I agree that with better leadership, the decline of Venice could have been prevented. This is because the corruption in the government contributed to the decline of Venice. Many incapable men run the government and they were able to get hold of this position through bribing governments. The governments were bribed because during the wars with the Ottoman, there was financial problems. Salaries of civil servants were not paid and thus, they accept bribes and let incapable men run the government.The nobles were corrupted as well because they only looked after their own interest. They wanted their family to uphold nobility and thus, accepted bribes from rich business men to maintain their wealth. This contributed to the decline of Venice because these incapable men were not knowledgeable, looked after their own interest and could not provide stability for Venice. Hence, Venice declined due to the lack of quality leadership.
Another reason for the decline of Venice was due to Maritime competition. One of these maritime competition was rise of new trade rivals which caused Venice's economy to go down. In the 17th century, the Dutch and British rose as trade rivals. The Dutch bypassed the east to get supplied while the British specialised in bringing cotton and pepper from India, and tea and porcelain from China. This resulted in a rise of competition in trade between Venice against the Dutch and the British. Venice responded by imposing protectionist policy, in which higher duties were imposed on foreign traders. This made it more costly to trade with Venice and more traders were unwilling to visit Venetian ports. This caused Venice to lost its monopoly of trade and Venice lost many trading opportunities and trade partners. Hence, this led to the the decline of Venice because their trade was affected and since trade was affected, Venice economy was badly affected as well. With a decline in economy, Venice was no longer rich and prosperous and thus, Venice decline...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document