Why did political and territorial domination of colonial areas become necessary for the European powers?

Wow. I think that after reading Cote's view on this I can only hope to back it up since he really did answer the question well. I think that the main reason had to have been for expansion of certain countries and people. Populations were growing and as Cote said it wasn't just a two or three person game anymore. Everywhere in Europe many more than just a few countries were flourishing. Seeing as taking over colonial territories was relatively cheap in comparison to the other options, it's no wonder that it became a habit for these countries. They needed to expand their land, their economy, and their people. And the difference between that imperialism and the imperialism of the earlier centuries was that religion was no longer the motivation for colonization. This was about the race for power and success.

How did Europeans define civilization? Do you agree? Do you have an alternative definition?

On this subject I really feel like I must agree with what Sam is saying as well as the comment Hanjae gave. I think that because the Europeans were ahead of the curve compared other countries in terms of the "modern" society, they used this idea to set the standard for what a true civilization actually was. This of course seems and was unfair to other countries such as Japan and many others, so no I definetely do not agree with how they defined civilization. If I were to give my input on what I think civilization is, I think that the best definition I could give would be generally any group or community of people who are characterized by the customs and settlements that involve and relate them. This may seem sort of general but I think that is the important thing to remember; that maybe the Europeans overcomplicated what they thought civilization was and it should be defined in a much more simpler and general way.

Napoleon: Enlightened or not?

It's hard to answer this question since others have already said pretty much what I wanted to but I guess I will just try to further explain why Napoleon was in fact enlightened. One must put into perspective what it was like to be him. He felt like he could do great things for his country, all of Europe, and what lead to his demise, himself. He wasn't all for himself and that is apparent in the reforms that he constituted throughout France and Europe. However, Napoleon was ambitious for himself and saw that he could do great things. That is where his fault came in. He just went too far in his idea of basically taking over Europe. People weren't going to let that happen. Now, when one looks at the good things that he did do there can be much enlightenment to be seen. Napoleon abolished feudalism in France, something that no other despot could do or even tried to do. He promoted religious toleration with great success. Most importantly, he abolished slavery in France. if this can't be seen as enlightened I don't know what can. As seen in the last DBQ that was done about slavery, many of the people opposed to slavery were enlightened scholars. Napoleon held these values as well. There is no question that Bonaparte went too far in his dream of expansion, but to say that he wasn't enlightened is just plain ridiculous.

Salon response

In regards to the Salon and many conversations that I had, I must say that it was quite impressive with some people's views while others disapointed me. I wish to say thanks to all who attended and a big thank you to my friendn Voltaire for making an appearance despite the fact that we have had a sort of falling out with each other. I knew that neither of us would let a tiny inconvenience between the both of us get in the way of our ongoing friendship. He has truly come into his own with his inspirational talks of tolerance for religion, a strong belief of mine that i hold close. I wish to talk to him again, and hopefully rekindle our friendship. For those of you who believe that i look for more than a friend in this man, you are mistaken. Persih the thought!! I have never and will never be more than a friend to this man. On the subject of others that I conversed with, I was interested with Catherine the Great. She proved to know what she was talking about when talking of politics. She seemed to be quite the strong willed woman, as did Mary Wollstonecraft. her feminist ideals, although of no matter to me, were not my cup of tea, but she seemed like a lovely lady. I would like to thank all for attending the Salon and giving me a chance to meet you in person.

Sincerely,
Frederick the Great

Both the Prussian kings and Peter the Great tried to create a service nobility and a service mentality. Why? How successful were they in achieving it?

It's tough to say that this idea of a service nobility and mentality was a complete failure or complete success because it just wasn't. I think that it established both countries as a threat to other countrie, which is what these three rulers were aiming for; to put their countries on the map. They wanted it to be known that they weren't going to be pushed around by anybody else, and knew that putting emphasis on their armies and sea power was the way to do that. I think that, although not completely, this idea of "militarism" was therefore pretty successful in achieving what they wanted. I think that mainly this can be proved through the beginning and growth of Prussia. In the book it seems like at first, Prussia wasn't weak but was unorganized and in need of reform. Frederick William was basically waiting for this chance and, as I said before, made sure to focus on the army. He didn't just increase their training, but also got the townspeople involved with it as well, something that hadn't really been done before. He convinced the nobles and landed gentry to serve in the army by allowing them to hold peasants under Hereditary Subjection. With this new amount of people, the army became part of life in this country. through William's reign (1713-1740) as king the army grew from about 40,000 to 83,000 people, a huge and abvious change. Do I think that maybe this much emphasis on the army could have gone past its mark; yes I do think this, but for what this theory was created for it got the job done.

Does the European concept of “the balance of power” still have meaning? Does there need to be a counterbalance to the U.S. power in the world today?

I think the answer must most definetly be yes; this idea of "balance of power does still have meaning to it in this time. However the answer to whether the USA needs a counterbalance from another country is a bit more complicated than a simple yes or no. In medieval and post-medieval times rulers and countries weren't necessarily greedy but the one thing that sets them apart from us is that they had the constantly oncoming findings of LAND! Naturally people of the time would want to conquer and inhabit as much land as possible to establish themselves as a major world power. I'm not criticizing the way these people lived but rather creating the setting and context of the way people acted. Now in the present time all major land is inhabited and "ruled over". Because of this there are already many different major world powers, and when I say many I mean more than Europe had, which was only 5 or 6. So I don't believe that one country needs to counterbalance the power of the USA, but instead many. As history has proved the more world powers that there seem to be, the more protected each one is. This, I believe, is because each country sort of counterbalances each other making it pretty much impossible for any one world power to just decide to try to take over the world.