To properly examine whether the Foreign policy of England from 1509-1514 was successful; we must first establish what was deemed “success” relative to the period in history. Taking the Character of Henry VIII into context i.e. as a renaissance King and his admiration for Henry V, one can conclude that certain things would represent success to him. For example the capture of claimed lands in the North and West (for example Calais) of France would be looked upon as success as well as the prestige of regaining the title “King of France”. As the attempted capture of foreign fields would undoubtedly be a declaration of war, a strong of the Armed forces would be a necessity especially as Scotland was allied with France and they could theoretically face an attack from two angles simultaneously.
Many historians such as John Guy and Rogerson, Ellsmore and Hudson argue over which of these dominant figures from the 16th century was overall the most powerful and in control in many different situations. Historians such as Eric Ives believed Henry was the most powerful compared to Wolsey, he said Wolsey “Could effectively propose a policy but he was always careful to ensure that Henry owned it.”, but not only did he believe this but many of historians believe this also. Many Historians do tend to believe that Henry was more in control then Wolsey when it comes to foreign affairs and I shall attempt to show this in my evaluation that follows. Henry is viewed by many to be overall more important in many aspects towards the ruling of the united kingdom in the 16th century as he was after all he was at the highest rank possible, king, and king legally has the most power where as Wolsey as lord chancellor and later cardinal and papal legate still has less power then Henry even though he'd liked to think he had at least the same amount and showed this through building his own court rooms. This shows Henry as being more important as he was at a higher position from the start.
To what extent were economic forces the principle cause of political change in medieval England? Over the course of the medieval period, politics changed dramatically. Monarchs began to realise that rule by force implied that you always ran the risk of being beaten by a more powerful foe. In response to this change, the monarchy undoubtedly began to use legal systems and Parliament to cement their positions. The age of the absolutist monarch was waning as Parliament’s freedoms and powers increased – their hold over the monarch’s finances was a particular strength.
The peace treaty did not satisfy France as it was not harsh enough in the eyes of France. After suffered badly from WWI with umpteen casualties, France was determined to cripple Germany completely as a form of revenge as well as an assurance against future German revival. Some provisions of the treaty did meet French demands, such as the return of Alsace-Lorraine from Germany; the German disarmament which set a maximum strength of 100000 soldiers together with the dissolution of the air force and the reduction of navy to 6 batttleships; and a whopping reparation of 132 billion gold marks to be paid over 42 years. These clauses would severely weaken Germany economically and militarily which certainly catered to French aim. However, French felt these punishments were not harsh enough to eliminate the chance of future German revival.
Compare and contrast the aims, methods and success of the use of propaganda in two single party states. Essentially, both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had the same fanatic desire to make their nations “Great” and gain considerable respect worldwide which would be determined by their economic might. Both leaders used various means of propaganda to achieve their ultimate aims. To what extend they were successful, however, is a debatable issue. Hitler could not achieve the solid control over the masses which he had, if he did not have the help of the so called powerful propaganda machine.
Napoleon Bonaparte was forced to choose between following the principles of the 1789 revolution, or to part from these principles and revert to a political system similar to that of the old Bourbon monarchy. The task that he faced was considerable and Napoleon was very successful in following the revolution's principles for the first part of his career while also ascending to immense power himself. As Napoleon's power in France and then Europe increased, Napoleon began to depart from revolutionary ideals and created institutions similar to those the revolutionaries had attempted to destroy. As an opportunist, Napoleon changed his ideals from 'revolutionary to reformist to reactionary depending upon what suited him at the time.' The Directory lasted four years, the longest of any post-revolution governments, but by 1799 it was seen as a temporary solution and out of date.
This made France feel more secure, as it was up to that point they were still afraid that Germany was still capable of attacking French soil. With Germany accepting the terms and adhering to them, the Weimar appeared to be a government that could be trusted by Britain and France. This also allowed France and Germany, who were pitted enemies before this point, to see eye to eye on the politics of Europe, with Stresseman himself quoted to have said, “Briand (French foreign minister) and I have been speaking the new language of Europe; that of peace”. Before Locarno, Franco/German cooperation like this appeared to be impossible to accomplish, but the ‘Locarno Spirit’ brought in a new sense of comradeship between these two powers of Europe. This again was shown by the French evacuation of The Rhineland, which showed that France was confident enough that Germany wouldn’t endanger French land and trusted them enough to share a border with them again after The Great War.
This for the both of them ended up being Napoleon III. Cavour and Bismarck used Napoleon III as a way to form alliances and in turn promised him land as long as he helped them to be successful. The two of them used their surroundings and what they knew from past successes in order to manipulate those like Napoleon. Each of them was highly intelagent in their own ways which they knew how to use to their advantage. They used their intelegence to establish alliances and even to make new policies.
This theory was extremely important to Britain for several reasons. Firstly, whereas foreign wars were expensive and the outcomes were often unpredictable, peace was financially cheap. Diplomacy rather than military force was a far cheaper way of protecting Britain’s vital national interests. Therefore, to avoid Russia declaring war on the weak Ottoman Empire, Turkey was admitted into the Concert of Europe through the Treaty of Paris in 1856, and was effectively granted the protection of Britain against Russia. If Russia were given the opportunity to take control of the Ottoman Empire, they could have then used this territory and resources to become a more superior
Moreover, as Britain was one of the major power of the WWI, the effects on both of their men and arms were not recovered from the WWI. This also led Chamberlain hesitant to take part for a large war at this time. Thus, making an appeasement with the Germans was the best solution for them to be recovered and prepared later in the future because rather than fighting a big war against advanced army with unprepared-no men army, they would fight a war with recovered army even if the opponents might grow more. ! Back again to 1919, the Treaty of Versailles made conclusions to the German’s territorial, armed forces, colonies, preparations and indemnity, and the war guilt issues.