The New Age After the 1500s College Essay Term Papers History

The New Age After the 1500s

After 1500 there were many signs that a new age of world
history was beginning, for example the discovery of America and the
first European enterprises in Asia. This "new age" was dominated by
the astonishing success of one civilization among many, that of
Europe. There was more and more continuous interconnection between
events in all countries, but it is to be explained by European
efforts. Europeans eventually became "masters of the globe" and they
used their mastery to make the world one. That resulted in a unity of
world history that can be detected until today. Politics,
empire-building, and military expansion were only a tiny part of what
was going on. Besides the economic integration of the globe there was
a much more important process going on: The spreading of assumptions
and ideas. The result was to be "One World." The age of independent
civilizations has come to a close.

The history of the centuries since 1500 can be described as a
series of wars and violent struggles. Obviously men in different
countries did not like another much more than their predecessors did.
However, they were much more alike than their ancestors were, which
was an outcome of what we now call modernization. One could also say
that the world was Europeanized, for modernization was a matter of
ideas and techniques which have an European origin. It was with the
modernization of Europe that the unification of world history began. A
great change in Europe was the starting-point of modern history.
There was a continuing economic predominance of agriculture.
Agricultural progress increasingly took two main forms: Orientation
towards the market, and technical innovation. They were
interconnected. A large population in the neighborhood meant a market
and therefore an incentive. Even in the fifteenth century the
inhabitants of so called ³low countries² were already leaders in the
techniques of intensive cultivation. Better drainage opened the way to
better pasture and to a larger animal population. Agricultural
improvement favored the reorganization of land in bigger farms, the
reduction of the number of small holders, the employment of wage
labor, and high capital investment in buildings, drainage and
machinery.

         In the late sixteenth century one response to the pressure of
expanding population upon slowly growing resources had been the
promoting of emigration. By 1800, Europeans had made a large
contribution to the peopling of new lands overseas. It was already
discernible in the sixteenth century when there began the long
expansion of world commerce which was to last until 1930. It started
by carrying further the shift of economic gravity from southern to
north-western Europe, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, which
has already been remarked. One contribution to this was made by
political troubles and wars such as ruined Italy in the early
sixteenth century. The great commercial success story of the sixteenth
century was Antwerp's, though it collapsed after a few decades in
political and economic disaster. In the seventeenth century Amsterdam
and London surpassed it. In each case an important trade based on a
well-populated hinterland provided profits for diversification into
manufacturing industry, services, and banking. The Bank of Amsterdam
and The Bank of England were already international economic forces in
the in the seventeenth century. About them clustered other banks and
merchant houses undertaking operations of credit and finance. Interest
rates came down and the bill of exchange, a medieval invention,
underwent an enormous extension of use and became the primary
financial instrument of international trade.

         This was the beginning of the increasing use of paper, instead
of bullion. In the eighteenth century came the first European paper
currencies and the invention of the check. Joint stock companies
generated another form of negotiable security, their own shares.
Quotation of these in London coffee-houses in the seventeenth century
was overtaken by the foundation of the London Stock Exchange. By 1800
similar institutions existed in many other countries. It was also the
time of some spectacular disastrous investment projects, one of which
was the great English South Sea Bubble. But all the time the world was
growing more commercial, more used to the idea of employing money to
make money, and was supplying itself with the apparatus of modern
capitalism.

         One effect quickly appeared in the much greater attention paid
to commercial questions in diplomatic negotiation from the later
seventeenth century and in the fact that countries were prepared to
fight over them. The English and Dutch went to war over trade in 1652.
This opened a long era during which they, the French and Spanish,
fought again and again over quarrels in which questions of trade were
important. Governments not only looked after their merchants by going
to war to uphold their interests, but also intervened in other ways in
the working of the commercial economy. One advantage they could offer
were monopoly privileges to a company under a charter; this made the
raising of capital easier by offering some security for a return. Such
activities closely involved government and therefore the concerns of
businessmen shaped both, policy and law.

          The most impressive structural development in European
commerce was the sudden new importance to it of overseas trade from
the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. This was part of
the shift of economic activity from Mediterranean to northern Europe.
By the late seventeenth century. Rising populations and some assurance
of adequate transport (water was always cheaper than land carriage)
slowly built up an international trade in cereals. Shipbuilding itself
promoted the movement of such commodities as pitch, flax or timber.
More than European consumption was involved; all this took place in a
setting of growing colonial empires. By the eighteenth century there
were already present an oceanic economy and an international trading
community which does business -- and fights and intrigues for it --
around the globe. In this economy an important and growing part was
played by slaves, most of them black Africans. In Europe itself,
slavery had by then all but withered away. Now it was to undergo a
vast extension in other continents. Soon a permanent slaving station
was set up in West Africa. This shows the rapid discovery of the
profitability of the new traffic. It was already clear that it was a
business of brutality. As the search for slaves went further inland,
it became simpler to rely on local potentates who would round up
captives and barter them wholesale.

         Early industrial centers grew by accretion, often around the
centers of established European industries closely related to
agriculture. This long continued to be true. These old trades had
created concentrations of supporting industry. Antwerp had been the
great port of entry to Europe for English cloth; as a result,
finishing and dyeing establishments appeared there to work up further
commodities flowing through the port.
         The twentieth century needs no reminders that social change
can quickly follow economic change. We have little belief in the
immutability of social forms and institutions. Three hundred years
ago, many men and women believed them to be virtually God-given and
the result was that although social changes took place in the
aftermath of inflation, they were muffled by the persistence of old
forms. Superficially much of European society remained unchanged
between 1500 and 1800. Yet the economic realities underlying changed a
great deal. Rural life had already begun to show this in some
countries before 1500. As agriculture became more and more a matter of
business, traditional rural society had to change. Forms were usually
preserved. Although feudal lordship still existed in France in the
1780s, it was by then less a social reality than an economic device.

         Europe was divided roughly along the Elbe. To the west lay
countries evolving slowly by 1800 towards more open social forms. To
the east lay authoritarian governments presiding over agrarian
societies where a minority of landholders enjoyed great powers over a
largely tied peasantry. In this area towns did not often prosper as
they had done for centuries in the West. They tended to be overtaxed
islands in a rural sea, unable to attract from the countryside the
labor they needed because of the extent of serfdom. Over great tracts
of Poland and Russia even a money economy barely existed. Much of
later European history was implicit in this difference between east
and west.

         In the time span between the sixteenth and the eighteenth
century states that were once powerful fell in rank, namely Spain,
Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Ottoman Empire. This led to the rise
of the new great powers such as Austria-Hungary, England, France,
Prussia, and Russia. Factors to their rise were their geography,
financial system, military strategy, and a new form of bureaucracy.
Laws ensured the people¹s security , whereas religion did not
interfere. Furthermore a new form of government was introduced, where
there was more than just an exclusive group at power. With these
changes a new system of modern bureaucracy began to rise. With that a
major contradiction seemed to come up. How could capitalism, promoting
free enterprise, and bureaucracy, which was a complex system of
regulations and restrictions, coexist? However, taking a closer look
at today¹s capitalistic societies one can clearly detect an advantage
of that constellation. In Germany for example the capitalistic
business world is strongly restricted by government regulations,
decreasing the companies¹ profits, but benefiting society. In Brazil,
on the other hand, where the so called "capitalismo salvage" prevails,
the business world lives of the people, leaving them in poor
conditions.

         The ³Treaty of Utrecht² benefited most of central Europe by

establishing a balance of power and restoring peace. Russia benefited
of Sweden¹s decline, and a large bureaucratic machinery collected a
lot of taxes. Ivan the Terrible build up an extremely efficient system
of espionage, which preserved his own power and increased state
revenues. Likewise, Prussia prospered from its modern legal system,
its strong state apparatus, where bureaucrats were state servants with
some duties and many privileges. Prussia was also known for its
disciplined army with advanced weapons. One could say that Prussia was
a very well organized efficient power.

         Austria-Hungary was also able to maintain its status as a
great power for a long time. The bureaucracy remained efficient due
to the separation of power that existed between the prince and the
people. In this case, the elements of finance, geography, and
military strategy were not as crucial to the rise of this
organization. France kept an effective and rational bureaucracy that
consisted of royal officials who acted as state authorities along with
the king. The collection of revenue was direct and strictly enforced
by the bureaucracy. While France was a prominent Great Power, it also
faced numerous problems. Their military strategy was extremely weak.
The allotment of revenue that went towards defense was split between
land and sea powers; creating a mediocre military in both areas.
Thus, France was unable to turn to the offensive. The taxes collected
were not enough to uphold the maintenance of the state. France's
financial situation was inferior to that of England's since they had
no system of credit which England already developed. France also
relied heavily on the importation of goods from colonies. This
constant trade drained the economy because it called for a strong navy
which was not possible.

         England became superior to France in many ways. This was
largely due to the industrial revolution that made England a powerful
force while France suffered because of structural problems. England
experienced success in the coal, iron, textile, and steel industry.
England was the leading nation in Europe in mining and heavy
manufacturing. Then came more innovations such as the invention of
the steam engine in 1712. This success led only to more prosperity in
many areas.
         The rise of the mentioned powers was greatly influenced by the
adaptation of a new system of bureaucracy. This new system utilized
at least one of the important factors that brought about the rise of
these nations: finance, geography, or military strategy. England
proves to be the best example of this modern bureaucratic system
because it used all three elements while striving for maximum

efficiency and power.