, began one of the most horrifying holocausts in history. The glorious Reformation, begun in Germany on October 31, 1517, had spread to Franceand was joyfully received. A great change had come over the people as industry and learning began to flourish, and so rapidly did the Truth spread that over a third of the population embraced the Reformed Christian Faith. However, alarm bells began to ring at the Vatican! France was her eldest daughter and main pillarthe chief source of money and power. . . .

King Pepin of the Franks (the father of Charlemagne) had given the Papal States to the Pope almost 1000 years earlier. Almost half the real estate in the country was owned by the clergy. Meanwhile, back in Paris, the King of France and his Court spent their time drinking, reveling and carousing. The Court spiritual advisera Jesuit priest urged them to massacre the Protestantsas penance for their many sins! To catch the Christians off-guard every token of peace, friendship, and ecumenical good will was offered. Suddenlyand without warningthe devilish work commenced. Beginning at Paris, the French soldiers and the Roman Catholic clergy fell upon the unarmed people, and blood flowed like a river throughout the entire country. Men, women, and children fell in heaps before the mobs and the bloodthirsty troops. In one week, almost 100,100 Protestants perished. The rivers of France were so filled with corpses that for many months no fish were eaten. In the valley of the Loire, wolves came down from the hills to feel upon the decaying bodies of Frenchmen.

The list of massacres was as endless as the list of the dead! Many were imprisonedmany sent as slaves to row the King's shipsand some were able to escape to other countries. . . . The massacres continued for centuries. The best and brightest people fled to Germany, Switzerland, England, Ireland and eventually America and brought their incomparable manufacturing skills with them. . . . France was ruined. . . . Wars, famine, disease and poverty finally led to the French Revolutionthe Guillotinethe Reign of Terrorthe fall of the Roman Catholic Monarchyatheismcommunism etc., etc. When news of the Massacre reached the Vatican there was jubilation! Cannons roaredbells rungand a special commemorative medal was struckto honor the occasion! The Pope commissioned Italian artist Vasari to paint a mural of the Massacrewhich still hangs in the Vatican! Medal struck by Emperor Gregory XIII (1572-85) to commemorate the slaughter of over 100,000 French Christians!! Emperor Gregory had the great red dragon of Satan as his heraldic symbol!

The Gregorian Calendar is named after him. The Huguenots won a short period of relief from persecution with the ascension of Henry IV to the throne. The Edict of Nantes gave full freedom to his Protestants subjects. The signing of this Edict inaugurated an era of peace and great prosperity for France. However, for granting his subjects liberty of conscience, the king was stabbed to death by a Jesuit named Ravaillac. This Edict of Toleration was revoked in 1685, and a new storm of persecution ensued. The exodus began again with over a million Huguenots fleeing France to avoid certain torture and death. The descendants of the survivors that reached America were determined that this tragedy should not occur here. Many of them were prominent in the founding of the country. They knew that an armed citizenry in France would have prevented this tragedy from ever happeningand as a resultthey gave us the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.

They knew that freedom of religion and an armed citizenry go hand in hand: Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . The French Protestants were called Huguenots: President George Washington had a Huguenot ancestor, as did at least 5 other Presidents: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, James Garfield, and Theodore Roosevelt.

A Huguenot refugee named Apollos de Revoire settled in Boston, and had a son who signed his name Paul Revere! Remember his famous midnight ride? Three members of the Continental Congress - Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Elias Boudinot were Huguenots. Other great names include Francis Marrion, General George Patton, Clair Chennault, Admiral Dewey, Du Ponts, Henry Thoreau, Longfellow etc., etc. A Huguenot colony was founded in Florida in 1562 (years before the English landed), but was later destroyed by Spanish raiders. King of France calls upon Irish Scholar to refute the Mass!! Editor's Note President Clinton has been called the most anti-gun President in history. He is a '68 graduate of Georgetown University in Wash. DC, - a Jesuit Institution that specializes in placing its graduates in high positions within the U.S. Government and the foreign diplomatic service.... Rome wants to repeat this slaughter in the U.S. as soon as she can disarm the law-abiding citizens. According to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, it is an ERROR to say that the "church" has not the right to use force.

"24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851." Patrick Henry (another great Scot) gave us the 2nd Amendment. "Take my gun from my cold dead hands" Charlton Heston is another Great Scot protecting the 2nd Amendment. America's Founding Fathers on way to church with Bibles and GUNS!! Our modern gun-banners would have told the Pilgrim Fathers to throw away their guns and trust themselves to the mercy of the merciless Roman Inquisition. It they had listened to that advice there would be no United States of America today!! Join the National Rifle Association and help preserve religious freedom. Read The Vatican's Holocaust by Avro Manhattan and find out why an armed citizenry is vital to religious freedom!! Rome calls for gun control! According to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, it is an ERROR to say that the "church" has not the right to use force. "24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.

-- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851." "It's Time to End American Liberty" says Rome!! This is the Official Roman position on the 2nd Amendment Right of the People to Bear Arms. It is an Editorial from the Catholic Weekly, Catholic New York, August 10, 2000. WHAT IS IT, really, with hard-fine opponents of gun control? Their position has become so entrenched that they bitterly oppose any restrictions on either firearms or their users, no matter how reasonable. That would include, for example, a ban on the general sale of automatic weapons, or the registration of firearms, or measures that would require child safety locks on gunsto name just a few. It is surely difficult to come up with any reason why automatic weapons should be available to the general public. It is no easier to argue that firearms should not be registered, as automobiles are or household pets. And a gun owner named Andrew Cuomofederal secretary for housing and urban development, and the son of former New York Gov. Mario M.

Cuomoput the safety lock question in perspective when he asked: Why would anyone object to safety devices on guns to protect little children when safety caps are put on aspirin bottles for the same reason? Cuomo posed the latter question at a Manhattan press conference earlier this month in which a panel of religious leaders asked for congressional action to keep guns "out of the hands of children, and criminals." For nearly a year, panel members complained, legislation to close "the gun-show loophole that allows criminals to obtain guns without a background check" and to mandate child safety locks had been stalled in Congress. They asked the American people to help them end the deadlock. The panel members include Sister Mary Rose, McGeady, D.C., director of Manhattan-based Covenant House, a shelter for troubled youths, many of whom have experienced violence in their home neighborhoods. Her own Brooklyn parish, she said, asks worshipers each week to turn in any guns they might own. "I would like to see every church and synagogue do likewise," she added. Opponents often ridicule gun-control measures because, they assert, those who support them claim they'll put an end to crime. Of course they won't.

But what they will do, beyond a doubt, is to cut the number of senseless accidental deaths that take place each year, especially among young people.That's a matter of basic common sense. The fewer weapons there are around, and the more childproof they're required to be, the fewer young lives will be lost. That's for openers. Beyond that, the adoption of reasonable gun-control measures is likely to lead all Americans to take a second look at our historical attitudes toward weapons. For too long they have been treasured icons of our society. It's time for that to end. Extremists on one side say all weapons should be banned. Extremists on the other side argue against any restrictions whatever. Reasonable people in the middle are willing to take a fresh look at the question in light of the staggering number of gun-related deaths and injuries that darken our national soul. They're the people the religious panelists are trying hard to reach. At the very least, they deserve a fair hearing. "No Bibles or guns in my States" Pope says. Despatches from Rome page 322 336 (Foreign 0ffice 43/96A] Rome, 8 February 1866 No.

12 Odo Russell to Earl of Clarendon. With reference to your Lordship's despatch of 19th ult. respecting a complaint made by the Revd G. J. Chester of the manner in which the Papal authorities at Civita Vecchia acted towards him in seizing a Bible and other books belonging to him and instructing me to afford Mr Chester such assistance as I can with a view to the recovery of his property, I have the honour to report that the books in question were recovered from the Pontifical authorities by Her Majesty's Consul, Mr Severn, and returned to Mr Chester in the F.O. bag conveyed from Rome on 16 ult. to London by Queen's Messenger Byng Hall. Travellers visiting the Pope's dominions should be very careful not to bring forbidden books or Colts revolvers with them, the Custom House officers having strict orders to confiscate them and it is not always possible to recover them after the owners have left the Roman States.

Forbidden books are those condemned by the Congregation of the Index, books on religion or morality in general, political and philosophical works of every description and more especially Italian religious tracts published in London, of which Mr Chester is said to have had several among the 21 works returned to him. But above all travellers should be careful not to bring English, Italian or other Bibles with them, the Bible being strictly prohibited by the Roman Church. In justice, however, to the Customs authorities, I must say that when met with practical civility or when previously applied to for a lascia passare through H.M. Consul, they are always ready to afford English travellers every possible assistance. The Papal States had an army of 20,000 soldiers out of a population of 600,000. Per capita, this was the largest in the world. References Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots, Anatomy of Courage. O.I.A. Roche, The Days of the Upright. Henri Nogueres, The Massacre of Saint Bartholomew.

Queen Margot Reviews & Ratings - IMDb IMDb 58 out of 81 people found the following review useful: French history (and Isabelle Adjani) laid bare. Author: Jagged-11 18 January 2004 Back in 1994 La Reine Margot' dispensed of every preconceived notion of traditional costume drama, bringing a radical and shocking slant on history. The lavish sets and costumes remained but the atmosphere was now tainted with bloodshed, poison, lust and incest. The regal palaces that were so stereotypically populated by loyal subjects are transformed into a viper's nest of power politics, schemes and deceit where royal heritage counts for little and deviousness is the key to success. The year is 1572; France is torn apart amidst the conflict between Catholics and Protestants whilst the King is a mere puppet, first to his domineering, Catholic, mother (Catherine de Medici, played with superlative coldness by Virna Lisi) and later to the protestant leader Coligny.

In a half hearted effort to bring peace to the land Catherine marries off her daughter Margot (Isabelle Adjani) to the protestant Henri de Navarre (Daniel Auteuil), a political manoeuvre that deludes no one. Margot and Henri are certainly a less than content couple; as they walk down the aisle they engage in a hissing match with one another where Margot succinctly informs him that Just because we're married it doesn't mean I have to sleep with you' and suggests he steer clear of her bedroom. They also fail to adhere to any form of decorum during the wedding reception; whilst Henri brawls with the Catholics (and flirts with a very youthful Asia Argento, of xXx fame) Margot goes window shopping amongst the male guests, looking for a viable one night stand. When the wedding guests prove unsatisfactory she simply dons a mask and takes to the streets, masquerading as a prostitute, and continues her search amongst the hordes of Protestant soldiers, who have gathered for her wedding, eventually settling on the dour La Mole (Vincent Perez).

However any illusions of peace are shattered after a botched attempt to assassinate Coligny, as the Catholics, fearing a revolt, slaughter 6,000 Protestants in what becomes known as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. The sheer horror of the massacre is reproduced with unflinching realism by director Patrick Chireau, who manages not only to shock but also recreate an atmosphere of utter chaos, exemplified by the moment when Margot is wandering amongst the palace corridors which have been besieged by soldiers and are strewn with corpses (Margot is curtly told return to your room and lock the door'). Unfortunately some of the impact of the massacre is lost due to the fact that we know barely any of the characters who are being murdered and it begs credibility that the Protestants seemingly put up no resistance. One of the few survivors of the slaughter is La Mole, who is saved by Margot when he breaks into her chamber, looking for sanctuary, which Margot freely gives to him (and more). In the aftermath of the massacre Margot also manages to save Henri de Navarre, forging a valuable alliance in the process.

However, suspicion has been aroused that she is a traitor and she finds that she is in a decidedly vulnerable position where her only hope of freedom is to flee to Navarre with Henri. Isabelle Adjani, France's premier actress, delivers one of her finest performances as the stubborn and promiscuous Margot, who despite initially coming across as vain and conceited later earns our sympathy as she finds herself in an impossible situation, where her position in the royal family is of little consequence (her brothers love her in a perversely incestuous way and her mother sees her as an inconvenience and potential threat to her authority) and the threat of assassination always looms around the corner. Whilst the political manoeuvrings and power struggles are intriguing the same cannot be said for the tepid romance between Adjani and Perez. The pair lacks any chemistry; even their scenes of erotic passion come across as frigid and awkward. They make an attractive couple, but not a particularly convincing one. La Reine Margot is also one of the most visually sumptuous films ever released; the big budget clearly didn't go to waste in recreating the gothic decadence of the period and the costumes were deservingly nominated for an Oscar.

It's easy to view La Reine Margot' as a precursor to the acclaimed 1998 film Elizabeth', as both centre around a female historical figure who has to endure the conflict between Catholics and Protestants whilst surviving assassination attempts (usually via poison) and overcome tragedy as those who they care for are systematically murdered. Indeed if nothing else La Reine Margot' provides a chilling insight into one of history's most horrific atrocities and offers an unsettling portrait of the moral bankruptcy that pervaded throughout 16th century society. My Score: 8 out of 10 Was the above review useful to you? 50 out of 70 people found the following review useful: Prestige Cinema from Malta 19 December 1998 Alexandre Dumas should certainly be satisfied with this superb adaptation of his classic. The setting is excellent and it gives a wonderful image of 16th century France. Naturally the highlight of the movie is the re-enactment of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. The horrendous scenes of the murders in all their crudity are terrific. The actors did a wonderful job here. Isabelle Adjani is, as usual, terrific.

Her nude scenes, depicting the queen's adultery, lust and incestuous affairs are acted in such a way that they are a form of art. Vincent Perez is in one of his best roles - his interpretation of La Môle is second only to his acting in "Indochine". The great Virna Lisi is simply marvellous posing as Cathérine de Médicis - no wonder she won the Best Actress Award at Cannes. She is the ambitious woman par excellence, stopping at nothing to get where she wants, not even if she has to see her sons being killed one by one and sell her daughter in a convenient marriage to unite the Catholics and the Protestants. The others, especially Asia Argento, impersonating the tragic countess Charlotte de Sauve did a good job too. A very well deserved Prix du Jury. Was the above review useful to you? 43 out of 62 people found the following review useful: A breathtakingly beautiful piece of cinema from California 5 August 1999 Everything about this picture is beautiful, even the ugliness is beautiful...an oxymoron, but the only way I can describe it.

This is a stunning tale of 16th century sex and violence, with a dirty realism, but still an overlay of beauty. Isabelle Adjani is intense, beautiful, and sensuous as Margot, the highly sexed, intelligent and dutiful sister of the doomed King Charles IX of France. She is forced into a marriage of political and religious convenience by her bitterly ambitious mother, Catherine de Medici (Virna Lisi) to the repulsive Henri Navarre (sympathetically played by Daniel Auteuil). There is a tremendous amount going on, and Margot's incest with her brothers is more than hinted at. The searingly sensual Vincent Perez plays La Mole, who eventually becomes Margot's doomed lover. Their first encounter is an acrobatic feat of anonymous sex in an alleyway that is breath-taking. Their later love scenes are intensely erotic. This film only becomes better on repeat viewings. I found I was able to grasp more on my second viewing. There is so much going on, so many twists and turns and shocks, and the film is also quite long. It never lags, and even Margot's grudging tolerance, if not love, for her husband, is believingly portrayed.

Very highly recommended. Was the above review useful to you? 39 out of 59 people found the following review useful: not historically accurate but really worth seeing from Venezuela 8 June 2006 For the American people that have seen this excellent French movie, I will say just one thing: in many countries around the world we get to see movies from abroad with subtitles. Most of the movies that we see in South American countries come either from North America or Europe and we don't usually complain about the subtitles. Only kids movies are dubbed in Spanish. A great part of the romance or charm about French movies comes from the fact that they are actually spoken in French. Nobody in these films expects the rest of the world to understand as they speak but to make a little effort and appreciate the beauty in each language is something I think is missing in American culture. I've seen nothing but comments on how difficult it was for some members of the American public to understand this film.

I only ask myself: in times of globalization, isn't it interesting to learn from people from other parts of the world in their own language, specially a French film based on a French novel by the French Alexandre Dumas, placed in the 16th century, directed by one of France's best directors and acted by some of the most wonderful French actors and actresses of the last decades? Would you want to see this film in English? Sorry, but I think you would be missing a great deal of the depth and emotion of this unique film!!! Was the above review useful to you? 38 out of 60 people found the following review useful: A bloody French history lesson from Sydney, Australia 27 September 2000 French dynastic history in the late 16th century does not seem a promising subject for a film, but Patrice Chereau, a prominent French stage director, has teased out some personal drama out of the larger historical picture, and provided a vivid and absorbing tale. The story itself is adapted from Alexandre Dumas' novel, which is a pretty highly colored piece to begin with.

Chereau theatrically plasters the set with blood and gore, and we are left in no doubt that an atrocity has occurred (the St Bartholomew's day massacre of the Hugenots.) The mendacious Queen Mother, Catherine di Medici, and her weak-minded son, Charles IX, seem to have set it off to deal with the protestant problem without realizing how bad it might get. In all this horror is the rather cute tale of the relationship between two disparate personalities thrown together in marriage, Catherine's daughter Margo and Henry of Navarre (later Henry IV of France, and one of its better kings). Margo is repulsed at first sight by Henry `the peasant' while Henry rightly regards her as about as loving as a trapped tiger. Yet they reach an accommodation and finish up friends. Both have other lovers (and both respect that) but neither can prevent the lovers from coming to sticky ends.

It's always a bit hard to assess the acting when you are relying on sub-titles (if only the French didn't speak so fast) but Isabella Adjani at the age of 40 pulled off a remarkable job and had me convinced she really was a spoilt, willful little nymphomaniac in her early 20's. She looked as young as she did in the `Story of Adele H' 20 years earlier. Daniel Auteuil was also excellent as the unprepossessing but very intense and quick-thinking Henry. Virna Lisi, a sex symbol in her earlier film career, made a good villainess as Catherine. Most of the other principals seem to have been chosen for their looks by rent-an-ego casting though Jean-Huges Anglade was suitably pathetic as the doomed King Charles. The rather claustrophobic sets brought home the medieval lack of privacy, even (perhaps especially) in royal palaces  the old Louvre was about as spacious as the loo. The film fades a bit in the second half, but it's still not a bad story, if at times a bit difficult to follow.

I have to say I found `Elizabeth' more interesting and a lot less bloody. Anyway, `Margo' is very French, and not to be judged by Hollywood standards (whatever they are). Was the above review useful to you? 24 out of 37 people found the following review useful: An artful French epic of wickedness, intrigue, and treachery. from Orange County, CA USA 7 April 2001 "Queen Margot" is a French epic drama which tells of the political forces at work in France at the time of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre which signaled the beginning of the end of the "religious wars" raging in France in the early to mid 16th century. Queen Margot (Adjani) is at the center of this maelstrom of wickedness and treachery which looks at everything from poison lip rouge to a bloody holocaust. An elaborate award winning production, "Queen Margot" presents its history realistically with no clear sense of good or evil - unlike "Braveheart", for example - with countless extras, spectacular costuming, and artistry in cinematography.

Well worth its 2.5 hour run, this dark film, based on the novel by A. Dumas, is lacking in the didactic and will be difficult to follow for all but those with historical knowledge of the place and time. A little research prior to watching the film can go a long way toward understanding the complexities of the story. Was the above review useful to you? 21 out of 33 people found the following review useful: Betrayal, seduction and instigation to incest... 6 July 2002 *** This review may contain spoilers *** Alexandre Dumas brought an effortless narrative mastery, in-depth human portraiture, and an uncanny ability to reanimate the past... His novels are work of marvelous intelligence and pure enchantment, adventures for both the heart and mind... 'Queen Margot' gives a magnificent description, pulsating with life, of the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew and the events of the succeeding years, closing with the death of King of France, Charles IX... The motion picture shows how religion was certainly the basis for warfare, and delves into conspiracies, ruthless murders and cover-ups, betrayal, seduction and instigation to incest...

'Queen Margot' offers with plenty of blood the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, as it came to be known, destroying an entire generation of Huguenot leadership, while also creates shrewd characterization, complex plot evolution, and acute political and social insight... France was the "first daughter of the church" and its king, the "most Christian King", and no one could imagine life any other way... One faith, one law, one king. This traditional saying gives some indication of how the state, society, and religion were all bound up together in people's minds and experience... The religious wars began with overt hostilities in 1562 and lasted until the Edict of Nantes in 1598... The film opens in 1572... Admiral De Coligny, now the chief military leader of the Huguenots, has gained the king's trust and is trying to lead him into a dangerous war against Catholic Spain... The king's brothers Dukes of Anjou and Alençon and their ally, the young Duke De Guise, are opposed to Coligny and his influence...

In an attempt to regain her power and take credit for bringing peace, the Queen-Mother began negotiations to marry her lovely daughter Marguerite to Henry of Bourbon, "first prince of the blood," the next in line for the French throne... However, while this arrangement is intended to secure peace between the rival religious factions, it is a marriage of convenience only, a union of Protestant and Catholic, at a time when the political enmity of the two religions was intense and bitter... The common people felt no such harmony, and tensions grew in the towns and countryside.. Isabelle Adjani is exquisite as Marguerite De Valois, the most beautiful woman in the French court... Black hair, fine complexion, voluptuous eyes, a red and lovely mouth, a graceful neck, an enchanting figure scarcely twenty, the much 'loved,' even by her three brothers... Margot lives in magnificent style, free to pursue her amours...

Daniel Auteuil is very good as Henri of Navarre, the uneasy leader of the Huguenot, or Protestant party, who is threatened on every side by three brothersthe king, and the dukes of Anjou and d'Alençon, by their mother, and the Duke of Guise... Henry had a quality which, like lightning, shone most brightly in moments of storm and gloom... Virna Lisi is dictatorial, unscrupulous, calculating, and crafty as Catherine De Medici, the Queen-Mother, the most influential personalities of the Wars of Religion... With unrestrained violenceher eyes, on occasion, could be at once glassy and penetrating... With Jean-Hugues Anglade as the pale face young king, Vincent Perez as the ill-fated lover, Pascal Greggory as Catherine's favorite son, Asia Argento as the delicately beautiful baroness, 'Queen Margot' received nominations for Best Foreign Language Film from the Golden Globes and for Best Costume Design from the Academy Awards... Cannes Film Festival bestowed the award for Best Actress to Virna Lisi... The Jury Prize was given to director, Patrice Chéreau..

Was the above review useful to you? 23 out of 37 people found the following review useful: Intense and absorbing from Derby, UK 30 December 2006 I don't pretend to know the minutiae of the historical record, but it was Definitely Not Dumas, or I lost it all in the English translations! Like many others I've always been fascinated by this episode in French history, a turbulent and savagely intolerant period and not only in France, but 1572 is yet another year that went down in infamy. This film portrays the complicated machinations performed by Catherine de Medici and her cohorts in furthering her Catholic ambitions for her country and debauched family against the perceived threat of dour Protestantism, and centred around the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. It's the rather beautiful Isabelle Adjani's stunning performance as Queen Margot that can leave you as breathless as she often is in the film, without her it would have been a much poorer film. She seemed to live the part, with every emotion imaginable on display. Would French breathlessness, or those huge rustling dresses sound as good dubbed into English?!

On the other hand the rest of the cast are superb in their roles too, but especially Daniel Auteuil as Henri de Navarre and Jean Hugues Anglade as Charles IX, making them both extremely believable sympathetic characters when they weren't. The bloodbath and the anarchy of the Massacre and aftermath is vividly presented  we are not spared a single thing in the entire film, all manner of violence and depravity is non-gratuitously displayed. It's impossible to convey a part of what happens in this film  the same as it must have been impossible for the film to convey a fraction of what happened in that era too: it really is a must-see. I've seen it a number of times now since 1994 and I find something new I hadn't spotted before every time. It's a film that can make you realise (if you didn't before) that millions of ordinary folk all around the world could and still can believe in such arrant religious nonsense to the point of committing multiple ghastly murders in the name of empty air. Apart from all that, it's a beautifully crafted film, the best of its kind there's ever been. Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 36 people found the following review useful: extremely compelling from Bradenton, Florida 23 July 2005 The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre---not exactly a subject the average person knows much about these days. But, a VERY important part of French and European history nonetheless. The history teacher in me will now BRIEFLY take over: Like England, there was a lot of tension between the Protestants (Hugenots) and Catholics during the 16th century. However, unlike Henry VIII's ultimate decision to break from the Catholic Church, the French pretty much wiped out the Hugenots--those who were not killed fled abroad. Up until St. Bart's Day, there had been tension but eventually the king granted religious freedom to all. This was not to last, as a conspiracy was hatched and on St. Bart's Day, thousands of Hugenots were murdered. To commemorate this event, the Pope issued a special medallion and ordered a celebration. Not exactly one of the finer moments in human history. The movie concerns the machinations leading up to the event as well as portraying the massacre and the after effects.

I'm not going to say more, as I don't want to spoil it for the viewer. However, I will say that the writing, acting and pacing of this film were excellent and kept my attention throughout. This fictionalized account of this true-life tragedy is compelling. Was the above review useful to you? 8 out of 11 people found the following review useful: Terrible 25 September 2013 *** This review may contain spoilers *** For those wanting to know the original story, please make the effort to read the book by Alexandre Dumas. This being said, this movie has everything I hate in french cinema ( I myself am french ! ) : it is pretentious, badly interpreted, the original story was largely rewritten and furthermore, I found the movie to be incoherent and incomprehensible. Dumas must be dancing in his grave ! When I see IMDb critics saying that this is a great artistic movie, I wonder if people saw the same movie I did... Topmost, I find it inadmissible that Chereau permits himself to rewrite such a masterpiece written by one of France's most beloved writers, as if what Dumas wrote wasn't good enough to make a decent movie.

It is a common flaw in movie making to change the story pretexting that the original material isn't suited for screen play. A few examples : the St Barthelemy night which we have to endure for a long 15 or more minutes in the movie merely takes one page on the 600 of the book... As for the friendship between La Mole and Coconnas ( who are amongst the most interesting characters of the book ) which is at the center of the original material, it is largely omitted in the movie and furthermore is totally incoherent : after fighting to the death and being quite unknown to each other, the fall in each other's arms in one ridiculous scene that had me laugh because it was so bad. Anyways, all this is bad french cinema making, the kind which we would like to stop seeing. Do not bother to waste your time on that piece of trash and rather watch real french cinema d'auteur like Coup de Torchon or Rene Clair's movies which are the real heritage of french movie making that knew about the art, but are from another age which is sadly over. Pityful !

PS : sorry my English isn't good enough to say everything I despise in this movie with the language it would require. Was the above review useful to you? Page 1 of 6: FRANCE IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES FRANCE IN THE 16th AND 17th CENTURIES [Partly edited and reorganized, 1/17/04 and 9/23/11. Note that this is frustrating material for me because I have to take long and fascinating stories and make them short and dull. The stories of many of these figures make for great reading. Alexander Dumas, for instance, drew on the history of this era for his Three Musketeers series. Wonderful books, often turned into pretty decent movies. Well worth your time.] The 16th and 17th centuries were a time of tremendously rapid change. Change is always difficult, especially when changes come too quickly. The Thirty Years' War is one example of the kind of conflicts one might have in trying to cope with too-rapid change. But it wasn't just the Holy Roman Empire that had problems.

Virtually all countries in Europe struggled in one way or another in trying to cope with the changes coming about in the 16th and 17th centuries. France, for instance, had the same kinds of problems as the rest of Europe: political, social and economic tension made worse by religious division. Even competent rulers and officials had trouble governing France at this time. Economic Problems Like the rest of Europe, France had to deal with rapid inflation and falling real wages brought on by the influx of New World gold. Also, France had a special problem with taxation. The French kings relied on tax farmers who put in their own pockets any "extra" money collected. Only 25% of the money collected got to the king! This meant high taxes, but not enough revenue for the king to do his job properly. Social Problems As in many other countries in Europe, 16th and 17th century France had a rising middle class unhappy because it had no political say and nobles unhappy because they had lost some of their power and authority. Either group might be tempted to lead or at least participate in a civil war. Religious Division Also, similar to much of the rest of Europe, France was troubled by religious division.

France at one time had been united by its allegiance to Roman Catholicism, but in the 16th century, John Calvin's teachings began to spread widely. Many of the friars, disgusted with the spectacle of wealthy higher church officials who had no spiritual vocation at all, converted to Calvinism and worked to spread the new movement. Many bourgeoise types, perhaps eyeing the wealth of the church which was being so badly misused, likewise converted to the Calvinist faith. And many nobles converted, some because they thought Calvin right, others because Calvinism was a convenient excuse for resisting the growing power of the Catholic kings of France. These tensions led to French Wars of Religion (1562-1589). Once started the wars were difficult to stop. There was a lull in the fighting in 1572, and King Charles IX wanted to make peace. He arranged a marriage between his sister, Margaret of Valois, and Henry of Navarre, a leader of the Calvinists. The wedding was to be held in Paris on St. Bartholemew’s Day .

Charles advisors told him he couldn't trust Calvinists, and persuaded him to give the order (which he later regretted greatly) to kill all the Calvinist nobles who had come up to Paris for the wedding and were not prepared to offer much resistence. Word spread that it was acceptable to kill Calvinists, so people used the occasion to settle all sorts of private disputes. Debtors killed Calvinist creditors. Rejected suitors killed Calvinists who had turned them down. Students killed Calvinist teachers (e.g., Petrus Ramus!). Thirteen thousand people were killed during the "Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre," and the wars of religion continued.Henry of Navarre converted to Catholicism to save his life, but then decided he was a Calvinist after all and, gathering his forces together, led Calvinists to victory after victory. By 1589, he held all France except Paris. He converted to Catholicism again (!) so that Parisians would accept them as their king and he wouldn't have to destroy the city in order to include it in his dominions. The undisputed king of all France, from here on out we call him King Henry IV!

Henry IV (1589-1610) Henry was, for the most part, a very successful king. His military victories meant that he had the nobles under his control. Also, he worked hard at economic development and encouraged trade (settling French Canada and sponsoring the fur trade). He drained swamps for more cultivated land. He also was truly concerned with peasants, promising "a chicken in every peasant's pot every Sunday." He adopted a wise religious policy, issuing the Edict of Nantes which made France Catholic (and prohibited Calvinist churches near Paris) but allowed Calvinists to practice their religion openly elsewhere and gave them control of certain fortified cities. Henry was hated by extreme Catholics and Calvinists. In 1610, a Catholic extremist got to him. Henry's carriage got stuck in traffic, and one of his opponents stabbed him to death. Henry left as his heir a 9-year old son--Louis XIII. [This is one of the many places I have to skip over a long and fascinating story. Henry had had a stormy relationship with his Margaret of Valois. Ultimately, that marriage was annulled (c.

1599), and Henry married Marie de' Medici while Margaret kept the title queen. Margaret apparently was a partial inspiration for Shakespeare's Love's Labors Lost and for a novel written by Dumas.] Marie de'Medici For a time, Henry's wife, Marie de'Medici, ruled as regent for her son. She was a good diplomat, averting a pending war with Spain. She picked good administrators (e.g., Concini and Cardinal Richelieu). But the nobles didn't want her to succeed, and undermined her, using the fact that she was foreign and a woman to stir up trouble. They also egged on Louis to oppose his mother--not too hard since the King of France was whipped at his mother's orders well into his teen years! The division in the royal family was exactly what the nobles wanted, weakening royal authority and letting them run things as the liked. Eventually, Louis’ supporters drove Marie into exile and killed some of her administrators (including Concini). Louis XIII Things were not easy for Louis. His mother desperately wanted to return to a position of power and influence, and Louis had to twice put down revolts led by his brother.

But Cardinal Richelieu, intially a supporter of Marie but a man who, for the good of France, transferred his support ot Louis, brought about a reconciliation of Louis and Marie and worked in other ways to increase Louis' power. Together, Richelieu and Louis were a formidable team, and France becomes Europe's strongest country militarily and economically. The Thirty Years' War is one example of their success. Although a high church official, Cardinal Richelieu encouraged Louis to support the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War--and this policy paid off. The weakening of Hapsburg power left France the strongest power in Europe. Louis and Richelieu were, however, rather tough on peasants. Richelieu felt peasants were like donkeys: they got spoiled if you didn't give them enough work. Richelieu died in 1642, Louis in 1643, and this presented a bit of difficulty. Who would continue their policies? Louis' heir was his 5 year old son, Louis XIV--obviously, a boy not old enough to reign. Anne of Austria Anne of Austria, wife of Louis XIII, ended up ruling as regent for her son.

She was a decent ruler, helped by Cardinal Mazarin. Her ability to play the political game is illustrated by her ability to become regent in the first place. Her husband hadn't wanted this to happen: he didn't like Anne, and suspected her of cheating on him. Perhaps Louis XIV wasn't even his son. But Anne played her cards right, and ended up, for a time, as the de facto ruler of France. But Anne faced all sorts of problems with the nobles. They used against her the fact that she was female, a foreigner, and a Hapsburg. Eventually, riots (the Fronde) drove her out of Paris, and some of her officials were killed. And the nobles once again had what they wanted. Louis XIV However, when Louis XIV finally took over as king in fact as well as in name, he figured out how to deal with nobles. He constructed a magnificent palace at Versailles, and if a noble wanted a favor from Louis, they absolutely had to come to Versailles. There ended up hundreds of nobles living at Versailles, all looking for any opportunity they could find to get Louis' attention.

And, of course, while they are doint that, they aren’t plotting against him. Nobles are dangerous on their own estates where they can cook up plots right and left. But, at Versailles, the nobles end up spying on each other so that they can gain an excuse to tell Louis they have important information for him--and so that they can have the opportunity to ask whatever particular favor they want the king to grant. Meanwhile, Louis turns to the middle class types to actually administer the country--often getting more competent officials as a result. By the end of his reign, France is more powerful and wealthier than ever before. 80% of tax revenue gets where its supposed to go. But there is a price to be paid-loss of French liberty. Louis becomes an absolute monarchy: there's no check on his authority. In 1685, Louis revoked the Edict of Nantes the Calvinists (Huguenots) converted, went into exile, or died. Even Catholics were not as free as they had been: one had to be the right type of Catholic, one who accepted the authority of the King above even the Pope. The system Louis created, absolute monarchy, seemed to work well though.

It seemed to solve many of problems France faced. Was there a better solution? Well, maybe. Next time, we'll look at England, a country that faced the same kinds of problems, but solved them very differently. 16th Century History Quiz - By oracleofireland The 'Mona Lisa' was painted by who? The 'Statue of David' was sculpted by who in 1504? In what state of Germany did Luther publish his 95 theses? What country gained independence from the Kalmar Union in 1523? Who was the longest reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire who died in 1566? Karl V succeeded who to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire? Who was Ferdinand Magellan's second-in-command who completed the first circumnavigation of the globe? The 'Fall of Tenochtitlan' in 1521 was instigated by what conquistador? When did the Eighty Years War start? What European capital was sacked in 1527 by the Holy Roman Empire? What Empire was founded in 1526 and ruled much of the Indian Subcontinent? Who was the founder of the Safavid Empire in Iran?

In what Spanish city did Christopher Columbus die in 1506? What famous scientist published 'De revolutionibus orbium coelestium' in 1543? Who wrote 'The Prince', a treatise on political philosophy in 1532 published 5 years after the author's death? Who was the first European to cross the Isthmus of Panama? Two brothers; Atahualpa and Huascar fought in a Civil War for the succession of what Empire? What explorer of Breton origin claimed Canada for France while also mapping the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Where did the 'Battle of the Shirt's' take place? Who was the Grand Prince of Moscow from 1533 and nicknamed 'the Terrible'? In which country was the 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake which killed an estimated 850,000 people? Macau was colonized by who in 1553? Which country was the first ever to declare bankruptcy? What were French Protestants known as? Question Galileo Galilei and William Shakespeare were born on the same year, what was it? Who was famously imprisoned by Elizabeth I of England in 1567?

The 'Union of Lublin' was the union between Poland and what other country? What Englishman circumnavigated the globe between 1577-1580? The 'Iberian Union' merged Portugal and Spain under what monarch? What Pope issued the Gregorian Calendar in 1582? Who was the leader of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland? Who was the leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland? Who was Henry VIII's 5th wife? In what year did Henry VIII die with the heir as Edward VI? In what country was the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre, which killed and displaced tens of thousands of Protestants? What English Monarch was known as 'Good Queen Bess'? What English Monarch was known as the 'Nine-Days Queen'? What English monarch earned the nickname of 'Bloody'? With what Act did Henry VIII declare himself head of the Church of England? Who was the only illegitimate child acknowledged by Henry VIII? Who was the founder of the 'Society of Jesus'? Who restored Swedish sovereignty while also introducing Protestantism? What Portuguese sailor was the first to sail around the Cape of Good Hope?

What German artist is known for painting 'Knight, Death and the Devil', 'Saint Jerome in his study', and 'Melancolia I'? What mathematical symbol was introduced in 1525 by Christoph Rudolff? Who invented the Thermometer in 1593? Who invented the flush toilet, the design published under the title 'The Metamorphosis of Ajax' in 1591? What letter was introduced to the English language in the 16th century? Question

Question: In which European country did the 16th Century St Bartholomews Day Massacre take place?
Answer: France