AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain what the **balance of power** meant in early modern and eighteenth-century Europe
- Understand how **reason of state** changed diplomacy after the religious wars
- Identify how **permanent embassies** and **resident ambassadors** made diplomacy more continuous and professional
- Recall the causes and outcomes of the **War of the Spanish Succession** and the **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)**
- Explain why alliances in this period were flexible rather than permanent
- Use examples such as **Richelieu**, **William III**, **Westphalia**, and the **Diplomatic Revolution of 1756** in SAQs and LEQs

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand how competitive states reshaped diplomacy in the period **c. 1648 to c. 1815**, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **balance of power** aimed to prevent any one European state from becoming dominant
- Identify how **reason of state** allowed rulers to put state interest above religious loyalty
- Understand the importance of **permanent embassies** and **resident ambassadors** in the growth of professional diplomacy
- Explain the significance of the **Peace of Westphalia (1648)** in strengthening state sovereignty after the Thirty Years’ War
- Describe why the **War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)** became a major European conflict
- Understand how the **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)** prevented a union of the French and Spanish crowns while redistributing territory and trade advantages
- Recognise the role of the **Grand Alliance** and other coalitions in containing Louis XIV
- Explain how the **Diplomatic Revolution (1756)** showed that alliances were shaped by strategic need rather than fixed loyalties

## 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. What did the **balance of power** mean in early modern Europe?
2. Why is **Cardinal Richelieu** a classic example of **reason of state**?
3. What fear caused the **War of the Spanish Succession**?
4. What did the **Treaty of Utrecht** decide about **Philip V** and the crowns of France and Spain?
5. How did the **Diplomatic Revolution of 1756** show that alliances were flexible?

## Introduction

In AP European History Unit 3, diplomacy is not just a list of treaties. It is a story about how Europe changed from a continent shaped mainly by dynastic and religious conflict into a system of competitive states that watched each other closely, built alliances, and tried to stop any one power from becoming too strong.

This topic matters because it connects major events across **Period 2: c. 1648 to c. 1815**. You need to see the chain clearly: the religious wars weakened the dream of one united Christian Europe, rulers increasingly acted for the interests of their own states, and diplomacy became more professional, more continuous, and more strategic. War and diplomacy worked together, not separately, to preserve or revise the European balance.

> **Key Term: balance of power**
> The principle that European states should act to prevent any one state from becoming dominant over the others.

### From religious conflict to state interest

The first big shift was intellectual and political. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, rulers often justified war in religious terms. But by the time of the **Thirty Years’ War**, political leaders were already acting in ways that showed religion was no longer the only force shaping diplomacy.

The clearest example is **Cardinal Richelieu**. He was a Catholic cardinal serving **Louis XIII of France**, yet he supported anti-Habsburg forces, including Protestant powers, during the Thirty Years’ War. That seems contradictory only if you assume religion was his main concern. It was not. Richelieu believed weakening the **Habsburgs** served French interests.

> **Key Term: reason of state**
> The idea that rulers should pursue policies that strengthen and protect the state, even when those policies conflict with religious loyalty or older traditions.

Why did this matter? Because it changed the logic of foreign policy. If rulers acted for the state first, then enemies and allies could shift. A Catholic ruler might support Protestants. A traditional rival might become a temporary partner. That is the foundation of later balance-of-power diplomacy.

The **Peace of Westphalia (1648)**, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, is often treated as a turning point. It did not create modern nation-states overnight, but it did strengthen the idea that states had authority within their own territories. It also weakened the old hope that Europe could be held together under one universal religious order led by pope or emperor.

> **Key Term: sovereignty**
> The principle that a state has supreme authority within its own territory.

Westphalia matters for AP because it marks a shift in emphasis. After 1648, European diplomacy was more state-centered. Religious identity still mattered, but rulers more openly calculated territory, security, military risk, and strategic advantage.

A common mistake is to say that Westphalia created peace. It did not. Europe remained full of war. What changed was the framework. States now fought and negotiated in a more recognisably interstate system.

> **Test Tip:** In an SAQ or LEQ, do not just say “religion mattered less after Westphalia.” Explain how and why. A strong answer names **Richelieu** and shows state interest overriding confessional loyalty.

### Professional diplomacy and the rise of competitive states

As states became more centralised, they needed better information and more regular contact with rivals and allies. That led to more professional diplomacy.

The roots of this change go back to **Renaissance Italy**, where city-states developed permanent embassies. By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, larger European states adopted this method. Instead of sending envoys only for a single crisis, rulers increasingly kept representatives in foreign capitals all the time.

> **Key Term: permanent embassies**
> Standing diplomatic missions in foreign capitals, used to represent state interests, gather information, and manage long-term relations.

Resident ambassadors mattered because diplomacy was no longer occasional. If other states were constant rivals, rulers needed up-to-date intelligence on military plans, dynastic marriages, trade opportunities, and possible alliances. Diplomacy became an ongoing part of government, not a rare event.

This fits the rise of **competitive states**. France, Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, the Dutch Republic, and Spain were not isolated powers. They operated in a crowded European state system. One state’s gain could threaten another’s security. That is why diplomacy became tied to coalition-building.

A good example is the response to **Louis XIV**. His expansionist policies alarmed other states. France was large, wealthy, and militarily strong. If Louis gained too much territory or dynastic influence, he could upset the continental balance. So other states built coalitions against him.

The **League of Augsburg (1686)** and later the **Grand Alliance** aimed to contain French power. **William III of Orange**, who became king of England after the **Glorious Revolution (1688)**, was central to this anti-French coalition politics. He had already opposed Louis XIV as leader of the Dutch Republic. Once he ruled England as well, he could combine English and Dutch resources against France.

This shows an important AP point: alliances in this period were usually not permanent friendships. They were strategic arrangements against a perceived threat. States cooperated because they feared hegemony.

> **Key Term: Grand Alliance**
> A coalition of European powers formed to resist French expansion and preserve the balance of power.

Do not imagine diplomacy replacing war. In this period, diplomacy often organised war. Coalitions, treaties, and embassies helped states decide when to fight, whom to support, and what settlement to demand afterward.

### The War of the Spanish Succession and the Treaty of Utrecht

The best case study for this whole topic is the **War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)**. If you need one conflict that proves how competitive states reshaped diplomacy, this is it.

The immediate cause was dynastic. **Charles II of Spain** died without an heir. He named **Philip of Anjou**, grandson of **Louis XIV**, as successor. That created a huge problem. If Bourbon France and Bourbon Spain were united too closely, Europe might face a dominant superstate. Other powers feared exactly that outcome.

So the war was not caused simply by dislike of France. It was caused by fear of what historians call **hegemony**: one state becoming too powerful for the others to resist.

This fear produced a coalition response. Britain, the Dutch Republic, Austria, and other powers formed a **Grand Alliance** against Bourbon expansion. This is balance-of-power logic in action:

- a dynastic change threatens to concentrate power
- rival states build a coalition
- war decides the issue
- a treaty settlement redistributes power to restore equilibrium
  > **Key Term: War of the Spanish Succession**
  > A European war fought from 1701 to 1714 over who would inherit the Spanish throne and whether Bourbon France and Spain might be united.

The settlement came in the **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)**.

> **Key Term: Treaty of Utrecht**
> The 1713 settlement that ended much of the War of the Spanish Succession, recognised Philip V as king of Spain, but prevented a union of the French and Spanish crowns.

The Treaty of Utrecht did not remove the Bourbons from Spain. This is a common exam error. **Philip V** remained king of Spain. The key condition was that he had to renounce any claim to the French throne, and the same monarch could not rule both kingdoms. In other words, Utrecht accepted Bourbon rule in Spain but blocked Bourbon domination of Europe.

That distinction matters. The fear of a **Franco-Spanish union** caused the war. Preventing that union was the main diplomatic aim of the settlement.

The treaty also redistributed territory and commercial privileges:

- **Britain** gained **Gibraltar** and **Minorca**, both valuable strategic bases
- Britain also received the **asiento**, the contract to supply enslaved Africans to Spanish America, plus permission for one annual trading ship
- **Austria** gained the **Spanish Netherlands**, **Milan**, and **Naples**
- **Savoy** gained **Sicily** and increased prestige, later linked to the Kingdom of Sardinia

These terms reveal that diplomacy was about more than peace. It was about reshaping advantage. Britain gained naval and commercial power. Austria gained European territory. France was checked. Spain survived but in reduced strategic form.

> **Test Tip:** If a question asks about Utrecht, separate **cause** from **outcome**. Cause: fear of Bourbon union. Outcome: dynastic separation, territorial redistribution, and British commercial gains.

Utrecht is also a reminder that balance of power did not mean fairness or national self-determination. Borders and colonies were reassigned to satisfy strong states, not to match the wishes of local populations.

### Flexible alliances in the eighteenth century

The same logic continued after Utrecht. Competitive states kept adjusting alliances as new threats emerged.

The strongest example is the **Diplomatic Revolution of 1756**. Before this, Austria and Britain had often cooperated, while France and Austria were long-time enemies. But after **Prussia** rose in strength, Austrian priorities changed. Austria wanted to recover **Silesia**, which **Frederick the Great** had seized. That made Prussia, not France, Austria’s main enemy.

So the alliance map flipped:

- **Austria allied with France**
- **Britain allied with Prussia**
  > **Key Term: Diplomatic Revolution**
  > The alliance reversal of 1756 in which Austria allied with France and Britain allied with Prussia before the Seven Years’ War.

This is one of the best proofs that eighteenth-century diplomacy followed state interest, not emotional loyalty. Traditional enemies could become partners if strategy required it. Britain wanted to protect **Hanover** and oppose France globally; Austria wanted Silesia back; France wanted to check Britain and Prussia. So new alliances made sense.

The **Seven Years’ War (1756–1763)** followed from this realignment and showed how European balance-of-power politics could spill into a global war.

This later example also helps you show continuity and change. The methods of diplomacy had changed since the age of religious conflict, but the core pattern remained:

- states watched each other closely
- alliances shifted
- rulers acted pragmatically
- wars and treaties tried to prevent domination by one great power

That pattern would continue beyond Unit 3 into later periods, though nationalism would increasingly challenge the older balance-of-power system.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The **balance of power** meant preventing any one European state from becoming dominant
- **Reason of state** encouraged rulers to put state interest above religious loyalty
- **Cardinal Richelieu** is a key example because he supported anti-Habsburg Protestant forces despite being a Catholic cardinal
- **Permanent embassies** and **resident ambassadors** made diplomacy more continuous and professional
- The **Peace of Westphalia (1648)** strengthened a more state-centred diplomatic order after the Thirty Years’ War
- **Louis XIV’s** expansion led other states to create coalitions such as the **Grand Alliance**
- The **War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)** was caused by fear that France and Spain would be united under the Bourbons
- The **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)** recognised **Philip V** as king of Spain but prevented any union of the French and Spanish crowns
- **Britain** gained **Gibraltar**, **Minorca**, and important commercial privileges at Utrecht
- **Austria** gained major former Spanish possessions in Europe through the Utrecht settlement
- The **Diplomatic Revolution of 1756** showed that alliances were flexible and driven by strategic need
- Balance-of-power diplomacy did not replace war; it often organised coalitions and settlements around war

## Key Terms and Concepts

- balance of power
- reason of state
- sovereignty
- permanent embassies
- Grand Alliance
- War of the Spanish Succession
- Treaty of Utrecht
- Diplomatic Revolution


Balance of Power - Competitive states reshaped diplomacy