Christian School

This is an essay example but you can always order custom essay from professional writers at www.essay4you.net

By the 14th century, the feudalism in Europe had started to decline. The decline of feudalism was determined by objective factors that led to the consistent changes in socioeconomic and, therefore, political life of European countries. In this respect, England and France were in the avant-garde of the socioeconomic and political changes which led to the downfall of feudalism. The break of the feudal equilibrium in government was one of the major reasons that led to the decline of feudalism in Europe. To put it more precisely, feudalists used to be autonomous, practically independent of the monarch, who was rather a nominal than real ruler of a country, such as England or France. In the 14th century, the balance of power had started to change because monarchs in the advanced countries of Europe, such as England and France, had started to concentrate the political power in their hand. In fact, they became steadily rulers who controlled the political power in the country, whereas their dukes and lords were subordinated politically. Monarchs united their subordinates and headed their countries.

In such a context, the role of the Hundred Years’ War can hardly be underestimated. The existence of the external threat to the independence and safety of the country was a strong stimulus that forced feudalists to unite under the rule of the monarch. As a result, French feudalists agreed to obey the monarch to survive under the pressure of the English army, whereas the English was united under the rule of the king to succeed in the war.

References:

Ross, C. (1976). The Wars of the Roses, London: Thames and Hudson.

Seward, D. (1999). The Hundred Years War. The English in France 1337–1453. New York: Penguin Books.

This is an essay example but you can always order custom essay from professional writers at www.essay4you.net

There have passed several years after the tragedy of the 11^th October, but it will be forever considered to be the event that has changed the life of the whole planet. How do the specialists and scientists evaluate the perspectives of this tragedy in the context of international relation theory.

American Political Scientist Dr. Henry Kissinger, who considered to be unofficial political advisor of George W. Bush on the question of Israel and Middle East, including the invasion and occupation of Iraq, in his article “Foreign Policy in the age of terrorism” raised the question that is one of the most burning in the field of foreign policy – co-operation. The problem of co-operation between the United States and the other countries has been always some kind of difficulty. The author insists on the fact that the events of 11 September has become so called new reference point and showed that foreign policy is not only economics and sociology: “For America it was a wake-up call against the background of a period of indolence and self-satisfaction. The illusion was that history was over, that

foreign policy had become a version of economics or sociology, that there were no major political issues left was at an end. The illusion that we have an unlimited range of choice, or that we can choose among our options those which most flatter our preconceptions, has also been severely shaken” (Kissinger, 2001). In his article Kissinger pays lots of attention to the problems of reformation that should be taken in the field of co-operation of the United States with the other countries – he cites an instance the foreign policy between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain as a positive example.

It goes without saying that the tragedy of 11^th September has touched every person in the world, but the same time the author has no clear thoughts about how to react. He says the the mission of the US forces in Afghanistan will yield its results but the same time insists that elimination of number one terrorist bin Laden ca not influence the problem. He mostly concentrate the attention of the reader on the unity between the Western Countries that could influence and bring democracy in the Middle East but the same time he drives attention of the reader to the fact that progressive Islamic Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt do not think that West can bring: “Its

true that in many countries in the Middle East there is a kind of tacit agreement between these ‘cells’ and the government in which the government tolerates these cells so long as they  do not direct their actions against the countries in which they are located. It is also the case that an attempt to bring about in a very brief period of time the evolution that took centuries in the West is more likely to produce chaos than democracy” (Kissinger 2001).

Read more…