hello
It's me again with another term paper for the same course. I would like you to, if possible, stres s on the my clear language and style. Thank you.
The monarchs had to rule with greater wisdom than themselves had intended" - Montesquieu
Wars, violence, and constant steals from the cities in Europe mark the ages before the 15th century, until after a sudden reassessment of the monarchs' actions fostered the economy and trade in the urban areas. Monarchs, under certain conditions on a social and economic level had to change their method of collecting wealth, earning revenues to finance their wars, and imposing violence. The shift from imposing private violence among kin and groups to investing in urban development and involving in cities political life, had major impact on the further development of the social and economic relations within and among European countries.
The monarchs in the early 15th century in Europe were experts in exercising private violence among kin and groups in the countryside, thus gaining power and wealth from their own and other's lands. In the rural areas the society was divided into small groups and kin. Landowners, who possessed larger plots of land, imposed greater power among the small land owners, because they were wealthier. The countryside shipped goods to the cities in exchange of money. This relationship has some interesting aspects, such as, both sides benefitted and depended on each other at the same time. Rural elites or people with greater income and land possessions grew rapidly in the hierarchy and the demand of producing more goods and faster shipping to the cities along with it. Disputes and arguments arose between elites, and wars appeared as a result. Those who prevailed became monarchs. As we can see from the "Formation of the modern state" article by..., monarchs not only "hired" peasants who worked on their land in exchange of shelter and food, which was actually a "lifetime employment", but also imposed taxes for marriage permission. If the spouse candidate failed to meet the financial requirement, the monarch took his land, along with his peasants. This is how he created his "army" that fought for him and for further land expansions. The monarchs became owners of huge plots of land and had numerous armies, but looking after them required greater supplies for both the army and the agricultural development. With the commercialization of the rural parts of the country, wealth and revenues that monarchs gained from their lands became insufficient and mobilizing groups and kin became harder than it was initially.
The monarchs were forced to turn to the cities stealing their treasures; this tactic soon turned to be really costly, because cities possessed greater power and arms to protect their treasures. In London for example the first several invasions of monarchs managed to steal treasures and money from the royal families. However this urban aristocracy simply moved its treasures to places difficult to reach and find. Moreover in most European cities along the coast high towers, and unbreakable castles were built that prevented the poor army of the king from breaking into them. The rural army as I mentioned before consisted of peasants and family members, not armed well enough to break through the cities' modern equipment. Therefore leading a war against the cities proved to be unwise method of gaining wealth, in fact kings were loosing more power and subsidies than actually gaining assets.
Eventually, monarchs decided to invest, develop, and give more power to urban areas, rather than steal from them, thus earning more revenues in a peaceful way. Kings decided to actually invest in the cities, because they had the potential through their economy to accelerate this money that would eventually go back to the monarch. They protected urban businesses from local and abroad competition, by limiting the import, and lowering prices of local goods. This way cities were generating more revenues because they were able to merchandise the low priced local stock and sell it for higher prices or even export it. Kings limited local competition as shown in ... 's history article by changing the business owners' employment policy. New and not skilled enough workers had lower wages, but more experienced ones received higher salaries. In the 17th century king William II was proposed to become a member of the parliament in England, ensuring that taxes for the court maintenance, collected from the peasants and landowners, went straight into England's government. Helping the overall development, allowing local merchants in the cities to conduct their businesses however suits them best, brought more money and expanded the areas that generated profits within the country.
Ruling with "greater wisdom" in other words means that monarchs had to rethink and redirect their targets of "money providers". They did not literally stop imposing violence, however they removed it from kin and groups. Monarchs concealed it in a way that is beneficial for the urban society and more important - peaceful. The sudden change in kings' actions redirected the whole development scope of the political and social relations among the European countries and without it Europe would not be what it is now.
It's me again with another term paper for the same course. I would like you to, if possible, stres s on the my clear language and style. Thank you.
The monarchs had to rule with greater wisdom than themselves had intended" - Montesquieu
Wars, violence, and constant steals from the cities in Europe mark the ages before the 15th century, until after a sudden reassessment of the monarchs' actions fostered the economy and trade in the urban areas. Monarchs, under certain conditions on a social and economic level had to change their method of collecting wealth, earning revenues to finance their wars, and imposing violence. The shift from imposing private violence among kin and groups to investing in urban development and involving in cities political life, had major impact on the further development of the social and economic relations within and among European countries.
The monarchs in the early 15th century in Europe were experts in exercising private violence among kin and groups in the countryside, thus gaining power and wealth from their own and other's lands. In the rural areas the society was divided into small groups and kin. Landowners, who possessed larger plots of land, imposed greater power among the small land owners, because they were wealthier. The countryside shipped goods to the cities in exchange of money. This relationship has some interesting aspects, such as, both sides benefitted and depended on each other at the same time. Rural elites or people with greater income and land possessions grew rapidly in the hierarchy and the demand of producing more goods and faster shipping to the cities along with it. Disputes and arguments arose between elites, and wars appeared as a result. Those who prevailed became monarchs. As we can see from the "Formation of the modern state" article by..., monarchs not only "hired" peasants who worked on their land in exchange of shelter and food, which was actually a "lifetime employment", but also imposed taxes for marriage permission. If the spouse candidate failed to meet the financial requirement, the monarch took his land, along with his peasants. This is how he created his "army" that fought for him and for further land expansions. The monarchs became owners of huge plots of land and had numerous armies, but looking after them required greater supplies for both the army and the agricultural development. With the commercialization of the rural parts of the country, wealth and revenues that monarchs gained from their lands became insufficient and mobilizing groups and kin became harder than it was initially.
The monarchs were forced to turn to the cities stealing their treasures; this tactic soon turned to be really costly, because cities possessed greater power and arms to protect their treasures. In London for example the first several invasions of monarchs managed to steal treasures and money from the royal families. However this urban aristocracy simply moved its treasures to places difficult to reach and find. Moreover in most European cities along the coast high towers, and unbreakable castles were built that prevented the poor army of the king from breaking into them. The rural army as I mentioned before consisted of peasants and family members, not armed well enough to break through the cities' modern equipment. Therefore leading a war against the cities proved to be unwise method of gaining wealth, in fact kings were loosing more power and subsidies than actually gaining assets.
Eventually, monarchs decided to invest, develop, and give more power to urban areas, rather than steal from them, thus earning more revenues in a peaceful way. Kings decided to actually invest in the cities, because they had the potential through their economy to accelerate this money that would eventually go back to the monarch. They protected urban businesses from local and abroad competition, by limiting the import, and lowering prices of local goods. This way cities were generating more revenues because they were able to merchandise the low priced local stock and sell it for higher prices or even export it. Kings limited local competition as shown in ... 's history article by changing the business owners' employment policy. New and not skilled enough workers had lower wages, but more experienced ones received higher salaries. In the 17th century king William II was proposed to become a member of the parliament in England, ensuring that taxes for the court maintenance, collected from the peasants and landowners, went straight into England's government. Helping the overall development, allowing local merchants in the cities to conduct their businesses however suits them best, brought more money and expanded the areas that generated profits within the country.
Ruling with "greater wisdom" in other words means that monarchs had to rethink and redirect their targets of "money providers". They did not literally stop imposing violence, however they removed it from kin and groups. Monarchs concealed it in a way that is beneficial for the urban society and more important - peaceful. The sudden change in kings' actions redirected the whole development scope of the political and social relations among the European countries and without it Europe would not be what it is now.