The Similarities and Differences of 17th Century Europe and Japan (

different in many ways. In the medieval period there were some peaceful times, like with Pax

During the middle ages both Europe and Japan experienced feudalism. The feudal system in both social structures was very similar and different. The system of feudalism in Europe and Japan was a system that had similar roles for the nobles,and the peasants.Both cultures had warriors who defended the people of our country.They follow certain codes of honor. The feudal system has many similarities but also consisted of many differences.

The role of tradition within religion in medieval Japanese society was of great significance. Shinto and Zen Buddhism were two of the major religions practiced in medieval Japan. Shinto was mainly concerned with daily life, while Zen Buddhism prepared the people for the life to come. The samurai also followed an important code called Bushido, a form of warrior philosophy. The ancient Japanese religions helped people understand the universe and also provided a connection between the physical world on earth and the spiritual world.

Each strove to maintain a centralized government. For Japan the leader was to be called an emperor or empress who could only be a part of the royal family if they were related to the Shinto sun goddess. As for Europe, the leader was to be called a king or a queen. Like Japan, not just anybody could become royalty. Kings and queens came from a long descent of an Imperial family. Tradition was that the first born son of the king would become the next ruler following the kings death. However, if no legitimate son were born then the daughter would become queen. In Europe, the royal family and institution was usually

Throughout history, the system of feudalism is used several times in different areas in the world. Because of this form of government, the European lifestyle changed dramatically as the Japanese culture began to form. Although feudalism in Europe had started earlier, the feudal systems of Japan and Europe are somewhat alike. However, they are much more different than they are comparable.

The Catholic Reformation was the response of the Protestant movement in the sixteenth century. By the sixteenth century, many people lost the trust for the Catholic Church because it was corrupt. Popes and Cardinals became involved in politics and were more like kings than spiritual leaders and Nepotism was rampant. This loss of trust led people to moved on into other branches of Christianity which includes, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anabaptism. Catholic Church’s realized it needed to re-establish itself, thus beginning the Catholic Reformation. The Catholic Reformation was successful because it triggered the start of The Society of Jesus and The Council of Trent which helped resolve the church’s corruption through education,

When people think of “Medieval”, they often relate this to Europe. However, there was once a Medieval Japan too, and this time stretched from 1185-1868 CE. During this period, Shoguns ruled Japan, and they defined it as “Medieval” because, just like Europe society in Japan at this time was feudal in structure. Medieval Europe lasted from the 5th to the 15th century, and was often referred to as Christendom, because most civilians were Christians. Although they didn’t have any direct contact with one another, there were many similarities and differences in these two times. The ones this essay will focus on are; castles, health and hygiene and the social structure.

It was widely believed that kings had the power to enforce God's works and messages in the country that he ruled. As expressed by King James the First of England,"...kings are...God's lieutenants on earth..."(Document B). Kings are meant to act as God's second in command on earth and enforce God's mission on the people that he rules. According to Bishop Jaques Bousset's Political Treatise,"... the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege"(Document F). Kings were believed to be sent by God to rule and, therefore, should not be questioned. This belief allowed absolute monarchies to take hold in countries throughout Europe. The rule of these powerful governments allowed prosperity to take hold in

     According to Jacques-Benigne Bousset, a preacher and tutor to Louis the fourteenth’s son, there were four characteristics to royal authority. The first of being, royal authority is sacred. Second, royal authority is paternal. Third, it is absolute. Fourth, All power comes from God. (Text 596) To summarize Bousset he believes that, like God, a king is a father figure. To be idolized, respected and loved. So if God is the father of earth then his sons are the fathers of people, or kings. This makes a king both divine and undisputable, as a descendant of God. “Royal authority is absolute…The prince need account to no one for what he ordains…without this absolute authority, he can do no good nor suppress evil…” (Text 596).

This absolutist leader is portrayed by both King James I of England and King Louis XIV of France. King James I of England provided his people with a religious affiliation of himself and God. Through the divine right of kings, King James I believed he granted himself power from the authority of God. By means of this given right, King James I convinced his people was equal in power to God. Although this statement is false, many people, specifically the poor and illiterate, believed him. King James I used people’s relationships with God to create his own relationship amongst the people. In England there needed to be order when religious affiliation was breaking between the people and God. So rather than people looking up to God, they would look up to King James I. “The state of monarchy is the supreme thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants on earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God Himself they are called gods.”- Document B. Since King James was believed to be in connection and as powerful as God, no one could disobey or disagree with him. King James I granted himself the power to create and destroy, give life or sentence death and to determine the status of people. By making himself known as a god, King James I was able to fulfill several religious aspects in people’s lives and rule under a well-organized secure state of monarchy. Additionally,

Around the 15th century, when the Americas were discovered, Europe was going through a great religious change. There were many disputes in Europe about the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. Later, the two prominent religious figures that completely impacted the way people view religion in a different light were a German monk named Martin Luther, and a Frenchman named John Calvin. That’s when they started a religious reformation. Some countries, such as France and England, were most affected by the sudden change, which caused them to become slow to colonize in the New World. However, the Spanish and the Portuguese were unaffected and were the first to arrive in America, so their Catholic church and beliefs also went with them. Thus, Catholicism

Rulers of European countries during the 17th century had almost unlimited autonomy over their respective countries. They were the head of government in all respects, and all decisions were eventually made by them. However, along with this autonomy came responsibility in the form of the people. If the decisions of these rulers did not improve the country, the possibility existed that their power would be either curbed or taken away by the people. As ruler of England in the early 17th century, Charles Stuart believed strongly in absolute power and a king’s divine right to rule. He believed that a king was given his power by God and therefore had no reason to answer to the people. The Parliament in England at the time

The 16th and 17th centuries brought up the proposition of an absolute monarch, this is a ruler with total power over a country or territory. The idea of kings being chosen by God, or the divine right of kings, lead to absolutism, which was seen throughout Europe. Monarchs could be tyrants, they could take away the rights of their citizens. Monarchs could also be prosperous, improving their country economically, military, or gaining foreign alliances. Europe's absolute monarchs left the 16th and 17th centuries prosperous due to the fewer conflicts, the morals of monarchs, and everybody had an equal chance at upward-mobility.

European feudalism was based on contract and Japanese feudalism was based on personal relationship with the lord and vassal. This helps prove that the differences between European and Japanese feudalism made limited government more likely to develop in the West because a contract limits what the lords and vassals could do. William, the king of English, said, “I command you [the vassal] to summon all those who are under your charge......and bring ready with you those five knights that you owe me[.]”1 This helps prove that European feudalism was based on contract because when you owe someone something, it implies an agreement. The key terms are I command you and owe. The vassal has to send troops because he has to. He is under the rule of

King James I, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes strongly believed in the idea of Absolute government. They believed that King's were "God's Lieutenant's" and they were in power simply because God sent them there. These men believed in divine power upon earth, and that "God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or sent death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none, to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure…and the like power have Kings…" as quoted from doc. 2 of King James I. Being how King James I was a King, it is a conventional belief that Kings had divine rights. In one of Machiavelli's works "The Prince" Machiavelli writes "Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared."(Doc.1) Consequently Machiavelli believes in having a fear in your ruler, because if you fear your ruler, you will not hesitate to obey him, for you are afraid of the punishment. Where as, if you love your ruler, you are more lenient to challenge your ruler's authority.