England and the Austrian, Habsburg Empire were both influenced by many of the same pressures during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Each nation witnessed segments of their society demand religious freedom, and each struggled with the issue of Monarchial government and who possessed the right to the throne. These were the pressures faced by both nations and, though there were similarities between the issues, each nation took a very different approach to solving their problems. England would emerge from the 18th century capable of leading its citizens through a form of representative government; the Austrian, Habsburg Empire would find itself marginalized and absorbed by surrounding nations due to lack of unity and single purpose. England was successful at resolving its crises because, through compromise, it developed a stronger central government in the form of Constitutional Monarchy.
The Austrian, Habsburg Empire was, in the literal sense, disconnected; its holdings ranged in size from the large territory of Spain, to smaller territories, such as the Netherlands which were bordered by competing nations. An inherent problem of maintaining control of such a sprawling empire was the fact that there were many dissimilar communities with unique cultures and ways of thinking. This dynamic made it difficult for the House of Habsburg to exercise control and to unify its empire. Religion proved to be the most difficult matter to control, attempts to do so resulted in the Thirty Years’ War.
Early in the 17th century, Ferdinand I ascended to the throne of the Habsburg, Austrian Empire. Ferdinand was a devout Catholic and his subjects in his Bohemian territory believed that the right to practice Protestantism, granted to them by...
... middle of paper ...
... Constitutional Monarchy form of government was the solution not only the problems of the moment, but also the overarching issue guiding a nation and ensuring unity of effort.
The Austrian, Habsburg Empire and England faced issues common to many European nations of the time. Religion and leadership were at the forefront of these crises. What set the two nations apart and ensured England’s survival was that England, not necessarily consciously, made improvements to their government while they addressed their smaller individual problems. With each growing pain came compromise. Through compromise, the English developed into a Constitutional Monarchy; this representative type of government, guided by a Bill of Rights, established checks and balances that inherently support a strong, unified nation as opposed to the self interests of individual factions.
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
The Americans after obtaining independence from England needed to establish a form of government. Before the war had ended, the Second Congress of the Confederation called for the drafting of a new government in order to govern this new country, which the Articles of Confederation established. The Articles of Confederation built a government solely based off republican ideals, such as civic virtue, the idea that the states and the people will make sacrifices to the common good in order to benefit everybody. Relying on civic virtue did not pull through as successful for the young country. The Articles of Confederation shone through as successful in organizing and establishing states in the Old Northwest, spreading republican ideals; however, the success of the Articles of Confederation was trumped by its failures. The Articles of Confederation failed to provide a new and young United States with an effective government in its inability to collect tax revenue to pay debts, controlling the mobocratic uprising of upset factions, and dealing with foreign policies; additionally, the failure of the Articles of Confederation revealed the inefficiency and failure of republicanism.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
During the 1700s, Britain ruled over the colonies. The colonies had been discovered and settled by the British. The British believed that the colonies were British territories and were to be ruled as if they were British territories. The colonies did not like this. The Founding Fathers agreed that it was time for a change and sought to rebel from, and declare independence from the British. The Founding Fathers were justified in rebelling and declaring independence because the British rule had become oppressive, Britain was too small and too far away from the colonies to be in any position to rule over them, and the colonies had become large enough to become their own nation.
In the mid 18th century many different powers in Europe were trying to spread their influence and gain global power. However, this was not without difficulty. There were many regional issues that these powers needed to overcome such as economic complications, struggles with native and conquered peoples, and competing with other European powers.
is that in the 1800's the average age a person lived up to was 30. In
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).
A new era was dawning on the American colonies and its mother country Britain, an era of revolution. The American colonists were subjected to many cruel acts of the British Parliament in order to benefit England itself. These British policies were forcing the Americans to rebellious feelings as their rights were constantly being violated by the British Crown. The colonies wanted to have an independent government and economy so they could create their own laws and stipulations. The British imperial policies affected the colonies economic, political, and geographic situation which intensified colonists’ resistance to British rule and intensified commitment to their republican values.
In addition to the unrest caused by their mercantilist policies, domestic political issues distracted them from the activities of the colonies. Throughout the sixteen hundreds, Great Britain was more involved in solving the Constitutional issue of who was to have more power in English government, the king or parliament. When this complex issue was finally resolved in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, England turned its attention back to the colonies and found that colonists had developed their own identity as American.
As the final days of World War One slowly drudged through the month of November, a war torn Europe left separated and waiting to be picked up and pasted back together. An astonishing number of thirty-eight million dead between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers during a war that took over four years to come to an end. The main players during 1914 - 1918 were Britain and Germany, however this rivalry did not begin simply because of World War One and all the logistics of those four years. This essay is not to address the events of World War One, but to however explain what caused them. The lead up to the world’s first “World War” is a story of Europe’s heavyweight title fight, in one corner the English, boasting a huge naval fleet and looking to be the face of Europe. In the other corner, Germany, led by Kaiser Wilhelm II was fueled and willing to go at whatever cost necessary to back up their Triple Alliance member Austria-Hungary. This was not the first time the English and Germans had become involved with one another. England’s first diplomatic relations with Germany began with an alliance between Ethelberht of Kent and Charibert I. These marriages between the two countries were sporadic, however this is where relations began. Enlgand had been on top of Europe for quite sometime,
Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused.
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates.
In 1603 the Scottish and English monarchies were united and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarchy of the United Kingdom was deprived of the decision-making privilege they once had. For the purpose of this essay, I intend to examine the many different arguments both for and against the British monarchy being abolished. Proponents argue strongly that the monarchy symbolises all that is British throughout Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. However, contrary to this, the monarchy receives exorbitant financial aid from the British taxpayers to maintain the monarchy. Does the monarchy have a place in the twenty first century?