How accurate is it to say that the Yorkists kings restored authority in England in the years 1471-1485? Both Richard III and Edward IV, two of the Yorkist Kings between 1471 and 1485, went some way to restoring royal authority. However, their successes in restoring authority during their reigns were certainly limited. While Edward IV did remove much of the threat of the Lancastrians, he was unable to control the nobility which led to the usurpation of Edward V’s throne by Richard Duke of Gloucester in 1483. Moreover, Richard III was very good at politics, having a lavish court and is good at using propaganda, yet he is highly unpopular among both the people and the nobility; his reign only lasts two years before the throne is usurped by Henry Tudor.
The colonists lacked the amount of supply that the British had, they made up with this by having better weaponry. The British had an upper hand with economics over the colonists during the war The leadership and support of the Americans was greater than the British leadership and support, which was an advantage for the Americans. The American general, George Washington, was an intelligent fighter and politician. The British leaders, Howe and Clinton, made errors during the war that strongly hindered their outcome. The American’s original support was their morale and familiar terrain.
How far do Sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Henry was successful in becoming Arbiter of Europe in the years 1514-1522? Both source 1 and source 2 suggest that Henry was successful in becoming Arbiter of Europe as they illustrate him giving England power and success although Source 2 highlights Wolsey’s success rather than Henry’s, however, source 3 suggests that Henry was very unsuccessful at becoming Arbiter and made conflicts between countries even worse. Source 1 suggests that Henry was completely successful in his role as Arbiter of Europe. ‘If not the equal of mighty France and Spain, at least the makeweight that could tip the balance between them.’ shows that England took a central position within the countries and had the power to keep them at peace which was the aim of Henry’s role. ‘… made provision for perpetual peace in Europe.’ suggests that there will be an on going peace in Europe which means that Henry was very successful in his role.
England managing to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and how Wolsey was very sly and flexible in his diplomacy and arguments which disagree with the statement, for example it could also be seen that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly when compared with the few benefits it brought to England. Henry’s allies often let him down and were much more interested in their own aims and not so much of England’s. A point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that England had successfully delivered a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is seen in source 4, in which M.D. Palmer writes about how Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514, and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518.
It may have been a vague set of rules and ideas giving the States a lot of power but it allowed the colonies to win and recover from the war quickly. The Policy for a collective foreign policy allowed America to unify and work as a strong enough power to play a part in foreign politics. However this article of confederation did little to unify the states internal policy. Very early on in Americas new independence it came under attack from Britain economically. Britain had a far superior Navy and industrial sector.
Thesis Paragraph. Contrary to popular belief, sectionalism was not of greater significance during the Era of Good Feelings. In fact, nationalism was more so superior during this time period. Even prior to the Era of Good Feelings nationalism had already been greatly felt after the War of 1812 when the United States reigned victorious. Nationalism was more significant because of foreign affairs, internal improvements, and a single political party.
Also holding on to this great superpower status was largely to do with the fact that Britain still had an Empire, inevitably making them feel more superior to the other European countries, this was a lack of realism as after both Suez Crisis and the formation of the EEC Britain began to understand that they were missing out. The scale at which Britain had failed was only determined when the EEC boomed, making the fact that were previously invited a harder pill to swallow. Joining became the main priority for Britain. Now that the lack of realism had dawned on Britain, its desperation grew as the EEC became more and more influential showing that the previously thought unbeneficial agreement was now in Britain’s interests, as most of the popular trade routes where now run by the EEC. The EEC gave Britain the cold shoulder 3 times regarding entry as they believed Britain to be a liability
How stable was the Weimar Republic 1924-29 The real increase in prosperity experienced by many, and the cultural vitality of the period, gave support to the view that these years were indeed the ‘golden years’. However, historians have generally tended to question this stability because it was in fact limited in scope therefore these years could be seen as ‘deceptive stability’ also. Any disruption to the world’s trade or finance markets was bound to have a particularly damaging effect on the uncertain German economy. In reality, the middle years of the Weimar Republic were stable only in comparison with the other periods before and after. Weimar’s condition suggests that the fundamental problems inherited from war and the crisis has not been resolved.
The possession of continental lands significantly weakened English central government in the period 1066 to 1216. Assess The possession of continental lands did not significantly weaken English central government in the period 1066 to 1216. Although the absence of the king occasionally created a need to raise a high geld or draw money out of the country’s economy, such absence also paved the way for great developments to the office of chief minister and the role of the exchequer. The development of the central role of ‘chief minister’ (later ‘chief justiciar’) is a clear example of the way in which continental possessions strengthened central government in the period. William Rufus’ appointment of Ranulf Flambard as an administrator of
Many European countries had an increased sense of nationalism, or pride for their country. The British believed that they were “the finest race in the world, and the more of the world [they] inhabit, the better…” (D #4). Britain believed, as a country that capturing other countries would be beneficial. Many countries also felt that they could “uplift and civilize” other countries by capturing and influencing them (D #7). Since the entire country of Britain supported imperialism, the government didn’t have to worry about any backlash in its own