The Dutch trade during the Anglo- Dutch wars. The Anglo-Dutch wars were instigated by differences over trade between the Dutch Republic and the English Commonwealth
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem; it is generally employed only by small children and large nations".1 Wars are never a solution to a problem, as was found by both the Dutch Republic and England after the Anglo-Dutch wars. The Anglo- Dutch wars were a series of wars between England and the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The start of the Anglo-Dutch wars coincides with the height of the Dutch Golden Age as well as the reformation of England into a Commonwealth under its new leader Oliver Cromwell. The end of the Anglo- Dutch wars also signified the end of the Dutch Golden Age. Since the Dutch Republic had found the rout to India under Cornelis Houtman and Jan Huyghen can Linschoten the Dutch Republic started to become one of the largest trading nations in the world.2 The Golden Age was approximately a century in which the Dutch Republic was among the richest and most prosperous countries in the world because of it international trading empire. The Anglo-Dutch wars were instigated by differences over trade between the Dutch Republic and the English Commonwealth and those same differences combined with the events which occurred during the wars in turn caused one war after the other war. In total there were 5 Anglo- Dutch wars, the first starting in 1651 and the fifth one ending in 1801. The Anglo- Dutch wars caused the
How far was the English civil war a result of rule over multiple kingdoms?
Elliot GreenAmanda FlatherHR 111 How far was the English Civil War a consequence of rule over multiple kingdoms? “If the Remonstrance had been rejected I would have sold all I had the next morning and never have seen England more, and I know there are many other modest men of the same resolution”[1]. England, 1641, and the Grand Remonstrance has just been passed. The long list of grievances towards the present monarch, King Charles I included such issues like the ‘catholic conspiracy’, local land distributions, right for parliament to bypass the Crowns decisions if necessary and other general foreign, legal and financial policies. The quote from Oliver Cromwell, a puritan member of parliament during the run up to the Civil war, effectively spelt out the mass sentiment towards the monarchy at the time, that being the large dissatisfaction with Charles I’s tyrannical rule over England. Although Cromwell does indeed speak for the majority when he expresses relief over the ratification of the remonstrance, the causes of the English Civil war do undeniably stem from issues outside of the English domain. It must be stressed that rule over multiple kingdoms was indeed an element that was encompassed into the general causes of the Civil War and it can be argued that the Crowns rule in Scotland and Ireland did indeed make conflict inevitable but varying other factors do
Salem, Spectral Evidence and Recovered Memory Syndrome
December 13, 2010 ________________ Hush-hush whispers in the shadows. Unspeakable things which take place in the cover of darkness. Suspicion and wariness. Dysfunctional interpersonal relationships. The word of one person against the word of another—a scenario with no witnesses. A culture of repression. These are all statements which may easily refer to the situation in late 17th-century Massachusetts, a situation ripe for the eruption of an event now known as the Salem Witch Trials. We tend to think of Salem as a once-in-an-American-lifetime incident, something that came and went and disappeared from further repetition. While certainly important to those involved at the time, most people today see little to no lasting impact of that period, much less see any kind of parallel to events of recent history. Those adopting that particular attitude, however, might be mistaken in their beliefs. Those initial statements—statements of fear, shame, and mistrust—may not only be applied to the Salem witch trials but also to a more contemporary development. The repressed/recovered memory movement which began in the 1980s elicits some of the same images, issues and emotional responses that can be found when studying early colonial America’s reactions to the witch trials. To fully understand any possible correlations between the two, an evaluation of the trials in
The Rationalizations of British Imperial Rule.
Katy Kuecker HIST 101 B Sec 7, Wed 3:00-3:50 p.m. The Rationalizations of British Imperial Rule Rationalization is the name of the game. For that is exactly what western imperialist states had to do in order to keep expanding and holding their control. One of the largest players in this game was Britain. Several of their reasons included economic, political, and cultural stances. As understandable as all these reasons are, they are not quite convincing in my eyes. Great Britain learned back in the beginnings of the global economy that they needed to seek natural resources outside their island. Mainly agricultural goods and luxury items were desirable at first, but with the new demands of industrialization, these needs turned to rubber, tin, and copper. This opened up for unbelievable business opportunities that could not be ignored by any good entrepreneur. Cecil Rhodes is a perfect example of this. In the late nineteenth century, the gold and diamonds of Africa made him a very rich man. Realizing that his fortune could not have been possible without Britain's expansion into Africa, he began campaigning in the favor of British imperial expansion into Africa and Asia (Traditions and Encounters, 936). Britain's explanation for moving into these areas, imposing imperial rule, and essentially attempting to eclipse whatever the people of these areas once knew
“The origins of the crisis that eventually overcame the French Monarchy can be found in the period 1685-1723” To what extent do you agree with this view?
"The Origins of the Crisis that eventually overcame the French Monarchy can be found in the period 1685-1723" To what extent do you agree with this view? However many problems were evident in the latter part of Louis XIV's reign and the Regency, I do not agree with this statement. On the whole, there was very little outspoken opposition to Louis XIV's, nor Orleans' policies and many aspects of government are found to be secure in this period. Firstly, Louis XIV's Regency had been plagued with civil war, known as the Frondes. The Regent Orleans applied his policies carefully, accommodating the potentially rebellious Second Estate within positions of political influence in government. Thus, there was no threat of civil war, or repetition of the Frondes in the Regency period of Louis XV. This reflects a view that the nobles were adequately satisfied and no evidence of further rebellion can be seen during this period. However, the Second Estate and educated of society started to be influenced by a new inspirational movement, following the ideology of the philosophes, which was known as the period of the Enlightenment. They used these theories, which emphasised the privileges and liberties of society, when faced with the concept of change or reform, to challenge the authority of the King. For their own selfish reasons, the Second Estate disliked change from the ancien regime,
Why was Richelieu's foreign policy so politically divisive from 1624-42?
Why were questions of foreign alliances and foreign policy so politically divisive during Richelieu's ministry? Introduction Questions of foreign alliances and foreign policy during Richelieu's ministry were intensely complex. When Richelieu came to office in 1624, he faced a variety of problems which would shape the decisions he made over foreign issues. French military weakness and domestic discontent in terms of religion and economics amplified political division over foreign policy and foreign alliances. Richelieu's task was made more problematic because of the Huguenots, the dévots and the potential economic burden of an aggressive foreign policy.1 Domestic and foreign policy were inextricably linked during Richelieu's ministry. The increasing power of both branches of the House of Habsburg in Europe also plagued Louis XIII and Richelieu throughout the period. Habsburg influence in Europe forced France to develop foreign alliances which would secure its frontiers and a foreign policy which would ensure domestic stability. The course of Richelieu's foreign policy however, was not wholly popular in France. Before discussing the precise details of Richelieu's foreign policy it is necessary to assert the overall aim of the cardinal. Throughout his ministry, Richelieu sought a Europe in which large powerful states and smaller duchies and kingdoms could peacefully coexist,
In what ways could be argued that the French monarchy was delegitimized under Louis XV and Louis XV1 and Marie Antoinette, and were these criticisms fair?
In what ways could be argued that the French monarchy was delegitimized under Louis XV and Louis XV1 and Marie Antoinette, and were these criticisms fair? French monarchy was delegitimized due to various reasons, started off by Louis XV who provided an undesirable legacy of which Louis XV1 was going to suffer for. These problems caused him to lose any respect of his people and of his rule. The first thing that Louis XV did that lead to contempt in the people was the removal of the Paris parlement which was the most powerful parlement. Although the parlement did not represent the people, due to it being full of nobles, it still gave the people something to hold on to. The parlement's main function was to prevent royal despotism and removing it solved the problem of opposition. The contempt in the people persuaded Louis XV1 to bring back the parlement to gain some cheap popularity. This was a foolish mistake since the blame went to his grandfather and bringing it back just gave opportunities for people to hinder his rule. The second thing that Louis XV did was to form an alliance with Austria going into the Seven years war, which was not very clever since Austria and France were traditional enemies and no alliance would make peace between the peoples. The huge defeats at the battle of Rosbach further fuelled the contempt and his decision to arrange his son's marriage to an
In what ways, and for what reasons, did a "Reign of Terror" occur in France in 1793-1794? The Brunswick Manifesto and the rise of the Mountains to power in the National Convention
In what ways, and for what reasons, did a "Reign of Terror" occur in France in 1793-1794? The Brunswick Manifesto and the rise of the Mountains to power in the National Convention were leading steps to the Reign of Terror. The Brunswick Manifesto led to increased suspicion against the king and counterrevolutionaries, and the Mountains' rise to power led to the execution of the king and opposition to the Girondins. The suspicion aroused due to the Brunswick Manifesto intensified, and the National Convention created the Committee of Public Safety and Committee of General Security so that they could win the war. The revolutionaries' opposition to the Girondins, who had been against the king's execution, gave rise to Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue" and purgation of the Gironddins in the Reign of Terror. The Brunswick Manifesto, declared by Austria and Prussia during the war against France, affirmed suspicious revolutionaries that the king was plotting treason against the revolution. Before the document was issued, the king's attempted escape to Varennes and the Declaration of Pillnitz had already aroused suspicion against King Louis XVI in France. However, with the Brunswick Manifesto, the suspicions came to the maximum height as violent activists came to the rise. Masses of the French people felt threatened by enemies. This led to the passionate outbursts of Jacobin
Absolutism represents the principle of being absolute or arbitrary government; it is also known as despotism.
Absolutism represents the principle of being absolute or arbitrary government; it is also known as despotism. Absolutism is first introduced by philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who believes in the power of the state and that men cannot survive in an orderly structure without it. The goals of an absolute monarch are to keep a tight rein on the authority of the church and nobility, to make the monarch the most powerful being in the state, to increase the province and esteem of the country and last but not least, to leave behind a inheritor that can rule the country having the same goals. The seventeen century's most remarkable monarchs are Louis Quatorze (the Son King of France) and Peter I (the Great) of Russia; their careers as monarchs are conclusively achieved due to that fact that both almost accomplish the four goals of absolutism. Louis Quatorze is born on September 5, 1638, having as parents Anne of Austria and the King Louis XIII. It is not until the year of 1661 that Louis comes to the throne and governs France. Once becoming a king, Louis turns his attention towards the nobility and the church. He realizes that in order to retain absolute control over the government, he has to manipulate the nobility. In doing so, he takes from the nobility the traditional right of ruling in the government. Furthermore, Louis hires people from the upper middle class, who are
Louis XIVs absolutist regime.
Absolutism The age of absolutism began in the middle of the seventeenth century and went on to the end of the eighteenth century. In my opinion, the peak of absolutism was reached with the rise to power of King Louis XIV of France. Absolutism was a system of governing a nation by which the monarch had complete control over the country, thus giving them tremendous power. Their decision was incontestable and final. Absolutism would not function in this manner with a parliament and therefore, a country with an absolutist ruler had no parliament. They also made laws, set taxes and decided alone whether or not to take their country to war. However, absolutist monarchs also set up bureaucracies and raised armies which was in some respects leading to a more advanced society in so far as the arrival of a centralised state. Jacques Bossuet was both bishop and tutor to Louis XIV and his views on absolutism were very well defined. He defined the difference between arbitrary power and absolutist power. He stated that it was the unconditional duty of the absolute monarch to look after the people. (Merriman, 1996, p.276) In order to legitimise this great power, absolute monarchs gave great support to the Catholic Church. It was the proposal that for the church's portrayal of the king as a sacred figure that the monarch would in return help to squeeze out the religious minorities.