AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain how European diplomacy shifted from primarily confessional conflict toward **state interest**
- Identify how **Cardinal Richelieu** showed that political goals could outweigh shared Catholic identity
- Recall the significance of the **Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)** and the **Peace of Westphalia (1648)**
- Distinguish between early religious motives in war and later **balance-of-power** motives
- Use later examples, including the struggle against **Louis XIV**, to show how balancing logic spread
- Build stronger causation and turning-point arguments for SAQs, DBQs, and LEQs

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand how diplomacy in the seventeenth century became less dominated by religion and more shaped by state interest, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **Thirty Years' War** began with strong religious elements but widened into a political struggle over power in Europe
- Identify **Cardinal Richelieu** as the clearest example of a Catholic ruler supporting Protestant powers for strategic reasons
- Explain **raison d'état** as policy based on the interests and security of the state rather than confessional loyalty
- Understand why fear of **Habsburg hegemony** pushed rulers into cross-confessional alliances
- Know the importance of the **Peace of Westphalia (1648)** as a marker of greater state sovereignty and pragmatic diplomacy
- Distinguish anti-Habsburg balancing in the mid-seventeenth century from later balancing against **Bourbon France** under **Louis XIV**
- Recognise the **War of the Grand Alliance (1689–1697)** and the **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)** as later examples of balance-of-power politics

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why is **Cardinal Richelieu** such an important example for this topic?
2. How did the **Thirty Years' War** change from a mainly religious conflict into a wider power struggle?
3. What did the **Peace of Westphalia** change in European politics?
4. How did states react when **Louis XIV** seemed too powerful?
5. Why is the phrase "balance of power replaced religion" useful but also slightly too simple?

## Introduction

In AP European History Unit 3, one of the biggest changes in European politics is the shift from wars and alliances shaped mainly by religion to diplomacy shaped more by **state interest**. This does not mean religion vanished. It means rulers increasingly chose allies and enemies based on security, territory, and the danger that one state might dominate Europe.

This change is one of the clearest signs that early modern Europe was becoming a state system rather than just a religious community. It matters for the exam because it connects major events across periods: the **Thirty Years' War**, the **Peace of Westphalia**, the coalitions against **Louis XIV**, and even later alliance changes in the eighteenth century.

> **Key Term: balance of power**
> The diplomatic principle that states should act to prevent any one power or dynasty from dominating Europe.

### From confessional politics to reason of state

In the sixteenth century, religion often shaped politics very directly. The **French Wars of Religion**, the Dutch Revolt, and the early phases of the **Thirty Years' War** all involved deep confessional division. Catholic and Protestant identity mattered because rulers believed religion affected legitimacy, social order, and loyalty.

> **Key Term: confessional politics**
> Politics shaped mainly by religious confession, especially the divide between Catholic and Protestant states or rulers.

But by the early seventeenth century, rulers faced another problem: a powerful dynasty might use religion as a cover for expansion. That is what many feared from the **Habsburgs**, who ruled both Austria and Spain and seemed capable of creating a kind of "universal monarchy" in Europe. If one dynasty controlled too much land, too many armies, and too many trade routes, the independence of other states would be at risk.

This fear pushed governments to think less like defenders of a faith and more like defenders of a state. The shift did not happen overnight. The early stages of the Thirty Years' War still had clear religious causes. Bohemian Protestants resisted the Catholic Habsburg ruler. The **Edict of Restitution** of 1629 tried to restore Catholic property and outlaw Calvinism in the Empire. Those were plainly religious issues.

Yet even in this war, political calculation kept growing. Denmark and Sweden did not intervene only because of Protestant solidarity. They also wanted influence in northern Germany and the Baltic. Likewise, German princes worried about their "liberties" inside the Holy Roman Empire. That was a constitutional and political concern, not just a religious one.

> **Key Term: raison d'état**
> "Reason of state"; the idea that rulers should base policy on the interests and security of the state rather than on religion or personal loyalty.

The phrase **raison d'état** helps explain the whole topic. A ruler acting by reason of state asks: what helps my state survive and gain advantage? That question could lead to alliances that looked shocking in religious terms but made perfect sense politically.

> **Test Tip:** For SAQs and LEQs, do not write that religion "ended" after 1648. A stronger answer says religion remained important, but state interest increasingly overrode confessional loyalty.

### Richelieu and the Thirty Years' War: the clearest turning point

No figure shows this shift better than **Cardinal Richelieu**. He was a Catholic cardinal serving the French monarchy under **Louis XIII**. If religion were the main guide to foreign policy, Richelieu should have supported the Catholic Habsburgs of Austria and Spain. Instead, he opposed them.

Why? Because France was geographically threatened by Habsburg power. Habsburg lands surrounded much of France: Spain to the south, the Spanish Netherlands to the north, and Austrian influence to the east in the Holy Roman Empire. Richelieu believed French security required weakening that encirclement.

This is why Richelieu backed Protestant powers during the Thirty Years' War. The textbook evidence is direct: France financially supported Sweden because Richelieu was worried about the increase of Habsburg strength in Germany. Later, France entered the war openly against the Austrian Habsburgs and their Spanish allies.

That decision matters because it crossed confessional lines in the most dramatic way possible. A Catholic cardinal effectively helped the Protestant side, not because he loved Protestantism, but because he was **anti-Habsburg**.

> **Key Term: Habsburg hegemony**
> The possibility that the Habsburg dynasty might dominate European politics too completely, especially through control of Austria, Spain, and influence in the Holy Roman Empire.

Students sometimes make a common mistake here. They say Richelieu was "pro-Protestant." That is inaccurate. He was pro-France. If supporting Protestants weakened the Habsburgs, he would do it. If crushing Protestants inside France strengthened the monarchy, he would do that too. In fact, Richelieu defeated the **Huguenots** at home while aiding Protestant powers abroad. That contrast is exactly why he is such a strong example.

The logic works like this:

1. The Habsburgs gain power in the Empire.
2. French rulers fear encirclement and long-term weakness.
3. Richelieu decides Habsburg power is the greater danger than Protestantism.
4. France funds and then joins anti-Habsburg forces.
5. International politics become less purely religious and more strategic.

This is a turning-point argument, but it is also a continuity-and-change argument. Religion still mattered inside states and in popular rhetoric. But between states, rulers increasingly judged events by power calculations.

> **Test Tip:** If a prompt asks you to "evaluate the extent" of this shift, use Richelieu as your central evidence and then qualify your argument by noting that the war still began with real religious conflict.

### Westphalia and the rise of pragmatic diplomacy

The **Peace of Westphalia** in **1648** ended the Thirty Years' War. AP Euro often treats Westphalia as a major marker in the rise of a more modern state system. That is fair, but you should be precise. Westphalia did not invent modern diplomacy from nothing. It is better understood as an important settlement in a longer transition.

> **Key Term: Peace of Westphalia**
> The 1648 settlement that ended the Thirty Years' War and reinforced state sovereignty and the political fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire.

What changed? First, the Holy Roman Emperor remained weak. The Empire stayed politically divided. That meant no Habsburg-led unification of Germany under imperial control. Second, the settlement reaffirmed that princes could determine the religion of their territories and now fully recognised **Calvinism**. That reduced the chance that one side could impose religious uniformity on all of central Europe.

Third, and most important for this topic, the settlement strengthened the idea that states and rulers had recognized political rights and boundaries. This encouraged diplomacy built on negotiation, sovereignty, and the prevention of excessive dominance.

> **Key Term: state sovereignty**
> The principle that rulers or states have authority over their own territories without outside domination.

Westphalia matters because it followed a war that had shown the terrible cost of ideological and dynastic escalation. The Empire lost roughly eight million inhabitants over the course of the conflict. After such destruction, rulers had strong reasons to prefer settlements that preserved order, even if they fell short of religious victory.

Still, be careful. Westphalia did not abolish religion from politics. France later revoked toleration for Protestants under **Louis XIV** in 1685. Religion remained part of political life. The shift was that, in major interstate diplomacy, rulers became more willing to treat confessional loyalty as secondary.

A high-level AP answer might say: Westphalia did not create a formal balance-of-power system on paper, but it helped normalize a Europe of separate states pursuing security and advantage.

### From anti-Habsburg policy to anti-French coalitions

Once balance-of-power thinking took hold, it did not stay aimed only at the Habsburgs. Later in the seventeenth century, **Bourbon France** became the main threat to European equilibrium, especially under **Louis XIV**.

This is a key distinction students often miss. Under Richelieu, France was the balancer against Habsburg power. Under Louis XIV, France increasingly became the power that others wanted to contain.

Louis XIV expanded French power through war, dynastic claims, and territorial gains in places such as Flanders and parts of Germany. Other states feared that France could dominate Europe just as the Habsburgs once had threatened to do. So the same logic that had justified anti-Habsburg coalitions now justified anti-French ones.

The best example is the **War of the Grand Alliance (1689–1697)**. England, the Dutch Republic, and Austria cooperated to block Louis XIV's expansion. This coalition was led in large part by **William III of Orange**, who became king of England after the **Glorious Revolution** of 1688 and was firmly committed to containing France.

> **Key Term: Grand Alliance**
> A coalition of European powers, including England, the Dutch Republic, and Austria, formed to resist the expansion of Louis XIV.

Notice how revealing this is. Austria, once the target of French anti-Habsburg policy, now joined with England and the Dutch against France. That alliance pattern only makes sense in a world where strategic balance matters more than old confessional divisions.

The same logic appeared again in the **War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)**. The danger was that the Bourbon dynasty might unite France and Spain under one family line. Other powers fought to prevent that outcome. The **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)** allowed a Bourbon ruler to remain on the Spanish throne but forbade the union of the French and Spanish crowns. That is balance-of-power thinking in action: compromise is acceptable so long as hegemony is blocked.

This pattern continued into the eighteenth century. The **Diplomatic Revolution** of 1756, when Austria allied with France and Britain with Prussia, shows even more clearly that alliances were no longer mainly shaped by religion or traditional hostility. They were shaped by immediate strategic need.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The phrase "balance of power replaced religion" describes a real shift but is too simple if taken literally
- Early phases of the **Thirty Years' War** were strongly religious, but later phases became more political
- **Raison d'état** means acting according to the interests and security of the state
- **Cardinal Richelieu** is the clearest example of this shift because Catholic France supported Protestant powers against the Catholic Habsburgs
- Richelieu was not pro-Protestant; he was pro-French and anti-Habsburg
- Fear of **Habsburg hegemony** encouraged cross-confessional alliances
- The **Peace of Westphalia (1648)** weakened the dream of a united Catholic Europe under the emperor
- Westphalia reinforced **state sovereignty** and pragmatic interstate diplomacy
- Later in the century, balance-of-power politics turned against **Louis XIV** and Bourbon France
- The **War of the Grand Alliance** and **Treaty of Utrecht** are major examples of states acting to prevent European dominance by one power
- Religion remained important, but it increasingly carried less weight than strategic calculation in high diplomacy
- This topic connects to wider AP themes of **states and other institutions of power** and **national and European identity**

## Key Terms and Concepts

- balance of power
- confessional politics
- raison d'état
- Habsburg hegemony
- Peace of Westphalia
- state sovereignty
- Grand Alliance


Balance of Power - Balance of power replaced religion