“Wars often start as crusades for ideals, but usually end in defense of power or money.” Test this statement by analyzing both of the following wars:
- Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
- Revolutionary Wars in France (1789-1815)
Remember to respond to the question in 6-8 sentences (yes it can be longer) and to respond to two of your classmates answers in 4-6 sentences. Do not just agree or disagree without defending or justifying your argument.) Think above and beyond the common answers that you may see. Be sure to challenge your classmates with controversial tactics, actions or selections. Good Luck!!!! Go Mustangs!!!
18 comments:
I think that most wars often start as crusades for ideals and lead into defense of power and money. The thirty years war was started in Bohemia because a catholic was crowned king. Protestant nobles threw two catholic advisers out a window and that started many conflicts. The war kept growing bigger and bigger one reason for power of the church and some people just wanted to make money from the wars. In the french revolution it started with lower classes wanting equal rights. Peasants would riot and even women started to riot because the cost of bread. Eventually it led to power of different countries and people not wanting to lose power and money. Like Austria, Prussia, and Russia didn't want to lose their thrones or put their countries in danger.
Majority of wars are started by people who want change; either in government, politics, religion, etc. But most of the wars lead to wanting more power or land. The thirty years war was started because of religion. Protestants wanted more freedoms from the Catholic Hapsburg so they threw two officals out of the window, which is known as the Defenestration of Prague.Also the edict of restitution added to the religious tensions between protestants and catholics. As the war went on eventually many countires, like france and sweden, wanted to destroy the Hapsburgs power. Along with destroying their power they wanted the Holy ROman Empires land. The french revolution began because the 3rd estate was being treater unfair and they wanted to have equal rights.As it continued on people like Maximilian Robespierre and Napolean wanted power. Robespierre wanted to be in charge and make France a democracy. Napolean, on the other hand, wanted a monarchy. Napolean took charge and wanted to expand his rule and empire. He was at war with Austria, England, Russia, and Prussia. His eagerness for power was his downfall and he eventually was exiled and he lost the wars, but france remains a major power.
Personally i think that in certain cases they start as crusades and in other cases they are responses to government creating problems. I believe that the 30 years war was a scenario in which it can be considered a crusade because Protestants were rising as a religious group and others were starting to adopt their views and in response to this the church waged war against protestants because they saw them as a threat. The French Revolution to me was more of "you did me wrong" type of thing... the government were taxing only certain people and they were others were reaping benefits. This in result angered the peasants. The Peasants were in search for change... economically and a change in government.
Response to KristaRae:
- i agree with you on how you think that it is for ideals and etc... but as i stated it depends on how it started / who is involved / and what is trying to be gained or changed.
I somewhat agree with the statement, "wars often start as crusades for ideals, but usually end in defense of power or money." In general, wars do usually because of religious disagreements but those often tend to be forgotten because of the want for more power and money. This applies specifically with the thirty years was triggered by religious and political differences between Catholics, Protestants and Calvinists, and Lutherans. It resulted with the Treaty of Westphalia, which took back the Edict of Restitution and enforced the Peace of Augsburg. However, it was different with the French Revolution was started not of religious ideals but because of the corrupt leadership and government. In the end it did come down to making a better French government. Napoleon helped establish this by leading several of the wars standing up for what he believes in.
In response to Beccaxlynn...
I agree with your statement that the thirty years war was caused because of religion. I like how you brought up the Hapsburg power and their want for the land of the Holy Roman Empire. Also, how the French Revolution's goal was to make France a democracy.
In response to Chrisdebelen...
I like the idea that you brought up about the government creating all the problems, because some way or another it's always governments fault. =D Also, that is an interesting way to look at the French Revolution, and I do agree to it. The people were trying to have a say and show that the government was wrong.
I mainly agree with the statement because i do believe that wars often started as crusades for ideals, but usually ended in defense of power or money. The Thirty Years War had begun because of religious purposes, but the Church had basically started a war with the protestants because they did not like that they were rising in power. Although, the French Revolution was different because the cause of the war was not affiliated with anything religious, but a matter of economic values and equal rights.
In Response to beccaxlynn:
i thought that you did a very good job. I think that you had alot of reasons and details which built you a strong case.
In Response to AkilahRA:
I also feel that you did a good job with your post, although i think you needed to choose a side or else you seem "wishy washy". The given statement had just said often so i think you would have been okay with just agreeing with the statement, but overall you did a good job.
In response to Beccaxlynn
I liked how you used details to explain what you thought. I also agree that many wars started from wanting change. Also that wars often changed from wanting more land.
In response to AkilahRA
I liked how you explained the different religions within the thirty years war. That would explain why wars started. Also that the french revolution was started from government problems.
Wow...guess everyone took an extended break. Hope our bloggers get their work done. Can't wait to see everyone back in action. Mr. Neal
KristaRae
- I believe that you did a good job at backing up your statment, but adding more examples would help too.
ChrisdeBelen
- i like the way you looked at the French Revolution because the government was a major reason for the 3rd estate to want change
I agree with this statement because in both the Thirty Years' War and the French Revolution it started off fighting for ideals but in the end they were fighting only because of money and or power. The Thity Years' War began because of all the tension between the Catholics, the Protestants and the Calvinists. In Bohemia a catholic was announced king and the protestants did not like that one bit thus starting the war in a fight for what they believed in but in the end everyone of the surrounding countries got involved for the greatest political power. They all forgot what they were fighting for in the end. In the French Revolution started because the people,mostly the third estate, felt like they were not being treated all the same, they all wanted equal rights. After time progressed the nobilty began to meet their demands such as the taxes, however the people just wanted more and more. In the end things just got out of hand with the demands wanted by the people. They became too greedy and none of their future demands were later met.
In Response To
beccaxlynn
I like how you brought up the religous part of the argument alongside the political part, but you didn't put that much detail into your argument for the Revolution
KristaRae
I like how you put alot of details in your arguments especially with the Thirty Years' War
I do believe that wars often start as crusades for ideals, but usually end in defense of power or money. They start off as being a cause for change, but end up in fighting for power and money. The French Revolution was begun because of the unfair laws the monarchy placed on peasants. They rebelled against nobles and the King and Queen. They were able to establish their own government, but soon they began falling apart again due to greed of power and money. It quickly turned into violence when groups(The Mountains) tried to take power over France. The Thirty Years War was started because of religion. When a Catholic was crowned King, Protestants grew angry. They were afraid that they would not be able to worship freely. What started as a way to get freedom, turned into a bloody war that lasted for thirty years.
In Response to Beccaxlynn...
I agree with your statment the want for power was a main cause to downfalls. When two people do not agree on something, they tend to butt heads and argue. Which is defiently why so many wars were started.
In Response to ChrisdeBelen...
I have to disagree with you because crusade dont only have to be for religous reasons, they can also be for political.A crusade can be defined as any war carried on under papal sanction, or any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc. I think that when you think of the crusades you are thinking of the Christian Crusades, which is a crusade but not the whole general idea of it.
Most wars start off as crusades, but usually end in defense of power or money. This is evident in both the Thirty Years War and the Revolution Wars in France. The Thirty Year War erupted when angry Protestants threw a couple of Catholic advisors out of a window after a Catholic King took the throne in Bohemia. The war decimated the German population and towards the end it seemed the war was fought primarily on the basis of land distribution. The French Revolution came about because the Third Estate wanted a louder voice in government. When Maximilian Robespierre rose to power he brought about fear and a state of terror in France. Robespierre abused his power. This is an example of how wars that begin as crusades usually end in defense of power.
In response to ChrisdeBelen: I
feel your blog was little on the short side but you made some pretty interesting points. I agree with what you said about the 30 years war. I think me and you are saying the same thing like a synonym. But i disagree w/ your views on the french revolution.
In response to AkilahRA: You seem to be well informed on the 30 years war and the French Revolution. I enjoyed reading your entry entry because you used specific facts. Your views on Napoleon are different then mine but you backed it up nicely. No objections.
Wars do often start as crusades for ideals and often end in defense for power and money. The Thirty years war started as a crusade for the best type of religion. This ideal was foughtover Catholics, Calvinists, and Protestants. The electing of officials with strong religious order brought tensions between them and soon it was a war that primarily had to do with regaining their govermental status and strengthening up their government from the destruction thirty years of fighing brought along. During the French Revolution, the start began due to the unfair taxation of the poorest class of Europe. The ideal was for equal taxation and representation from all social status with equal power. Throughout the revolution, it soon began a defense of power by Napolean and Maximmillum-Robespiere. Napolean, although changing the history of france, did not successfully have his monarchy accomplished and democracy was a phase that France was soon to undergo. So based on the Wars of the French Revolution and The Thirty years War, the statement above would be correct in my opinion.
Okay.
In response to ChrisdeBelen:
You did make your point very succinctly, by mentioning the peasants and the peasant revolt and all, but you didn't fully analyze both the following wars in terms of the quote. You might have mentioned the crusades, but not the defenses which truly didn't hit the right spot for me. Sorry.
In response to tmarthegr8:
You did explain the basis of each of the wars, but did you truly analyze them in regards with the quote? I didn't see much of the defenses of power or money for either of the wars. Just saying.
I agree with the statement "wars often start as crusades for ideals, but usually end in defense of power or money.” All wars we have studied so far seem to have started from the same concept: opposition to a rule/ruler. Obviously, not everyoe is going to agree on something, especially when it includes a whole nation, therfore there are heads that sort that all out, or at times, make it worse. The ideals are meant for change and usually for the better, but in the middle of all the fighting and switching rulers and etc, people tend to forget why a certain war has actually started or why they are fighting. I'm not saying everyone does, but after awhile you see some people forget that they are fighting for a cause and it results in bad decisions that might ultimately be the end for them. For example, the thirty years began with the religious differencs between the Catholics and the Protestants. Protestants wanted freedom and eventually, the the HRE's land. Then, as the war moved along, the fight became about power. Eventually many countires, like France, came along and needed to keep Hapsburg and its power in check. Every country wanted to have more power than the other, but once one almost succeeds, the others comes along to make sure no one does. Another example would be the French Revolution. This war was about an unfair leader and corrupt government. Of course, with that beginning, you can count on someone wanting change, and a group of peope rebelling/fighting for that change. This was actually an unbalanced war for at times it seemed as though the rebels were winning and others it seemed they were being crushed. There was even a time when they made decisions that ultimately hurt them. Yes, they were able to establish their own government, the National Assembly (being its first name), but they were an unstable group. They seemed to have only been united during the greatest fights. Unfortunately, it eventually turned into unnecessary violence and a fight for power. The end result was for the better, but i don't know if i can say the fight was worth it. To us, it might have been, but for those living through this, i can't say.
response to AkilaRA:
i agree with what you say that the reason for the war "tends to be forgotten." That's exactly what i was trying to argue the first half of my statement. There might be a good reason for a war to be started but after awhile, you might not remember why you're still fighting and turn to how it could benefit you moneywise or with power. I also agree that the French revolution did turn out for the better, especially looking at modern France right now. Its impact was great and i guess it seems worth the fight.
response to KristaRae:
I agree that wars start for a good reason but end up as a fight for more land/money/power. I just don't agree that people were trying to make money off of the wars. It seemed going on with the wars was worsening the economy because they were using money that could be used to fix up a couple things into making weapons and funding the war. Many were losing money and wihout money resulted in less rations of food which in turn created those riots for bread that you mentioned. Whole countries were losing money, for example, the French. They were the worst off and practically bankrupt because they couldn't come up with a good way to get the money to pay thier debts. and the debts were actually creating for funding the war helping the americans against the british and the thirty years war. Although, if you meant that since there was no money, people were uping their prices in the market so they could come up with some money, i agree.
Post a Comment