Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of diplomacy
Importance of diplomacy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During the early 18th century, European governments were experiencing significant changes and challenges to the government structure and authority. A crisis in government led in some instances to revolution within the country, and in other instances led to a war with other nations. The differences can be examined by a look at the War of Spanish Succession and the American Revolution. The War of Spanish Succession resulted from a crisis in government when King Charles II died and left no heir. Various relatives from France, Austria, Britain and the Netherlands claimed a right to the throne. French Bourbon King Louis XIV installed his grandson, Philip of Anjou, as the Spanish king in 1700, resulting in the other claimants starting a war …show more content…
with France and Philip in 1702 over the Spanish kingdom for the next twelve years. In contrast, the American colonists sought independence from the British following a series of the imposition of new taxes and restrictions on society by the British King and Parliament. The American colonists in the 1770’s wanted a completely new, separate and independent government. Each situation presented a crisis in government. The differences are in the approaches to address the crisis and the overall goals in creating a new government. King Charles II of Spain died in October of 1700.
He had no children or other close relatives to succeed him as ruler of Spain. With the succession unresolved, on November 16, 1700, King Louis XIV of France declared his grandson, Phillip the Duke of Anjou, to be the new King of Spain. England and the Dutch failed to recognize Phillip as the Spanish king. Two years later, England, the emperor of Austria, Leopold I, and the Dutch Republic declared war on France and Duke Anjou to dispute his rightful claim, and to lay claim for themselves to the Spanish kingdom. Leopold I sought to establish his younger son, Archduke Charles, on the Spanish throne, claiming his right as a relative of the Habsburg family through his mother. Philip also has a connection to the Habsburg family through his grandmother. Both laid claims to the Spanish throne on this basis. The Spaniards, wanted the King to reside in Spain, and attempts to govern Spain from afar would result in revolution. Many Spanish nobles accepted Philip and his claim, believing that Louis XIV would protect Spain with his grandson as …show more content…
King. Louis XIV and William of England, looking to avoid war, attempted a negotiated partition option prior to Charles’ death, but this agreement required an agreement from Emperor Leopold I, and would include territories extending into Italy and other regions of the Austrian Empire. Leopold was unwilling to give up his son’s claim to the Spanish throne and remove Hapsburgs from Italy. There is also no indication that the Spanish would accept such a partition. With a possible war either way, Louis named his grandson as King. England and the Dutch Netherlands refused to recognize Philip as the new Spanish King.
Louis and Philip sought to gain favor with the Spaniards, and began making cooperation agreements. They took steps to remove English and Dutch merchant from lucrative Spanish interests, and replace them with French merchants. French threats to English and Dutch economic and territorial interests, including within the Netherlands, led to further conflicts over Spanish interests. England sought to secure its trade interests with Spain and prevent French intrusion into the Netherlands. William also sought some assistance for Leopold regarding Italy, which was under French rule at the time. Negotiations about these issues never resulted in any agreement, and England went to war in support of the Austrian
Emperor. The collection of Spanish regions waited while the French, English, Dutch and Austrian leaders fought over who had the rightful claim to the Spanish throne. These regions had some independent local governments, subject to the King’s authority. Some regions supported the Bourbon King Phillip, and others supported the Austrian Duke Charles. Catalonia, with its port of Barcelona and international trade, supported the Austrian empire, and fought against Philip and the Bourbons. Three other regions also supported Charles, but the dispute was over what was best for Spain and its colonies, not for independence. The Spanish did not want their country divided, as career opportunities for the elite as well as economic trade opportunities for the merchants would diminish if the country was partitioned. What the elite of Spain really wanted from Philip was the continuation of the political system that favored the nobility and the convocation of the Cortes of Castile and Aragon. When the Austrian Emperor Joseph died in 1711, and Charles became the Emperor of the Austrian Empire, the War for Spanish Succession came to an end. Neither Charles nor Philip could rule Spain from afar, and the English decided to withdraw. Negotiations to end the war resulted in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Philip gained complete control by seizing control of Barcelona in 1714, thus securing his place on the throne and becoming Felipe V. Spain would remain under a Bourbon monarch until its Independence nearly 100 years later.
There was tremendous competition between European states for power and wealth. England wanted to limit France in the new world and as time went on, the conflict grew and the French and English colonies got involved as well as the Spanish ones. Both King Williams’s war and Queen Anne’s War ended in a negotiated peace and had little effect on the colonies, but both had accompanying wars in Europe. King William’s was the War of the League of Augsburg in Europe and Queen Anne’s War was the War of the Spanish Succession in Europe. In the eighteenth century, the European states depended on borrowing to fund their wars, but the English were the first not to pay off the debt when the war was over. The English instead just paid the interest on the debt, but as the debt
While the French and the American revolutions share some similarities, they differ in most areas involving the revolution. Enlightenment ideas would help shape politics, economics, and religion in the revolutionary nations. Although both found the importance of individual rights, they took different paths in establishing and operating their respective governments. The economic standpoints of the French would be in contrary with the American economics which roughly associate with enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith. Religion would closely be associated with principles in the United States while the French sought to secularize their nation.
While the Brazilian Revolution emerged largely from the influence of the American Revolution, some variation remains between those two revolutions in exactly how those revolutions were executed and what the reasons for them were.
Revolution is one word that summarizes complete change. To put the name of a country before the word revolution means complete change in that country's government. In some way, whether it be politically, economically, or socially, the government failed to appease the people. In France and Latin America they stopped at virtually nothing to gain their goal. Latin America literally bit the hand the fed them and France beheaded their own king. This was all done in the name of reformation and change because somehow their government severely let down their people.
The American Revolution and French Revolution were two long lasting uprisings that had great value to those battling for their rights and want they wanted to change. Yet there are a few distinctions details set them apart in a small way. The Americans wanted a change in their government, but the French wanted a huge change in everything including their government, religion, social structure (whereas American’s social system stayed the same) and economy. Other than the few differences they had, they two Revolutions were much alike, basically twin revolutions.
The American and the French revolutions had many similarities and differences. One similarity being is that they both wanted to escape the rule of their King. Second, they both started by an uprising of people against unfair taxation by the monarchy. The French peasants were not represented by the Parliament. It was mainly composed of middle and upper class people. Now, the American colonists were not represented in England because of their lack of presence. Both wanted to set up a Republic, which provided liberty and justice to all classes of citizens. Just like France, the American colonists were composed up mainly middle and lower class citizens. The American Revolution started out by not wanting bloodshed and violence. France started out with violence and bloodshed. (American Revolution)
Beginning in the 1600s, one of the main concepts for England, France, and Spain at the time was mercantilism. These were the three most powerful and blooming countries at the time. Starting from the earliest years as the late 1500s, and continuing on, all three countries were soon to battle for claim of the new land. Only one country could triumph. Despite success, even the strongest can become the weakest.
The American Revolution began due to problems within the British economy. The most prevalent issue of the time was "taxation without representation". Unlike the leaders of America, the leaders of the French did not turn out to be as positive for the country. In fact, some of these leaders have caused much more harm than good.
The American Revolution was a conflict that arose from growing tensions between Great Britain and the Thirteen North American colonies. It was a long bloody war and one of the most well-known, and because of that it has many interpretations, and these interpretations have made it a challenge to be able to come to a single understanding of the war. In this week’s readings, two different views on the same war are given. The American Yawp describes the American colonies point of view on the revolution while the History Lesson discusses how British wanted to control America but instead drove them to rebel and fight for their independence. The colonists saw the war for their independence as a revolution, but through British eyes, events and people were, not surprisingly, seen quite differently.
As an American observes the life around him, noting the many advancements made in merely the last century, he must wonder how America climbed to such a level. The 21st century technology, the military and political power, education and ethics, all came from such meager beginnings, solidified by the Revolutionary War. The Revolutionary War proved to be a significant turning point in the history of our country, but what caused America to win? What were some of the most significant factors in the victory of these American patriots? By examining these three particular factors, America’s military assets, it’s aid from other countries, and its own spirit of independence, one’s understanding of the Revolutionary War, an essential root of this nation, is truly increased.
After witnessing the Dutch Republic’s rise in becoming a dominating controller of European trade, other countries in the area were eager to be a part of the success – even if that meant using force. England attacked the Dutch in three Anglo-Dutch Wars between 1652 and 1674, according to Document 3. Compared to the five hundred English ships that the Dutch seized, the English took approximately two thousand Dutch ships. This loss to Dutch merchant shipping would not be easily recovered. It is clear by the battle markers shown in Document 1 that many English Battles for economic influence occurred near trade routes. Everyone was desperate for a chance to get in on the profitable trade. France even allied with England in the Treaty of Dover (Document 6) so that the “allied sovereigns [could] then jointly declare war on the Dutch Republic…” As an official treaty, Document 6 is a clear insight into the true and blatant violent intentions of the other nations to take out the Dutch Republic’s power in order to increase their own. It was strategic partner to take out the Dutch before they absorbed all the trade power – a win-win for the England and France. At the Amsterdam City Council, people were obviously biased toward the Dutch side of the war. However, their opinion that “other kings seem more and more to scheme how to ruin wh...
Filipe V succeeded in this Succession War, which allowed the Bourbon Monarchy to initiate reforms in effort to centralize Spain’s government; reform country’s financial systems; reinstate and reinforce the country’s military forces. The House of Bourbons had three princes, Filipe V (1700-1746), Ferdinand VI (1746-1759) and Charles III (1759-1788) that worked together to facilitate these reforms that modernized Spain completely. These reforms e...
revolting Americans, for they were deeply humiliated by England in the Seven Years War (1756-1763), and they wanted to help them defeat England in any way. Since France was such a leading and influential country at this time, after the French began to aide America, other countries, such as Spain and Dutch and Russia, followed their lead and came to the Americans side.
The American Revolution marked the divorce of the British Empire and its one of the most valued colonies. Behind the independence that America had fought so hard for, there emerged a diverging society that was eager to embrace new doctrines. The ideals in the revolution that motivated the people to fight for freedom continued to influence American society well beyond the colonial period. For example, the ideas borrowed from John Locke about the natural rights of man was extended in an unsuccessful effort to include women and slaves. The creation of state governments and the search for a national government were the first steps that Americans took to experiment with their own system. Expansion, postwar depression as well as the new distribution of land were all evidence that pointed to the gradual maturing of the economic system. Although America was fast on its way to becoming a strong and powerful nation, the underlying issues brought about by the Revolution remained an important part in the social, political and economical developments that in some instances contradicted revolutionary principles in the period from 1775-1800.
Much history is presented as dull, sequential events, with no fervor behind their implication. As is the case of the revolutions that graced the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The American, French, Haitian, and Spanish American revolutions sealed the final nail of the Renaissance: that absolutism has died and the people shall be in control. Wim Klooster, a professor of history at Clark University engages his audience with predominant themes and events that led to the eventual revolutions. He presents the rationale for the four revolutions not as a dry chronology, but as simple and evocative cause-and-effect scenarios.