AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain how the **Military Revolution** changed warfare in early modern Europe
- Understand why larger, wealthier, or more efficient states gained an advantage
- Identify how taxation, bureaucracy, and borrowing supported military growth
- Compare absolutist and constitutional responses to military pressure
- Use examples such as **Louis XIV**, **Britain after 1688**, and the **War of the Spanish Succession**
- Analyse how military change encouraged **balance-of-power** diplomacy

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand how the Military Revolution strengthened some states more than others, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **Military Revolution** involved larger armies, gunpowder weapons, artillery, and more expensive warfare
- Identify why warfare increasingly favored states with greater wealth, population, tax capacity, and administrative reach
- Explain how **standing armies**, fortifications, and logistics pushed rulers toward centralization
- Understand the idea of a **fiscal-military state** and how it applied to powers such as Britain and France
- Distinguish between military change and diplomatic response: stronger states emerged through war, while the **balance of power** aimed to stop any one state dominating Europe
- Use examples such as **Louis XIV**, **Colbert**, **intendants**, the **Glorious Revolution (1688)**, the **Bank of England (1694)**, the **War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)**, and the **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)**
- Recognise that commercially rich states such as the Dutch Republic could compete even without the largest territory
- Evaluate limits by comparing long-term great powers with smaller but efficient states such as Prussia and Sweden

## 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 did early modern warfare favor resource-rich states?
2. How did the rise of standing armies strengthen central governments?
3. What is the difference between the Military Revolution and the balance of power?
4. How did France under Louis XIV and Britain after 1688 respond differently to military pressure?
5. Why was the Treaty of Utrecht important for European balance-of-power politics?

## Introduction

In Unit 3, this subtopic links military change to state-building and diplomacy. The basic argument is a cause-and-effect chain: warfare became bigger and more expensive, so rulers needed more money, more officials, and more control. That gave an advantage to states that could mobilise resources well.

This matters for AP European History because it helps explain why some states became dominant in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, why absolutism grew in some places, why constitutional government still became stronger in others, and why rival powers formed alliances to stop hegemony.

> **Key Term: Military Revolution**
> The early modern transformation of warfare, especially from the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, involving larger armies, gunpowder weapons, artillery, new fortifications, and rising military costs.

### How the Military Revolution changed warfare

The Military Revolution was not just about better weapons. Students often reduce it to “guns replaced knights,” but that is too simple for AP analysis. The deeper change was that war required more organisation, more trained manpower, more supplies, and more money.

Gunpowder artillery made medieval castles less effective. In response, states and cities built new fortifications, especially the **trace italienne**, with low thick walls and angled bastions. These forts were much harder to destroy than old castles. That meant war shifted toward long sieges. Long sieges needed engineers, artillery crews, food supplies, transport, and regular pay. War therefore became slower, more technical, and much more costly.

> **Key Term: trace italienne**
> A star-shaped, bastioned fortification designed to resist cannon fire and make sieges longer and more expensive.

At the same time, armies grew larger. Medieval rulers could sometimes rely on feudal levies or short-term service. Early modern rulers increasingly needed soldiers available year-round. A temporary force was no longer enough when rivals could attack with artillery, drilled infantry, and long campaigns.

> **Key Term: standing army**
> A permanent army maintained in peacetime as well as wartime.

This is the key link to the subtopic. If war now required permanent troops, heavy artillery, fortifications, and supply systems, then states with more resources had a clear edge. A poor or weakly organised state might fight one campaign, but it struggled to keep fighting year after year.

The textbook logic is clear: the rising cost of warfare “played into the hands of the developing monarchical state, which alone could tap into the necessary resources.” In other words, battlefield success increasingly depended on state capacity.

> **Test Tip:** If an SAQ or LEQ asks why the Military Revolution favored some states, do not stop at “they had better weapons.” Go one step further: explain that bigger armies, fortifications, and gunpowder warfare required taxation, bureaucracy, and supply networks.

### Why resource-rich and resource-efficient states gained the advantage

“Resource-rich” does not just mean large territory. It includes population, taxable wealth, commercial income, access to credit, and administrative efficiency. France had size and population. The Dutch Republic had commercial wealth and finance. Britain had taxation and public credit. Prussia had strict administrative discipline. All could compete because each could mobilise resources effectively.

> **Key Term: fiscal-military state**
> A state whose financial and administrative institutions were expanded mainly to raise revenue for war and sustain armed forces.

France is the clearest absolutist example. Under **Louis XIV** (r. 1643–1715), the monarchy increased central control and built one of Europe’s strongest military machines. His finance minister **Jean-Baptiste Colbert** improved royal revenue collection and used mercantilist policies to strengthen the economy for the benefit of the state. Royal officials called **intendants** helped extend control into the provinces, supervise administration, and support taxation.

> **Key Term: intendants**
> Royal officials in France who helped enforce the king’s authority in the provinces and strengthened central administration.

France’s advantages were obvious: it was populous, wealthy, and highly centralised by the standards of the time. That allowed Louis XIV to support a large standing army and extensive fortification programmes. But the French example also shows a limit. Even a rich state could strain itself badly if it fought too many wars. Colbert could raise revenue, but repeated war spending still damaged the monarchy’s finances.

Britain shows a different path. After the **Glorious Revolution (1688)**, Parliament had stronger control over taxation and the army. This did not weaken the British state in military terms. It often made it stronger, because cooperation between crown and Parliament improved confidence in government borrowing. The founding of the **Bank of England in 1694** became a major support for war finance. Britain could borrow at scale, fund fleets and armies, and sustain long wars.

This is a common AP comparison point: France and Britain both became stronger war-making states, but one did so through absolutist centralisation and the other through a constitutional system. So military pressure did not produce one single political model.

The Dutch Republic is another useful case. It was smaller than France, but its commercial wealth, strong shipping, and advanced financial system allowed it to compete far above what its size alone might suggest. That is why students should avoid writing that only “big states” won. Efficient and rich commercial states could also survive and thrive.

Prussia and Sweden are good qualifying examples. Neither had France’s population or Britain’s wealth, but both could compete for a time because they were highly organised. Prussia especially developed a state heavily oriented toward supporting the army. Still, in the long run, smaller states usually faced a harder task sustaining great-power competition.

> **Test Tip:** For comparison questions, use a pattern like this: “France had demographic and fiscal depth; Britain had parliamentary taxation and credit; the Dutch had commercial wealth; Prussia had administrative efficiency.” That shows precise comparison instead of vague summary.

### From stronger states to balance-of-power politics

As some states became more powerful, other states grew alarmed. That is where the balance of power enters. The Military Revolution explains why states became stronger. The balance of power explains how rivals responded.

> **Key Term: balance of power**
> The diplomatic principle that no single European state should become dominant, leading states to form alliances against any threatening power.

Balance-of-power politics did not mean peace. It often meant frequent wars and shifting alliances. States were not trying to abolish conflict. They were trying to prevent hegemony.

The best example is **Louis XIV’s France**. Because France had such great military and fiscal power, other states repeatedly combined against it. Louis’s wars frightened the Dutch, the English, and the Austrians because they feared a Europe dominated by Bourbon France.

The **War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)** is the clearest case. When the Spanish king Charles II died without an heir, the possibility arose that Bourbon rulers might control both France and Spain. Other powers did not simply object because of dynastic detail. They feared the union would create overwhelming power in Europe and in overseas empire.

> **Key Term: War of the Spanish Succession**
> The conflict from 1701 to 1714 over who would inherit the Spanish throne, fought largely to prevent Bourbon domination of Europe.

Britain, the Dutch Republic, and Austria opposed this outcome. That response shows balance-of-power logic in action: when one bloc looked too strong, others combined to block it. The settlement came in the **Treaty of Utrecht (1713)**.

> **Key Term: Treaty of Utrecht**
> The 1713 peace settlement that recognised Philip V as king of Spain but prevented the union of the French and Spanish crowns, helping preserve the balance of power.

The treaty is a perfect AP evidence point because it shows both continuity and change. Dynastic monarchy still mattered, but diplomacy had become centred on a broader European principle: no universal monarchy. Philip V could rule Spain, but France and Spain could not be united under one crown.

This topic also connects back to the Thirty Years’ War and later coalition politics. By the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, alliances were less about religion alone and more about strategic calculation. Catholic France could oppose Habsburg Catholics earlier because state interest mattered more than confessional unity. That is a strong example of how diplomacy changed in this period.

### How to write about this in AP essays

This subtopic appears often in SAQs and LEQs because it rewards causation and comparison. A strong answer usually does three things.

First, it explains the chain of causation clearly: military innovation increased the scale and cost of war; rulers needed more money and administration; stronger states emerged.

Second, it supports the claim with specific evidence. Good examples include Louis XIV, Colbert, intendants, standing armies, Britain after 1688, the Bank of England, the Dutch Republic, Prussia, and the Treaty of Utrecht.

Third, it adds qualification. Do not claim that the Military Revolution automatically created absolutism everywhere, because Britain is the obvious counterexample. Do not claim that only territorial size mattered, because the Dutch Republic shows the importance of commercial and financial strength. Do not claim that balance of power created peace, because it usually produced new alliances and more wars.

A simple LEQ line of reasoning could be:

- Paragraph 1: military change made war more expensive
- Paragraph 2: resource-rich states such as France and Britain gained the advantage by taxation, borrowing, and bureaucracy
- Paragraph 3: rivals answered with balance-of-power alliances, shown by the War of the Spanish Succession and the Treaty of Utrecht

That structure keeps analysis clear and makes it easier to earn points for argument and evidence.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The Military Revolution involved larger armies, artillery, gunpowder warfare, and new fortifications
- The trace italienne made warfare more siege-based and more expensive
- Standing armies required regular taxation, administration, and supply systems
- States with greater wealth, manpower, credit, or bureaucratic efficiency gained an advantage
- France under Louis XIV shows absolutist centralisation linked to military power
- Colbert and the intendants helped France mobilise resources for war
- Britain after 1688 became a strong constitutional fiscal-military state
- The Bank of England helped Britain finance long wars through credit
- The Dutch Republic shows that commercial wealth could matter as much as territorial size
- Prussia and Sweden show that efficient smaller states could compete, though long-term limits remained
- The balance of power aimed to stop any one state dominating Europe
- The War of the Spanish Succession and the Treaty of Utrecht are the clearest examples of balance-of-power politics in action

## Key Terms and Concepts

- Military Revolution
- trace italienne
- standing army
- fiscal-military state
- intendants
- balance of power
- War of the Spanish Succession
- Treaty of Utrecht


Balance of Power - Military revolution favored resource-rich states