[Cyfer]

For a week i have undergone my greatest challenge. Writing a ten thousand word essay. I ahve written ten thousand words yet not even halfway through! i know my topics (outlined below) but i am missing one crucial one.

Why did wars start in the Renaissance?
I've looked everywhere for this but they why questions are always the most elusive.
I've been thinking about political power and gaining land but that can't just be it?


my topics so far done:

Peace:
• The End of the Polish Teutonic Wars
• The Treaty of Karlowitz
• The Treaty of Passarowitz
• The Treaty of Stockholm
• The Treaty of Nystad
• Conclusion
Artillery
• Gunpowder
• Artillery Before the Renaissance
• Artillery Before the Renaissance Conclusion
• Artillery After and During the Renaissance and Development
Weapons and Armour
• Swords and Daggers
• Other Close Combat and Melee Weapons
• Ranged Weapons
• Armour before the Renaissance
• Armour During and After the Renaissance


i have yet to go through:
How forts and castles were adapted to the weapons invented
Battle tactics (love this will write approx 5000 words +)
At least five land battles (2000 words + each)
Why war started in the Renaissance

This essay was meant to be 1000 words but i loved this topic so much i got carried away. However, having talked to several history professors briefly i have concluded that i will make a 1000 word essay that i will hand in alongside my other one. This is because i need to learn to compile information in a short period.

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 3 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

Why did wars start in the Renaissance?

What an excellent question!

In the renaissance states were ruled by kings - or other forms of monarchs, such as dukes
They regarded their states as their personal possession.

They also lacked any concept of the integrity of other states.
In short, if they wanted it, and they thought they were strong enough to take it, they attacked it.
WHY they wanted it changed from situation to situation - maybe they wanted its land, or its wealth, or a famous landmark - or maybe they had once owned it and wanted it back.
Sometimes - Henry VIII is a good example - they went to war just to show off to other monarchs.

Read this webpage.


PS - yor essay sounds fab, and we are really impressed that you have got so interested in this topic. If it is of any interest, this was my favourite topic when I was in the 6th form (back in the time of Charles II) and I fairly much passed my A-level on it!
So enjoy

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 3 2009, 09:17 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 3 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

Why did wars start in the Renaissance?

What an excellent question!

In the renaissance states were ruled by kings - or other forms of monarchs, such as dukes
They regarded their states as their personal possession.

They also lacked any concept of the integrity of other states.
In short, if they wanted it, and they thought they were strong enough to take it, they attacked it.
WHY they wanted it changed from situation to situation - maybe they wanted its land, or its wealth, or a famous landmark - or maybe they had once owned it and wanted it back.
Sometimes - Henry VIII is a good example - they went to war just to show off to other monarchs.

Read this webpage.


PS - yor essay sounds fab, and we are really impressed that you have got so interested in this topic. If it is of any interest, this was my favourite topic when I was in the 6th form (back in the time of Charles II) and I fairly much passed my A-level on it!
So enjoy

Yes this truly is a wonderful topic

I laughed out loud when you wrote than they had once owned it and wanted it back, this is a fabulous point as there was at least 3 times where the Ottoman Empire gave back land in treaties (such as Karlowitz and Passarowitz), mostly to the Holy League of 1684 and still they ended up in the end with less lands than they started at the very beginning and one of their main rivals (Habsburg Monarchy) took their place as the main powers in Europe.

I am slightly confused though when the Ottoman Empire basically collapsed in the treaty of Passarowitz to the Habsburg Monarchy, why the Habsburg Monarchy took no advantage whatsoever? The Ottoman Empire, like you mentioned had no integrity so why didn't the Habsburg Monarchy and the others crush them once and for all, betray the treaties like the Ottoman Empire did so many times.

I'm no liar or traitor to another person but i'm also not stupid enough to take up great opportunities that sit in front of you waiting to be reaped. So did the Habsburg Monarchy not have the financial/military resources like the Royalists in the English civil war, or were they just thick?

By the way, thank you for reminding me of the word integrity, it will be extremely useful in my exam, in source work about the behavior of soldiers during the English Civil war

The site you gave me does not work sorry. It says it is unable to find the site and jsut goes on about PBS hosting.

~Cyfer/Cipher

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

I am slightly confused though when the Ottoman Empire basically collapsed in the treaty of Passarowitz to the Habsburg Monarchy, why the Habsburg Monarchy took no advantage whatsoever? The Ottoman Empire, like you mentioned had no integrity so why didn't the Habsburg Monarchy and the others crush them once and for all, betray the treaties like the Ottoman Empire did so many times.

Passarowitz did represent a HUGE success for the Habsburgs, but this author asks the same question as you, suggesting that maybe they drew back to protect the Venetians, who were being defeated by the Turks.

Quote

The site you gave me does not work sorry. It says it is unable to find the site and jsut goes on about PBS hosting.

I'm sorry, I can't understand why - it works for me.

Try copying and pasting the URL direct into your browser:
http://www.pbs.org/e...ssance/war.html

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

I am slightly confused though when the Ottoman Empire basically collapsed in the treaty of Passarowitz to the Habsburg Monarchy, why the Habsburg Monarchy took no advantage whatsoever? The Ottoman Empire, like you mentioned had no integrity so why didn't the Habsburg Monarchy and the others crush them once and for all, betray the treaties like the Ottoman Empire did so many times.

Passarowitz did represent a HUGE success for the Habsburgs, but this author asks the same question as you, suggesting that maybe they drew back to protect the Venetians, who were being defeated by the Turks.

Quote

The site you gave me does not work sorry. It says it is unable to find the site and jsut goes on about PBS hosting.

I'm sorry, I can't understand why - it works for me.
Try copying and pasting the URL direct into your browser:
http://www.pbs.org/e...ssance/war.html

[Cyfer]

Pasting the URL works, thank you. I'll read a bit later, i need to crack down on revision a.t.m.

Hmm so if the Habsburg's wanted to protect the Venetians than why? Yes the Ventians were also part of the Holy League, and had lost a great deal but.....

Also why did they call the leader of the Habsburg's a Balkan (not a name but a type of person) i know that many people in history were given these sort of names related to where they were born or something like that so they would be recognizable but i cannot think of anything that relates to 'Balkan' at all

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

Also why did they call the leader of the Habsburg's a Balkan (not a name but a type of person)

Did they? Where, may I ask, did you get this from?

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 4 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Jun 4 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

Also why did they call the leader of the Habsburg's a Balkan (not a name but a type of person)

Did they? Where, may I ask, did you get this from?

information on the Uskok Problem which relates to this.

[url="http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH42/Simon42.html"]

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer said:

Also why did they call the leader of the Habsburg's a Balkan (not a name but a type of person) ... information on the Uskok Problem which relates to this: here

I still don't understand.

'Habsburg' was the family name of the rulers of Austria-Hungary.
'Balkans' was the area they were quarrelling over - you could use it as an adjective in the sense of 'from the Balkans'.

But I cannot find anywhere where he leader of the Habsburgs was called a 'Balkan' anything.
The Habsburgs did have Balkan objectives (eg to conquer more land there), and Balkan problems.
They may even have had a military leader in the Balkans who might be referred to as their 'Balkan commander'.
But you still haven't shown me where 'they call the leader of the Habsburg's a Balkan (not a name but a type of person)', and until you find the reference I basically can't answer this question.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 5 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

Cyfer said:

Also why did they call the leader of the Habsburg's a Balkan (not a name but a type of person) ... information on the Uskok Problem which relates to this: here

I still don't understand.

'Habsburg' was the family name of the rulers of Austria-Hungary.
'Balkans' was the area they were quarrelling over - you could use it as an adjective in the sense of 'from the Balkans'.

But I cannot find anywhere where he leader of the Habsburgs was called a 'Balkan' anything.
The Habsburgs did have Balkan objectives (eg to conquer more land there), and Balkan problems.
They may even have had a military leader in the Balkans who might be referred to as their 'Balkan commander'.
But you still haven't shown me where 'they call the leader of the Habsburg's a Balkan (not a name but a type of person)', and until you find the reference I basically can't answer this question.

sorry i may be mistaken. I'll re-read it.

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 5 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

sorry i may be mistaken. I'll re-read it.

No problem - whatever ... I know you've got exams to worry about.

[Cyfer]

So should i do a 1000 word essay and than hand it in along my 10000+ one?

I need to learn to appreciate boundaries.

[MrJohnDClare]

Difficult - can you be bothered?
I would discuss it with my teacher if I were you - try to persuade him that the one long one will do!

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Jun 8 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

Difficult - can you be bothered?
I would discuss it with my teacher if I were you - try to persuade him that the one long one will do!

Yes i can be bothered.
And sorry but i am incapable of discussing this with my teacher unless i find a clever reason to do so.

Because basically my motives for this is revenge. I usually do history just out of fun, but this is for revenge (with a bit of fun too or it wouldn't be that long )
Basically, my teacher told us to do presentations, two people did 20minute ones when our teacher said they would stop them at 5minutes.

This is why I'm writing this, for a mock revenge?

Extremely sad, probably pointless, but i don't really care since i am also getting lots of fun out of this.

Didn't really want to mention this but here it is....

Eh, you'll probably view me as an idiot now.

~Cyfer/Cipher


P.S I also heard that in GCSE coursework you are not aloud to go over the boundaries given so maybe this is good practice?

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Jun 8 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

P.S I also heard that in GCSE coursework you are not aloud to go over the boundaries given so maybe this is good practice?

'Not supposed' rather than 'not allowed', but the way you do coursework at GCSE is about to change radically this year; from now on, you will have to do it as a 'controlled assessment' in class.

But it is good practice to keep to declared boundaries!