The writers of the northern renaissance can be matched to there work as:
- Macbeth :William Shakespeare
- The Praise of Folly; Erasmus
- Gargantua and Pantagruel;Francois Rabelais
<h3>Who were the writers of the northern renaissance ?</h3>
The writers of the northern renaissance are those philosophers that their book influence the lives of people .
Northern Renaissance writers and philosophers can be regarded as the finest critic one of the is also François Rabelais who was regarded as a wealthy man and warmest thinker.
This man was a great French contribution to the movement.
Find out more on writers at brainly.com/question/24858866
#SPJ1
CHECK THE COMPLETE QUESTION:
Match the following writers of the northern renaissance to there work
A. Erasmus
B. Francois Rabelais
C. William Shakespeare
1. Macbeth
2. The Praise of Folly
3. Gargantua and Pantagruel
The 17th century was a time of great political and social turmoil in England, marked by civil war and regicide. Matthew White introduces the key events of this period, from the coronation of Charles I to the Glorious Revolution more than 60 years later.
The 17th century was a period of huge political and social upheaval. From an age characterised by the Crown’s tight control of the state, the century witnessed years of war, terror and bloodshed that enveloped the kingdom, as well as the execution of Charles I and the introduction of a republic. Yet all this was again to be overthrown with the restoration of Charles II: a short-lived return to autocratic royal influence finally swept away with the installation of William and Mary as ruling monarchs.
Charles I and notions of absolutism
The origins of the English Civil Wars are firmly rooted in the actions of one man: King Charles I. As a child, Charles was never destined to succeed to the throne. The weak and sickly second son of James I, Charles had lived in the shadow of his elder brother Henry, who was educated in the ways of kingship by his father. All this changed when, in 1612, Henry contracted smallpox and died, suddenly placing Charles as heir to the throne, eventually to be crowned in his own right in 1625. The old king, James I, had been schooled in notions of compromise, forced to negotiate with his nobles on matters of religion and affairs of state. Charles, by contrast, adopted a starkly different approach, believing that his authority alone was supreme and ordained by God: defined by the principle of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’. ‘It is for me to decide how our nation is to be governed’ he wrote; ‘I alone must answer to God for our exercise of the authority he has invested in me’.[1]
Charles I’s absolutism manifested itself at a time of emerging self-confidence among the English elite. Though Parliament met only sporadically during this period – and acted mainly in an advisory role to the sovereign – by the time Charles was crowned he was already highly dependent on the gentry’s ability to raise adequate tax revenues (derived from agricultural rents, which far exceeded any other sources of income). It was this body of landowning gentlemen that constituted the bulk of Members of Parliament, men who, in theory, could by withholding his sources of income, hold the king to account. Conflict between Crown and Parliament arose for a number of reasons. In matters of religion Charles appeared to disregard the Protestant settlement secured by Henry VIII, favouring instead the Catholic mass and, in 1625, marrying a Catholic member of the French nobility, Henrietta Maria. Charles also continued to act unilaterally in matters of foreign policy and, in the face of criticism levelled by his chief advisers, dissolved Parliament in 1629. Parliament would not meet again for another 11 years.
Without Parliament to sanction his financial needs, Charles found himself in increasingly difficult circumstances. Rebellion in Scotland (provoked by Charles’s insensitive imposition of a new prayer book) required that additional revenues be raised in order to finance a military response. Reluctantly, the king convened a new Parliament in 1640.
The new Parliament that met that year was at once openly hostile to the Crown. MPs complained bitterly about the imposition of taxes and the blatant disregard of religious toleration in the north. (The Scots had rejected Charles’s prayer book and drafted a National Covenant in defiance of the king, resisting his religious reforms in favour of a simpler form of Protestant worship.) Sensing weakness in Charles’s position, key concessions were demanded from the king, and personal attacks were launched against his key ministers. Among them, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was to suffer the death penalty for what Parliament labelled acts of treason against the Scottish nation. A botched attempt to arrest five MPs for treason set the king directly in conflict with his people. The scene was set for civil war.
A nation at war
Fearing for his own safety, in 1642 Charles fled London, first heading north to where he believed his main support lay. At Hull, the king was refused entry to the city by the Lord Mayor, and later that year, in Nottingham, Charles raised his royal standard: the first symbol of open warfare with Parliament.
On 23 October 1642 the first true battle of the Civil Wars took place, at Edgehill in Warwickshire, resulting in stalemate between Parliamentarian and Royalist forces. For four years afterwards skirmishing and warfare erupted across the nation, as Roundheads (labelled for the Parliamentarians’ short cropped hair) and Cavaliers (a derogatory term describing the courtly dress of Royalists) pitched themselves against each other.
During the campaign for President in 1988, George Bush promised that he would "not raise taxes," since this was, and continues to be, one of the most prominent talking points in Republican politics.
Is this a random question? If so, I think that countries on the losing side of the war have already lost to the opponent for the reason they were fighting for. Is that not punishment enough? On top of that most countries that go to war could be 3rd world countries and probably can't afford to lose anything else or can afford to go to war. Respond to my answer if it were not quite what you were looking for so that I can give feedback on what you were looking for. Because your question didn't provide much to go on. :) im open to suggestions and corrections.
"<span>b. People were forced to move around looking for food and they carried their religious ideas with them when they met new people" would be the best answer from this list, since many of these people were nomadic for centuries. </span>
