Does the European concept of “the balance of power” still have meaning? Does there need to be a counterbalance to the U.S. power in the world today?

In modern Europe, I do not think that there is stilla balance of power. Since the European Union has united all European economies and countries under one loose affiliation there is no real struggle for power. There may be disagreements over territorial matters, or issues with foreign policies, all countries are working towards the same goals. Since the league of nations, NATO, and the United Nations each country around the globe has a voice in a clooective forum, no large country can totally take all power. While it is true that a large country like America can have a significant influence over the descisions made by NATO and the UN, both organizations work for the good of all countries involved. Back post WW2 America may have needed a balance of power since we held the UN's main opinions and we became imperialistic in the sense that we wanted to capture all communist countries and convert them. We became too headstrong and involved in too many countries, and no one really stopped or questioned us. If they did, we called them communist and withdrew diplomatic ties. We bacme too powerful as a country and back then we needed some one to check us becasue nowadays our internatioal relations have taken a dive for the worse. In the current times no one respects us a country anymore, and we have lost our power in the same ways that we gained it, by warring with other countries that opposed our views. We are slowly losing our world power status unless drastic repair to our international affairs is done.

Under what conditions, is it legitimate to use violence to achieve political goals? In a revolution, is the execution of the king necessary or wise?

It is always better to use diplomacy to solve issues but often times violence is necessary. When someone feels so strongly about their ideas or thoughts that they are willing to die for them that is when violence is necessary, that is if you are threatened by them. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you should kill them but if it needed due to self preservation then violence becomes a tool. Think of all the people who claim they would accept death rather than change their lives. New Hampshire's state motto is Live Free or Die. Insurgents and terrorists also accept death. When your country's safety is threatened by someone who would die before listening to your diplomats or considering a compromise then the only solution is to remove your opponent from existence.
Killing a king or leader is a symbol. That leader was a symbol of old times, of what the rebels want to change, and as long as that symbol lives there will be those who want to follow that leader for their own gains. The death of a leader symbolizes the end of current policies and problems.

Does the European concept of “the balance of power” still have meaning?

The concept of "balance of power" from 16th and 17th century Europe does not apply today as it did then. In 16th and 17th century Europe, nation-states made and broke alliances that gave more weight to their value as a population/entity among other states. A small state could be "needed" in order to upset the balance of military threat for one side or another, because the resources that state offered might turn a war. Today, on the other hand, it only takes a few nukes to decimate a country. No one wants their country or people destroyed by war, but in 16th and 17th century Europe the destruction happened more slowly. It was possible to throw in the flag before you lost it all. Whichever side (alliance) could rip the most up fastest typically won. A terrorist sect with nuclear capabilities could bring any country on present day earth to its knees. You don't need fancy alliances to upset the balance. Just things that go boom.
As to whether the United States needing a counter-balance, the last time that happened was the Cold War. The balances achieved by 16th and 17th century European alliances were based on military threat. That is not the kind of balance needed today. Economically, competition (trying to keep up with the other side) is healthy, but the US is currently out balanced in that area anyway.

Does the European concept of “the balance of power” still have meaning? Does there need to be a counterbalance to the U.S. power in the world today?

When the question comes of does the European concept of “the balance of power” still have meaning the answer is yes. The balance of power today is exactly why we do not have sudden outbreak of wars. Living in the nuclear world, the power nations of the world understand that if you were to start war with another super power country you could easily potentially be starting World War III. A world war three in the nuclear world could easily mean destruction to a majority of earths population. Regarding does there need to be a counter balance to the US in the world, I believe that allies throughout the other continents and the United Nations would step in if the United States did something so unimaginably stupid regarding warfare. I personally believe that the US military is not that superior to other armies such as Russia or China so it's not necessary to have a counter balance to the US.

What makes a “golden age”?

A "golden age" is a period of time when a large number of areas are making advancements and/or succeeding in some way. During a golden age, the economy is very strong. A strong economy allows for patronage of the arts and sciences. El Greco and Cervantes were products of the Siglo de Oro in Spain. Poussin and Pascal did their work in France under Louis XIV. Of course, saying a country went through a golden age is always refering to the elite of the country.

What Makes A Golden Age?

I believe that a "Golden Age" is certainly not what we're having currently in the US for sure. In the time period we are in however a Golden Age is defined mainly on income and government power. Spain lived a Golden Age but only for a short while. The government was powerful, they had a strong army, large foreign territories and colonies provided huge amounts of income for the country, the people didnt have to work for their money (the nobles at least) and it was unified under catholocism. These assets are all part of having a Golden Age. When the people are unified, the government is well centralized and well liked amungst its people, and the money is high and the army is strong. Through this the people are not only rich and have cheap puchaces, but they feel well protected and have confedence in thier leaders. Only now will a Golden Age truely happen. The US is almost in crisis mode. Our army is strong, but stretched to far. Our leadership is poor and the economy is in the dumps. This is the opposite of spain in their Golden Age with one exception. The rate of unemployment is both low, however in Spain, the nobles didnt have to work because they basically got their money from the gold that was being imported from South America.

REMINDER

There are two earlier posts on Unit 3 that are archived under 10/19 - 10/26

What were the commonalities and differences between 18th century elite and popular cultures?

I'm just going to list them.

1.) Their names; "elite" "popular"

2.) The number of letters in their names; "5" and "7"

3.) The word "elite"is a palindrome because it... (I'm just kidding)

Commonalities

1.)They both read books, if they knew how to read.

2.)They both got drunk and drank coffee.

3.)Many of them shared a common religion and even attended the same churches.

4.)Everyone took pleasure in the execution of witch's and believed in magic, but less and less throughout the 18th century.

4.)Both cultures attended carnivals where a good time of cross-dressing and bearbaiting could be had by all, but again, less and less as the century bumbled on.

5.)Both got the common cold (like today, you just had to let it take it's course).

6.)Some attended the same theatres to watch the same plays.

7.)Both had at least one candle.

8.)Both had windows of varying sizes and materials (for some popular persons, their window was the world itself, that's because they were homeless)

9.)Both were humans of varying height and eye color; neither one was perfect.

Differences

1.)They technically spoke different languages (no wonder why you weren't supposed to speak until spoken to, you'd give yourself away) the elite speaking the national language and the popular speaking varying vernaculars.

2.)The elite lived in large houses with glass windows and often times broke down and cried if the curtains didn't match the wall-paper, while the popular might've had a house, a chair, or both!

3.)When the elite were sick, they went to see expensive doctors. When the popular were sick they went to see the old hermit woman in the forest who gave them magic potions (sometimes for just one green rupee) to replenish their HP so that they could continue their quest to save princess Zelda.

4.)The elite often changed their educated minds with the times, while the popular remained barricaded in their huts under the assumption that the Thirty Years War was still being waged (they didn't get the newspaper).

5.)Many of the popular worked all day long in the field harvesting wheat, while muttering to themselves not to eat it, which they sold, and then, that night they sat down to a meal of oat bread and a bean in a wooden bowl. The elite, in an attempt to emulate the peasants' ruggedness, sometimes threatened their cook with a pay cut when he hung himself because the meat was a little dry, or maybe, just for tonight, they might eat from "used" china instead of brand new, "unused" dishware, while staring at themselves in their many mirrors lit by chandeliers.

6.)In famine, the elite worried if their favorite dish was all out, the popular rioted out of fear of hunger and ate acorns.

7.)The elite fancied Roman and Greek mythology, in which the God Saturn enjoyed nothing more than devouring his own children, while the popular were quite pleased with medieval tales of chivalry and heroic, long-legged, men like Robin Hood who lived in the woods and ran about the land tossing out pouches of gold wherever there was a poor person down on his luck in need of some relief.

8.)The popular went to school because all of they're wildest dreams had come true, the elite went to school because their parents said they had to.

9.)The elite studied astronomy, the popular studied astrology (personally I find astrology much more interesting . . . but that's probably because my sun sign is Leo but my moon sign is Capricorn and not to mention there's Jupiter in the third house in opposition with Saturn and to make matters even worse my rising sign is Virgo . . .)

10.)The elite were vegetarians by choice, the popular couldn't afford meat and therefore were vegetarians.

11.)The popular got drunk out in the streets, while the elite perferred to get drunk from the comfort of their own homes.

12.)The elite were born into wealth making them high class, the poor were born into poverty making them low class (good to see they both got what they deserved).

Laramie (sorry Ms. Isikdag, but I read your comment after I made the post, I promise this is the last long one)

Does the European concept of “the balance of power” still have meaning? Does there need to be a counterbalance to the U.S. power in the world today?

I think the answer must most definetly be yes; this idea of "balance of power does still have meaning to it in this time. However the answer to whether the USA needs a counterbalance from another country is a bit more complicated than a simple yes or no. In medieval and post-medieval times rulers and countries weren't necessarily greedy but the one thing that sets them apart from us is that they had the constantly oncoming findings of LAND! Naturally people of the time would want to conquer and inhabit as much land as possible to establish themselves as a major world power. I'm not criticizing the way these people lived but rather creating the setting and context of the way people acted. Now in the present time all major land is inhabited and "ruled over". Because of this there are already many different major world powers, and when I say many I mean more than Europe had, which was only 5 or 6. So I don't believe that one country needs to counterbalance the power of the USA, but instead many. As history has proved the more world powers that there seem to be, the more protected each one is. This, I believe, is because each country sort of counterbalances each other making it pretty much impossible for any one world power to just decide to try to take over the world.

Why did absolutism succeed in France while constitutionalism triumphed in England and Holland?

The biggest reason was because in France it was generally agreed upon that the king should be the top dog. It was during the French civil war that a group called the politiques got the idea that a supreme law giving force was necessary to maintain national order.

It does makes some sense, I mean if you are trying to put on a play and there's no director or there is one but they only direct a few actors, the play is going to be more difficult for the cast as a whole to perform than if there were a powerful leader in charge. And even if the directors ideas aren't always the best, the control that non-opposition gives to a single person allows for a beautiful sense of order and (if the director is a good organizer) organization in the performance; all the views are consolidated in one leader with complete control over his own actions and thus complete control over the theatrical body. This seems reasonable in theory, but a director must be sound and effective for his actors to consent to work under him/her; a director is useless without actors.

Anyways, the decision on an absolutist government was not made in England or Holland. In England, the Kings (primarily Charles I and James II) decided to act without consent from his people. Charles I decided to tax the people and make laws without their consent (not even representative consent). This was a particularly bad move in England where the people were well represented in a governing body called Parliament. Parliament was well organized, wealthy, mostly secular, and overall quite powerful. It represented England as a whole and not the separate states of England or provinces of England. The king didn't understand just how bad a move he was making and was outmatched by the strength of his own country. James II met the same odds when he decided to be Catholic; and that since he was king, he could decide that Catholicism was aloud in England even though there were members of the official Church of England and a number of Protestant Puritans in the country as well as in Parliament. These two groups made up the vast majority of Englishmen and they would not stand for a heretic king, nor did they. It was the single mindedness of the English kings that doomed absolutism in England; had they been more conscious of the will and opinions of their subjects who were obviously much stronger than them (they were not gods) they may have been able to win their consent and slowly bring about an absolutist government.

In the case of the Dutch it was the division of provinces and the strength of the bourgeois as aristocrats that prevented absolutism. In Holland, when William III, prince of Orange was elected as stadtholder he wanted to centralize the government. He couldn't do so simply because no one would let him, and he wasn't about to start civil war in Holland as there had been in England. His position was mostly for military leadership and protection; he ruled powerfully during times of war; but during times of peace the moneymaking bourgeois were the ones in command. This lack of consent and power was what kept William from achieving his goal, but unlike the English rulers he wasn't headstrong or money-hungry and understood the limitations of his position.

Not only was it the withstanding support for Louis XIV from his subjects (or at least the decisive ones) that kept France's absolutist government intact, but it was also the personal choices of Louis to maintain the support of the nobles and middle class (for the lower-classes were not powerful unless grandly amassed in a riot or having upper class support), who had given him his power in the first place and could just as well take it away from him, and to do all that he was able to do to gain personal power, like building up an army under his control and not under the control of self interested nobles and/or mercenaries, as well as creating a strong administrative political hierarchy with him at the top. The fact that Louis created these things meant that he was responsible for their maintenance and funding; without him they would lose their positions and paychecks, therefore they were given good reason to remain loyal to their king. With this personal power, and respect for the power of those under his leadership, Louis XIV gave himself the tools he needed to lead France with an effective absolutist government.

It basically comes down to the cast-director relationship of rulers and their people, neither one can work alone. (unless it's a one person play . . . but that is HARD!)

Laramie

What makes a “golden age”?

I think that a “golden age” refers to a cultural high point-artistically, politically and is also in a time of peace and stability, almost a utopia. The Dutch Golden age was a time of wealth (Trading companies, banks, expansions to Americas) and art (Frans Hals, Jan Vermeer, Rembrandt….) This was the Dutch high point, thematically, the Dutch fell after William of Orange became stadholder, and England passed the Navigation Act…

"Why did absolutism succeed in France while constitutionalism triumphed in England and Holland?"

I think absolutism succeeded in France, as opposed to in England, because the French aristocrats had very little political power. In France the king was only required to consult the aristocrats, and nobles when increasing taxes. In order to gain the loyalty of the noble class, Louis XIV gave the aristocrats tax exemption. After the nobles gained their tax exemption, they were submissive and allowed Louis his "Absolutism".

In England, the aristocratic class formed the parliment and for the most part stood in direct opposition of the King. The Parliment had their own agenda, and thought keeping the King's power in check was more important than a tax break. The English were stronger then the French aristocrats and as a result didn't succumb to the absolute rule of their King.

Golden Age Prompt

I think that there are a lot of common factors in the making of a "Golden Age". If we compare the Elizabethan Era in England and the siglo de oro in Spain we will find some similarities. Both countries enjoyed immense artistic output during these times. Spain had artists like El Greco, playwrights such as Lope de Vega, and of course Cervantes's Don Quixote. England had the work of William Shakespeare, need I say more? Both kingdoms has strong rulers during these periods and had economic security. In Spain, this security came from the outside, and there was no innovation on the inside, but the economy was still in decent shape. If we compare different Golden Ages, we will see common factors in arts, government, and economics.

Violence Prompt

Whether or not violence should be tolerated for political gain is a rather unfair question, in my opinion. Violence is one of those things no one likes, obviously, but it is, as a matter of fact, very effective. Take the American Revolution, if violence had been banned from polictical endeavors where would the United States be today? Not the "United States" that's for sure. What about Britian's Civil War? The U.S's Civil War? The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s in America. Violence has been and always will be the most effective way of accomplishing political change. It is most certainly not the best way but it has been proven to work. I suppose then that I would have to say violence is acceptable for political gain. As for executing the King after a revolution... I think the King should be given a form of pardon, like Jimmy Carter was after watergate. Let the King disappear and be forgotten, putting him to death isn't necessary.

Prompt 4

Fisrt of all, I was not sure if we were supposed to wait for another unit or just pick a new promt(this is why I wrote two comments but not a new post last week). But it seems like we were supposed to pick another one for the second week. So I will write two posts for this week instead. This is the first post.

I think France was able to recover from the religious wars in contrast to Germany because of fewer reigious minority and devoted leaders such as Henry IV and Richelieu. Huguenots in France only consisted of five percent of the population while there was no reigious majority in Germany. This was definitely a huge contributing factor. Also, Henry IV's decision to put civil order over religion - the politique concept - further enabled the french unification. Then, Richelieu solidified the royal absolutism by suppressing the Rochelle rebellion, prohibitting private warfare and ordering the destruction of all fortified castles.

Prompt 5

There are absolutely have been recurring patterns in the fall of world powers. The two that come specifically to mind are the fall of the Roman Empire and Soviet Union. Both powers enjoyed immense military power, but in the end they killed themselves instead of others invading them. The Soviet Union was in terrible shape economically and Rome's government was corrupt. In short, they imploded. 16th century Spain also suffered from these problems. As we have discussed there was no innovation in an economic sense with almost no industry. During the reign of Charles II, the government was in tough shape too. A superpower tends to die from the inside out instead of from outside influences.

Prompt 2

Although I don't know much about this Adam Smith character yet, I think that mercantilism was a brilliant factor in improving economies during the 16th century. As Benny said in an earlier post, the 21st century is all about less government involvement in economic affairs. This is mainly due to what has happened as a result of too much government involvement during the last century. Government involvement is not a bad thing at all, if it is at the right place and time, although economists and Adam Smith would tear me apart for saying so. When a government is discreet about it, why shouldn't they help protect their country's economy. Mercantilism advanced international trade astronomically.

Pr

Prompt 3 babyy

Personally Spain were just a bunch of lazy arrogant rich people. They only relied on the shiny valuable things that were being imported from South America which definitely made them extremely rich in the first place but as the amount of valuables coming dropped, they had no source of money since they didn't really care about the material things they could sell. Secondly, they didn't work. They basically had a system where they rich people got more rich because of the gold they imported, but they didn't work for actual income. Sounds great does it not? Thirdly they started a war they couldn't finish and their royal house became filled with inbreds. So basically Spain was a dreamland when they were importing tons and tons of gold. No work, plenty of income, no conflicts with other countries, hey life was great. Then, all of a sudden, the amount of gold dramatically changes, forcing people who have never had a job to attempt to get one and a war breaks out with the Dutch. If the Spanish had stopped to think for a second they would have realized how almost "dumb" they really were. It easily could have been avoided or prevented if they had been more humble and thought of the future and not get caught up in the moment with riches.

Prompt 5

There most definitely are patterns in the rise and decline of world powers. I think the largest factor is the dynamic fluctuations in human ethics and values, and the changes in human lifestyle that must accompany said fluctuations. Governments and religions are attempts to set ethical guidelines that the majority of people already abide by to improve the overall quality of life of humans(i.e. not killing others, not stealing, monogamous relationships). These values are guidelines designed to allow humans to function more efficiently as a group, and thus combine efforts more efficiently for the benefit of more people. The problem occurs when the opinion of the majority of people moves away from the guidelines of the government, or the practices of the government violate the ethics of the majority. Then stagnation and decline occurs, as the government/religion becomes more and more useless to the majority of people. The actions of the people begin to be guided less and less by the guidelines set by the government and more and more by their own, self-motivated, values and ethics. Eventually, when virtually no one follows the guidelines, the establishment collapses and the process of building a government/religion that is most beneficial to the majority begins again.
In summary, governments and religions rely on the support of people, so they represent values that people support. Thus, the people will uphold the establishment (picture a lot of people holding up a large building). But, with time, the values of people change (people holding the building are walking). If governments/religions attempt to uphold the same (old) values, slowly people holding the structure of the establishment up will leave (people walking begin to walk out from under the structure). With too little support, eventually the establishment collapses (the very few people who didn't walk fast enough: their knees buckle under the weight). Often a lot of the people still holding it up are killed (SQUISH).