This huge amount of land that was under his controlled was known as the Angevin Empire, this land meant that Henry wasn’t going to be just King of England but also lord of half of France. This meant that he had immense power which could have intimidated the people that were willing to threaten his rule. As well as his power being something to fear, his power could also have been respected because he was so powerful he was able to keep half of France under control before he became king of England. This shows that he was a very capable leader, with lots of experience which would have aided him in getting a fast and secure kingdom easily. Henry had several advantages that came with becoming King of England, England had well established laws and customs that were in place, despite them being under strain through Stephens reign, they were still in place and waiting to be used.
Interestingly, Louis became a patron of the arts, and greatly shaped France’s culture by emphasizing the importance of art and theater, climaxing with the Palace at Versailles. And through his iron fist rule over France, he was able to secure his power over people by limiting the power of the nobles. Therefore, Louis the 14th was a very good leader because he successfully expanded France’s economy, significantly strengthened his county’s military forces, and made many cultural achievements in France which unified the country, unlike previous French Monarchs. The trade and economy flourished in France with the help of Louis the 14th and his financial adviser, Jean Colbert. Colbert “wanted to manufacture everything France needed instead of relying on imports,”; this way France can become more self-sufficient and making its own money.
When the Earls combined their power it was enough to overpower the King, this meant that if they worked together they would be able to overcome him without an issue at all. This suggests that there were breaks in the system and if out under pressure it could bring it all down. The country's system of 'writs' which were written orders with the authority of the King and was also unmatched by the rest of Europe. The orders were stamped with the Kings seal once they had been written up by the chancery on behalf of the King. This suggests that pre-conquest England was well governed because the King could easily send out exact orders to many different people very effectively, letting him be consistent across the realm.
As well as this, Henry needed to be effective at getting England onto a secure financial footing. He did this by not fighting foreign wars often; he had already defeated Richard so he
This was relatively simple as they both shared similar aims; the Liberals, like Bismarck, had a main aim of national unity, and also shared some short term goals with him, such as centralisation of administrative power and the opposition to the Catholics and the Centre Party. This is evidence of Bismarck as a good statesman as he is able to identify the key forces within the Parliament and ally with them until the situation changes and he has to switch parties. Bismarck seemed to dictate the terms of the relationship, as he ensured that the Liberals gained no real political power. This acts as further evidence of him being a good statesman as it shows that he is able to effectively exploit a political group while ensuring that he remains firmly in control while appearing to concede to them. Bismarck himself was supportive of the view that he was a master manipulator of the political system, as he writes ‘everything depends on chance and conjecture.
The authority of his office sustains his words, but in a way he is still scared of not being listened. Despite this moment, Richard seems to appear wise and impartial: "The accuser and the accused freely speak." In this first scene we can see how hypocritical characters can be in public. Richard wants to seem a good king, and for this, he uses his political rhetoric. On the other hand, he also uses different forms of address to Bullingbrook and Mowbray to show how he feels about them.
He was strong-willed in his quest for control and domination, but he tried to remain civil and fair in his dealings. His benevolence was described in the text as “he preferred to buy out rivals on decent terms, and to employ the ablest competitors as helpers.” His actions were unprecedented in his times,
Alexander III was the most successful in keeping to his aims, as he enforced this from the start of his reign to ensure there were no open criticisms of the regime. Nicholas and Alexander II on the other hand suffered growing discontent from the population. Alexander II had initially relaxed censorship and allowed the press to discuss government policy (1865), thereby encouraging criticism of the tsarist regime. This grew when censorship was tightened again, and may have been a contribution as to why so many concessions were made. Similarly, in Nicholas II’s reign, political parties were allowed their own newspapers e.g.
[11] He aimed to earn the love of his people by reinstating the parlements. While none doubted Louis's intellectual ability to rule France, it was quite clear that, although raised as the Dauphin since 1765, he lacked firmness and decisiveness. In spite of his indecisiveness, Louis was determined to be a good king, stating that he "must always consult public opinion; it is never wrong. "[12] Louis therefore appointed an experienced advisor, Jean-Frédéric Phélypeaux, comte de Maurepas who, until his death in 1781, would take charge of many important ministerial functions. Radical financial reforms by Turgot and Malesherbes angered the nobles and were blocked by the parlements who insisted that the King did not have the legal right to levy new taxes.
Amongst them is Albert Aboul who thought that Robespierre’s actions were necessary for the benefit of France. This could be because he admired his determination to change his country. If seen from that point of view, Robespierre did have a heroic nature. He supported freedom and total equality and he disliked war and violence. For instance, he opposed war against Austria on December 1791.