Great Powers In The 17th And 1 :: essays research papers

Great Powers in the 17th and 18th Centuries In the 17th and 18th centuries, Great Britain, France, and the Hapsburg Empire were all competing for the fate of Europe. France, in particular, was caught between being a continental power or a world power; taking control of the Rhine and most of Central Europe, or taking control of The New World. France’s primary goal at the time was for control of the Rhine, but this goal was not without obstacles. Great Britain’s main concern was to keep the balance of power in Europe on their side, while expanding overseas. The Hapsburg Empire’s goals were dealing with conquering the Holy Roman Empire and the Germanic states, in turn taking over the entire continent from the inside out. All 3 of these great powers were being opposed from their pursuits, and survival was always the top concern. Also, after 1660, a growing multipolar system of European states made decisions within each state based more on national interest than before, when most conflicts and militaristic deci sions were based on religion. Louis XIV(1661-1715) is responsible for a considerable gain in the power of France. He had huge armies, (at some points reaching up to half a million troops), that were organized with barracks, hospitals, parade grounds, and depots to support them. Along with an organized enormous fleet at sea, France became a true hybrid power. Its energies were diverted between continental aims and maritime and colonial ambitions. For two decades with no real competition, France was successful, but other powers soon built up enough recourses and power to challenge it. By 1713, and the Treaty of Utrecht, France’s boundaries were established covering the Saint Lawrence River valley, the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys, the West Indian islands of Saint Domingue, Guadeloupe, and Martinique. Constantly defending these territories with the navy, and wars on land with Italy and other states, split French energy into the navy and military. Never putting enough effort into just one of these two di visions, French strategy was described as a constant â€Å"falling between stools†, with no direction. If one of the two divisions were solely concentrated on, French success within that division would have been much more successful. Also, France’s economy was not strong. France was much wealthier than countries such as England, but the weak economical structure, tax strategy, interest policies, and lack of a proper system of public finance in France made less money per capita than in than most states.