I'm over generalizing a bit I know but I still think trade was the driving concern for most of the war during the colonial periods.
I hardly see how you don't think they saw it as important. For example the entire British banking system was built around breaking spanish gold as the currency of trade.
Shinto, are you actually saying you agree that from 1500-1800, all those European powers were subsuming their foreign policy towards one goal that they didn't even realise was important?
I think your premise that they realize that trade was important is way way off.
Like bafflingly off. I don't even know how you would have come by that idea.
One, 1500-1650 is not a colonial period. In those first 100 years, about 2 European ships and some fishing boats hit America. That's it.
The Spanish conquered the Aztecs and Incas, set up major fort/town/ports in the Carribean/Gulf of Mexico and exported so much silver and gold to Europe that it made them a super power. Huge, yearly treasure fleets.
The Portuguese established a huge network of ports/forts along the coast of Africa and conducted immensely profitable trade.
The Dutch, English, French and Portuguese all begin extremely regular trading missions to the orient which regularly returned upwards of 3000% profit.
Pirates like Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Martin Frobisher and others become national heroes in England and bring back stunning amounts of wealth - because trading ships were carrying alot of wealth.
Colonies are established at Baffin Island (Martin Frobisher), in Maine (John Popham), in Massachussetts (Pilgrims) and in Virginia (Walter Raleigh) to create a base from which to launch pirate raids on the Spanish treasure ships, find a northwest passage to the Orient and duplicate Spain's success in extracting valuable resources.
And that is just the global style trade. The rising English middle class, represented in an increasingly powerful House of Commons, is the bedrock of the Tudor Monarch's strength as they compete for dominance with the nobility. The wool trade with the Low Countries was of huge economic consequence and importance to the London Merchants who were increasingly footing the bill for Elizabeth's government. The fact that national taxation via the Commons and the granting of monopolies on trade items were the two mainstays of funding for Elizabethan government alone show both the vital role of trade and the attentiveness of government to it.
The Armada was defeated because it turned out that just because your boats were bigger, that didnt make them better which was actually a bit of a revolutionary military concept at the time. Spanish shot flew through and over the rigging of British ships, with idea being that marines would board them after they were slowed. However the British's better position during the battle and the fact that their ships were faster made this nearly impossible. British shot conversely struck the heavily laden spanish ships close to the waterline, and they sank in heavy seas during and after the battle.
Don't also forget that the Spanish fleet was harassed and damaged by multiple storms prior to the battles.
Also, English ships could tack against the wind, which was essential to maneuvering in the Channel and their cannons could shoot further.
Crappy boats; not check. Often better on the ocean than the English ships, stronger hulls, larger, but less maneuverable.
If I recall, the gun carriages* were the sort that don't automatically roll back when the canon is fired, making it insanely difficult to reload during combat. Hence, shitty ships for the purpose of warfare.
And their plan was retarded because they forgot that the telephone had not yet been invented. You don't trust two massive groups to meet in time on the seas in the 1500s. Maybe on land. But Jesus, weather can fuck you so hard.
Guys, guys! Do they never teach you detailed late 1500's English military history in high school?
I read this shit for fun. I just didn't bring my books with me... :x
*I forget the terminology, and my knowledge of the specifics of the engineering is spotty, but I remember that they were somewhat beyond retarded about their guns.
You are totally ignoring the massive ripple effect that the outbreak of Protestantism had. Yes, it also involved national interest, but largely due to the fact that monarchs or lords suddenly found there was a new facet of loyalty they had to deal with. Put simply, if you were of a different religion to your monarch, you were often considered a rebel.
Charles V (HRE) got the ball rolling partly because Lutheranism started out in his own lands, and the obvious connection (Holy Roman Emperor) with the Catholic Church; he quickly discovered, partly due to having a newly vast empire to run (he inherited Spain as well), that religious rebellion was a Bad Thing, and thus to stop it, it was preferable to stamp out the religion - even though initially, he was inclined to treat Luther more leniently. Similarly, the new Protestants discovered they had few friends, and so started banding together. Various German electors looked to the Netherlands, and the south of France.
This frightened the Catholics even more, especially because the perennial war between France & Spain meant they couldn't consolidate their power. Also, there were plenty of monarchs who were simply religious zealots, and wouldn't tolerate Protestantism on principle; Phillip II is a good example, as are some of the many French kings, though they usually died too quickly to make a difference. Europe quickly became two armed camps, based around religion, and de facto at war with each other.
Elizabeth inherited into this mix. The whole crux of her succession problems was that she was Protestant; Spain had thought they had England down pat in the Catholic camp with Mary I on the throne and a Spanish husband - Phillip II, who later sent the Armada. Elizabeth's first priority was not national influence, but national survival. From the very beginning, she played games with France & Spain - the two major Catholic powers threatening to invade, what was left of the HRE was tearing itself apart - re: her intentions and her true religious beliefs. France was particularly dangerous due to their strong links with Scotland, the Auld Alliance; one of the reasons Mary Queen of Scots was so important. She also had plenty of other problems in the bag, most involving religion; a woman in a man's job with a variety of Catholic nobles wanting her relatives on the throne, constant upheaval in Ireland for the usual reasons & also influenced by Irish Catholicism, and so on.
She wasn't much dealing with national economic self-interest. England's development as a trading power (which was fairly limited during her reign) largely came from domestic tax/regulation decisions arrived at by the Privy Council, and latterly Elizabeth allowing privateers a free reign, engendering the basis of what would later become the British Navy.
For many years, Elizabeth played off France & Spain against each other with hints that she would marry into either family, and convert to Catholicism (ie taking England with her). As her reign progressed, they stopped believing her; it took too long, she executed MQoS, she was excommunicated, and so on. Those last two were a final straw, and Phillip started plans for the Armada.
Finally, you forget one major point in your argument; the Dutch were the primary trading power in the region, and they were much more Protestant than England. Spain (and previously the HRE) had been at war with the Dutch for most of the period, largely due to Dutch support to the German Protestant princes (remember, Charles V of the HRE was also Charles I of Spain). The Netherlands, originally an HRE province, had been bequeathed to Spain after Charles V died. As Philip II aceded the throne; they revolted against Spain. If the Spanish were really so concerned about trade, the Armada would have been sailing to Antwerp to reclaim their vitally important trading province, and Parma's army would not have been wasted on England, but stayed in the Netherlands where it was. Removing England was only removing a nominal ally to the Dutch; Elizabeth only ever sent one paltry and useless army to support her Protestant friends in the Low Countries, and her flirting with Spain & France didn't exactly burnish the English-Dutch friendship.
Phillip II invaded England because he wanted England. He didn't want England because it was a major trading power (it was not). He didn't want England because of her vast natural resources (she didn't have any). He did view England as rightfully his (from his marriage to Mary I). He did have a serious Catholic streak and tendency to beat down Protestantism. He also seems to have had a fairly bureaucratic mind that didn't deal well with disorganization, and thus a sense that he should restore both the Netherlands and England to their 'rightful' place in the Spanish empire.
@Shinto: Elizabeth wasn't so concerned about national interest because she was focused on personal and national survival. It is often overlooked that both of those were under serious threat during her reign.
@nexus: Hopefully I've outlined the importance of religion and how it was inextricably tied into issues of national soverignty over the period. Essentially, new Protestant princes also tended to be rebelling against an old Catholic prince; northern Germany, southern France, Netherlands, all had that characteristic. Thus religion was national interest.
...and I'm not even going into the many examples of pure religious zealotry carried out which seriously affected national policy. Shinto mentioned one earlier, The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, but there were similar near genocides in parts of Germany, and let's not forget the good ole' Spanish Inquisition. Religion seriously mattered to these people in a way we don't quite get nowadays.
I can only say that your statement regarding national interest being unimportant because national survival was at stake is perplexing for what should be obvious reasons.
And the St. Bartholomew massacre was as much about political influence and consolidating control as it was the religious fervor of the mob.
I think your premise that they didn't realize that trade was important is way way off.
Like bafflingly off. I don't even know how you would have come by that idea.
Fixed that for you.
We are talking about two seperate things, because of the 1500-1800 period. You are using examples of the Spanish & Dutch & to a small extent English bringing rare resources from new worlds to their countries in the old world, in the 16th and first part of the 17th centuries. That isn't technically trade, it is exploiting new sources of wealth within the empire; the Spanish in particular never let much of their colonial wealth outside of Spain, they used the gold to bankroll their wars. The Dutch did more actual trading, but again used most of it immediately to bankroll their rebellion against the Spanish. The English pretty much just snatched what they could via privateers from the Spanish; more theft than trade. The general principle of this wealth going into European states in the 1500's was that it was valuated, that valuation added to the treasury of the monarch, and then he used that value to immediately commission troops, ships, weapons.
If you want to look at real trading powers in the 1500's, though they were in decline, you're talking about the Italian city states.
I was talking about what happened towards the end of the 17th and 18th centuries, which is the development of serious trading empires around the world, serious systems & institutions of banking, trading and insurance which supported them, and the navies to project power around the world. That is what most historians mean when they talk about the emergence of dominant trading powers (well, Britain) in the world for the 1500-1800 period. When I say that in the 1500's, no monarchs realised the importance of trade, I mean just that. They realised the importance of gold, and spices, and so on. They tangentially realised the importance of trade in a very simple straight swap of differing surplus resources (your wool trade example is a good one), but they did not realise you could build an economy purely on trading itself, without actual control of those resources.
Though the colonies & later India were engines providing rare resources that drove the British empire towards the end of that period, the machinery was the institutions & economic ideas which made the most of those resources. Spain, in the 1500's, imported vastly more wealth in gold and silver from South America than the British did in later centuries from their colonies (calculated by economists, given that gold & silver were still the base units of worth in the later times); the trick was that British merchants had realised the subjective value of a thing, had a more developed understanding of markets & economics, and used it to great effect.
I can only say that your statement regarding national interest being unimportant because national survival was at stake is perplexing for what should be obvious reasons.
Read what I wrote. I said national influence, not national interest - we were talking about some mythical march towards being a dominant power, which falls under the remit of 'influence' I think. Though national survival might also be in the national interest, national influence is not necessary for national survival. Yes?
And the St. Bartholomew massacre was as much about political influence and consolidating control as it was the religious fervor of the mob.
Quite. Consolidating control to get rid of hundreds & thousands of pesky Protestants who had a tendency to rebel and war with the king. I'm not talking about the religous fervour of mobs; I'm saying that the religious problems or beliefs of monarchs were the most severe threat to their domestic political control or foreign policies. Trying to separate religion & politics in the 1500's is pretty much impossible; they were usually the same thing.
You know, you can't argue that something isn't a significant motivation in a certain period simply because it becomes a larger and more institutionalized motivation in a later period. That is bad reasoning.
Also, they didn't appreciate spices because they tasted good, they appreciated them because they got a cut of the profits of selling them. Elizabeth appreciated the trade in wool not because she loved nicely manufactured Dutch wool garments but because that was what made the London merchants who paid her taxes wealthy. Privy councillors and merchants bankroled Jamestown once they realized that tobacco was easily grown, not because they wanted a straight swap of resources but because it was profitable.
And while Drake or Frobisher may have simply been parasites on Spain's extraction of raw materials, you also have privateers like Sir John Hawkins who made his profits and career on breaking up monopolies on spanish trade in the New World.
I can only say that your statement regarding national interest being unimportant because national survival was at stake is perplexing for what should be obvious reasons.
Read what I wrote. I said national influence, not national interest - we were talking about some mythical march towards being a dominant power, which falls under the remit of 'influence' I think. Though national survival might also be in the national interest, national influence is not necessary for national survival. Yes?
I don't think the general rule of foreign policy in pursuit of the continual aggrendizement and advance of power is in any way disproved by anything that happened in this period, nor have you given any proof to the contrary. England was certainly playing imperial games in Ireland, Henry the VIII definately had dreams of military conquest in France and the union of Scotland and England under the Stuarts wasn't the product of some happy social reconciliation between the two.
So to hold up this period of general English weakness and claim that there was no underlaying dynamic of contest for supremacy strikes me as being somewhat false. Especially considering the shenanigans the Spanish were up to.
Quite. Consolidating control to get rid of hundreds & thousands of pesky Protestants who had a tendency to rebel and war with the king. I'm not talking about the religous fervour of mobs; I'm saying that the religious problems or beliefs of monarchs were the most severe threat to their domestic political control or foreign policies. Trying to separate religion & politics in the 1500's is pretty much impossible; they were usually the same thing.
But separating them is just what you did when you undertook your premise that religion was the principle motivation for everything, as opposed to national interest or economic concerns.
You know, you can't argue that something isn't a significant motivation in a certain period simply because it becomes a larger and more institutionalized motivation in a later period. That is bad reasoning.
No, I was arguing that the definition & character of trade changes drastically between those two periods, so the initial sweeping statement encompassing trade in 1500-1800 is bound to be false. Also, as below, you overestimate the importance of trade to the period. The focus for countries was still on hoarding resources, not benefiting by spreading them around.
Also, they didn't appreciate spices because they tasted good, they appreciated them because they got a cut of the profits of selling them. Elizabeth appreciated the trade in wool not because she loved nicely manufactured Dutch wool garments but because that was what made the London merchants who paid her taxes wealthy. Privy councillors and merchants bankroled Jamestown once they realized that tobacco was easily grown, not because they wanted a straight swap of resources but because it was profitable.
And while Drake or Frobisher may have simply been parasites on Spain's extraction of raw materials, you also have privateers like Sir John Hawkins who made his profits and career on breaking up monopolies on spanish trade in the New World.
I'm not saying these things didn't happen at all, I'm saying they didn't happen to such a degree that they had huge influence within the period.
Jamestown is a bit of a cheat, since it was founded outside of the period I was talking about (first 100 years of 1500-1800, ie up to end of Elizabeth's reign), and only became an important importer significantly later.
Spain was by far the wealthiest power of the 1500's; they didn't trade, they just imported bullion.
For every Hawkins, there were more Drakes snatching bullion ships. Piracy was the boom business, simply because making it to the New World was a damn sight harder and longer than hijacking off the Atlantic seaboard.
Wool trade is an example I already gave you. My point is that it is an exception to the period, not the rule. The rule was the Spanish model.
Second, the revenues for Elizabeth's government came from the granting of monopolies and taxation via the Commons. That is money made on the profits of trade, not on hoarding resources.
Third, the resources invested, frequency and profitability of voyages of trade to the orient for both private and public parties far exceeded the extractive model for any power other than Spain, so your conclusion is false for the other powers. Only in Spain was the model of extraction primary while trade was secondary.
I don't think the general rule of foreign policy in pursuit of the continual aggrendizement and advance of power is in any way disproved by anything that happened in this period, nor have you given any proof to the contrary. England was certainly playing imperial games in Ireland, Henry the VIII definately had dreams of military conquest in France and the union of Scotland and England under the Stuarts wasn't the product of some happy social reconciliation between the two.
So to hold up this period of general English weakness and claim that there was no underlaying dynamic of contest for supremacy strikes me as being somewhat false. Especially considering the shenanigans the Spanish were up to.
...separating them is just what you did when you undertook your premise that religion was the principle motivation for everything, as opposed to national interest or economic concerns.
Look, you're totally misatrributing ideas to me now.
Where did this argument start?
1500-1800 was pretty much a giant set of pissing matches between Britian, France and Spain with the dominant powers shfiting with each war. Lots of it was masked with the religion issue but it was really about who would be the dominant trading power in the world.
That is what I'm debating. I'm saying religion wasn't an 'issue' which masked the more important factor of trade. Religion was the key to the period, and trade, in either sense of the word, was not such a fundamental concern until a century afterwards when the colonies really got going.
I did not say there was no attempt to 'advance power', did I? In fact, I outlined a brief history of monarchs attempting precisely that (Charles V bringing the HRE and Spain together, Phillip II trying to bring England under Spanish control).
"So to hold up this period of general English weakness and claim that there was no underlaying dynamic of contest for supremacy strikes me as being somewhat false." ...and I didn't do that either, did I. I said Englandwas struggling for survival, because France / Spain were threatening to invade, which clearly involves conquest.
"...separating them is just what you did when you undertook your premise that religion was the principle motivation for everything, as opposed to national interest or economic concerns." ...once again, didn't say that. Please point out where I said religion was the sole principle motivation for everything, because I can point out where I said:
Trying to separate religion & politics in the 1500's is pretty much impossible; they were usually the same thing.
I also said religion was a driving factor, not a motivation. There is a subtle difference. Motivation implies that which is voluntarily introduced into your decision. A driving factor can force you to act whether you want to do so or not, because you cannot stop it even if you try.
The emergence of Lutheranism was a driving factor for Europe in the period. Threats from Catholic powers was a driving factor for Elizabeth. Wanting to turn England Catholic was a motivation of Phillip II. etc etc.
One, 1500-1650 is not a colonial period. In those first 100 years, about 2 European ships and some fishing boats hit America.
In posts after that I was actually refering to the second bit, ie the first 100 years, ie 1500-1600, ie end of Elizabeth's reign. It was confusing, sorry.
Second, the revenues for Elizabeth's government came from the granting of monopolies and taxation via the Commons. That is money made on the profits of trade, not on hoarding resources.
No, that is money partly made on the profits of trade. The majority of money for her reign was actually made domestically via other means; land taxes, stamp duty (huge one), taxation of course, but little of it applied to merchants until the last 10 years of her reign. Also, you might be misunderstanding the monopolies of the time; the majority of them were not trade monopolies. They were monopolies on certain powers, right of collection, right of action, or whatever Elizabeth could invent...and she only profited from the initial grant of the monopoly in most cases. A lot of the time, they were simply ways to pressure nobles into giving her money as fealty, with the actual powers granted being minimal.
Third, the resources invested, frequency and profitability of voyages of trade to the orient for both private and public parties far exceeded the extractive model for any power other than Spain, so your conclusion is false for the other powers. Only in Spain was the model of extraction primary while trade was secondary.
Since I'm assuming neither of us have researched the documentation of this particular aspect personally, I suspect our books might disagree on this. Certainly the stuff I've read concludes otherwise.
When I say monopolies partially funded her government, I mean she granted monopolies to people like the Cecils, Popham, Raleigh and Walsingham who then performed an official administrative function partially using the money.
The fact is it was an amazing increase in the taxes voted to her from the Commons that separated her from her ancestors, the Commons were filled with merchants and merchant interests and they were also, not so coincidentally the ones pushing for a more aggressive foreign policy against Spain who was threatening their commercial interests. Bottom line is that I think you are wrong to attribute more motivation to religion than is warranted and very much wrong to state that Elizabeth was insensible to the interests of trade.
Yes, thank you for repeating what I explained above, the pertinent point was that most of those monopolies did not revolve around trade, like you implied in post 56.
I didn't state Elizabeth was insensible to the interests of trade, I said the arguments here were overstating the importance of trade, and ignoring the fact that trade was changing aspect in the period; it did not have the sophistication of the colonial period, and merchants did not yet have the same power.
You are also misusing the word 'motivation' again. As I explained above, religion was a central moving factor to her policies because it was a primary motivation for her enemies, even though it might not have been a strong motivation for Elizabeth personally - she certainly sat on the fence for long enough. If you don't see that religion was utterly central to a historical period named after the Reformation, then you really haven't studied the period fully. I can't think of a single serious early modern historian who doesn't consider the religious upheaval of Protestantism to be the cornerstone of pretty much all aspects of 16th century European history.
I don't know what your background is in studying the period, but it's quite baffling to me that you don't seem to realise this.
PS Your argument that for the first time the Commons was filled with merchants, who voted her an amazing increase in taxes, and she made most of her money from taxes on trade, has a fairly obvious reality gap in it. Merchants voting to tax themselves? Where are you getting this from?
Religion as an influence is certainly key when you're looking at social history, but when you're looking at foreign relations from that period you have to take into account the fact that this was largely personal politics. I studied Spanish/English foreign relations from this for an honours course, and this was largely a political power game, not a religious jihad. Applying a "motivation" to Elizabeth seems to be a misapprehension to my mind - she was a pragmatist through and through - she didn't have an underlying ethos beyond survival.
EDIT: And although I think Shinto is overstating the importance a bit, Netherlands-English trade was a key aspect of the conflict - esp. re. the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands, and the rising importance of English trading cartels. But it has been a long time since I've studied this.
PS Your argument that for the first time the Commons was filled with merchants, who voted her an amazing increase in taxes, and she made most of her money from taxes on trade, has a fairly obvious reality gap in it. Merchants voting to tax themselves? Where are you getting this from?
Elizabeth getting the Commons to vote her tax money in all but one of the Parliaments during her reign, due to William Cecil's masterful maneuvering. This even though taxation was traditionally only something voted to the monarch for emergencies.
I stated that the funds for her government were partially provided by the granting of monopolies to public officials like Walsingham and partially from taxation. The crown lands had become increasingly insufficient to provide all the funds necessary for the government under all the Tudor monarchs - even during the Wars of the Roses the rallying cry of the party out of power was always discontent at the monarch's inability to live within their means.
The increasingly professional central administration of the country cost more money and Elizabeth went to the rising middle class to provide it. Christ man, she spent half of her time figuring out ways for other people to pay for what she wanted.
I think you are overstating the importance of the religious conflict by not separating out the normal power struggles which went under the guise of religion during the period. Like the Cold War ideology was a tool of geopolitics, seldom the driver.
Religion as an influence is certainly key when you're looking at social history, but when you're looking at foreign relations from that period you have to take into account the fact that this was largely personal politics. I studied Spanish/English foreign relations from this for an honours course, and this was largely a political power game, not a religious jihad. Applying a "motivation" to Elizabeth seems to be a misapprehension to my mind - she was a pragmatist through and through - she didn't have an underlying ethos beyond survival.
EDIT: And although I think Shinto is overstating the importance a bit, Netherlands-English trade was a key aspect of the conflict - esp. re. the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands, and the rising importance of English trading cartels. But it has been a long time since I've studied this.
It might help if you directed your comments a little more specifically.
One, I was pointing out the importance of religion as the driving factor in both domestic & international spheres throughout Europe, throughout the period. I also said exactly the same as you re: not applying religious 'motivation' to Elizabeth.
Two, yes it was a political power game, but you both seem to dismiss the degree to which the religious issue had:
Influenced the background (Philip II marrying Mary I and being involved in England to start with, importance to English domestic politics of Elizabeth...well, not being Catholic, put it that way)
Influenced the players (Elizabeth's susceptability to Catholic-Protestant power struggles, threat of foreign-supported regicide - almost unheard of - and angling to put MQoS on throne both due to religion, Phillip II being under great pressure from the Pope to support the faith in the absence of a strong HRE & as de facto protector of the faith heir to Charles V, Phillip II own strongly held personal beliefs)
Influenced their allies (France's tenuous position, at war with Spain, internal religious north-south war, differing religion to Elizabeth, French influence on installing Catholic MQoS in increasingly Protestant Scotland; Dutch Protestant revolt against Catholic Spain, Protestant Dutch alliance with Protestant England)
Influenced their choices (Elizabeth's percieved protestantism / later excommunication meaning appeals to the Pope, HRE & other potential mediators impossible, Phillip II being forced to acede to the Pope's wishes as Habsburg/HRE heir to maintain support for his war on France)
To argue that any of these people, in any particular decision, were concerned primarily about theological issues of transubstantiation is obviously simplistic, but also isn't even remotely what I've written. Shinto, in particular, the limits of your unwillingness to write a detailed argument are showing. What I have been arguing is that the massive religious upheavel of the period split everyone into two camps; since there was quite literally no crossover between these camps, princes were railroaded into their choice of allies & policy by religious factors. Not always because they wanted to, but because they had no other choice.
@Zsetrek; personal politics was religious politics. The first and foremost question of personality was: are they the same religion as me? Every major alliance of the period in Europe was between co-religionists. Every potential alliance that Elizabeth courted had the caveat of co-religion, or with Catholic states, her conversion - her potential and much-needed alliances with France/Spain foundered on her refusal to explicitly convert. Again, it wasn't usually because of personal preference of princes. It was because where a Catholic prince ruled over Protestants, they found rebellion; Spain and the Dutch revolt, HRE and peasant reformer revolts & northern German princes, French Huegenots & the Wars of Religion, Mary I (had she lived) was under serious threat of a Protestant revolt in England. Trying to separate the influence of religion on social, domestic and foreign issues is simply wrong, because they each informed the other. Lutheranism influenced German nationalism & social change, just as social reformers allied with Lutheran religious reformers; Calvinism influenced Swiss nationalism & emerging independence; Protestantism became a banner for Navarre Huguenots striving to separate from the French crown. Religion was politics, was society, was foreign relations.
Does that mean they were all fundamentalists? No. But it does mean that viewing religion as a seperate issue only used as superficial justification for political ends is a deeply flawed view imposing a 20th century mindset on the period. Religion wasn't the ends, it wasn't usually the means; it was the battlefield, it was the stage that they played on, and as such it set the limits of what could and could not be achieved in almost every area.
@Shinto, I think you are understating the importance of religious conflict with (as of yet) no reference to fact or examples, in the face of a big shitload of them from me. I am very interested to hear where your evidence comes from, and in what field of study you encountered it. I spent quite a while on early modern European history (Elizabethan / Jacobean), and as I said, if you can show me a historian who disagrees that religion was utterly fundamental, I can show you ten who don't.
Oh, and you again failed to address my specific point re: taxation, which were that you linked taxation & monopolies to trade. I don't dispute what you said about administration, a rising middle class, extraordinary taxation etc. It would be nice if you admitted that the vast majority of this was still based on taxing landowners, granting monopolies on collection (ie road tolls) or production rights (ie Stamp duty), and not on merchants or trade. Also, if you look at the Hansard records of the period, you will see that until the 1593 Parliament, there were very few 'new money' merchant names in the House of Commons, and not a significant voting bloc until well into the Jacobean period in the 17th century. So, for over 30 of Elizabeth's 45 years in power, few merchant MP's, and not a significant number until after her death. Hardly "the Commons filling with merchants and merchant interests", or them voting an amazing increases in taxes on trade. Point being; she didn't make much money off taxing trade.
I don't deny that England-Netherlands trade wasn't important. It just wasn't nearly the level of activity or importance you seem to think. Even so, I'm interested to hear again how in your claim you square significant merchant influence in the Commons with them voting significant taxation on trade, ie voting to make themselves poorer?
Um... I'm looking forward to this movie. Geoffry Rush and Cate Blanchett were amazing in the first one, and Clive Owen as Raleigh seems like it can't miss.
Admittedly, I wouldn't be half as interested in these movies if Elizabeth weren't so awesome in Civ 4.
I don't think anyone is trying to re-imagine the Reformation as a secular spat, but surely you have to acknowledge that modern re-interpretations of the period that attempt to frame and analyse the conflicts within an economic/Marxist interpretation have at least some degree of merit.
Logically - England was an island nation, and dependent to greater and lesser degrees on foreign goods to survive. Because of her relative isolation, trade ties were more significant and problematic than they were for those continental countries with land borders. Combine that with a rising merchant class flexing new-found political voice and power (not ness. as members of parliament), a relatively weak crown heavily dependent on domestic support, and a poorly-developed trading structure that faced massive upheaval at the end of the Burgundian Alliance and pressures from the subsequent war - I think there's a strong case to be made that trade and economic pressures were a significant influence on England's policies.
Yes trade was a minor (but growing) source of income. That does not lessen its historical importance, or render it unworthy of consideration. Elizabeth's reign is a goldmine for the economic historian - so much of her policy was directed at repairing the damage done by the war to the economy. From my experience, Shinto's views are not uncommon, nor are they amazingly controversial.
if you can show me a historian who disagrees that religion was utterly fundamental, I can show you ten who don't.
If historiography was really about amassing ranks of dead men behind your argument, we'd still believe in a whole heap of outdated and stodgy theories.
Read an interesting work a few years back that focused on the influence of the navy/sea upon England/Britain till 1649 (part of a three part series - the third part is still outstanding - the scope is 660AD to Now). Mainly interesting because his focus is the sea - so while he goes into some depth on the events of the age he spends far more time looking at say the economics of naval construction and that kind of thing - really changed my thinking on a lot of stuff, as well as sucking the romance out of the Royal Navy
If historiography was really about amassing ranks of dead men behind your argument, we'd still believe in a whole heap of outdated and stodgy theories.
Ok, fair enough, stick modern in front of historian; it still applies.
First, let's get the stuff where we agree out of the way first. Yes, trade was minor but growing, that was pretty much the sum of my argument. Yes, it is very useful to study as the starting point of mercantilism (or the precursor to actual with the Spanish model), as well as various other studies of economic effects because it was a comparatively simple system (European inflation brought on by the bullion influx, for example). Yes, trade was an influence on policy, but far from the level of importance of given in the previous pages. No, the fact that trade was a relatively minor factor in the economy at the time does not mean it is historically unimportant.
But neither does it mean you can retrospectively apply that importance as if they realised it at the time; that is simply bad history. It is common among all kinds of academics to apply their models or disciplines to explaining all sorts of behaviour where it does not belong, but it is still wrong. Personally I think economics has the potential to model more than almost any other social science, but that doesn't mean I am right in applying that belief to a period where economic theory or discussion simply didn't exist. Early modern merchants & governments had one aim; amass precious metals, convert them into currency. That was it. The systems which were being created at the time may well have been fundamental to later economic systems, but that does not mean they intended to create those systems.
This argument started off someone stating confidently that all the European power struggles from 1500-1800 were essentially nations fighting to become the dominant trading power. Not that we, today, see the dominance of trade in the 19th century as of key importance, but that they, in 1500+, were driving towards it. That is simply wrong, and it demonstrates serious intellectual traps; it assumes knowledge from hindsight, and it assumes primacy of one discipline. It is bad history, and bad social science.
I've only recently revisited this period in IPE terms, and if the view above is not uncommon, then those in the field need a serious kicking.
Second, by all means analyse the economics of the period. But if you analyse the period with an economic interpretation, you have already lost; nobody in the period realised the importance of economic theory. How exactly was it meant to influence them? Aside from the most basic problems of supply & financing wars, there was no economic thought, and that which existed (ie supply & financing) was universally accepted, and did not vary from nation to nation. The differences between Spain & England/Dutch in trading vs bullion did not arise because the English/Dutch prefered the benefits of complex trade; it occured because Spain had access to vast quantities of silver, and the English/Dutch had to first trade their resources to get their hands on silver. You might as well examine the period through an aviation interpretation; sure, Da Vinci drew a helicopter, but nobody took to the air for 400 years.
Aside from the obvious example of Spain losing a rich trading province when the Netherlands revolted, I cannot think of a single early modern conflict where economic/financial issues were predominant...and why did the Dutch revolt? Though not the only reason, Protestantism played a massive part.
Third, to Marxist / constructivist interpretation of the period. I haven't actually seen any of it (authors?), or at least if I have, it has been mild enough that I haven't noticed it. In principle, there should be no problem; after all, most academics of the above bent will consider religion as simply a social construct which is a factor in the constructivist approach. That is fine, I'm not a Godbotherer, and I don't much care about the semantics of what religion is.
My only problem would be if they played down the part of religion in favour of more nationalist / emancipatory motivations for social change. Both co-existed, and the Reformation was clearly the deux ex machina of the period; anyone who pedals ideas of nationalism 150 years before nation states even began to coalesce post-Westphalia; or anyone who pedals Munster, the Anabaptists & the Peasant's Revolt as some kind of worker consciousness centuries before suffrage or even the basest form of emancipation in the late 18th century, is just trying to extend their research grant. Though the above happened, they were small-scale, and were quickly, severely and completely eradicated by all sides of the conflicts. Their importance lies in the bloody demonstration that Europe was not yet prepared for such ideas. Compared to the religious tenor of the period, they were a squeak - oh, and were also characterised by religion: ie Anabaptists.
Oh, in case you haven't realised, I also have a serious wariness of recent political theory being retrospectively applied to the whole of history, mostly because - as has been demonstrated by the constant supercedence of the latest theory for the last 40 years - it doesn't bloody work. In my experience, actual historians tend to get much better results by simply constructing a narrative from a grasp of the facts, than any political theorist trying to apply his chosen field to explain the entirety of human existence.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
Er, so... did anyone actually see it?
I just got back from it. Not nearly as drawn out as the first; they blended period drama with a war film, almost.
I enjoyed it, but I'm pretty sure that was a different actress playing Mary(Queen of Scots).
Is it wrong I was waiting for Barbossa to show up during the fleet battles? He was there, after all.
To me it's blatantly obvious that both commerce and religion played a role in that period.
Are you discussing to what extent they played a role?
In my eyes, religion was a mere excuse for armed conflict and the acquisition of territory and resources. It's difficult for me to believe that a relatively advanced civilization isn't motivated by money.
In my eyes, religion was a mere excuse for armed conflict and the acquisition of territory and resources. It's difficult for me to believe that a relatively advanced civilization isn't motivated by money.
Yes, quite a few people have said this now. Does anyone have any actual evidence to back this idea up, or is it simply a skeptical / liberal worldview which denies that people ever really act on their beliefs. (If not, doesn't the fact that your view is based on your own beliefs not, well, tell you something?)
Suicide bombers just do it for the cash, and the Crusades were actually about trade, m i rite? Really, I'm interested to see where this slightly puzzling denial of a fundamental aspect of European history comes from.
[By the way, your idea re: "acquisition of territory and resources" doesn't quite explain how the vast majority of the religious conflict during the Reformation was in fact 3rd party powers lending aid to co-religionists in other countries. Halting that trend was the fundamental tenet of Westphalia. Point being, they weren't getting either territory or resources out of the deal.]
If religion was the primary motivation Spain and France would have been stalwart allies throughout. Instead if you look at the later part of this period Spain and France fought nearly as much with each other as they did with England.
If religion was the primary motivation Spain and France would have been stalwart allies throughout.
Instead if you look at the later part of this period Spain and France fought nearly as much with each other as they did with England.
Rubbish. Aside from that being an enormously simplistic extrapolation of the idea that religion was a (I didn't say 'the', and I went on at length about the misuse of 'motivation') primary factor during the period, it doesn't account for the facts. There were divisions within Catholic Europe just as there were within Protestant Europe (ie Calvinist Swiss / Protestant Germany). Fact is that France were rather badly behaved towards the Papacy, had a habit of ignoring Papal Bulls & encroaching on Italian city-state territory against the express command of the Pope. Spain tended to be much more devout & responsive to Papal commands, for example, taking a stick to French behinds. Furthermore, when Charles V was HRE & King of Spain, dating back to before Luther, there were numerous territory disputes between him & France on the HRE border; this animosity carried on into the Spanish royal family for the next century, as well as being stoked by both France & Spain claiming parts of the semi-autonomous provinces around the Pyrenees (Aragon, Navarre, the Hugenot lands).
You can subscribe to this kind of bullet-point history where only one or two things matter, all attributes are absolute & uncontradictory, and events happen at the flick of a switch ("Oh no Charlie! Luther stuck a letter on the church door!" "France, Spain, Italy UNITE! CatholicCats are go!" du du du du, du du duuuh, dudu dudu duuuuuh...), but don't attribute it to me, please.
Just because stomping on Protestants was important to both of them, doesn't automatically mean they weren't liable to stomp on each other. Alliances tended to be stronger within Protestant Europe because, well, there were less of them, and they generally the underdogs.
If you read the spoiler in my post, you'd realize I was being a wee bit facetious.
I do believe it's ridiculous that you require evidence for an opinion. :P
To support Sarastro, I employ a time-honored friend-wikipedia:
She therefore was led to support religious toleration in the shape of the Edict of Saint-Germain (1562), which allowed the Huguenots to worship publicly outside of towns and privately inside of them. On March 1, however, a faction of the Guise family's retainers attacked a Calvinist service in Wassy-sur-Blaise in Champagne and massacred the worshippers. As hostilities broke out, the Edict was revoked, under pressure from the Guise faction.
This provoked the First War.
The above quote indicates that religion was clearly a major factor in war, as sarastro has been saying.
Posts
I hardly see how you don't think they saw it as important. For example the entire British banking system was built around breaking spanish gold as the currency of trade.
One, 1500-1650 is not a colonial period. In those first 100 years, about 2 European ships and some fishing boats hit America. That's it.
Two, overgeneralising is not smart, especially when you assume knowledge only gained from hindsight and apply it to the actors of the day.
I think your premise that they realize that trade was important is way way off.
Like bafflingly off. I don't even know how you would have come by that idea.
The Spanish conquered the Aztecs and Incas, set up major fort/town/ports in the Carribean/Gulf of Mexico and exported so much silver and gold to Europe that it made them a super power. Huge, yearly treasure fleets.
The Portuguese established a huge network of ports/forts along the coast of Africa and conducted immensely profitable trade.
The Dutch, English, French and Portuguese all begin extremely regular trading missions to the orient which regularly returned upwards of 3000% profit.
Pirates like Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Martin Frobisher and others become national heroes in England and bring back stunning amounts of wealth - because trading ships were carrying alot of wealth.
Colonies are established at Baffin Island (Martin Frobisher), in Maine (John Popham), in Massachussetts (Pilgrims) and in Virginia (Walter Raleigh) to create a base from which to launch pirate raids on the Spanish treasure ships, find a northwest passage to the Orient and duplicate Spain's success in extracting valuable resources.
And that is just the global style trade. The rising English middle class, represented in an increasingly powerful House of Commons, is the bedrock of the Tudor Monarch's strength as they compete for dominance with the nobility. The wool trade with the Low Countries was of huge economic consequence and importance to the London Merchants who were increasingly footing the bill for Elizabeth's government. The fact that national taxation via the Commons and the granting of monopolies on trade items were the two mainstays of funding for Elizabethan government alone show both the vital role of trade and the attentiveness of government to it.
Also, English ships could tack against the wind, which was essential to maneuvering in the Channel and their cannons could shoot further.
If I recall, the gun carriages* were the sort that don't automatically roll back when the canon is fired, making it insanely difficult to reload during combat. Hence, shitty ships for the purpose of warfare.
And their plan was retarded because they forgot that the telephone had not yet been invented. You don't trust two massive groups to meet in time on the seas in the 1500s. Maybe on land. But Jesus, weather can fuck you so hard.
I read this shit for fun. I just didn't bring my books with me... :x
*I forget the terminology, and my knowledge of the specifics of the engineering is spotty, but I remember that they were somewhat beyond retarded about their guns.
You are totally ignoring the massive ripple effect that the outbreak of Protestantism had. Yes, it also involved national interest, but largely due to the fact that monarchs or lords suddenly found there was a new facet of loyalty they had to deal with. Put simply, if you were of a different religion to your monarch, you were often considered a rebel.
Charles V (HRE) got the ball rolling partly because Lutheranism started out in his own lands, and the obvious connection (Holy Roman Emperor) with the Catholic Church; he quickly discovered, partly due to having a newly vast empire to run (he inherited Spain as well), that religious rebellion was a Bad Thing, and thus to stop it, it was preferable to stamp out the religion - even though initially, he was inclined to treat Luther more leniently. Similarly, the new Protestants discovered they had few friends, and so started banding together. Various German electors looked to the Netherlands, and the south of France.
This frightened the Catholics even more, especially because the perennial war between France & Spain meant they couldn't consolidate their power. Also, there were plenty of monarchs who were simply religious zealots, and wouldn't tolerate Protestantism on principle; Phillip II is a good example, as are some of the many French kings, though they usually died too quickly to make a difference. Europe quickly became two armed camps, based around religion, and de facto at war with each other.
Elizabeth inherited into this mix. The whole crux of her succession problems was that she was Protestant; Spain had thought they had England down pat in the Catholic camp with Mary I on the throne and a Spanish husband - Phillip II, who later sent the Armada. Elizabeth's first priority was not national influence, but national survival. From the very beginning, she played games with France & Spain - the two major Catholic powers threatening to invade, what was left of the HRE was tearing itself apart - re: her intentions and her true religious beliefs. France was particularly dangerous due to their strong links with Scotland, the Auld Alliance; one of the reasons Mary Queen of Scots was so important. She also had plenty of other problems in the bag, most involving religion; a woman in a man's job with a variety of Catholic nobles wanting her relatives on the throne, constant upheaval in Ireland for the usual reasons & also influenced by Irish Catholicism, and so on.
She wasn't much dealing with national economic self-interest. England's development as a trading power (which was fairly limited during her reign) largely came from domestic tax/regulation decisions arrived at by the Privy Council, and latterly Elizabeth allowing privateers a free reign, engendering the basis of what would later become the British Navy.
For many years, Elizabeth played off France & Spain against each other with hints that she would marry into either family, and convert to Catholicism (ie taking England with her). As her reign progressed, they stopped believing her; it took too long, she executed MQoS, she was excommunicated, and so on. Those last two were a final straw, and Phillip started plans for the Armada.
Finally, you forget one major point in your argument; the Dutch were the primary trading power in the region, and they were much more Protestant than England. Spain (and previously the HRE) had been at war with the Dutch for most of the period, largely due to Dutch support to the German Protestant princes (remember, Charles V of the HRE was also Charles I of Spain). The Netherlands, originally an HRE province, had been bequeathed to Spain after Charles V died. As Philip II aceded the throne; they revolted against Spain. If the Spanish were really so concerned about trade, the Armada would have been sailing to Antwerp to reclaim their vitally important trading province, and Parma's army would not have been wasted on England, but stayed in the Netherlands where it was. Removing England was only removing a nominal ally to the Dutch; Elizabeth only ever sent one paltry and useless army to support her Protestant friends in the Low Countries, and her flirting with Spain & France didn't exactly burnish the English-Dutch friendship.
Phillip II invaded England because he wanted England. He didn't want England because it was a major trading power (it was not). He didn't want England because of her vast natural resources (she didn't have any). He did view England as rightfully his (from his marriage to Mary I). He did have a serious Catholic streak and tendency to beat down Protestantism. He also seems to have had a fairly bureaucratic mind that didn't deal well with disorganization, and thus a sense that he should restore both the Netherlands and England to their 'rightful' place in the Spanish empire.
@Shinto: Elizabeth wasn't so concerned about national interest because she was focused on personal and national survival. It is often overlooked that both of those were under serious threat during her reign.
@nexus: Hopefully I've outlined the importance of religion and how it was inextricably tied into issues of national soverignty over the period. Essentially, new Protestant princes also tended to be rebelling against an old Catholic prince; northern Germany, southern France, Netherlands, all had that characteristic. Thus religion was national interest.
...and I'm not even going into the many examples of pure religious zealotry carried out which seriously affected national policy. Shinto mentioned one earlier, The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, but there were similar near genocides in parts of Germany, and let's not forget the good ole' Spanish Inquisition. Religion seriously mattered to these people in a way we don't quite get nowadays.
And the St. Bartholomew massacre was as much about political influence and consolidating control as it was the religious fervor of the mob.
Fixed that for you.
We are talking about two seperate things, because of the 1500-1800 period. You are using examples of the Spanish & Dutch & to a small extent English bringing rare resources from new worlds to their countries in the old world, in the 16th and first part of the 17th centuries. That isn't technically trade, it is exploiting new sources of wealth within the empire; the Spanish in particular never let much of their colonial wealth outside of Spain, they used the gold to bankroll their wars. The Dutch did more actual trading, but again used most of it immediately to bankroll their rebellion against the Spanish. The English pretty much just snatched what they could via privateers from the Spanish; more theft than trade. The general principle of this wealth going into European states in the 1500's was that it was valuated, that valuation added to the treasury of the monarch, and then he used that value to immediately commission troops, ships, weapons.
If you want to look at real trading powers in the 1500's, though they were in decline, you're talking about the Italian city states.
I was talking about what happened towards the end of the 17th and 18th centuries, which is the development of serious trading empires around the world, serious systems & institutions of banking, trading and insurance which supported them, and the navies to project power around the world. That is what most historians mean when they talk about the emergence of dominant trading powers (well, Britain) in the world for the 1500-1800 period. When I say that in the 1500's, no monarchs realised the importance of trade, I mean just that. They realised the importance of gold, and spices, and so on. They tangentially realised the importance of trade in a very simple straight swap of differing surplus resources (your wool trade example is a good one), but they did not realise you could build an economy purely on trading itself, without actual control of those resources.
Though the colonies & later India were engines providing rare resources that drove the British empire towards the end of that period, the machinery was the institutions & economic ideas which made the most of those resources. Spain, in the 1500's, imported vastly more wealth in gold and silver from South America than the British did in later centuries from their colonies (calculated by economists, given that gold & silver were still the base units of worth in the later times); the trick was that British merchants had realised the subjective value of a thing, had a more developed understanding of markets & economics, and used it to great effect.
Read what I wrote. I said national influence, not national interest - we were talking about some mythical march towards being a dominant power, which falls under the remit of 'influence' I think. Though national survival might also be in the national interest, national influence is not necessary for national survival. Yes?
Quite. Consolidating control to get rid of hundreds & thousands of pesky Protestants who had a tendency to rebel and war with the king. I'm not talking about the religous fervour of mobs; I'm saying that the religious problems or beliefs of monarchs were the most severe threat to their domestic political control or foreign policies. Trying to separate religion & politics in the 1500's is pretty much impossible; they were usually the same thing.
Also, they didn't appreciate spices because they tasted good, they appreciated them because they got a cut of the profits of selling them. Elizabeth appreciated the trade in wool not because she loved nicely manufactured Dutch wool garments but because that was what made the London merchants who paid her taxes wealthy. Privy councillors and merchants bankroled Jamestown once they realized that tobacco was easily grown, not because they wanted a straight swap of resources but because it was profitable.
And while Drake or Frobisher may have simply been parasites on Spain's extraction of raw materials, you also have privateers like Sir John Hawkins who made his profits and career on breaking up monopolies on spanish trade in the New World.
I don't think the general rule of foreign policy in pursuit of the continual aggrendizement and advance of power is in any way disproved by anything that happened in this period, nor have you given any proof to the contrary. England was certainly playing imperial games in Ireland, Henry the VIII definately had dreams of military conquest in France and the union of Scotland and England under the Stuarts wasn't the product of some happy social reconciliation between the two.
So to hold up this period of general English weakness and claim that there was no underlaying dynamic of contest for supremacy strikes me as being somewhat false. Especially considering the shenanigans the Spanish were up to.
But separating them is just what you did when you undertook your premise that religion was the principle motivation for everything, as opposed to national interest or economic concerns.
No, I was arguing that the definition & character of trade changes drastically between those two periods, so the initial sweeping statement encompassing trade in 1500-1800 is bound to be false. Also, as below, you overestimate the importance of trade to the period. The focus for countries was still on hoarding resources, not benefiting by spreading them around.
I'm not saying these things didn't happen at all, I'm saying they didn't happen to such a degree that they had huge influence within the period.
Jamestown is a bit of a cheat, since it was founded outside of the period I was talking about (first 100 years of 1500-1800, ie up to end of Elizabeth's reign), and only became an important importer significantly later.
Spain was by far the wealthiest power of the 1500's; they didn't trade, they just imported bullion.
For every Hawkins, there were more Drakes snatching bullion ships. Piracy was the boom business, simply because making it to the New World was a damn sight harder and longer than hijacking off the Atlantic seaboard.
Wool trade is an example I already gave you. My point is that it is an exception to the period, not the rule. The rule was the Spanish model.
Second, the revenues for Elizabeth's government came from the granting of monopolies and taxation via the Commons. That is money made on the profits of trade, not on hoarding resources.
Third, the resources invested, frequency and profitability of voyages of trade to the orient for both private and public parties far exceeded the extractive model for any power other than Spain, so your conclusion is false for the other powers. Only in Spain was the model of extraction primary while trade was secondary.
Look, you're totally misatrributing ideas to me now.
Where did this argument start?
That is what I'm debating. I'm saying religion wasn't an 'issue' which masked the more important factor of trade. Religion was the key to the period, and trade, in either sense of the word, was not such a fundamental concern until a century afterwards when the colonies really got going.
I did not say there was no attempt to 'advance power', did I? In fact, I outlined a brief history of monarchs attempting precisely that (Charles V bringing the HRE and Spain together, Phillip II trying to bring England under Spanish control).
"So to hold up this period of general English weakness and claim that there was no underlaying dynamic of contest for supremacy strikes me as being somewhat false." ...and I didn't do that either, did I. I said Englandwas struggling for survival, because France / Spain were threatening to invade, which clearly involves conquest.
"...separating them is just what you did when you undertook your premise that religion was the principle motivation for everything, as opposed to national interest or economic concerns." ...once again, didn't say that. Please point out where I said religion was the sole principle motivation for everything, because I can point out where I said:
I also said religion was a driving factor, not a motivation. There is a subtle difference. Motivation implies that which is voluntarily introduced into your decision. A driving factor can force you to act whether you want to do so or not, because you cannot stop it even if you try.
The emergence of Lutheranism was a driving factor for Europe in the period. Threats from Catholic powers was a driving factor for Elizabeth. Wanting to turn England Catholic was a motivation of Phillip II. etc etc.
Glad we could clear that up?
In posts after that I was actually refering to the second bit, ie the first 100 years, ie 1500-1600, ie end of Elizabeth's reign. It was confusing, sorry.
No, that is money partly made on the profits of trade. The majority of money for her reign was actually made domestically via other means; land taxes, stamp duty (huge one), taxation of course, but little of it applied to merchants until the last 10 years of her reign. Also, you might be misunderstanding the monopolies of the time; the majority of them were not trade monopolies. They were monopolies on certain powers, right of collection, right of action, or whatever Elizabeth could invent...and she only profited from the initial grant of the monopoly in most cases. A lot of the time, they were simply ways to pressure nobles into giving her money as fealty, with the actual powers granted being minimal.
Since I'm assuming neither of us have researched the documentation of this particular aspect personally, I suspect our books might disagree on this. Certainly the stuff I've read concludes otherwise.
The fact is it was an amazing increase in the taxes voted to her from the Commons that separated her from her ancestors, the Commons were filled with merchants and merchant interests and they were also, not so coincidentally the ones pushing for a more aggressive foreign policy against Spain who was threatening their commercial interests. Bottom line is that I think you are wrong to attribute more motivation to religion than is warranted and very much wrong to state that Elizabeth was insensible to the interests of trade.
I didn't state Elizabeth was insensible to the interests of trade, I said the arguments here were overstating the importance of trade, and ignoring the fact that trade was changing aspect in the period; it did not have the sophistication of the colonial period, and merchants did not yet have the same power.
You are also misusing the word 'motivation' again. As I explained above, religion was a central moving factor to her policies because it was a primary motivation for her enemies, even though it might not have been a strong motivation for Elizabeth personally - she certainly sat on the fence for long enough. If you don't see that religion was utterly central to a historical period named after the Reformation, then you really haven't studied the period fully. I can't think of a single serious early modern historian who doesn't consider the religious upheaval of Protestantism to be the cornerstone of pretty much all aspects of 16th century European history.
I don't know what your background is in studying the period, but it's quite baffling to me that you don't seem to realise this.
PS Your argument that for the first time the Commons was filled with merchants, who voted her an amazing increase in taxes, and she made most of her money from taxes on trade, has a fairly obvious reality gap in it. Merchants voting to tax themselves? Where are you getting this from?
EDIT: And although I think Shinto is overstating the importance a bit, Netherlands-English trade was a key aspect of the conflict - esp. re. the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands, and the rising importance of English trading cartels. But it has been a long time since I've studied this.
Elizabeth getting the Commons to vote her tax money in all but one of the Parliaments during her reign, due to William Cecil's masterful maneuvering. This even though taxation was traditionally only something voted to the monarch for emergencies.
I stated that the funds for her government were partially provided by the granting of monopolies to public officials like Walsingham and partially from taxation. The crown lands had become increasingly insufficient to provide all the funds necessary for the government under all the Tudor monarchs - even during the Wars of the Roses the rallying cry of the party out of power was always discontent at the monarch's inability to live within their means.
The increasingly professional central administration of the country cost more money and Elizabeth went to the rising middle class to provide it. Christ man, she spent half of her time figuring out ways for other people to pay for what she wanted.
I think you are overstating the importance of the religious conflict by not separating out the normal power struggles which went under the guise of religion during the period. Like the Cold War ideology was a tool of geopolitics, seldom the driver.
It might help if you directed your comments a little more specifically.
One, I was pointing out the importance of religion as the driving factor in both domestic & international spheres throughout Europe, throughout the period. I also said exactly the same as you re: not applying religious 'motivation' to Elizabeth.
Two, yes it was a political power game, but you both seem to dismiss the degree to which the religious issue had:
Influenced the background (Philip II marrying Mary I and being involved in England to start with, importance to English domestic politics of Elizabeth...well, not being Catholic, put it that way)
Influenced the players (Elizabeth's susceptability to Catholic-Protestant power struggles, threat of foreign-supported regicide - almost unheard of - and angling to put MQoS on throne both due to religion, Phillip II being under great pressure from the Pope to support the faith in the absence of a strong HRE & as de facto protector of the faith heir to Charles V, Phillip II own strongly held personal beliefs)
Influenced their allies (France's tenuous position, at war with Spain, internal religious north-south war, differing religion to Elizabeth, French influence on installing Catholic MQoS in increasingly Protestant Scotland; Dutch Protestant revolt against Catholic Spain, Protestant Dutch alliance with Protestant England)
Influenced their choices (Elizabeth's percieved protestantism / later excommunication meaning appeals to the Pope, HRE & other potential mediators impossible, Phillip II being forced to acede to the Pope's wishes as Habsburg/HRE heir to maintain support for his war on France)
To argue that any of these people, in any particular decision, were concerned primarily about theological issues of transubstantiation is obviously simplistic, but also isn't even remotely what I've written. Shinto, in particular, the limits of your unwillingness to write a detailed argument are showing. What I have been arguing is that the massive religious upheavel of the period split everyone into two camps; since there was quite literally no crossover between these camps, princes were railroaded into their choice of allies & policy by religious factors. Not always because they wanted to, but because they had no other choice.
@Zsetrek; personal politics was religious politics. The first and foremost question of personality was: are they the same religion as me? Every major alliance of the period in Europe was between co-religionists. Every potential alliance that Elizabeth courted had the caveat of co-religion, or with Catholic states, her conversion - her potential and much-needed alliances with France/Spain foundered on her refusal to explicitly convert. Again, it wasn't usually because of personal preference of princes. It was because where a Catholic prince ruled over Protestants, they found rebellion; Spain and the Dutch revolt, HRE and peasant reformer revolts & northern German princes, French Huegenots & the Wars of Religion, Mary I (had she lived) was under serious threat of a Protestant revolt in England. Trying to separate the influence of religion on social, domestic and foreign issues is simply wrong, because they each informed the other. Lutheranism influenced German nationalism & social change, just as social reformers allied with Lutheran religious reformers; Calvinism influenced Swiss nationalism & emerging independence; Protestantism became a banner for Navarre Huguenots striving to separate from the French crown. Religion was politics, was society, was foreign relations.
Does that mean they were all fundamentalists? No. But it does mean that viewing religion as a seperate issue only used as superficial justification for political ends is a deeply flawed view imposing a 20th century mindset on the period. Religion wasn't the ends, it wasn't usually the means; it was the battlefield, it was the stage that they played on, and as such it set the limits of what could and could not be achieved in almost every area.
@Shinto, I think you are understating the importance of religious conflict with (as of yet) no reference to fact or examples, in the face of a big shitload of them from me. I am very interested to hear where your evidence comes from, and in what field of study you encountered it. I spent quite a while on early modern European history (Elizabethan / Jacobean), and as I said, if you can show me a historian who disagrees that religion was utterly fundamental, I can show you ten who don't.
Oh, and you again failed to address my specific point re: taxation, which were that you linked taxation & monopolies to trade. I don't dispute what you said about administration, a rising middle class, extraordinary taxation etc. It would be nice if you admitted that the vast majority of this was still based on taxing landowners, granting monopolies on collection (ie road tolls) or production rights (ie Stamp duty), and not on merchants or trade. Also, if you look at the Hansard records of the period, you will see that until the 1593 Parliament, there were very few 'new money' merchant names in the House of Commons, and not a significant voting bloc until well into the Jacobean period in the 17th century. So, for over 30 of Elizabeth's 45 years in power, few merchant MP's, and not a significant number until after her death. Hardly "the Commons filling with merchants and merchant interests", or them voting an amazing increases in taxes on trade. Point being; she didn't make much money off taxing trade.
I don't deny that England-Netherlands trade wasn't important. It just wasn't nearly the level of activity or importance you seem to think. Even so, I'm interested to hear again how in your claim you square significant merchant influence in the Commons with them voting significant taxation on trade, ie voting to make themselves poorer?
Admittedly, I wouldn't be half as interested in these movies if Elizabeth weren't so awesome in Civ 4.
Logically - England was an island nation, and dependent to greater and lesser degrees on foreign goods to survive. Because of her relative isolation, trade ties were more significant and problematic than they were for those continental countries with land borders. Combine that with a rising merchant class flexing new-found political voice and power (not ness. as members of parliament), a relatively weak crown heavily dependent on domestic support, and a poorly-developed trading structure that faced massive upheaval at the end of the Burgundian Alliance and pressures from the subsequent war - I think there's a strong case to be made that trade and economic pressures were a significant influence on England's policies.
Yes trade was a minor (but growing) source of income. That does not lessen its historical importance, or render it unworthy of consideration. Elizabeth's reign is a goldmine for the economic historian - so much of her policy was directed at repairing the damage done by the war to the economy. From my experience, Shinto's views are not uncommon, nor are they amazingly controversial.
If historiography was really about amassing ranks of dead men behind your argument, we'd still believe in a whole heap of outdated and stodgy theories.
Ok, fair enough, stick modern in front of historian; it still applies.
First, let's get the stuff where we agree out of the way first. Yes, trade was minor but growing, that was pretty much the sum of my argument. Yes, it is very useful to study as the starting point of mercantilism (or the precursor to actual with the Spanish model), as well as various other studies of economic effects because it was a comparatively simple system (European inflation brought on by the bullion influx, for example). Yes, trade was an influence on policy, but far from the level of importance of given in the previous pages. No, the fact that trade was a relatively minor factor in the economy at the time does not mean it is historically unimportant.
But neither does it mean you can retrospectively apply that importance as if they realised it at the time; that is simply bad history. It is common among all kinds of academics to apply their models or disciplines to explaining all sorts of behaviour where it does not belong, but it is still wrong. Personally I think economics has the potential to model more than almost any other social science, but that doesn't mean I am right in applying that belief to a period where economic theory or discussion simply didn't exist. Early modern merchants & governments had one aim; amass precious metals, convert them into currency. That was it. The systems which were being created at the time may well have been fundamental to later economic systems, but that does not mean they intended to create those systems.
This argument started off someone stating confidently that all the European power struggles from 1500-1800 were essentially nations fighting to become the dominant trading power. Not that we, today, see the dominance of trade in the 19th century as of key importance, but that they, in 1500+, were driving towards it. That is simply wrong, and it demonstrates serious intellectual traps; it assumes knowledge from hindsight, and it assumes primacy of one discipline. It is bad history, and bad social science.
I've only recently revisited this period in IPE terms, and if the view above is not uncommon, then those in the field need a serious kicking.
Second, by all means analyse the economics of the period. But if you analyse the period with an economic interpretation, you have already lost; nobody in the period realised the importance of economic theory. How exactly was it meant to influence them? Aside from the most basic problems of supply & financing wars, there was no economic thought, and that which existed (ie supply & financing) was universally accepted, and did not vary from nation to nation. The differences between Spain & England/Dutch in trading vs bullion did not arise because the English/Dutch prefered the benefits of complex trade; it occured because Spain had access to vast quantities of silver, and the English/Dutch had to first trade their resources to get their hands on silver. You might as well examine the period through an aviation interpretation; sure, Da Vinci drew a helicopter, but nobody took to the air for 400 years.
Aside from the obvious example of Spain losing a rich trading province when the Netherlands revolted, I cannot think of a single early modern conflict where economic/financial issues were predominant...and why did the Dutch revolt? Though not the only reason, Protestantism played a massive part.
Third, to Marxist / constructivist interpretation of the period. I haven't actually seen any of it (authors?), or at least if I have, it has been mild enough that I haven't noticed it. In principle, there should be no problem; after all, most academics of the above bent will consider religion as simply a social construct which is a factor in the constructivist approach. That is fine, I'm not a Godbotherer, and I don't much care about the semantics of what religion is.
My only problem would be if they played down the part of religion in favour of more nationalist / emancipatory motivations for social change. Both co-existed, and the Reformation was clearly the deux ex machina of the period; anyone who pedals ideas of nationalism 150 years before nation states even began to coalesce post-Westphalia; or anyone who pedals Munster, the Anabaptists & the Peasant's Revolt as some kind of worker consciousness centuries before suffrage or even the basest form of emancipation in the late 18th century, is just trying to extend their research grant. Though the above happened, they were small-scale, and were quickly, severely and completely eradicated by all sides of the conflicts. Their importance lies in the bloody demonstration that Europe was not yet prepared for such ideas. Compared to the religious tenor of the period, they were a squeak - oh, and were also characterised by religion: ie Anabaptists.
Oh, in case you haven't realised, I also have a serious wariness of recent political theory being retrospectively applied to the whole of history, mostly because - as has been demonstrated by the constant supercedence of the latest theory for the last 40 years - it doesn't bloody work. In my experience, actual historians tend to get much better results by simply constructing a narrative from a grasp of the facts, than any political theorist trying to apply his chosen field to explain the entirety of human existence.
I just got back from it. Not nearly as drawn out as the first; they blended period drama with a war film, almost.
I enjoyed it, but I'm pretty sure that was a different actress playing Mary(Queen of Scots).
...sort of.
To me it's blatantly obvious that both commerce and religion played a role in that period.
Are you discussing to what extent they played a role?
In my eyes, religion was a mere excuse for armed conflict and the acquisition of territory and resources. It's difficult for me to believe that a relatively advanced civilization isn't motivated by money.
Yes, quite a few people have said this now. Does anyone have any actual evidence to back this idea up, or is it simply a skeptical / liberal worldview which denies that people ever really act on their beliefs. (If not, doesn't the fact that your view is based on your own beliefs not, well, tell you something?)
Suicide bombers just do it for the cash, and the Crusades were actually about trade, m i rite? Really, I'm interested to see where this slightly puzzling denial of a fundamental aspect of European history comes from.
[By the way, your idea re: "acquisition of territory and resources" doesn't quite explain how the vast majority of the religious conflict during the Reformation was in fact 3rd party powers lending aid to co-religionists in other countries. Halting that trend was the fundamental tenet of Westphalia. Point being, they weren't getting either territory or resources out of the deal.]
Rubbish. Aside from that being an enormously simplistic extrapolation of the idea that religion was a (I didn't say 'the', and I went on at length about the misuse of 'motivation') primary factor during the period, it doesn't account for the facts. There were divisions within Catholic Europe just as there were within Protestant Europe (ie Calvinist Swiss / Protestant Germany). Fact is that France were rather badly behaved towards the Papacy, had a habit of ignoring Papal Bulls & encroaching on Italian city-state territory against the express command of the Pope. Spain tended to be much more devout & responsive to Papal commands, for example, taking a stick to French behinds. Furthermore, when Charles V was HRE & King of Spain, dating back to before Luther, there were numerous territory disputes between him & France on the HRE border; this animosity carried on into the Spanish royal family for the next century, as well as being stoked by both France & Spain claiming parts of the semi-autonomous provinces around the Pyrenees (Aragon, Navarre, the Hugenot lands).
You can subscribe to this kind of bullet-point history where only one or two things matter, all attributes are absolute & uncontradictory, and events happen at the flick of a switch ("Oh no Charlie! Luther stuck a letter on the church door!" "France, Spain, Italy UNITE! CatholicCats are go!" du du du du, du du duuuh, dudu dudu duuuuuh...), but don't attribute it to me, please.
Just because stomping on Protestants was important to both of them, doesn't automatically mean they weren't liable to stomp on each other. Alliances tended to be stronger within Protestant Europe because, well, there were less of them, and they generally the underdogs.
If you read the spoiler in my post, you'd realize I was being a wee bit facetious.
I do believe it's ridiculous that you require evidence for an opinion. :P
To support Sarastro, I employ a time-honored friend-wikipedia:
This provoked the First War.
The above quote indicates that religion was clearly a major factor in war, as sarastro has been saying.
;-)
Oh well, I haven't slept much, irony is hard on teh internets & my goldfish just ate the cat. Excuses excuses.
(I did read the spoiler, just the subtlety passed me by)