Enlightened Absolutist or Benevolent Dictator?

The Enlightenment brought to light many great philosophers who affected people intellectually and culturally. They affected people of all classes; including the leaders of countries. The period of Enlightenment brought a generation of enlightened absolutists. What is an enlightened absolutist? An enlightened absolutist is a leader who embraced the ideas of Enlightenment such as religious toleration, the right to hold private property, and more studies into the sciences and education. Also, more freedom of the press and speech was given to the population.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/the-enlightenment-1.jpg

In this chapter we focused upon three countries and rulers who exemplified enlightened absolutism: Prussia, Russia, and Austria. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Friedrich_Zweite_Alt.jpg

Frederick (II) the Great came to power in Prussia in 1740. The first thing Frederick accomplished was invade and conquer the German lands of the Habsburgs, Silesia. With this step Frederick doubled the population of Prussia. Frederick was able to keep this land with the help of Peter III during the 7 Years' War. Frederick brought Enlightenment to the people as a way to strengthen his state. He allowed his subjects the freedom of philosophical and religious tolerance (except Judaism, of course). He improved schools and allowed them to publish their findings in order to continue to educate people. In his government, Frederick created a more honest legal system and abolished the torturing of prisoners. Next Frederick created the reconstruction of agriculture after the 7 Years' War. Though Frederick did not like the idea of serfdom, he needed to use it to support his country.
Frederick truly differed from past rulers when he "justified monarchy in terms of practical results and said nothing of the divine right of kings." This embodies the enlightened belief of the practical use of knowledge to govern opposed to the blind faith of a divine ruler to govern.

http://www.nndb.com/people/575/000078341/catherine-the-great-1-sized.jpg

Catherine the Great of Russia came to power in 1762 after overthrowing her husband Peter III. Catherine brought the Enlightened period to backward Russia by "westernization". In this process Catherine brought architects and sculptors to Russia from Western Europe. Her next step was a domestic reform where she improved education, strengthen local government, and abolished torture(very similar to Frederick the Great). She allowed a little religious toleration. She also condemned the idea of serfdom but because of a peasant rebellion lead by Emelian Pugachev, Catherine needed the help of the nobility to control the peasants.

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/T/Maria-Theresa-9398965-1-402.jpg

Maria Theresa came to power in Austria in 1740. The War of the Austrian Succession included the loss of Silesia to Prussia leading to reforms. She believed that reforms were the path to a stronger state. Maria first attacked the power of the papacy in politics by limiting it. Next she improved her government by making a more centralized bureaucracy and created a new tax system where even the nobles were taxed. Maria truly differed from other rulers of her time by reducing the power of lords over serfs. Her son, Joseph II gave religious tolerance and rights to Protestants and Jews. Following in his mothers path, Joseph II abolished serfdom in Austria in 1781 and decreed that all peasant labor obligations be converted into cash payments. Sadly these measures were rejected by nobility and the peasants causing an uproar after Joseph's untimely death. His brother Leopold II had to demolish Joseph's edicts.

Another name for an enlightened absolutist is a benevolent dictator. But are they the same thing? An enlightened absolutist is someone who uses the ideas of the enlightenment to better their government and kingdom while a benevolent dictator is someone who helps their populace with the intent to make their life better. I believe that the enlightened absolutists were not the same as benevolent dictators. The rulers of Prussia, Russia, and Austria wanted to improve their country in every way but knew in order to do so they needed to adapt to the times and use the technique of knowledge to efficiently run a kingdom. They did not have the intent of improving the lives of the people with their inability to abolish the oppressive serfdom. In the end, many of the absolutists were able to improve their countries with intelligence, hard work, and enlightenment.

I Kant Understand This

Today in class we reviewed philosophy during the Enlightenment, specifically focusing on Kant and Rousseau, which was rather confusing. We started off by discussing some Kant.

Pictured: Kant

He gave us a pretty nice definition of what is Enlightenment, namely that it was "man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity."

Pictured: Not Kant 

 Now, the hard part comes, defining Kant's definition! Basically, to Kant, immaturity wasn't making dirty jokes all the time, rather it was not using your head and  not thinking independently.  Kant believed (with just reasons) that many people were "immature" in this manner and simply were content with being ignorant.

This show justifies Kant's argument

For Kant the main reason the majority of people were not enlightened was simply because they were too lazy to improve themselves or too afraid to step outside their boundaries. It should also be noted he pretty much thought all women were unenlightened because in this time it was not acceptable for them to think very independently. However, Kant believed that the public could gradually become enlightened. He said that this could be accomplished by the leadership of the few enlightened guardians of thought. In other words he meant that he believed in an enlightened ruler who would then seek to enlighten his subjects. He did not believe that it could work the other way around, that the enlightened subjects make the rulers enlightened. To Kant this would lead to conflict in which the rulers (or guardians) would become even more prejudiced and less reasonable in reaction to the uprising. 

Kant also on clarified that enlightenment only really needed the freedom of the public use of reason, and that the freedom of the private use of reason did not matter as much. Private use of reason means basically whether you adhere to the duties of your job. If you are for example, a soldier, Kant would still expect you to obey orders, as it is your job. In this aspect, he believed a person could be restricted to follow what was needed of them by society. However, Kant said that you should still be able to discuss your thoughts freely in the public and employ your reason. He mainly advocated therefore for what we would know as the freedom of the press.

Pictured: Not Kant, Actually Rousseau

We also briefly talked about Rousseau. Rousseau was another Enlightenment era philosopher, but he differed from Kant in a few ways. Like Kant, Rousseau believed that people should have individual freedom of expression of thought.  One was that he had a somewhat more positive view on the basic nature of humanity. He also did not trust in rationalism as much. To him, because humanity was already good, trying to "civilize" someone could actually be hurtful to their freedom. 

Rousseau also went beyond just wanting to have an enlightened ruler. Rousseau believed that a ruler did not derive their right to rule from force, God or nature but rather sovereignty should lie in common interests of the populace, known as general will. This idea of the general will led to the belief in popular sovereignty, wherein the people ruled themselves. These ideas would become incredibly influential.

Philosophes, Fathers, and Johnny Appleseed

Think of the scientific revolution as the first apple tree that John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) ever planted. The apple was a fruit that Americans had not been exposed to before. Just as Johnny Appleseed introduced the apple tree to large areas of the United States, the scientific revolution introduced the world to new ideas.

-Tree = Scientific Revolution
-Scientific Revolution produces new ideas
-New ideas = apples

The scientific revolution was the single most important factor in the creation of the new views brought about during the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Although the "fresh" ideas (fresh apples lol) of the time were diverse and often conflicting, three central concepts stand at the core in the apple of Enlightenment thinking.

Society split between 3 different groups, groups that I like to call the "PPP" or the P times 3 because it rhymes. (People, Public, Philosophes) By 1775, most of Western Europe's educated elite had embraced the new ideas of the Enlightenment. These educated and enlightened people were simply referred to as "the public." In turn, there was the great majority of the population, or the common people, who were simply referred to as "the people." (Or the hoi polloi for Maria) The philosophes, or simply the intellectuals, were the ones in charge of making Enlightenment thought accessible to this wide range of people. However, these philosophe dudes were very demeaning and almost paternalistic over their poor audiences. They honestly believed that they "were bringing the light of knowledge to their ignorant fellow creatures...and that the great majority of the common people were doomed because they lacked the money and the leisure to look beyond their bitter struggle with poverty." Basically, I think that these philosophes were very optimistic of themselves, yet very pessimistic of human nature. In order for society to progress in a positive direction (one of the 3 parts of the apple), the intellectuals must commit themselves to educating and informing the ignorant masses. Of course though, it was for their own good and for the good of society...There were no benefits for the fatherly philosophes at all! (sarcasm). 

A perfect example of a paternalistic, pessimistic philosophe is Francois Marie Arouet, AKA Voltaire. Before I continue.. I digress...

Not only did Voltaire believe that human beings are rarely worthy to govern themselves, but he also rejected the idea of social and economic equality. Servants would always be lesser than their masters, there was no changing that. Voltaire's belief in the unequal nature of humans severely clashed with Church doctrine. Christ's message of "loving God and your neighbor as yourself" would not fly according to Voltaire. 

Therefore, I think these philosophes had good intentions by wanting to improve and to advance society with the new ideas of the Enlightenment. However, they did not approach the situation in the correct manner. As usual, the common people didn't really matter and the elite was better than everyone else, the usual. To be completely honest though, I don't understand why Voltaire thought he was the man. He did have a pretty girly name after all... how embarrassing. 

Church, causes, and potato chips

 

The scientific revolution had 3 main causes:
1) Universities: the course of philosophy, newly developed, encouraged a new way of thinking. It was a minor branch of science but it was the instigator of the idea of science
2) Math: humanists studied the classics and with it came math. People back then wanted to solve the problems that arose in ancient times. By solving these problems, they began the progression of science.
3) Navigation: it was very difficult to find the longitude during this time. Science was needed to make such an instrument and help with the efficiency of ships.
            *** A chronometer(left) is the instrument that measures longitude, not a sextant (sorry Maria!).  That however measures the latitude.
                    VS.



Eventually, the scientific revolution resulted in empiricism and Cartesian dualism.

•        Empiricism (we like this concept!)
• Since we didn't have a concrete definition of this in class (ironic isn't is) here is what Bing's dictionary has to say:
1. application of observation and experiment: the application of observation and experiment, and not theory, in determining something
2. philosophical belief regarding sense-derived knowledge: the philosophical belief that all knowledge is derived from the experience of the senses

Using the 5 senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, hear, in case you need a reminder) scientists at this time had concrete understanding of life. For example, since we are not sciency people, I'll use food as my example.
1) Sight- One can see that potato chips can be grooved, thin, or kettle
2) Touch- One can feel the rough, fried texture
3) Smell- One can smell the potato chips...they smell like potatoes
4) Hear- One can hear the crunching of the potato chips when others eat them
5) Taste- One can taste the saltiness

Hungry yet?

Now back to science. So as you can see, at this time is was very easy to believe in the things we can physically come in contact with. The experience of eating potato chips is just as real as Locke's tabula rasa belief. Everyone writes his/her life with the experiences. If one chooses to make his or her life about potato chips so be it. It is the things in our life, the things we experience that mold us.


Another theory, unlike empiricism, is the Cartesian dualism (we don't like this one)
It is made up of two concept: inductive and deductive reasoning.

• Inductive: Johnny doesn't wear a wedding ring, he is single
• Deductive: Johnny is a bachelor, all bachelors are single, Johnny is single

This concept relates to the scientific method as well. The hypothesis is inductive (inferred) while the conclusion is deductive (based on facts).



















Finally, all this concrete evidence lead to the questioning of the church. The church was semi ok with the idea of science in the beginning because it didn't pose much of a threat. However, as time went on, the church and humanity was no longer the center of the world and physical experiments were proving some of the church's beliefs wrong. Since the ways of the church were questioned, the church leaders feared that their other doctrines would be questioned. It was a challenge of authority between scientists and the religious leaders at this point. It was a battle they couldn't afford to lose.

 

To sum this all up, here is a video:

Blinding Me With Science--Science!

While science is annoying and, occasionally, emotionally distressing, it is very important (yes, I admitted it, Maria). The Scientific Revolution officially marked Europe's transition from a religious, doctrinal way of thinking to a scientific, logical one. During the Middle Ages, there was little scientific advancement. People faithfully accepted the Church's explanation of the world and how it worked. During the Renaissance, this began to change as people began to study Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato. Finally, during the Scientific Revolution, thinkers like Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton began to really question the accepted explanations of the world. This led to many important discoveries, but, more importantly, to a change in thought that would influence the modern development of Europe. 

Nicolas Copernicus

Copernicus disproved the geocentric theory that placed earth at the center of the solar system and replaced it with the heliocentric theory in which the Earth was simply one of a number of plants orbiting the sun. 

Because of lack of physical evidence and public support, Copernicus had difficulty having his theory accepted. He was denounced by religious leaders, especially Protestant ones. Martin Luther said: "the fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside down (598).

Here is a fun video to clarify the Heliocentric Theory:

Galileo 

Galileo revised the subject of Physics through his use of the experimental method, an ancestor of our scientific method. He used this to formulate the law of inertia, which states that an object continues in motion forever unless stopped by an external force. In the same way, a stationary object can not move unless affected by another force.

Galileo also found evidence to support Copernicus's heliocentric theory by examining space through a telescope. Many theologians denounced Galileo as a heretic. However, Pope Urban VIII permitted him to write about his theories as long as he did not discredit the one that "actually existed". He wrote The Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of World which openly defended the views of Copernicus. As a result, he was tried for heresy by the Church and recanted. 

Isaac Newton 

Newton developed many theories to explain how the world worked. However, none are so revolutionary as his law of universal gravitation. This states "that every body in the universe attracts every other body in the universe in a precise mathematical relationship, whereby the force of attraction is proportional to the quantity of matter of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" (601). [I directly quoted that from the book because I have no idea what it means and therefore could not explain it in my own words]. Many scientists believe that this is the basis of modern scientific discovery. 

Here is another fun video to describe the concept of gravity: 

The contributions of these scientists truly began modern scientific discovery. Without them, our society would be unrecognizable. 

To conclude this blog post, I have posted a video of arguably the best scientists of the 21st century, maybe even the best ever:

The boys of the Big Bang Theory:

 

Peter the Copycat?

Peter the Great ruled Russia from 1628 until his death in 1725. During his reign he tried to improve Russia in every aspect. He organized a better military by banning nepotism and unjust promotions amongst army officials. Peter also used the nobles for personal gain and power. Peter the Great transformed Russia into a force to be reckoned with. But was Peter just copying Louis XIV?


So here wa have Versailles...

And here we have Saint Petersburg...

There are many parallels between Russia and France, are they simply coincidences or something more? Louis had Versailles, Peter had Saint Petersburg. Peter wanted a modern version of Versailles to showcase his power. Both Louis and Peter stripped nobles of power and ignored the peasants. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer, just like everywhere else. Peter was interested in westernizing Russia, but to an extent. That extent was to be determined by him and his interests. What Peter felt was good for Russia, was good for Russia. When he came into power Russia was a small fish in a big pond. When his reign came to an end, Russia was without a doubt a predator.

 

Yay for Russia, not so much for that green fishy...

 

 

Overall Peter's actions and policies were very beneficial for Russia and its citizens- the peasants were still poor (but who really cares about them anyway?). So, although Peter may have been a copycat, he still lived up to being Peter the Great.



Fun Fact: Peter was 6 foot 8. Woah.

Russia is the New Preppy Girl

As Katie has said in class, Russia was big, cold, and angry. But they were angry for the right reason.
In the thirteenth century the mongols, lead by Chinggis Khan, invaded and ruled eastern Europe and Russia with his "Golden Horde".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan

Khan did not kill but used the Russian princes as tools. The princes were a key instrument to collect the taxes and control the populace.
But one man thought he could overcome the mongols. That man was Ivan (III) the Great who broke the yoke of the mongols that suffocated Russia. He rose within the princes and took Russia back.
Ivan ruled until his son Ivan (IV) the TERRIBLE took over.

http://www.biography.com/people/ivan-the-terrible-9350679

Ivan reigned with an intent to control every aspect of his country. This resulted in a suppression of his subjects. Ivan made all his subjects depend upon himself for land and jobs. He created a service nobility where hereditary of private property was eradicated. Ivan also began a war with Poland-Lithuania, wasting much money. With the death of his beloved Anastasia Ivan struck even harder upon his country. Muscovite boyars were killed by mysterious men on horses and these purges continued for much of his reign. The Cossacks created an independence from Russia as a free group.
Ivan's death created chaos over Russia because his son was killed (by Ivan). This began the "Time of Troubles". Many reached for power until the nobility took control once more and placed Ivan's nephew Michael Romanov who reestablished the tsarist autocracy. This reign ushered the rule of Peter the Great.

http://www.biography.com/people/peter-the-great-9542228

Peter the Great was an angel compared to his distant relative Ivan the Terrible. Peter believed in a monarchical autocracy and improved his military in order to westernize Russia. Peter strongly believed in territorial expansion. To improve his military knowledge Peter traveled unofficially on a tour of western European capitals. This began Peter's (secret) alliance with Denmark. This became helpful when Russia began a war against Sweden.
Now why did Peter want land of Sweden so much? Sweden held St. Petersburg and ports to the Baltic Sea which appeared very similar to Versailles of France. This war was Russia's next step to becoming fully westernized. Peter was like a young teenage girl who was catching onto the "preppy" trend (like many girls in our school). Preppy clothing is expensive. And so is modernizing a country. One piece of the puzzle was bought at a time. Some land conquered here and better clothing for the people there. A long champ purse here and a monogrammed necklace there, Russia was slowly becoming modernized like the rest of Europe. With a growing military power and a new cultural change in fashion in Russia, Peter was becoming closer and closer to western countries.

http://vineyardvinesandglitteringeyes.tumblr.com/image/66464570593

Prussia: A Tale of Three Fredericks

As you all know, we have discussed absolutism in Austria, and a bit about Russia, but today we learned about absolutism in Prussia. And it was very confusing. To start off, Prussia was not even a continuous area! What we mean by Prussia, is rather the combined lands of  Estates of Brandenburg, which is located around Berlin, the Duchy of Prussia, and the scattered areas in Western Germany. How could such a divided and comparatively small country ever hope to achieve any form of absolutist rule?

Get your act together!

It all started with the Great Elector Frederick William(1640-1688), a member of the Hohenzollern family, and after the Thirty Years' War, which had devastated his holdings. Of course the ones opposing absolutist rule here (as usual) were the nobles, known as the Junkers. However, they were weakened enough after the Thirty Years' War to give in to the Great Elector's demands. The most important one being that the Great Elector could tax as he wanted, of course he promised to not tax these nobles heavily. Financial independence allowed the Great Elector to make a powerful standing army. With this army, Prussia had centralized its power.

However, his successor, Elector Frederick III (1688-1713) (who later becomes King Frederick I as a reward from Spain) was rather weak and focused more on the cultivation of the arts than war.

This all changed when Frederick William I (1713-1740)(NOT THE GREAT ELECTOR) became king. He became known as the Soldiers' King because of his intense love for militarism. He was the one who made Prussia truly an absolutist state. He further increased the power of the Prussian military to the point that is was the main focus of the country.To do this he had to create a strong centralized bureaucracy and did away finally with the power of the Junkers and any form of self-government. In return to these nobles, he made them the officer class of his new super army. He basically laid the foundations militarily for what would become the German war machine hundreds of years later.

I made a table to make this easier to understand: 

Austria-- Hungry for some Hungary!

In the 17th century, Austria and Prussia began to rise to prominence in Eastern Europe. Taylor already established the key differences between Western and Eastern Europe; yet, there were important variations on the absolutist theme in the East as well. The royal absolutism created in Prussia was stronger and more effective than that established in Austria. Why is this?.. you may ask. The Austrian empire experienced many additional problems that the Prussians did not have to deal with. These internal and external pressures placed on the Austrians gave Prussia an advantage in the struggle for power in east-central Europe. Although my main focus will be on the problematic factors in Austria, I must answer one lingering question....What is Prussia?! Before our class today, I'm not going to lie I had no idea what Prussia was (no shame). Hopefully some of you will admit that you were as unsure about Prussia as I was to save me from some embarrassment. 

According to my handy dandy Google friend:

Maybe this map will also help a little..

Now back to the problems in Austria.. 

After the defeat in central Europe due to the Thirty Years' War, the Habsburgs were forced to turn inward and eastward in an attempt to fuse their lands into a strong, unified state. Popular belief at this time was that different religions could not coexist within a certain territory, nor could they help in unifying the holding. Therefore, the Catholic Habsburgs had to "Czech" the power of the Bohemian nobility, that of which was largely Protestant. In the 1620 Battle of the White Mountain, victorious Habsburg king Ferdinand II drastically reduced the power of the Bohemians by installing many Catholic nobles into power. With the help of this new nobility, the Habsburgs established strong direct rule over reconquered Bohemia. 

In addition to Bohemia, the Ottoman Turks and Hungary also posed as significant problems for Austria. Followers of Islam, the Turks were old and determined enemies of the Catholic Habsburgs. Hungary had long been divided and fought over by both parties. During the last attack on the Habsburgs by the Turks at Vienna, the Habsburgs conquered almost all of Hungary and Transylvania.

Like the Bohemian nobility, the Hungarian nobility also resisted Habsburg rule because many of them were Protestant. Previously, the Ottomans preached and practiced religious tolerance; therefore, the Protestantism was accepted. The Hungarian nobility resented the fact that the victorious Habsburgs intended to re-Catholicize everyone. They never triumphed decisively, but neither were they ever crushed, as the Czech nobility had been in 1620. Charles VI restored many of the traditional privileges of the Hungarian aristocracy in return for Hungarian acceptance of hereditary Habsburg rule. Charles VI's appeasement of the Hungarians was not very absolutist if I do say so myself. 

The biggest problem for the Habsburgs in Austria, however, was "subject nationalities." They were not able to obtain an effective absolutist rule over their subjects because their lands were divided between the old "hereditary provinces" of Austria, the kingdom of Bohemia, and the kingdom of Hungary. Their common link was the one and only common monarch. They were not really in control of their subjects because of their divided attentions and distractions. For these reasons, Austria did not emerge as strong of an absolutist state as upcoming Prussia. 

No such thing as Hakuna Matata in Europe!

Eastern and Western Europe are like Scar and Mufasa in The Lion King. They originate from the same place (family) but are not the same. They have different ways of ruling and different concepts they execute. Let's start with the Scar of Europe or in other words the East!

The most defining aspect of Eastern Europe and The Lion King is serfdom or servitude.

The once peasants of Europe were returning to the serf lifestyle as the nobility gained power. The monarchy, although had similar views to the nobility, was not strong enough to completely withhold the nobles from taking control, especially regarding the peasants. The peasants were not ecstatic about this at all. They were basically slaves with no freedoms! They were being forced to work for lords while the lords sat and watched. The nobles had all the power.....

They catered to their own needs not caring about the morals of the situation. The reason they did this was because the black death decreased the population, and Europe was still feeling the effects. They did not have enough people making products to sell to foreigners. This would have boosted up the economy (a major problem of Russia). To ensure that serfdom remained, they issued hereditary subjugation. Now all lineage of the family were born into the slave life. There was no escape.


The Lion King:  Just as the monarchs were taken over by the nobility, Mufasa was taken over by Scar (see picture below). Scar then forced everyone(peasants) but his own supporters into servitude. Whether it was the Sarabi being forced to find food for the pack, or Zazu providing entertainment for Scar, their freedoms were taken away just as the peasants' had in Europe. Simba was devastated over the loss of his father (the absolute power) just as the peasants were over their rights.

 

 

Now on to Western Europe!

 

History: Western Europe was not as cruel as its counterpart. Serfdom was not as prominent in the West. The absolute monarch, who made sure to limit the power of the nobles like Louis XIV had, disagreed with servitude for economic reasons. If the peasants were put into servitude, they could not pay their taxes. Therefore, the monarch made sure the peasants had money to pay taxes in order to benefit the country. This is a major contrast to the East who thought that servitude would bring economic prosperity. Also, the reason the monarch could not physically bring peasants into servitude was that there were too many compromises being made between the two classes. Because of this absence, the West had more respect and peace than the East.

 

The Lion King: Think of Mufasa as the monarch and the rest of the pack as equals. Mufasa was the overall ruler. The rest of the lions, or nobility so to speak, had authority but not so much as to overpower him. Mufasa made rules for the betterment of his land and the happiness of his people. Although monarchs in Europe did not have the best intentions for the people, the rulers of the West were much more considerate than the East.

 

 

 

The only uniting factor of East and West Europe was religion. Russian Orthodoxy was practiced the most. To further map out the branches of religion, here is a chart:

(Focus on the left hand orange boxes!)

 

Anyway, religion somewhat unified the East and West. Both sides were looking for the same thing (money), but went about it in different ways, the East's more violent than the West's just like Scar's was more deceptive than Mufasa's.  It all depended on the nobility and their relationship with the absolute monarch. Either way though, no one truly lived in harmony with each other. There was no Hakuna Matata in Europe.

 

 

 

 



Spanish Decline

In the 16th century, Spain had developed the characteristics of an absolutist government:

        1. permanent bureaucracy of nobles under a powerful king 

2. standing army

3. national taxes (servicios) which fell on the poor

Spain established an absolutist government not only in Spain itself, but also in the South American colonies, such as Peru. The majority of the national wealth in Spain came from exploitation of gold and silver found in these colonies, and from sale of cloth, grain, oil, and wine to the colonies. This combination allowed Spain to become extremely wealthy and powerful. 

However, by the 17th century, several factors forced Spain to become a second-rate power:

1. lack of a middle class as a result of the expulsion of Moors and Jews 

2. agricultural crisis and population decline 

3. failure of enterprises 

4. the English and the Dutch began trading with the Spanish colonies, disrupting the Spanish economy

5. the seemingly inexhaustible supply of silver began to decline  

Despite these economic problems, the monarchy still spent lavishly, costs always exceeding the income. Inflation, as a result of the influx of gold and silver, prevented Spanish exports from competing in international markets. Additionally, nobles, unwilling to accept the economic problems, increased rents on their estates, as well as taxes. This caused many peasants to flee the country.
 
                                          Peasant Life

     Vs.

                                                  Noble and Royal Life 

The Hapsburg kings (Philip III, Philip IV,  Charles II) of the 16th century failed to help these problems because of their weakness of character. "Their faces--small, beady eyes; the long noses; the jutting Habsburg jaws; the pathetically stupid expressions--tell a story of excessive inbreeding and decaying monarchy" (547).
                                                   Charles II of Spain

 

These factors all led to the decline of the once seemingly invincible Spain. "Seventeenth-century Spain was a victim of its past. It could not forget the grandeur of the sixteenth century and look to the future" (547).  Just as Don Quixote lived in a world of dreams, searching for glory, Spain lived in the world of its past, unable to keep up with the 17th century world.