Military failure also played a role in the defeat of the Royalist cause. Charles failed to take advantage of the strengths of his position. After the stale mate at Edgehill, Charles had the opportunity to proceed to London but after slow progress he had to turn back to Turnham Green. Progressing to London would have allowed Charles l greater opportunities. It houses many of the greatest ports and had great advantages for whoever had charge of
The troops would have felt let down as well, so therefore wanted reform and supported Mussolinis violence tactic. This also links in with the north south divide as the troops would be in the south and it hadnt industrialised as much as the north causeing a huge divide socially and economically. This demobalisation of the troops would have threated the higer classes as the troops could easily over power them for the land. Obviously the 5 million troops would have supported Mussolini and therefore caused a growth in his support. Another reason for Mussolinis success was the weakness of the political system.
Why did BPC invasion of England fail? On the 5th July 1745 Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charles) set afoot in the British Isles; ot conquer England and take back his rightfully deserved throne.But his conquest failed, there were three aspects to his failure:Strategy, Leadership and (Quality of) Support. Strategy is long-term planning or short-term tactics. This invasion's chance of success was severly hampered, by the indecicive army the prince however was not the main culprit, rather the disagreement between him and his commanders e.g; The incident when they had captured Derby and could not decide whether to procced or to retreat.Bonnie Prince Charlie let down the invasion by not properly organizing support from;The French(precisely), the Clan Chiefs or the English and Welsh Jacobites. Another example is when Charles delayed 6 weeks at Edinburgh to allow George II to regain hardened troops from Holland, if this hadn't happened then Charles would have been able to strike much more fear in the Londoners.
However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country. Henry's father, Henry VII, left the country in quite a stable state economically, but Henry devoted most of England's money into his campaigns to take over France, because he believed had a right to the Throne. To some extent source 4 supports the idea that the foreign policy did fail due to the lack of resources, because it states that “the young warrior family accepted the fact that royal finances could not support a repetition of the campaign of 1513”. This quote implies that the lack of resources seems to be the dominant reason for stopping Henry from invading France and therefore source 4 supports the statement to some extent. In source 4 we also learn that much must have depended on diplomatic relations with Maximilian and Ferdinand, however Henry’s allies proved unfaithful and unreliable.
Was his victory inevitable? How did he deal with the problem that he was a foreign invader in a land where people did not like him and did not want him? This essay will discuss the importance of Battle of Hastings and reasons for William’s prevail as it was a first big step for William towards conquering England. Also, the significance of the harrying of the North of England and other riot towns will be looked at as it was vital in terms of gaining full control of England. The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October, 1066 and it was the Normans who eventually came on top as Harold ll was slain and his army was crushed.
I personally think that Henry failed in his foreign policy because he didn’t end up gaining a full grasp on France, this was the main precedence. The initial aim was to capture more land, gaining more land meaning capturing France and knowing Henry’s ambitious mindset, he most probably had his whole mind set on creating an empire and France was a good place to start. Had Henry been what he said he was ‘a warrior king’ he wouldn’t have been used as a toy twice throughout this unsuccessful foreign policy. Charles took advantage of Henry. At the Battle of Pavia, the French were defeated and Francis along with his strongest supporters were held captive.
Paying less attention to armchair generals writing with the privilege of hindsight and precise archival evidence in favor of what the generals perceived would happen in 1914 (which incidentally is much closer to reality than is attributed...every serious thinker knew it would be a bloodbath) offers much more valuable insight into the crisis that faced the statesmen in July 1914. Michael Howard and Steve Van Evera (both found in Military Strategy and the Origins of the First World War) accurately conclude because the offensive was believed to a decisive advantage, if there was a window for a diplomatic solution, it was frighteningly small. Understanding the "Cult of the Offensive" is crucial for comprehending how quickly July 1914 destabilized; generals truly believed their empires would crumble if attacked and politicians were tempted by the notion that fortune favors the foolish. Finally, James Joll convincingly argues that the pervasiveness of the "cult of the offensive" and the glorification of military matters was implicit in a society replete with military
I suppose British General Cornwallis was quite engaged with the constant French attacks and for a second in this brawl, he forgot about us. From what I had heard the French had successfully blocked Cornwallis’s supplies and were preparing to attack. Upon hearing this news we immediately celebrated even though we had not even begun the battle. I soon began to feel grief for us American and could comprehend the reason for the French’s behavior. They merely wanted to win the battle to go home but, they felt this would not be possible with an unorganized, uncivilized, and brutal American army fighting alongside them.
General Ewell, of the Confederacy, faced a difficult decision over whether or not he should attack the Federals on Cemetery Hill. Lee had ordered him to attack, but only if he thought there was good chance of success. Ewell could not be certain of that. His men were tired and disorganized after their victory. They had lost momentum while pursuing the Federals through the town, and needed to be reorganized before continuing.
This is implying of course that the decision by Nicholas II to go to war against Germany and it’s allies in 1914 was wrong, but this is not the case. Russia actually had many reasons to risk war again; the war was weighed heavily in the allies favour as the combined forces of Great Britain, France and Russia were far stronger than that of Germany, Austria and Hungary. Russia was aware of it’s major failing though, it’s slow modernisation had left it trailing behind that of the other countries, and Russia would have to be prepared for the rapid social and economic change that a war brings. This was Russia’s best chance to modernise and not be left behind. Russia’s early hopes were soon dashed however.