AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain what historians mean by **new monarchies** in late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Europe
- Identify how rulers in England, France, and Spain centralized royal authority
- Understand how taxation, royal courts, bureaucracies, and military control strengthened monarchies
- Compare centralized monarchies with the more fragmented political structures of Italy and the Holy Roman Empire
- Use specific rulers, dates, and institutions in AP European History written responses
- Analyse why centralization was uneven rather than complete

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand how new monarchies centralized state power in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that **new monarchies** emerged mainly in western Europe, especially in England, France, and Spain
- Identify how rulers weakened the political independence of the nobility without fully eliminating noble power
- Explain how regular taxation, such as the **taille** in France, increased royal independence
- Understand how royal courts, officials, and councils expanded crown authority
- Know the importance of **Henry VII**, **Louis XI**, and **Ferdinand and Isabella** as core examples
- Explain why Spain was only partly unified despite dynastic union
- Contrast centralized monarchies with the political fragmentation of Italy and the decentralization of the Holy Roman Empire
- Use causation and comparison to explain why late medieval disorder created openings for stronger monarchies

## 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 is meant by the term **new monarchy**?
2. How did Henry VII reduce the power of overmighty nobles in England?
3. Why was the **taille** important to the French monarchy?
4. How did Ferdinand and Isabella strengthen royal power in Spain without creating a fully uniform state?
5. Why were Italy and the Holy Roman Empire less centralized than England, France, and Spain?

## Introduction

In AP European History Unit 1, **new monarchies** matter because they show a major shift from medieval politics toward early modern state-building. Before this shift, rulers often depended heavily on feudal nobles, regional privileges, and local military power. By the late fifteenth century, some monarchs in western Europe were gaining stronger control over taxation, justice, administration, and law enforcement.

This did not mean they created modern nation-states overnight. But it did mean that kings and queens in places like England, France, and Spain became more powerful than many medieval rulers had been. On the exam, students often lose marks by describing rulers in general terms. What scores well is showing exactly _how_ power became more centralized.

> **Key Term: new monarchies**
> More centralized royal states that emerged in parts of western Europe in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, especially England, France, and Spain.

### Why monarchs were able to centralize power

New monarchies did not appear by accident. They grew out of late medieval weakness and disorder. Wars, noble rivalries, and political instability made many people more willing to accept stronger rulers if those rulers could restore order. This is a classic AP causation point: crisis created opportunity.

In medieval Europe, a king often had to bargain with powerful nobles whose lands, armed retainers, and local influence limited royal authority. If nobles could raise private armies, dominate local courts, and control tax collection, the king could not rule effectively across the whole kingdom. Centralization began when monarchs found ways to reduce this dependence.

The process usually followed a pattern:

- weaken noble independence
- extend royal justice
- build a more loyal bureaucracy
- secure steadier taxation
- increase control over military force

This pattern appeared in all three core examples, but not in identical ways.

> **Key Term: state centralization**
> The process by which rulers increase control over law, taxation, administration, and force across their territories.

A useful AP distinction is that monarchs did not necessarily destroy older institutions. They often built on them. So this is both **change** and **continuity**: medieval kingship remained, but royal power became stronger and more direct.

### England under Henry VII: restoring order after civil war

England is one of the clearest examples because the **Wars of the Roses** weakened the nobility. These civil wars, lasting from **1455 to 1485**, were conflicts between rival aristocratic factions, mainly York and Lancaster. When **Henry Tudor** defeated **Richard III** at the **Battle of Bosworth Field** in **1485**, he founded the Tudor dynasty as **Henry VII**.

The key point is not just that Henry won. It is that he inherited a kingdom in which many nobles had already damaged each other. That gave him room to rebuild royal authority.

> **Key Term: Wars of the Roses**
> A series of civil wars in England from 1455 to 1485 between rival noble factions that weakened the political power of the aristocracy.

Henry VII acted against what historians often call **overmighty subjects**: nobles whose private wealth, lands, and armed followers made them dangerous to the crown. He did this in several linked ways.

First, he used the **Star Chamber**, a royal court that could act against powerful nobles. This mattered because local courts were often shaped by noble influence. A royal court gave the monarchy a way to impose justice from the centre rather than leaving powerful men to protect each other locally.

> **Key Term: Star Chamber**
> A royal court used by the English crown to control powerful nobles and enforce royal authority.

Second, Henry used **bonds and recognizances**. These were financial penalties or legal guarantees placed on nobles to secure obedience. This was effective because it attacked the economic base of noble independence. A noble might still hold land and title, but if disloyalty risked ruinous fines, resistance became less attractive.

Third, Henry restricted **retaining**, the practice by which nobles kept private armed followers. This matters because military power was one of the foundations of feudal independence. If a noble could not easily keep a private army, he was less able to intimidate rivals or challenge the king.

Fourth, Henry relied on **justices of the peace**, local officials usually drawn from the gentry rather than the great nobility. These officials enforced law and order in the counties and extended royal government into daily life.

> **Key Term: justices of the peace**
> Local officials appointed by the crown in England to enforce law and maintain order in the countryside.

The logic here is worth stating clearly: Henry did not eliminate the nobility, but he reduced its political danger by using courts, money, and local administration. That is exactly the kind of mechanism AP essays reward.

> **Test Tip:** For England, do not stop at “Henry VII strengthened the crown.” Add at least two mechanisms such as Star Chamber, bonds and recognizances, limits on retaining, or justices of the peace.

### France under Louis XI: taxation and stronger royal government

France followed the same broad trend but used somewhat different tools. **Louis XI** ruled from **1461 to 1483** and worked to strengthen the crown after the long instability of the later Middle Ages, especially the damage left by the Hundred Years' War and noble resistance.

His central problem was the power of large feudal princes. Some great nobles controlled substantial territories and behaved almost like independent rulers. Louis XI sought to break their resistance and bring more territory and obedience under direct crown control.

One crucial tool was taxation, especially the **taille**.

> **Key Term: taille**
> A direct tax in France that gave the monarchy a more regular and dependable source of revenue.

Why was the taille so important? Because regular revenue changes politics. A king with steady tax income can pay officials, support armies, and govern without relying as heavily on nobles or representative bodies. This is one of the most useful cause-and-effect chains in the topic:

regular taxation -> stronger royal administration and military power -> less dependence on nobles -> greater centralization

This is more than a financial detail. It is the backbone of French royal growth. Students often mention taxes without explaining why they matter. The answer is that money lets monarchs act independently.

France also developed a stronger royal bureaucracy. Monarchs increasingly relied on trained officials, often from outside the highest nobility, to carry out administration. That reduced the crown’s dependence on feudal lords whose loyalty could not be trusted.

A later but still relevant extension of this trend was the **Concordat of Bologna** in **1516**, under **Francis I**, which gave the French crown influence over appointments to major church offices. This falls slightly beyond Louis XI but fits the broader new monarchy pattern: stronger kings sought influence not only over nobles and taxes but also over the Church inside their kingdom.

> **Key Term: Concordat of Bologna**
> The 1516 agreement that gave the French crown major influence over appointments to important church offices.

France is therefore a strong AP example of centralization through noble suppression, taxation, and administrative growth. But it also shows continuity: the monarchy still had to negotiate with entrenched elites, and full absolutism belonged to a later age.

### Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella: stronger monarchy, partial unity

Spain is often misunderstood. Students sometimes write that Ferdinand and Isabella “unified Spain” in a fully modern sense. That is too simple.

Their marriage in **1469** linked **Aragon** and **Castile**, and their joint rule is usually dated from **1479**. This dynastic union strengthened the monarchy greatly, but it did not erase regional laws, institutions, and customs. Castile and Aragon remained linked crowns rather than one completely uniform state.

> **Key Term: dynastic union**
> The joining of two crowns through marriage or inheritance without necessarily creating a fully unified state.

That distinction matters for AP comparison. Spain was centralized in important ways, but not fully homogenized.

Ferdinand and Isabella expanded royal authority through several institutions. The **Santa Hermandad** served as a royal militia or constabulary that helped maintain order and reduce lawlessness. This weakened the ability of local nobles to dominate the countryside.

> **Key Term: Santa Hermandad**
> A royal militia or police force in Spain used to maintain order and strengthen monarchical authority.

They also used **corregidores**, royal officials sent into towns to supervise local government. This extended the crown into local administration in a direct way, much like justices of the peace in England or royal officials in France.

> **Key Term: corregidores**
> Royal officials in Spain who supervised towns and helped extend crown authority into local government.

Royal councils also became more important. Instead of relying heavily on high nobles, the monarchy could govern through trained administrators and legal officials. Again, the pattern is clear: stronger bureaucracy meant less dependence on feudal aristocrats.

Another major instrument was religion. The **Spanish Inquisition**, authorized in **1478**, aimed to enforce Catholic orthodoxy, especially among converts from Judaism and Islam. In AP terms, it should not be treated as only a religious institution. It also strengthened royal control by tying political authority to religious unity.

This is a key “how” point: religious uniformity could be used as a tool of state-building. If monarchs defined loyalty in religious as well as political terms, dissent became easier to target.

At the same time, Spain had limits. Regional privileges survived, especially in Aragon. That means Spain should be described as a **partially centralized monarchy**, not an instantly unified nation-state.

> **Test Tip:** If an essay asks for comparison, a strong sentence is: “England, France, and Spain all strengthened royal authority, but Spain remained less uniform because Castile and Aragon kept separate institutions.”

### Comparison: why some states centralized and others did not

A high-scoring AP answer often compares western monarchies with places that remained fragmented. This is where Italy and the Holy Roman Empire become useful.

Italy stayed divided into states such as **Venice, Milan, Florence, the Papal States, and Naples**. Even after the **Treaty of Lodi** in **1454** created a balance among major powers, the peninsula did not develop a single monarchy strong enough to dominate the whole region. Rivalries among city-states and outside interventions by France and Spain kept Italy politically fragmented.

The **Holy Roman Empire** was even more decentralized. Power remained split among princes, bishops, electors, and free cities. The emperor did not control the whole empire in the way the kings of France or England controlled their kingdoms.

This comparison matters because it shows that new monarchies were not a universal European development. They were strongest in western Europe, where rulers could combine dynastic advantage, taxation, administration, and control over nobles more effectively than rulers in Italy or the Holy Roman Empire.

For AP themes, this fits **states and other institutions of power** and **national and European identity**. It also sets up later history, because the fragmented condition of Italy and Germany lasted until the nineteenth century.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- New monarchies emerged mainly in western Europe in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries
- They centralized power by weakening noble independence and expanding royal authority
- Late medieval disorder and civil conflict created openings for stronger monarchies
- Henry VII strengthened the English crown after the Wars of the Roses
- The Star Chamber, bonds and recognizances, limits on retaining, and justices of the peace helped Henry VII control overmighty nobles
- Louis XI strengthened the French monarchy by weakening feudal princes and expanding crown authority
- The taille gave the French monarchy regular tax revenue and reduced dependence on nobles and representative bodies
- Ferdinand and Isabella strengthened Spanish royal authority through the Santa Hermandad, corregidores, royal councils, and the Inquisition
- Spain was not fully unified in the modern sense because Castile and Aragon kept separate institutions
- Italy remained politically fragmented into city-states and regional powers
- The Holy Roman Empire remained decentralized, with substantial authority retained by princes and other local rulers
- New monarchies mark a shift from feudal fragmentation toward stronger early modern states

## Key Terms and Concepts

- new monarchies
- state centralization
- Wars of the Roses
- Star Chamber
- justices of the peace
- taille
- Concordat of Bologna
- dynastic union
- Santa Hermandad
- corregidores


New Monarchies - New monarchies centralized state power