Adam Lewis, Ben Villa, Carter Alderman, Mr. Swanger World History ACC Block 5/13/24. King Philip II of Spain: A Structured Path to Greatness What makes an individual great is the world surrounding them, not sheer skill appointed at birth. Thomas Carlyle, a 19th-century historian, believed that history is “but the biography of great men” (Carlyle 42). This is known as the Great Man Theory. People who believe this theory believe in indeterminism as they believe greatness has nothing to do with the outside world, rather one is born great and nothing in your lifetime can change your ability to be great. On the contrary, determinism is about how structural forces and circumstances of the time and place cause greatness. People who believe in determinism …show more content…
In America, “the legal masters of the region who governed via supreme courts of which they were seven by the time of the accession of Philip II in 1556: Santo Domingo, set up in 1511; the city of Mexico, established in 1527; Panama, in 1538; Lima, Peru, in 1543. ” (Thomas 29). The legal systems and form of government that the Spaniards had in the areas they controlled were put into place before Philip II's reign. It is true that during the time of Philip II, Spain was the most powerful in America with its vast territories, however Philip II had low involvement in the structure of government in the New World because others established a good system before him. The structure of Spain's empire before Philip II made it easier for him to be credited for this stable global empire. Philip II was nurtured by great political insight and used the knowledge and path laid out by his father to strengthen his rule, proving determinism because his family’s advice enabled him to become great. When Philip II was 20 years old and about to begin his rule, his father gave him an essay with advice that became widely known in the political world as “Charles’s political testament” (Parker 77). When …show more content…
The power and reach of the Catholic Church is something no one can deny. History has proven that religion usually has a strong influence on politics. The Church was a very powerful ally of Spain during Philip II’s reign and unintentionally, due to its powerful reach, helped get other Catholics living in Europe to respect the word of Philip II. The American territories would never have been as successful without the help of the Church. The structure of the Church enabled successful and sustainable power in the Spanish New World, which took stress off of Philip II’s role in decision making. Philip II was mainly responsible for expanding the territories instead of governing because of the foundations established by the Church and Spanish empire before him. The status of Philip II's family enabled him to expand his territories farther without warfare during his rule. This proves the family he was born into yet again caused him to be successful, which proves determinism. Philip II was a great conqueror, but he was only able to obtain Portugal because of his family history. The book World Without End by Hugh Thomas discusses a battle between Morocco and Portugal called the Battle of Alcazarquivir (1578). The King of
This paper will be exploring the book The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders. This book focuses upon the early 1800 to the 1900 and explores the development of South American political system as well expresses some issues that some Latino counties had with Europe and North America. Thus, Sanders focus is on how Latin America political system changes throughout this certain time and how does the surrounding countries have an effect as well on Latin political system. Therefore, the previous statement leads into some insight on what the thesis of the book is. Sanders thesis is, “Latin American’s believed they represented the future because they had adopted Republicanism and democracy while Europe was in the past dealing with monarchs
King Ferdinand and Isabella are known as one of the most famous couples in the world. Isabella who was the daughter of King John II of Castile and Ferdinand was the son of King John I of Aragon were married to create unity between the two kingdoms. At the time of their marriage the spanish moors were in control of a big chunk of Spain.
5 years and nearly an entire continent separated King Philip’s war from the great pueblo revolt. Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of these 2 conflicts.
King Philip's War King Philip's War, 1675-76, the most devastating war between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England. The war is named for King Philip, the son of Massasoit and chief of the Wampanoag. His Wampanoag name was Metacom, Metacomet, or Pometacom. Upon the death (1662) of his brother, Alexander (Wamsutta), whom the Native Americans suspected the English of murdering, Philip became sachem and maintained peace with the colonists for a number of years. Hostility eventually developed over the steady succession of land sales forced on the Native Americans by their growing dependence on English goods.
The English reconquest of Spain was a series of events leading to the Christian regaining the control of the Iberian Peninsula. During the time, the Christian and Islamic cultures had built off of each other, both economically and socially. Ferdinand II and his wife Isabella I where the catholic monarchs that played a key role in the success of the reconquest of the Peninsula. Their marriage was a political alliance between Argon and Castilian nobles as a way for them to unite. While their marriage was not for romance or love, the two did deeply care about each other and made quite the power couple, literally. As a team, Ferdinand and Isabella were able to gain control over Castile and keep fighting until their conquest was over. Ferdinand
Many people have heard of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. However, only some know of all the things they accomplished. They might be best known for funding the voyages of Christopher Columbus, but they also greatly contributed to the unity of Spain (“Isabella l”). Together, they brought many kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula together to form what Spain is today. Through Spain’s unification, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella strengthened Spain into an economic and dominant world power, enabling the spread of Christianity and the colonization of a New World.
New monarchs are considered the first stepping stone to create great nations. These new monarchs display the traits of limiting the nobles' power, increasing economic prosperity, uniting their nation, and stabilizing their army. Nations such as Spain, France, and England, have new monarchs in their history, including Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, King Louis XI of France, and King Henry VII of England. Overall without the strengthening of these new monarchs, the corruption of their successors would have been detrimental to the process of improving these nations.
During the sixteenth century, Spain had become the most powerful country in both Europe and the Americas through its successes in the New World. The Spanish throne funded Columbus’ exploration that eventually led to the discovery of what will be known as the Americas. The Spanish Empire created the model for the colonization of the Americas through their conquest of the two most powerful empires in the Americas--the Aztec and the Incan. These conquests also provided the Spanish with tons of riches, thus pushing them towards the seat of power.
...lso in his style of leadership. The accurate reflection of Philip’s true exterior image facilitates the realistic depiction of him as ruler.
Although it may not have seemed fairly difficult in theory, The Pope along with the Crown of Spain set out with the goal to convert the Native Americans. One decisive factor that challenged that decree of conversion was the economic benefits that Spain would receive. This would eventually change the agendas of Spain, and ultimately it would indirectly make those living in the New World choose: Spain or Religion? This was not said in these exact words, but people, especially religious orders would have to choose to fight for what they believed in, or to follow the orders straight from the Spanish Crown.
Charlemagne Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, became the undisputed ruler of Western Europe, “By the sword and the cross.” (Compton’s 346) As Western Europe was deteriorating Charlemagne was crowned the privilege of being joint king of the Franks in 768 A.D. People of Western Europe, excluding the church followers, had all but forgotten the great gifts of education and arts that they had possessed at one time. Charlemagne solidly defeated barbarians and kings in identical fashion during his reign. Using the re-establishment of education and order, Charlemagne was able to save many political rights and restore culture in Western Europe.
Latin America went through many years of colonial rule from Spain, but around the 1800’s they began to seek their independence. The years to follow were full of rebellion and war, trying to gain their independence from colonial Spain. The “Americanos”, now believed that they were able to rule themselves, and that it was no longer necessary for Spain to keep controlling the Americas. When Latin America finally defeated Spain, new issues began to arise that were caused by many years of war, which led to chaos and a sense of imbalance in the hands of Latin America. Many of these struggles impeded Latin America’s success to rule themselves, and create their own democracy. Some of the main challenges and struggles that were most predominant in the independence of Latin America, was the economic instability caused by many years of war, the burden of colonialism from Spain, and the strong hand of the caudillos.
When you hear of historical figures that “conquered” a certain time period, you think of barbarians, spartans, or other gruesome, battle-tested men. While William I, the King of England and Duke of Normandy, was also nicknamed the “Conqueror”, he achieved success reigning over his time period in very different ways than that of Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. Regardless of his path to success, William I played a huge part in the religious evolution of England. Using his advantageous leadership position, William I was able to be prosperous for many decades. His illustrious career is historical proof that a country does not need to be overtaken by brute force alone. William the Conqueror was a very commendable leader, and he used his knowledge, leadership, and military prowess to conquer multiple countries for almost the entirety of his life.
Countries rise and fall, but within this chaos is the certainty that new leaders will emerge to fill the shoes of those fallen. What is it that separates the great leaders from the lesser? This question weighed heavy on the minds of many great Renaissance thinkers due to the power that derives from this knowledge. In the 16th century, Niccolò Machiavelli sought out to answer this time worn question. It was in his publication of The Prince, that Machiavelli spread his cold and practical formula of how to rule. In The Prince, Machiavelli clearly states what characteristics great ruler have. These Machiavellian traits show themselves in the life of Alexander the Great and some of the traits used by Machiavelli were taken from Alexander’s style of ruling. Even though he lived before the creation of The Prince, much of Alexander’s success stems from his Machiavellian principles of war, deception, and his ability to absorb the culture of conquered territories by limiting changes in their government.
King Henry VIII is one of the most famous kings in British history. Henry was a man of great power and used his efficacy to influence England and enhance it’s potential as a country. King Henry’s rule was turbulent and effective. His rule focused on proficiency which allowed England to transform into the country that it is today. To help achieve this, King Henry adopted the idea of vigorous decision making. King Henry’s advanced accomplishments with the Church and England made him notorious in history as a turmultuous and celebrated leader.