First Crusade 1095–1099: The Emperor, Alexius I, was worried. The Turks had begun to capture parts of his empire. Alexius asked for help. Later that year, Pope Urban II called all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins. On 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city.
He became obsessed, and decided to completly give himself to God. The story of his life as a follower and teacher can suprise people of how devoted he was to serving God. Saint Ignatius was at first a knight and general in the Spainish army, but later became a strong follower of Jesus. One morning, a messenger knocked on his door and told him that the captain wanted to speak to all generals of Spanish army. Aparently the French were approaching Pamplona, a Spanish city, which was an obvious threat.
The Moors influence was getting weakened and Boabdil actions made everything worse He was the son of the sultan Abu l-Hasan Ali, and as it sometimes happens with princes, Boabdil was restless to gain power. So, after a series of incidents between Christians and Muslims that shook Granada's stability, Boabdil named himself ruler of Granada. Of course, his words didn't take too long to catch fire. A civil war ensued in the emirate, weakening it and easing the way for the Christian troops. The Granada seemed to be an easy target for Ferdinand and Isabella to conquer so in return they’ll gain power and glory.
How far do the sources suggest that Wolsey’s efforts to secure an annulment of the King’s marriage were half-hearted? Firstly, Source 1 is a letter written by Wolsey to Henry VIII and there is a possibility of this source being biased and it may be unreliable as Wolsey would have said anything to the King to ensure that he carries on trusting him. Also, source 1 shows that Wolsey had contact with the supreme courts in Rome and therefore could have contacted the Pope himself but he only saw Giovanni Stafileo, who just wrote a book and this didn’t change anything for Henry. Source 2 also agrees that Wolsey didn’t use his powers enough to attempt to get the annulment. Source 2 is a letter from the Duke of Suffolk to Henry and in it, it says
This has been greatly debated and in the end he didn’t become more tolerant towards the Catholics, he started to suppress them. In 1604 the Hampton Court Conference took place, the conference was called in response to a series of requests for reform set down in the Millenary Petition by the Puritans, a document which supposedly contained the signatures of 1000 puritan ministers. The conference set off with a meeting between James and his bishops about some of the Puritan complaints detailed in the Millenary Petition. The King, after ending his talks with the bishops, claimed he was "well satisfied", and declared that "the manner might be changed and some things cleared". Private baptism, especially when administered by women, would prove to be a more intense argument between James and his bishops, but James eventually persuaded them that only ministers should administer baptisms.
But that’s not the only reason religion caused the civil war, King Charles believed in the divine right. It was when the king/queen believes that god put them on the throne. So Charles took all the power because of this and Parliament didn’t want to go with his decision which contributes to the civil war. Also he made Scottish churches uses English prayer books which caused riots and England went to battle with Scotland. England lost.
The main reasons I will be looking at for why the revolutions failed are The Pope’s Allocution, they didn’t have a common goal, France, lack of foreign support and also the power of Austria. With the appointment of the new Pope, Pope Pius X1 in 1846, the states of Italy believed they would have a better chance of unification. Pope Pius was the first liberal pope Italy had seen and he gained support by ending censorship, telling Austrians to leave a town in the Papal States and he also released 2000 political prisoners. These actions had Metternich scared. He even quoted ‘we were prepared for anything, except a liberal Pope.
He then began to spread the word of Christianity denouncing the common law of Rome. At the time, this would been an enormous nuisance for the Senate that governed the Roman Empire. If the citizens of the Empire were to open denounce the Roman law, then the Senate’s power would be useless. Thus, much time and resources were spent to control and maintain the empire: it had become too large. The rise of Christianity would have been a festering wound to the Senate that just wouldn’t go away but that they couldn’t ignore.
He then began to spread the word of Christianity denouncing the common law of Rome. At the time, this would been an enormous nuisance for the Senate that governed the Roman Empire. If the citizens of the Empire were to open denounce the Roman law, then the Senate’s power would be useless. Thus, much time and resources were spent to control and maintain the empire: it had become too large. The rise of Christianity would have been a festering wound to the Senate that just wouldn’t go away but that they couldn’t ignore.
Was the League of Nations a failure? The League of Nations is thought to be a failure by many, because of hard irony and limitation on military might. The League accomplished very little in stopping wars and conflicts while having very little power. Often they just shook fists at ruthless, evil dictators such as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his conquests, without intervening. Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States.