A. B. Introduction: Contextualization: Afier 1450, many countries began to shift from feudal societies to national monarchies, and their rulers centralized power to have complete sovereign rule. With townspeople supporting the kings over the nobles, the feudal system collapsed, and the new centralization of power led to national armies, a ‘growing sense of nationalism, and more. Thesis: Spain, France, and England all had various ways in which they achieved the centralization of power, but they had varying degrees of suecess. Spain was able to centralize effectively while France was able to centralize for a period of time. After internal disunity, England also was able to centralize effectively. Argument: Ultimately, Spain and England were able to centralize their power much more effectively than France could, Body 1: Spain was able to centralize its power effectively, a, Evidence: Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon married. They were able to conquer the Moors in Granada and the kingdom of Navarre. b. Analysis: Spain combined the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, Navarre, and Granada. Therefore, Spain was unified under one monarchy instead of four separate kingdoms. As a result, the monarchy could have more control over what the country did, centralizing power into the hands of the rulers. ¢. Evidence: The Inquisition monitored the activity of converted Jews and Muslims, and any that were suspected of still keeping their old faith were paraded around as a source of shame and then burned at the stake. 4, Analysis: Because it supported religious uniformity, the Inquisition allowed ruling Spain to be easier as ruling with regards to only one group would be easier than having to deal with multiple potential opponents. Thus, more power went to the monarchy. C=Body 2: France was able to centralize power, then lost it. Evidence: Louis XI acquired Burgundian lands, Angevin lands, and more, leaving him with twice the amount of land that he started with, b. Analysis: With more land comes more power, and Louis XI was able to have more power by having ownership ofall his lands. Therefore, he was able to consolidate that power into a centralized government that controlled all the lands and had a lot of power. ¢. Evidence: Italian conquests and the wars with the Habsburgs left France defeated. d. Analysis: Due to having a strong nation, Louis’ suecessors felt free to be a bit more rash in foreign policy. Therefore, they fought in devastating wars that divided France politically and decentralized the government. D. Body 3: After years of conflict, England was able to centralize power effectively. E. Conelusi a, Evidence: Defeat of the Hundred years’ War resulted an internal warfare between two rival branches of the royal family known as the Wars of the Roses. However, at the end of the conflict, the Lancaster family was much more popular than the rival York family, and Henry Tudor of the Lancaster family took power, reconciling the two houses through his marriage to Elizabeth of York. b. Analysis: The internal warfare led to political instability of government, and neither party was able to centralize government. However, Henry Tudor was able to unite the two houses and dissolve opposing forces to a centralized government. ¢. Evidence: The creation of Court of Star Chamber in 1487 resulted a non-biased court where the judges were impartial and could not be bribed by the nobles. 4. Analysis: Because the nobles could not be bribed, they did not have as much power as their money could not get them out of tough situations with the law. As a result, the king of England had more control over the nobles. Thus, different monarchies had different degrees of centralization. Spain combined its kingdoms and _= created religious uniformity, aiding in centralization while France started strong through Louis XI and his land but "eventually decentralized due to wars with Italy and the Habsburgs. Beginning with civil disunity, England eventually was able to effectively centralize. Synthesis: The different instances of centralization also reflected the change for individuals having more rights, with the people overall siding with the kings against the nobles. This broke the traditional systems of the nobles with more power to ultimately result in the people having more power later on in democratic societies.