This supports the view because it says, “Look to the king’s profit and make sure all parties shall be contented.” This supports the view that finance was a key part of the dissolution because the King’s profit is highlighted as an important part of the letter, so it was obviously an important part of the Earl’s task. The second piece of evidence that the dissolution of the Greater monasteries was financially motivated was that it was only the greater monasteries dissolved. This suggests financial motivation, as any other cause, such as corruption or religious disagreement, would have seen all the monasteries, large and small, dissolved, where as a financial cause would only require the dissolution of the larger, wealthier monasteries. Thirdly, Source 8 agrees with the view because it says that the dissolution purely financial and that it were for both long term and short term financial benefits. This is because the sale of the goods found in the monasteries would provide short-term revenue for Henry’s war chest, and the land itself would be Cromwell’s way of providing a long-term income.
This not only gains a new tool to use but also gains you more strings pull and ways to do so. Like the revolutionaries of the past who fed the British after the Battle of Saratoga , the ploy is to make the opponents not to want to fight you, but see how you work in a way they do not want to battle any
This shows that Wolsey was a successful chief minister in terms of justice because he saw it as his duty to bring everyone justice no matter how rich they were. But there were times when Wolsey used the courts to further his own position and carry out personal vendettas against enemies. For example Wolsey had been put in the stocks by Paulet in a bid to teach the young man a lesson about humility and good grace. Wolsey never forgot his humiliation and used his position as Lord Chancellor to have his revenge. Source 8 supports this because it says 'But Wolsey's vision and his originality in
‘Do you agree with the view that, in his years as Lord Chancellor, Wolsey strengthened Henry VIII's control of his kingdom?’ From sources 4, 5 and 6, one could argue that Wolsey did strengthen Henry VIII’s control of his kingdom. Sources 4 and 6 suggest that despite Wolsey’s fall from government, he still do further strengthen Henry’s control of his kingdom and did not utilise his time in government to make mistakes and short comings, however Source 5 disagrees and suggests Wolsey utilised his time in government to exploit his position and punish nobles. Source 4 strongly argues that Wolsey strengthened Henry’s control of his kingdom during the time in which Wolsey had the position to do so. This is shown in the source material as it states: ‘I never saw this kingdom in better order, quietness and obedience than it was in the time of his authority’ – This shows that George Cavendish, Wolsey’s servant, observed that during the time in which Wolsey influenced the country through his position, the country was orderly, quit and obedient. This supports the view that Wolsey strengthened Henry’s control of his kingdom as it shows a firsthand view that Wolsey was able to secure order and peace during his rule as Cavendish saw ‘order, quietness and obedience’.
It highlights financial gain in terms of ‘profits’ for the King. Although source I does not directly reject the motives of a belief in corruption as it does not provide a royal viewpoint, it implies that the King and Cromwell were driven by greed and anger. Perhaps Source I also provides a more useful account as Aske would be expressing his perspective under the knowledge that he was soon to lose his life, although he was clearly going to accept this forceful view because of his position as the leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace and representative of the opposition to the dissolution of the monasteries and the
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.
Gilgamesh was proud and dictated his subjects because of his supremacy while Sunjata remained humble despite his abilities and achievements. Gilgamesh’s godly powers made him unstable and as a consequence he suffered from immoderation. Sunjata’s humility is witnessed during the burial of Sogolon. The king was against Sunjata’s idea of honoring his burial. Despite Sunjata’s position as a hero before the Mande people, he humbled himself and used other ways to convince the king and he succeeded in the end.
“And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.” Matthew 24:6 (ESV 2001). He guided his army with republican principles and with the help of his spies, Washington deceived the British public and their military commanders (Halverson 2010). Washington rarely discussed his intentions after meetings with his officers which made gaining information for the British spies even harder. Washington pushed his intelligence officers to determine not only military intelligence and tactical information but also find information regarding the enemy’s fortifications and movements.
It appears that Hawthorne infers Chillingworth initially had another plan, a plan that would not ruin Arthur Dimmesdale’s life. The questions is, why Chillingworth chose to torture Hester and Dimmesdale when he could of simply revealed that he is Hester’s husband? He could possibly get pleasure from quietly torturing them. It would be too easy on Dimmesdale and Hester to show his true identity so he chooses this plan. "What evil have I done the man?"
Darius I was an odd tyrant. All outwardly appearances suggested that he was truly concerned about his subjects and defending them from intruders. He made it a priority to ensure the prosperity of his empire; after all, happy subjects were obedient subjects. However, even with as much as he did to seem like a “fair and just king,” it was all done to appease his ego. Yes, he protected his people, only to expect payment from them in the form of taxes, gifts and tributes.