Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critics of realism in international relations
Critics of realism in international relations
Essay on realist theory of international politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critics of realism in international relations
According to the school of realism in international politics, states operate in a type of system which has been dubbed the ‘balance of power.’ There are many definitions for it, but Morgenthau’s description of the theory as “an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed among several nations with approximate equality” sums it up well. While the term itself may be of the last few centuries, Hume writes that it “is founded so much on common sense and obvious reasoning, that it is impossible it could altogether have escaped antiquity.” That being said, the target region and period of time to be examined in this paper – the Great Italian Wars of 1494-1559 in Southern and Western Europe – is a prime example of balance of power politics …show more content…
Prior to the outbreak of the wars in 1494, the Italian city-states were enjoying a time of peace and prosperity thanks mostly to Lorenzo de Medici – the Magnificent – of Florence, who orchestrated peace between Florence, Naples and Milan to “curb the Venetians.” Once it had all begun, outside the Italian city-states (the Papal States, Ferrara and Genoa - amongst others – would have roles throughout), France and Spain were the main kingdoms at each other’s throats, with the Holy Roman Empire , and the Ottoman Empire all making appearances in the many separate wars. The theory applies to this region mainly – as mentioned before – because of the many alliances formed and broken for the 63 years that “turned the Italian peninsula into the battleground of Europe.” The primary motor behind these alliances was one of the foundations of the balance of power theory in what Midlarsky dubbed as “the absence of alliance memory, making all other states potential allies or enemies, regardless of past friendships or …show more content…
One example has been already mentioned; with Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain turning on France in 1501 right after they worked together to take Naples. Another instance was the formation of the League of Cambrai to oppose Venice’s influence in Italy (much like the pre-1494 balance). However, the coalition was overwhelming, and was indeed not made to simply stop Venice, but to crush it down. The League included the Papal States, France, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and Ferrara ; it was an overwhelming force even against a formidable foe like the Venetians (who had a force of 29,500 men, a number matched by France on its own), which was the result of good diplomacy by Pope Julius II. The Popes, in general, were very instrumental in making and breaking friendships as they pleased throughout the Italian Wars. There are other examples of this kind and one of them, Suleiman the Magnificent’s role in the Franco-Prussian alliance, is fit for discussion in an entirely separate
Baxandall, Michael. “Conditions of Trade.” Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-century Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
When one looks at France after Napoleon’s reign, it is clear that he had brought much longed for order and stability. He had also established institutions that embodied the main principles of the revolution. However, it is also evident that many of his policies directly contradict those same principles. Was Napoleon betraying the same revolution that gave him power, or was he merely a pragmatist, who recognised that to consolidate the achievements of the revolution he needed to sacrifice some of those principles? Firstly, in order to determine whether Bonaparte betrayed the revolution, it is necessary to define what one means by “the revolution”.
Ginsborg P (1990). ‘A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics: 1943-1980’ Published by Penguin; Reprint edition (27 Sep 1990).
Multiple historians have touched on the change in government during Fascist Italy’s reign in World War II. In Italian Fascism: Its Origins and Development, Alexander De Grand clarifies the many promises Benito Mussolini fabricated for the Italian people in order to get them to join his cause such as the improvement on poverty with the rise of a new Roman Empire. De Grand also gives an opposite view, with some citizens seeing Fascism as a “model of efficiency.” In Melton S. Davis’ Who Defends Rome?, t...
Next, we will discuss the Risorgimento, a 19th-century movement for unification of Italy that would ultimately establish the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. Before this time, the Italian peninsula
So, I read and reviewed five volumes that I found to be representative of the recent scholarship on Renaissance Imperial power structures in Italy, the works span a range of imperial topics from Italian Cardinals and the Papacy, to the absolutist rulers of Italian cities like Milan and Florence. The works themselves are of course: Jane Black’s Absolutism in Renaissance Milan: A Plenitude of Power under the Visconti and the Sforza 1329-1535, Charles Stinger’s The Renaissance in Rome, Gerard Noel’s The Renaissance Popes: Statesmen, Warriors, and the Great Borgia Myth, Margaret Ann Zaho’s Imago Triumphalis: The Function and Significance of Triumphal Imagery for Italian Renaissance Ruler’s, and finally K.J.P. Lowe’s Church and Politics
The European monarchs and rulers of the 17th and 18th centuries wanted to increase their power both domestically and globally by adding to their territories and populations. Both in merging their power internally and expanding their power externally, they employed three features of state-building: control, extraction, and integration. In the late 1700s, both the Industrial revolution and French revolution of 1789 strengthened the idea that Europeans were different from the rest of the world. It also strengthened that Europeans were “succeeding” promptly while the rest of the world seemed to be declining, that Europeans were somehow extraordinary and better than the rest.” (Robert Marks page 10).
Throughout the seventeenth century, Europe was in a state of crisis. In many countries, violent revolts and riots were not out of the ordinary. In most of these cases of violence, human behaviors and actions of the controlling governments and royalty authorities were the underlying factors that set the stage for the chaotic state. However, in all of the instances of revolt and anarchy seen throughout Europe, religious behaviors and influences were the most prominent and contributing cause that sparked the most violence in the general crisis during the 1600’s.
Ridolfi, Roberto. The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli. Trans. Cecil Grayson. 1954. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Print.
During the late 1800's Italy became one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. Many Italians began to consider the possibility of leaving Italy to escape the new low wages and high taxes. For centuries the entire Italian peninsula was divided into quarreling states, with foreign powers often controlling several states. In this chaotic situation, the feudal system ruled above the economic system, leaving money only in the hands of a select few (Wikepedia.com, 2007).
The Italian Unification was a big impact on Nationalism, which was led by Benso di Cavour, which supplied most of the ideology for the movement. Benso di Cavour was also the Prince of Piedmont-Sardinia and severed as King Victor Emmanuel II. Cavour built the strength of Piedmont-Sardinia by making a strong army, an environment that was healthy, and political freedom. Cavour was all for freedom of speech, gaining Napoleon III support by promising him Sa...
Baxandall, Michael. “Conditions of Trade.” Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-century Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Through historical and economic data this research paper will express how Florence flourished from a mercantile economy in the Renaissance.
Rice, Eugene E. and Anthony Grafton. The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559. 2nd. ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1994.
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.