Die Länder und die Städte

Macht-Kampf in Russland Russland führt Krieg gegen die Ukraine. Soldaten von der russischen Armee kämpfen in der Ukraine. Aber auch die Söldner von der Wagner-Gruppe kämpfen in der Ukraine. Jetzt hat es Streit gegeben zwischen dem Chef der Wagner-Gruppe und dem russischen Präsidenten Putin. Der Chef von der Wagner-Gruppe heißt Jewgeni Prigoschin. Er hat sich schon oft mit der Militär-Führung in Moskau gestritten. Denn er ist nicht einverstanden damit, wie der Krieg in der Ukraine läuft. Vergangenes Wochenende hat sich der Streit verschärft: Prigoschin ist mit seinen Kämpfern in die russische Stadt Rostow am Don einmarschiert. Er hat dort das Haupt-Quartier von der Armee besetzt. Andere Wagner-Kämpfer haben sich mit Fahrzeugen auf den Weg nach Moskau gemacht. Doch nach 24 Stunden hat Prigoschin den Aufstand plötzlich wieder abgebrochen. Russlands Präsident Putin hat Prigoschin als Verräter bezeichnet. Aber er hat später gesagt: Wenn die Wagner-Kämpfer ihren Aufstand beenden, werden sie nicht bestraft. Und er hat gesagt: Prigoschin darf nach Belarus gehen. Die Regierung in Moskau sagt: Die Armee und die Bevölkerung haben die ganze Zeit hinter Putin gestanden. Experten aus dem Westen glauben dagegen: Der Aufstand von Prigoschin war für Putin schlecht. Er hat gezeigt, dass der Präsident nicht so stark ist wie er tut. Denn nicht Putin, sondern der Präsident von Belarus, Lukaschenko, hat in dem Macht-Kampf vermittelt. Aber die NATO hat auch gewarnt: Man darf Russland nicht unterschätzen. Die NATO ist ein Militär-Bündnis von westlichen Ländern.

Hinter den Bergen Zwei Bilder sagen mehr als tausend Worte Wolfgang Ullrich Wer über Erfahrung mit Bildern verfügt, weiss, wie unerwartet und wie stark sie aufeinander reagieren können. So uninteressant ein Bild für sich alleine sein mag, so komisch, zynisch, erhellend oder erhebend wird es oft, wenn man es mit anderen Bildern kombiniert. Ähnliches kennt man sonst am ehesten vom Chemieunterricht: Zuerst harmlose Stoffe entfalten ungeahnte Energien und Effekte, sobald sie zusammengebracht werden. Besonders verblüffend ist immer wieder, was alles durch die Verbindung von nur zwei Bildern passieren kann. Einmal werden sie zum Gegensatzpaar, in einem anderen Fall bestätigen und verstärken sie sich gegenseitig – oder sie variieren ein Thema, erzählen auf knappste Weise eine Geschichte, geben in ihrer Verschiedenheit ein Rätsel auf. In der Geschichte der Kunst, aber ebenso in der Propaganda oder Werbung nutzte man die Aussagekraft von Bildpaaren häufig: vom Diptychon in der christlichen Tradition des Andachtsbilds bis hin zu plakativen Vorher-nachher-Bildern, mit denen ein Haarwuchsmittel angepriesen oder ein kultureller Niedergang beklagt wird. In der Moderne, in der Bilder allgemein verfügbar geworden sind, ist das Kombinieren von Bildern sogar mindestens so wichtig geworden wie das Machen neuer Bilder. Die wohl subtilste Form des Bildpaars taucht aber vor allem in früheren Jahrhunderten auf. Es handelt sich dabei um Pendants. Sie ergeben sich daraus, dass man zwei Bilder zusammenfügt, die ein verwandtes Sujet zeigen, es aber unterschiedlich behandeln, also aus jeweils anderer Perspektive, in verschiedenen Stimmungen oder mit wechselnden Konnotationen darstellen. Die Blütezeit der Pendants war das 18. Jahrhundert, sie wurden aber bereits von Claude Lorrain und auch noch von Caspar David Friedrich virtuos eingesetzt.[1] Viele Pendants stellten aber nicht einmal die Künstler selbst zusammen; vielmehr wurden sie in den Werkstätten und Verkaufsräumen von Druckgraphikern arrangiert. Diese erkannten nämlich, dass sich Kupferstiche oft besser paarweise als alleine verkaufen ließen, weil sie dem Publikum dann mehr Stoff zum Räsonieren boten. So wurde es sogar üblich, Stiche von Werken verschiedener Künstler zu kombinieren, und selbst Bilder, die zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten entstanden waren, ließen sich als Pendants vereint wiederfinden.[2] Der Tiroler Fotograf Lois Hechenblaikner hat diese Praxis nicht nur neu aufgegriffen, sondern sie um eine zusätzliche – entscheidende – Dimension bereichert. In Gegenüberstellungen, an denen er seit dem Jahr 2000 arbeitet, präsentiert er jeweils ein Bild in Schwarz-Weiß – meist ein Foto aus dem reichen Nachlass des Agraringenieurs Armin Kniely (1907-1998) – neben einem Farbbild, das er selbst fotografiert hat. Die unterschiedlichen Entstehungszeiten der Bilder sind damit, anders als bei den Pendants des 18. Jahrhunderts, bereits auf den ersten Blick erkennbar und auch Thema: Lois Hechenblaikner geht es darum, sichtbar zu machen, wie sich eine Region – fast alle Motive stammen aus Tirol – innerhalb von nur zwei Generationen verändert hat. Wo man in den 1930er und selbst noch in den 1960er Jahren Bergbauern bei ihrer mühsamen Feldarbeit aufnehmen sowie ein ritualisiertes Brauchtum dokumentierten konnte, sind mittlerweile der Tourismus und die Formate der Eventkultur am prägendsten geworden. Doch statt nur einen Strukturwandel festzuhalten, besteht Hechenblaikners besondere Fähigkeit darin, in jeder Gegenüberstellung zwei formal analoge Szenerien aufeinander zu beziehen. Erst so werden aus seinen Bildpaaren auch Pendants – zwei Fotos, die trotz aller Unterschiede jeweils genügend Gemeinsames haben, um zum Vergleich herauszufordern. Die Bildpaare gehen bei Hechenblaikner auch immer über das bloß Assoziative hinaus, das in der Kunst sonst beliebt ist, weil das Arrangement dann eine Vieldeutigkeit verheißt und verrätselt wirkt (oft aber nur beliebig ist). Vielmehr empfindet man seine Pendants als geradezu unheimlich – als unglaublich und grotesk –, weil die von ihm entdeckten Ähnlichkeiten so stark sind. Daher überlegt man auch, ob es sich bei den Farbfotos nicht vielleicht um direkte Remakes der Schwarz-weiß-Motive handelt. Doch ist schnell zu erkennen, dass Lois Hechenblaikner seine Bilder nicht eigens inszeniert: Da fast immer Menschen, nicht selten sogar größere Gruppen darauf zu sehen sind, wäre es zu aufwändig, für einen einzelnen Fotografen gar unmöglich, die Szenen zu stellen. Vielmehr ist es Hechenblaikners hervorragendem Bildgedächtnis zu verdanken, wenn er bei seinen Streifzügen durch das Land immer wieder Situationen entdeckt, die denen auf alten Fotos genau entsprechen: Wie einst ein Bauer Jauche auf die Felder spritzte, so schießt man jetzt Schnee aus Kanonen, die Stecken, um die man früher das Heu zum Trocknen wickelte, ähneln verblüffend Handy-Masten, und wo die Landwirte einst stolz ihre Schafe präsentierten, posieren heute Golfspieler mit ihren Trolleys. Die Botschaft der Pendants ist somit eine doppelte: Sie künden sowohl von den gewaltigen Umbrüchen in den Alpen während der letzten Jahrzehnte als auch davon, dass alle Veränderungen doch nur scheinbar sind, ja dass sich lediglich die Hüllen und Akzidenzien gewandelt haben, in denen dieselben Muster geradezu zeitlos zur Geltung kommen. Man könnte darin eine Bestätigung für das sehen, was Aby Warburg als Pathosformeln bezeichnet hat, nämlich Gesten und Konstellationen, die über Epochen und sogar über Kulturen hinweg immer wieder auftauchen und die damit den Status anthropologischer Konstanten besitzen. Wollte Warburg diese Formeln mithilfe eines Atlasses erforschen, der Bilder unterschiedlichster Herkunft mit jeweils verwandten Sujets auf Tableaus versammelte[3], so läßt sich das vorliegende Buch von Lois Hechenblaikner als Tiroler Variante eines ähnlichen Projekts würdigen. Doch während Warburg, getrieben von metaphysischem Interesse und auf der Suche nach so etwas wie Archetypen menschlicher Existenz, auf den einzelnen Tafeln seines Atlasses weit ausholt und auch Bilder zusammenbringt, die zumindest auf den ersten Blick nur wenig gemeinsam haben, ist Hechenblaikners Arbeit ungleich konzentrierter. Da er immer nur Bildpaare zeigt, denen zudem allen dasselbe Schema zugrunde liegt, wird der Betrachter viel stärker geführt. Jede Doppelseite gerät bei ihm zu einer neuen Pointe. Doch verhindert die Form des Pendants, dass mit dem Erfassen der Pointe schon alles vorbei ist. Im Gegenteil fordert sie zur weiteren Reflexion heraus, und das Spiel von Identität und Differenz, das Lois Hechenblaikner mit jeder Gegenüberstellung auf die Spitze treibt, eröffnet dafür den Raum. Viel mehr als einzelne Bilder, mehr aber auch als andere Formen von Bildpaaren verlangen Pendants sogar ausdrücklich aktive Rezipienten, die diesen Raum mit ihren Gedanken füllen. Sie können dann entweder darüber sinnieren, wieso sich zwei vermeintlich so unterschiedliche Lebenswelten wie Landwirtschaft und Tourismus, Religion und Sport, Brauchtum und Kommerz in so ähnlichen Bildformeln ausdrücken, oder sie können der Überlegung nachgehen, wie sich eine Region innerhalb kurzer Zeit so stark verändern konnte, dass alle Tätigkeiten und Situationen komplett durch andere Tätigkeiten und Situationen ersetzt wurden. Ist also einmal die Ähnlichkeit des Unterschiedlichen das Faszinosum, so das andere Mal die Andersheit des Gleichen. Jeweils aber muss der Rezipient beides – Identität und Differenz – zusammendenken. Er kann sich dabei auf ein einzelnes Beispiel konzentrieren und Überlegungen zur jeweiligen Rolle etwa von Schafen und Trolleys – zu ihrer Eignung als Symbole für eine Lebensform – anstellen. Er kann sich aber auch von der Summe der Bildpaare anregen lassen und so zu Theoriebildung animiert werden, um für das ihm Dargebotene eine Erklärung zu finden. In einem Text spricht Lois Hechenblaikner selbst davon, durch die Bildpaare solle „im Kopf des Betrachters ein so starkes drittes Bild entstehen, dass ihm förmlich ‚das Licht aufgeht’“. Doch sind es – je nach Interesse, Haltung und Vorbildung – durchaus unterschiedliche Lichter, die aufgehen können. Während Hechenblaikner die Gegenüberstellungen zuerst mit dem Ziel anlegte, die Veränderung Tirols und des Alpenraumes als Verlustgeschichte zu erzählen, ist es mit ihnen genauso möglich, die verschwundene Welt nachträglich zu dekonstruieren. Läßt der Wechsel vom Schwarz-weiß zur Farbe einerseits den Schluss zu, dass sich in der Gegenwart eine brutale Marktlogik durchgesetzt hat, derzufolge alles mit möglichst starken Reizen – mit Grellheit und Obszönität – auf sich aufmerksam macht, so kann man daraus andererseits also auch die Mahnung ableiten, auf das Vergangene nicht nur deshalb sentimental zu blicken, weil es durch die einheitliche Tönung verfremdet erscheint. Obwohl das Leben der Bergbauern, ihre familiäre Bindung, ihr Gottvertrauen und ihre dem Rhythmus der Jahreszeiten gehorchende Arbeit idyllisch wirken mag, könnte das alles vielmehr ähnlich – genauso? – derb, banal und kalt gewesen sein wie die heutige von Unterhaltungsindustrie, Animiergewerbe und Konsum bestimmte Welt des Massentourismus. Oder muss es sich doch eindeutig um einen Verfall handeln, wenn allenthalben natürliche Materialien durch Kunststoffe ausgetauscht, freie Blicke durch Werbetafeln verstellt, beschauliche Szenerien von Massenevents abgelöst, Ernst und Strenge durch Albernheit und Ausgelassenheit ersetzt wurden? Aber ist es nicht auch ein Zeichen von Freiheit und Wohlstand – und damit sogar ein Fortschritt –, wenn die Menschen ihre Launen heute ausleben können und nicht länger ein enges, allein von Armut und Notwendigkeiten bestimmtes Leben führen müssen? Selbst wenn man klar für eine Deutung optiert und sich entweder als Kulturpessimist oder als Fürsprecher einer grundsätzlichen Gleichwertigkeit verschiedener Epochen oder aber als Fortschrittseuphoriker bekennt, kann man die jeweils alternativen Interpretationen wohl nie ganz ausblenden. Je besser ein Bildpaar ist, desto stärker sind vielmehr zugleich die jeweils anderen Sichtweisen präsent. Es gehört sogar geradezu zum Wesen von Pendants (wie ihr Name, abgeleitet vom lateinischen ‚pendere‘, bereits verrät), zu einem Abwägen zu verleiten und feste Positionen in die Schwebe zu bringen. Pendants sind also die ideale Bildform für Skeptiker, die sich ungern festlegen und immer gerne mindestens eine zweite Sichtweise parat haben. Zwei Bilder, so wie Lois Hechenblaikner sie aufeinander bezieht, sagen daher tatsächlich mehr als tausend Worte, mit denen nämlich jeweils nur eine einzige Position formuliert werden kann: Satz und Gegensatz in sich vereinend, verführen Pendants zum philosophischen Denken – zu einem nie abschließbaren Nachdenken über Geschichte, Menschen, Kultur. Das Schwanken zum Prinzip erhebend, sind sie die besten Stimulanzien des Geistes.

die Länder

Ordne sie die Länder nach ihrer Größe.

Die DACHL-Laender

Smallpox epidemics had struck the tribes of the Upper Missouri at least twice before the terrible epidemic of 1837. The earlier epidemics of 1781 and 1801 took the lives of thousands of Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras and forced them to move north to re-build their villages near the mouth of the Knife River. However, not long after the earthlodge villages became established on the Knife, they experienced the worst smallpox epidemic ever. Fort Clark was a fur-trading post that had been built in 1823 just a few miles south of the mouth of the Knife River on the west bank of the Missouri River. One-quarter mile from the fort was the Mandan village of Mitu'tahakto's (meh TOOT ah hahnk tosh). Within 15 miles of the post were several more Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa villages. Earlier epidemics and inter-tribal conflict had forced the earthlodge peoples north to the Knife River. The Yanktonais, Crows, Assiniboines and other tribes traveled to Fort Clark bringing buffalo robes and furs to trade for tobacco, guns, cloth, and other goods. Fort Clark was a busy, densely populated center of international trade. On June 18, 1837, the steamboat St. Peters approached Fort Clark. In addition to supplies, the St. Peters brought Andrew Jackson Chardon, the two-year-old son of Fort Clark’s superintendent, Francis Chardon. Chardon met the boat some 30 miles downstream. He removed his son from the boat and heard the news that people on the boat were infected with smallpox. When the steamboat landed at Fort Clark, people came and went from the boat to the fort and the villages. Workers from the boat and the post unloaded goods and loaded bales of furs. All of the activity took place in less than 24 hours amid a “frolick” of singing and dancing and celebration. Once loaded, the St. Peters headed upstream to Fort Union carrying the deadly virus. On July 14, 1837, Chardon noted in his journal that a Mandan man had died of smallpox in the village. (See Document 2.) Chardon knew that smallpox would become an epidemic and that many more would die, but the extent of the epidemic stunned him. He recorded the deaths of important village leaders including the highly-respected second chief of the Mandans, Four Bears. He heard, probably second-hand, the death-speech of Four Bears (See Document 2, entry for July 30.) and recorded it in his journal. Chardon was unable to keep track of the number of deaths: “they die so fast that it is impossible,” he wrote. Survivors swore revenge against Chardon for bringing death to their villages. There were murders and threats of murder as the deeply despairing Mandans tried to avenge the deaths of their families and friends. Some people, sick with smallpox or feeling desperate from the loss of every member of their family, committed suicide. Suicide was unknown among the Mandans and Hidatsas before the epidemic. Before the disease reached the post, Chardon sent his oldest son downriver to Fort Pierre. The boy was sent on to his grandparents’ home in Pennsylvania. The younger son, Andrew Jackson, remained with Chardon (the boy’s mother had died in April before the epidemic). When the disease finally penetrated the walls of the fort, Andrew Jackson sickened and died as did many other young children of the post employees. When the disease reached Fort Union, more people, both Indians and non-Indians, were exposed and suffered. The superintendent at Fort Union tried to inoculate as many people as he could. Many tribes fled the area and probably saved many lives in doing so. The disease however, continued to spread across the northern Great Plains where the Indians had been denied access to the 1832 federal vaccination program. The Mandan people suffered the greatest losses in the epidemic. Frequent, close contact among the people of the villages and the fur trade post helped to spread the disease quickly. About 2,000 Mandans lived in the Knife River villages in the spring of 1837. By October, 138 people remained alive. The survivors moved from the village at Fort Clark to other villages. The Arikaras, who had lost perhaps two-thirds of their population, moved into Mitu'tahakto's. They harvested the Mandans’ garden crops that year and remained in the village near Fort Clark.

The Revolt of the Northern Earls (1569) Most people in the North remained loyal to the Catholic noble families who controlled the north and their Catholic faith. When Elizabeth came to power, she promoted ‘new men’ (Protestants) from the gentry and the powerful Catholic nobles lost their power and influence. This led them to organise the most serious rebellion of Elizabeth’s reign in 1569. Why did the Northern Earl’s revolt? The Earls had lost their power when Elizabeth became Queen (and wanted it back). They wanted Catholicism restored in England (and felt that ordinary Catholics would support it). Elizabeth was refusing to marry or to name an heir, causing uncertainty about England’s future. Mary Queen of Scots (if freed from prison) could replace Elizabeth and solve all these problems Who were the key players in the Revolt? Earl of Northumberland • A Catholic who had held an important position under Mary I. • He lost a lot of influence under Elizabeth (as she favoured Protestant gentry) • Elizabeth also took the rights to a valuable copper mine found on his lands Earl of Westmorland • From a rich Catholic family in the north Also the Duke of Norfolk’s brother in law Duke of Norfolk • England’s most senior Protestant noble, but he had very close links to old northern Catholic families, & was sympathetic to them & greedy for power. • He hated William Cecil & Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Elizabeth’s favourite) who were Protestant and from the gentry • He planned to marry Mary QS, but later backed down and urged the earls to call off the rebellion. Mary also supported the plan to marry him What role did religion play? (7/10 – but only because it was linked to power) • Most northerners held onto their Catholic beliefs & although Elizabeth didn’t persecute them, they knew that she wanted their religion to gradually die out, so they supported the revolt. • In 1561 Elizabeth hired a strict Protestant as archbishop of Durham to promote Protestantism in the north, but he was unpopular & turned many northerners against the Protestant religion. What role did politics/power play? (9/10 – this was the most important cause of the revolt) • The Northern Earls lost a lot of their power/influence (even jobs/money under Elizabeth) • Northumberland was jealous of new Protestant families being given top jobs in the North • William Cecil & Robert Dudley were not from ancient noble families, but were very close to the Queen, so the northern Earls resented them getting top jobs in her Government • Elizabeth also confiscated large areas of land & the profits from their copper mines • It is possible, that had Elizabeth allowed the Catholic Northern Earls to keep their jobs, money and influence at court, they may have ‘tolerated’ her as a Protestant Queen (greedy/selfish). What role did Mary Queen of Scots and the Succession play? • Elizabeth was refusing to name an heir and it was becoming clear that she would not marry • If Mary Queen of Scots married the Duke of Norfolk, England would have an heir and England would be Catholic again. The country would be stable without people competing for power. • However, some of Elizabeth’s courtiers got worried that it might not work and that it might lead to charges of treason (punishable by death) • So by September 1569, Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester) decided to tell Elizabeth about the plot. By this time it was much more serious than simply marrying Norfolk to Mary. • Mary QS had secretly asked Spain to send troops to help the rebellion & overthrow Elizabeth Plan for the Revolt of the Northern Earls (1569) • The Earls of Northumberland & Westmorland will raise rebel troops from their lands in the north and take control of Durham. • The rebels will then march south towards London to join with the Duke of Norfolk • 1000s of Spanish troops will land in England to support the rebel forces • The Duke of Norfolk & rebel forces will seize control of Government & overthrow Elizabeth • Mary Queen of Scots is to be freed, ready to marry the Duke of Norfolk Key Events of the Revolt • Once Elizabeth knew of the plot, Norfolk was arrested and sent to the Tower of London • The Northern Earls were worried they would be executed for their involvement and in a desperate attempt to avoid punishment, pushed ahead with the revolt • They raised an army of ordinary Catholics and took control of Durham cathedral • Catholic mass was celebrated across the north for 2 weeks. • They then headed south, to try and free Mary • Mary QSs was moved south to Coventry on the orders of Elizabeth, so she couldn’t escape • The rebellion failed as Spanish troops never arrived • Elizabeth’s friend (Earl of Sussex) had raised an army of 7,000 men to defend her throne. Results: • The rebellion was a serious threat to Elizabeth • She executed 450 rebels in the north • Northumberland was executed in 1572 & his head was put on a spike on the city gate • The Privy Council called for the Duke of Norfolk’s execution too, but Elizabeth released him. • Mary Queen of Scots was kept in prison for the next 14 years. • The failed plot also led the Pope to take action against Elizabeth • In 1570 he excommunicated Elizabeth from the Catholic Church • He also issued a Papal Bull (order) calling on all loyal Catholics to overthrow her hoping it would encourage another rebellion. • In 1571 Elizabeth called parliament to pass an Act making it treason to claim that she was not the rightful Queen and to bring in/print papal bulls in England. The Significance of the Revolt of the Northern Earls • It was the first and most serious rebellion by English Catholics against Elizabeth • Treason laws were made much harsher • It ended the influence of the powerful Catholic Earls in the North • It led to harsher treatment of Catholics, e.g. 1572 Elizabeth sent the Earl of Huntingdon (strict Protestant) to the north to carry out laws against Catholics (and suppress Catholicism). • Although Elizabeth’s brutal revenge on the rebels show how serious a threat it was, most Catholics in the north stayed loyal, but the Pope’s Papal Bull now put their loyalty in doubt There was little support for the revolt among the rest of the Catholic nobility and ordinary people. When faced with a choice between Elizabeth and their religion, most Catholics chose to support the Queen. 1569, was the last time English Catholics tried to remove Elizabeth by force. The future plots against her were always uncovered by Cecil & Walsingham, before they had a chance to get any public support. Despite this, the Northern Revolt & Papal Bull changed Elizabeth’s attitude towards Catholics who were now seen as potential traitors. From 1570, Elizabeth became less tolerant of recusants (people refusing to attend her church) & took increasingly tough measures against Catholics. The Ridolfi, Throckmorton & Babington plots • In the 1870s-80s, there were 3 Catholic plots to assassinate Elizabeth & replace her with Mary. • The plots were supported by France, Spain, the Pope and some Catholic nobles. • They reinforced the form Mary & from Catholics at home and abroad. Also the threat from Spain. The Ridolfi Plot (1571) • Ridolfi was an Italian banker living in England and a spy for the Pope. • He organised a plot to murder Eliz, marry Mary QS to the Duke of Norfolk & make her Queen. • The Pope & King Philip supported the plot & Philip told the Duke of Alba in the Netherlands to prepare 10,000 troops (but to only invade AFTER the English had overthrown Elizabeth). • The plot failed because Sir William Cecil intercepted coded letters & Norfolk was executed. • Mary was kept under closer watch. • Ridolfi was abroad when the plot was discovered and never returned to England. 1574: Catholic Priests and Priest Holes • From 1574 Catholic priests were smuggled into England to keep the religion alive. • They stayed with rich Catholic families, so Catholic families were kept under surveillance. • Catholic homes were raided – to find ‘priest holes’ where Catholic priests were hiding. • Catholic priests who were found could be hung, drawn and quartered (although not all were) • In 1581, Parliament also passed 2 new tougher laws against Catholics: • Recusants would be fined £20 (which would bankrupt most families) • Trying to convert people to Catholicism was now treason (punishable by death) The Throckmorton Plot (1583) • It aimed to assassinate Elizabeth and replace her with Mary. The French Duke of Guise (Mary’s cousin) would invade England with an army, funded by King Philip (Pope also supported it). • An Englishman, Throckmorton carried messages between Mary & Catholic plotters abroad. • Sir Walsingham (Secretary of State) uncovered the plot after his agents found the plans for the plot in Throckmorton’s house. Throckmorton confessed under torture and was executed. Significance: • The plots showed that Mary’s presence in England posed a serious threat • It also showed that France & Spain were a serious threat (& could invade) • Throckmorton’s papers showed a list of Catholic supporters in England, so the threat from English Catholics was also real • 1,000s of Catholics were imprisoned or kept under surveillance/house arrest • In 1585 another Act was passed to make helping Catholic priests punishable by death. • The Bond of Association was signed by the English nobles & gentry & forced them to promise to execute anyone who tried to overthrow the Queen. Weaknesses of the Plots The plots lacked public support & were uncovered by informers & spies before they had the chance to work King Philip was reluctant to destroy his alliance with Elizabeth (France was still a bigger rival) so is support for the plots was half-hearted, he rarely followed through on his promises to help the plotters or send an army The Babington Plot (1586) In 1586, Walsingham used his spy network to PROVE that Mary supported the Babington plot. His evidence persuaded Elizabeth to put Mary on trial & execute her for treason. • This was a plot to murder Elizabeth and put Mary on the throne • France would invade England with 60,000 men and Spain would also send an army • Babington was passing coded letters between Mary & her supporters in England & Europe. • But all of her letters were being intercepted and read by Walsingham. • Walsingham used his spies to follow every stage of the plot & had the letters decoded • One of Mary’s letters approved plans to murder the Queen and free Mary from prison • They also contained the names of 6 Catholics who planned to kill Elizabeth • They were arrested, hung, drawn and quartered for treason. • Mary had been implicated in plots before, but Elizabeth was always reluctant to execute her • But the proof found by Walsingham finally persuaded her to put Mary on trial • In October 1586, Mary was found guilty & was sentenced to death • But Elizabeth still hesitated, and did not sign the death warrant until February 1587. Significance 1) This plot was very significant because by 1585 England was effectively at war with Spain since Elizabeth had sent her army to help the Dutch Protestants fight the Spanish 2) This meant that Elizabeth’ situation was more dangerous than during previous plots. 3) Elizabeth’s government also became more determined to crush Catholicism 4) 1000s of recusants were arrested & 31 priests were executed 5) Mary’s execution removed the Catholic threat at home 6) English Catholics had no one to rally around, & lost hope of overthrowing Elizabeth 7) But Mary’s death increased the threat of a foreign invasion as England was at war with Spain and King Philip had been preparing an attack on England since 1585 8) Mary’s death made Philip even more determined to invade, Mary had left her claim to the English throne to King Philip upon her death Why was Mary Queen of Scots finally executed? 1 • A new Act in 1585 stated that in the event of Elizabeth’s assassination, Mary could be executed as long as she had been proved guilty & Walsingham had provided hard proof. 2 • Another reason was that by 1587, it was clear that Philip was planning to invade England • There were rumours that Spanish ships had landed in Wales & that Mary had escaped. This convinced Elizabeth that Mary had to be executed if she wanted to keep her throne. Walsingham’s Spy Network: • Walsingham (Secretary of State from 1573) had a network of spies all over England & abroad. He had spies in every English town, some were normal people paid to spy on neighbours. • He also had agents and spies in Spain, France, Germany and Italy • He hired mathematicians to crack written codes and people to open/seal letters secretly • He also pressured captured Catholic priests to spy on others for him in return for a pardon. • He used double agents to infiltrate Catholic networks - to help him discover traitors • But he only used torture against Catholic priests caught in England in the most serious cases • But 130 priests and 60 of their supporters were still executed during Elizabeth’s reign. Why did Relations with Spain get worse (1569-1588) • England had tried to stay on good terms with Spain, because Eliz wanted to avoid an expensive war that could lead to her being overthrown (English Catholics could support it) • But by the 1570s, Elizabeth wanted to have an empire of her own. • She also needed to make more money to defend her country and throne (by improving trade) • This religious, political and economic rivalry led to growing tensions between England & Spain Political and Religious Rivalry 1) Land abroad, gave countries wealth/power. By the 1580s, Eliz wanted an empire to rival Spain’s (especially as Spain had supported the Catholic plots against Eliz – even if it was half-hearted) 2) Religion was another cause of conflict. Philip opposed Elizabeth’s religious settlement 1559 3) Luckily for Elizabeth, in the 1550s Spain & France were competing to be the greatest European power and both wanted England as an ally against the other. 4) But from 1567, Spanish ships were sailing to the Netherlands with money for the Alba’s army 5) This alarmed English Protestants and Elizabeth’s Privy Council who put more and more pressure on her to send an army to help the Dutch Protestant rebels (in the Netherlands). Economic (commercial) Rivalry: The New World, privateers and Sir Francis Drake • Under Elizabeth, English merchants wanted to make big profits in the New World (Americas). • However, trading in the New World was difficult because of Spain’s power 1) Spain controlled most of the New World where there were huge profits to be made and anyone who wanted to trade there needed a licence from Spain (which it would not give): 2) But the Americas had valuable crops like tobacco, sugar, and also silver and gold 3) Elizabeth secretly encouraged privateers to trade illegally & raid Spanish ports & ships 4) At first Elizabeth denied responsibility for their actions, which delaye war with Spain Sir Francis Drake: Elizabeth sends Drake to rob Spanish colonies and ships (which infuriates Spain) 1) Spain’s support for the Ridolfi plot (1571) made her more willing to support Drake • In 1572 Eliz hired Drake to sail to the New World & steal £40,000 of Spanish silver • In 1577 she sent Drake back again with a secret mission to rob Spain’s colonies/ships • Drake brought back £400,000 of Spanish treasure & claimed an area of California in Elizabeth’s name (New Albion). He gave a lot of this money to Elizabeth • He boosted England’s finances at a time of growing concern over Spain’s threat • He became famous as the first Englishman to circumnavigate the globe. • Eliz knighted Drake as a reward, which infuriated Philip (as he saw Drake as a pirate) • Drake’s actions & his claim to California made it clear that England did not accept Spain’s domination of the New World. Elizabeth’s Support for the Dutch Rebels led to War with Spain (1585-88) • By the 1580s, tension between England & Spain had reached boiling point • At first, Eliz refused to send her army to help the Dutch rebels, because she wanted to avoid a war with Spain. So she tried to get the Spanish to leave the Netherlands in other INDIRECT ways: 1) By allowing Drake (& other English privateers) to attack and rob Spanish ships and colonies 2) By encouraging others (the French heir/mercenaries) to fight the Spanish in the Netherlands • In the 1570s, Elizabeth promised to marry the heir to the French throne (the Duke of Alencon) so that he would take an army to fight the Spanish in the Netherlands The Spanish Fury (1576) and the Pacification of Ghent (1576) • By 1576, the Spanish Govt in the Netherlands was bankrupt (the war was expensive) • After months without pay, Spain’s soldiers violently robbed Dutch towns in the “Spanish Fury” Spanish troops rebelling and robbing cities in the Netherlands in 1576. This united the Dutch Protestants & Catholics against Spain. They drew up the ‘Pacification of Ghent’ (demanding that): • Spanish troops leave the Netherlands • Spain allows the Dutch to rule themselves • The persecution of Dutch Protestants stops What did Elizabeth do? • Elizabeth sent £100,000 to help the Dutch rebels • In 1577 King Philip’s brother, Don Juan agreed to the rebels demands (but this was a trick) as just 6 months later Philip sent an even bigger army to attack the Dutch. • Elizabeth then hired a mercenary army of 6000 English & Scottish volunteers to help the Dutch. • But her plan backfired because the mercenaries destroyed Dutch Catholic churches, which caused the Catholics to make peace with Spain. • In 1578, her Privy Council urged Eliz to send her official army to help the Dutch, but she refused. The Dutch were disappointed & turned to France for help. The French Duke of Alencon arrived with an army to fight the Spanish, but by 1579 Spain had taken control again. • In 1580 Spain got even stronger after Philip won control of Portugal & its empire. • So Elizabeth gave the Duke of Alencon £70,000 to help him fight the Spanish • In 1582, Alencon took his army the Netherlands but failed to defeat Spain. • Elizabeth’s foreign policy in the Netherlands had failed & she had only managed to annoy Spain 1585: Why did Eliz finally decide to send her army to the Netherlands? (she lost her 2 main allies) • 1584 the Duke of Alencon died (so he could no longer fight the Spanish in the Netherlands) • 1 month later, William of Orange, the leader of the Dutch Protestant rebels was assassinated. • In 1585, Spain signed the Treaty of Joinville with France, agreeing to stamp out Protestantism in France/Europe meaning France & Spain were now allies against Protestantism • Elizabeth now felt she had no choice but to send her official army to the Netherlands • She signed the Treaty of Nonsuch with the Dutch rebels which promised them military help 1585: Robert Dudley’s campaign in the Netherlands was unsuccessful She sent 7,400 man army to the Netherlands led by Dudley. But he accepted the title of ‘Governor General’. Eliz was angry as it suggested that she had deposed King Philip so she told Dudley to resign this position. His army was defeated by the bigger Spanish Army as Eliz had not provided him with enough money to win. In 1587 Dudley resigned and returned to England. At the same time, Eliz had sent Drake to raid Spanish colonies in the New World to disrupt King Philip’s flow of money. Philip was furious and told the Pope he planned to invade England at the end of 1585. Drake singes the King of Spain’s beard 1587 • In 1587 Elizabeth ordered Drake to attack Spain’s most important port Cadiz • He destroyed 30 ships in 3 days – known as the ‘Singeing of the King of Spain’s Beard’ • He also stole lots of wood, meaning the Armada did not have quality barrels for food/water • Drake’s disruption delayed the Armada by a year (& meant that its food rotted in 1588). • This bought England more time to prepare for war. The Spanish Armada (1588) The Plan • By 1588, the Spanish Armada was ready to invade England • It had 130 ships with 8000 sailors & 18,000 soldiers • The Duke of Medina Sidonia would lead the Armada, but he had little experience at sea and didn’t want the job • The Armada would collect Parma’s army from France & sail to England under the protection of the Armada’s warships • Parma would march to London to depose Elizabeth & impose a Catholic government in England. 1) The Armada reached the English Channel The Armada set out in May 1588, but was delayed for a few weeks by bad weather In July the Armada was near England & signal fires were lit to warn Elizabeth English ships set sail to meet the Armada The Armada sailed up the channel in a crescent (half moon) formation, to use the large armed galleons to protect the weaker supply and army ships The English navy carried out a few minor raids, but did not inflict much damage Only 2 Spanish ships were lost (by accident) 2) The English attack the Spanish at Calais (with fire ships) and at Gravelines The Armada sailed up the English channel & anchored at Calais to wait for Parma’s army But Parma’s men didn't reach the coast in time (news had reached them too late) At midnight, the English sent 8 fireships into the Spanish ships causing panic They cut their anchors, broke formation & headed for the open sea (without Parma) The Spanish ships sailed to Gravelines, but bad weather stopped them returning to Calais The English attacked and the battle lasted many hours (5 Spanish ships were sunk) The rest were forced to sail away from France towards Scotland The English ships followed them to make sure they didn’t come back to collect Parma’s army 3) The Armada’s Journey back to Spain around Ireland was a disaster The Spanish called off the attack and returned to Spain around Scotland & Ireland Bad storms sank many ships and wrecked more on the Irish coast Many sailors died from starvation & disease – less than half the men made it back to Spain How did England defeat the Spanish Armada? !) Faster Ships • Years before the battle, England had started building smaller, faster ships (galleons) that could fire canon balls quicker & further than Spanish ships • Spanish ships were huge and slow to change direction. 2) Bad Planning & Communication (Spanish) • Philip’s plan to join with the Duke of Parma’s army in France was risky. • Parma had lots of small ships which took 48 hours to load, man and set sail. • It took too long (a week) for word to reach Parma that Medina was in the English Channel, by which time Medina had set sail to Calais. • Parma was not ready to set sail & the English were already ready to attack (leaving Medina with very little back up when anchored in France). 2) English Tactics were more effective • Spanish ships aimed to come alongside the English ones, jump on board & fight the enemy. But the English ships were faster & kept a safe distance. • They chased the Armada down the Channel, with heavy cannon fire, which forced the Spanish to arrive in France before Parma’s army was ready • As the Armada was waiting, the English sent fireships into the Spanish fleet. • This caused the Armada to panic, cut their anchors & sail away to the north • When the Spanish ships regrouped, the English attacked them in the Battle of Gravelines & the Armada was forced to sail north, chased by faster ships. 5) Bad Weather • Strong winds made it impossible for the Armada to return & pick up Parma’s army and storms wrecked or sunk Spanish ships as they tried to return home along the Scottish-Irish coasts. 2) Spanish Supplies • The Armada was not well supplied with food/weapons. Drake’s attack on Cadiz port in 1587 had destroyed food barrels. Delays in setting sail meant that by the time the English attacked the Armada it had been at sea for 10 weeks and had rotting food. 1000s died from starvation/disease. The consequences of the English victory? • Victory over the Spanish Armada gave Elizabeth a great propaganda victory • A new portrait was made, and a medal was made to commemorate her victory, it said “God blew and they were scattered”. • Elizabeth claimed that God was on the side of Protestantism • This led to a feeling of English pride and encouraged the Dutch rebels to renew their fight against the Spanish • The defeat of the Armada showed the strength of the English navy and gave England the confidence to trade and explore more widely at sea • Although Philip did not give up and continued the war for the rest of Elizabeth’s reign, the defeat had cost Spain dearly, both financially and in terms of its power • The Armada marked the start of a long decline in Spain’s power and fortunes. • English ships were sent on voyages of discovery and set up valuable new trade routes • By the end of Elizabeth’s reign, the navy was also trying to set up a new colony in Virginia • The English victory boosted Elizabeth’s popularity & strengthened the Protestant cause

Related quizzes

Related quizzes