“This lack of a clear military threat meant that England never needed the huge standing armies that the Continental powers found necessary to survive. While kings on the Continent had to fight to survive, the English monarchs could largely choose their wars, and if they lost, the entire kingdom was generally not in danger. This meant that the gentry and the monarchy gradually worked out a balance of power that maintained a centralized government that protected society from hostile external powers while respecting the economic rights of citizens.”
Is the argument here that
1) Being an island reduced need for a large expensive standing army, thus one was not built, and
2) Lack of standing army allowed the gentry to rise up as a balance of power to the monarch that was not practical in other realms, and
3) This enabled institutions to be more inclusive and thus conducive to commercial society while still being protected from external threats?
2) The lack of a standing army did not allow the monarchy to crush the political autonomy of gentry and aristocracy.
All European nations that had some form of feudalism experienced a military competition between the gentry/aristocracy and the monarchy. In most of the Medieval period, the gentry/aristocracy had the advantage, and monarchs were weak.
Strong military competition between monarchs enabled them to leverage agreements from the estates (essentially Parliaments of gentry/aristocracy) to increase taxes to build an army. This was usually due to emergencies in war, but over time this led to large standing armies. Each war gradually ratcheted up the ability of the monarch to tax and build a strong er army. In most kingdoms, this led to a powerful royal army and a powerful gentry/aristocracy.
I do not know that much about Norman England (roughly 1066-1200) but my understanding is that it was one of the most centralized monarchies in Europe. But since the King could never convince the nobles that a standing army was necessary to defend England, the King was never able to erode noble rights. This was very different from France, Spain, Prussia and Austria.
I believe that without the channel, England would have ended up like those other nations because the King would have kept concentrating power to fight wars.
So many of the commercial currents flowing into England from the continent predated the 1688 Glorious Revolution? Thinking of Shakespeare and the Merchant of Venice? :-) While the connection to William III probably helped the process along, it was basically a late addition? Maybe even with his campaigns against the French, he kept that military "tied up" so it avoided worrying about England? And yet the foundational outlook goes back to Magna Carta and common law developments (jury trials by peer of the accused, probably a lot of legal developments around property ownership, inheritance, etc.?). Also the political competition among guilds, city governments, shire reeves, landed gentry, court magistrates, etc. ???
I gather there was something of a parallel development to learn about God's laws of nature (Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, et al.) but such studies were probably only supportive of "common sense technological" advances (metallurgy, chemistry, textiles, etc.?) rather than something approximating basic science (which came later in the 1700's).
Yes, while the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was an important political event, it was not a fundamental turning point in British society as it is sometimes presented. 1688 forced a compromise between the monarchists and the parliamentarians in favor of the latter, but it did not lead to great changes in British society. It also wiped out the political influences of Catholics. The changes were primarily constitutional and legal, not social and economic.
England, particularly the southeastern part, was a Commercial society long before 1688, and this was one of the primary reasons for the English Civil War between 1642 and 1651.
“This lack of a clear military threat meant that England never needed the huge standing armies that the Continental powers found necessary to survive. While kings on the Continent had to fight to survive, the English monarchs could largely choose their wars, and if they lost, the entire kingdom was generally not in danger. This meant that the gentry and the monarchy gradually worked out a balance of power that maintained a centralized government that protected society from hostile external powers while respecting the economic rights of citizens.”
Is the argument here that
1) Being an island reduced need for a large expensive standing army, thus one was not built, and
2) Lack of standing army allowed the gentry to rise up as a balance of power to the monarch that was not practical in other realms, and
3) This enabled institutions to be more inclusive and thus conducive to commercial society while still being protected from external threats?
Close. #1 and #3 are correct.
I would rephrase #2 as:
2) The lack of a standing army did not allow the monarchy to crush the political autonomy of gentry and aristocracy.
All European nations that had some form of feudalism experienced a military competition between the gentry/aristocracy and the monarchy. In most of the Medieval period, the gentry/aristocracy had the advantage, and monarchs were weak.
Strong military competition between monarchs enabled them to leverage agreements from the estates (essentially Parliaments of gentry/aristocracy) to increase taxes to build an army. This was usually due to emergencies in war, but over time this led to large standing armies. Each war gradually ratcheted up the ability of the monarch to tax and build a strong er army. In most kingdoms, this led to a powerful royal army and a powerful gentry/aristocracy.
I do not know that much about Norman England (roughly 1066-1200) but my understanding is that it was one of the most centralized monarchies in Europe. But since the King could never convince the nobles that a standing army was necessary to defend England, the King was never able to erode noble rights. This was very different from France, Spain, Prussia and Austria.
I believe that without the channel, England would have ended up like those other nations because the King would have kept concentrating power to fight wars.
So many of the commercial currents flowing into England from the continent predated the 1688 Glorious Revolution? Thinking of Shakespeare and the Merchant of Venice? :-) While the connection to William III probably helped the process along, it was basically a late addition? Maybe even with his campaigns against the French, he kept that military "tied up" so it avoided worrying about England? And yet the foundational outlook goes back to Magna Carta and common law developments (jury trials by peer of the accused, probably a lot of legal developments around property ownership, inheritance, etc.?). Also the political competition among guilds, city governments, shire reeves, landed gentry, court magistrates, etc. ???
I gather there was something of a parallel development to learn about God's laws of nature (Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, et al.) but such studies were probably only supportive of "common sense technological" advances (metallurgy, chemistry, textiles, etc.?) rather than something approximating basic science (which came later in the 1700's).
Yes, while the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was an important political event, it was not a fundamental turning point in British society as it is sometimes presented. 1688 forced a compromise between the monarchists and the parliamentarians in favor of the latter, but it did not lead to great changes in British society. It also wiped out the political influences of Catholics. The changes were primarily constitutional and legal, not social and economic.
England, particularly the southeastern part, was a Commercial society long before 1688, and this was one of the primary reasons for the English Civil War between 1642 and 1651.