Key Idea: Early Modern wars (1500–1750) never had a single cause. Your job in Paper 2 is to sort the causes — deep {{long-term causes|slow pressures that built up over decades}} that made war likely, {{short-term causes|recent tensions in the months or years before fighting}} that sharpened the crisis, and a final {{spark|the single triggering event that starts the war}} that lit it — and then judge which layer mattered most. Master the framework and you can attack any war on the paper, whether it is the Thirty Years' War in Europe or the Ottoman–Safavid Wars in the Middle East.
- Dynastic — rival families claiming the same throne, and marriages that made one house too strong (Habsburg vs Bourbon; Selim I vs Ismail I).
- Religious — the Reformation split Europe into Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist after Luther (1517); in Islam the Sunni–Shia divide did the same.
- Economic/territorial — hunger for trade routes, resources and strategic frontiers (silk-trade borderlands; fortress belts; Baltic access).
- Political/ideological — {{absolutist|a system where the monarch holds near-total, centralised power}} rulers chasing prestige and {{gloire|the glory and reputation a ruler won through military success}}, or internal rebellion pulling a state into war.
- Individuals & alliances — ambitious rulers (Ferdinand II, Richelieu, Gustavus Adolphus) and shifting coalitions that spread a local fire into a general war.
D-R-E-P-I: Dynastic, Religious, Economic, Political, Individuals/alliances. Almost every cause of an Early Modern war fits one of these — and every real war mixes several. If you can name the box a fact belongs in, you can build an analytical paragraph around it.
The two case studies at a glance
Thirty Years' War (Europe, 1618–48): **Long-term:** the Peace of Augsburg (1555) was collapsing — it protected Catholics and Lutherans but never Calvinists. **Dynastic:** Habsburg (Austria + Spain) vs Bourbon France, which feared 'encirclement'. **Trigger:** the Defenestration of Prague (1618) — Bohemian nobles reject Ferdinand II and throw his officials from a window. **Spread:** Denmark (1625) → Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus (1630) → Catholic France under Richelieu (1635).
Ottoman–Safavid Wars (Middle East, 1514–1639): **Long-term:** the Sunni–Shia divide — Safavid missionaries won over the {{Qizilbash|Turkmen tribes inside Ottoman lands loyal to the Safavid shah}} inside Ottoman territory. **Dynastic:** Sultan Selim I vs Shah Ismail I, each claiming to lead the whole Islamic world. **Trigger:** the Battle of Chaldiran (1514) — Ottoman guns crushed the Safavid cavalry charge. **Spread:** recurring frontier wars over Baghdad and the Caucasus until the Treaty of Zuhab (1639).
In both wars, religion supplied the deep hatred, a dynastic rivalry supplied the ambition, and a single dramatic act supplied the spark. And in both, faith was never the only motive — Catholic France fought the Catholic Habsburgs for power, just as the Ottomans crushed fellow Muslims to protect their frontier. That overlap of religion and power is your sharpest analytical point.
| Date | Event | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1514 | Battle of Chaldiran | Ottoman gunpowder beats Safavid cavalry — opens the eastern wars |
| 1555 | Peace of Augsburg | 'Whose realm, his religion' — but excludes Calvinists, so it cannot hold |
| 1618 | Defenestration of Prague | Spark of the Thirty Years' War |
| 1630 | Sweden enters (Gustavus Adolphus) | Foreign intervention widens the European war |
| 1635 | France enters (Richelieu) | A Catholic power fights Catholics — proof it was about power |
| 1639 | Treaty of Zuhab | Fixes the Ottoman–Safavid border, roughly today's Iran–Iraq line |
How do I tell a long-term cause from the spark? Ask: had this pressure been building for decades? If yes, it is long-term (religious hatred, dynastic rivalry). The spark is the one dated event that turns tension into fighting — a defenestration or a battle.
Why did religion cause war in two very different regions? Because faith was tied to loyalty to a ruler. A Calvinist prince or a Shia Qizilbash tribe was both a religious and a political threat, so rulers treated belief as a danger to the state's survival.
What's the trap examiners set? Assuming 'religious war' means religion alone. Catholic France backing Protestants, and Sunni Ottomans slaughtering fellow Muslims, show that dynastic and territorial ambition often mattered more.
Evaluate the causes of two Early Modern wars, each chosen from a different region.
🔒 Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Structure by theme, not by story. Each paragraph should argue one cause-type across both wars, never narrate events in order. Answer the command term. 'Examine', 'Evaluate' and 'To what extent' all demand an explicit judgement — say which cause mattered most and why. Anchor every claim. One precise fact per point — a date (1555, 1618, 1514, 1639), a ruler (Ferdinand II, Richelieu, Selim I) or a treaty (Augsburg, Zuhab). Show the links. The single sharpest move is proving religion and power overlapped — Catholic France fighting Catholics, Muslims killing Muslims. That lifts you from 'good' into the top band.