Eleanor Waller History – Do you agree with the view that Henry VIII’s foreign policy in the years 1514-25 failed because he lacked the resources to fulfil his aims? I agree that the main reason for the failure of Henry VIII’s foreign policy is because he lacked resources to fulfil his aims. Source 4 and 6 both support the ideas that the lack of resources is to blame and the battle of Pavia and the second French War support this further. However, in Source 5 there are other reasons pointing towards the failure of the foreign policy but these reasons are not as significant as those found in sources 4 and 6. Source 4 agrees with the view that Henry VIII’s foreign policy failed because he lacked the resources to fulfil his aims.
After this, Buckingham’s fleet were forced to return back to England empty handed, as they hadn’t manage to achieve anything they had set out to do and disease had began to spread through dirty and crowded ships. When Buckingham returned, he was left humiliated at the total failure of Buckingham’s expedition particularly because it had been so expensive too. After the failure of the Cadiz expedition, Charles attempted to help
Moreover the battle ended in stalemate and the Royalists progressed on to London. However the Royalists were halted at Turnham Green by Parliamentarian resistance, me they could coordinate their forces. Instead of launching an attack on London, the Royalists were fell back to Oxford because the support from the Earl of Newcastle did not transpire as he failed to show up. Following several losses, for example at Marston Moor in 1644 and Naseby in 1645, Charles was militarily destroyed and therefore played a key role in the loss of the first Civil War. However, there were some successes where the military was concerned, because not only did the Royalists occupy Oxford which is geographically strong, they also had control over Bristol which was a valuable port.
Many factors affected the royalist defeat in the civil war; most causes are interrelated between the weakness of the royalist party and the strength of the parliamentarians. One of the most notable weaknesses of the royalist side was the inadequate leadership of Charles i. Charles proved to be a very weak leader in the years 1642- 1646 as he failed to solve a hand full of problems which escalated at great speed. However Charles himself was a causing factor towards the defeat, this was mainly down to his personality. Due to being so distant from the court, communication was a major problem. This was only escalated by Charles’ speech impediment which also made him seem weak and impractical, and meant that in the case of an emergency, a solution would always be harder to reach.
This basic form of opposition was never truly effective as their actions were simply put down by the government partly due to their failure to unite and lack of ideology and political demands. This was, however, not the only internal opposition to Tsar Alexander II with the “Going to the People” movement emerging in 1874. Here young members of the Russia intelligentsia went to the peasants breaching to them about their ideas about how life should be lived. This proved unsuccessful, they failed to appeal to the peasantry and the regime managed to arrest members showing them to be ineffective at this point. However, the populist movement developed from here, eventually splitting into two groups; the Black Partition and the People’s Will.
This was a huge problem for Henry, as he needed the Pope to grant his annulment, but him being away, and Charles in charge, meant that it was impossible for him to gain anything. With Charles being the nephew of Catherine, it clearly showed that Henry faced a difficult time of getting an annulment. In Source K, it further supports this arguments, as it states in the source, ‘I have quite made up my mind to become an imperialist and live and die as such’. This quote, evidently shows that Henry would have a hard time convincing the Pope to grant him an
By 1529 Henrys attitude towards Wolsey had changed; this led to his inevitable fall of power. The main reason for Henrys change of attitude was divorce that Wolsey could not grant for Henry. Other factors also contributed to the inability to meet the wishes of the king, thus changing his attitude towards Wolsey. One of the main reasons Henrys attitudes changed towards Wolsey was his inability to obtain the divorce that Henry desperately wanted. For henry this was a personal desire which meant when Wolsey failed to achieve it, it led Henry to question his capability and power.
However, Henry had not been aware that the Spanish had already defeated the French and made peace, and the soldiers that did not die of illness were sent home. This was a failure in that Henry felt humiliated in the eyes of the rest of the world, and felt let down by both the other members of the Holy League. However, an important lesson was learned about the workings of the European politics of the 16th century, and also about the capriciousness of its monarchs; working only in their own interests. What was learned from this early failure would shape Foreign Policy decisions in the years to come.
This is because the Paris Peace Accords could never have worked as intended by President Nixon. The first reason is because the Paris Peace Accords were inherently faulty. In fact, President Nixon doubted the capabilities of the treaty, and hoped for an “indefinite inclement” stalemate with the North Vietnam (Berman 9). Even Henry Kissinger, President Nixon’s Secretary of State during his second term, also played a key role in the negotiations, believed that the South Vietnamese would only be able to survive for a year (Dallek 455). Kissinger also believed that the conflict was caused by Congress, which refused to let President Nixon deal with the communist aggressors (Kimball 293).
As a result of these political, social and economic failures, the Post Civil War reconstruction was a failure. From a political standpoint, there was anything but success. The goal was to unify and equalize the nation, and build trust but neither of these was accomplished. For example, ex-confederate leaders were not allowed to hold office. This exacerbated sectional tensions rather than quell them because the country could not unify if there was inequality existing.