No sooner had he defeated them than William landed in England with an army. (He had ignored the fact that his men were tired and decided to march south as fast as possible. He thought that he could beat William’s small army and decided not to wait for the whole Saxon army. However, the Norman soldiers were better armed and organized, and were mounted on horses. Harold might have won if he had waited but) he was defeated and killed in the battle of Hastings.
How accurate is it to say that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were both serious threats to Henry VIII's security? Henry became king in 1485 after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth. His claim to the throne was weak and he took the crown at a time noblemen were constantly challenging the King's position. In view of these factors, it was no surprise for Henry’s position to be challenged. Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck both posed a threat to Henry's security for several reasons; mainly due to their explicit timing and foreign support.
Was King John really the worst king ever? The question as to whether King John was really the worst king ever, stills seems to be a topic of much controversy amongst historians, as they have not yet come to an exact decision on which side of the argument to deem as the truth. Some people believe that King John is to be blamed for the fate that he suffered because of certain decisions he made and brought himself to his state in the society through his actions; however, those who disagree, claim that it was simply his misfortune and that the events that came about were inevitable and were supposed to happen at some point in history, which had to unfortunately be during the reign of King John. Let's look more closely into the matter to see which side of the argument should be supported… The first reason for the belief that King John was the worst king is: he lost most of the land his ancestors had died fighting for including his hereditary lands of Normandy and Anjou. This, of course, brought shame to his name for being unable to retain lands which rightfully belonged to him.
The policy of appeasement, embraced in vain by Great Britain and France in the 1930s, was ultimately a bid to reach a peaceful understanding with Germany. However this was only a failed policy which directly would lead to war as it encouraged Hitler, abandonining policy would have prevented such a brutal war, Hitler was an unreasonable dictator and that had always intended to fight a war and that he would not be appeased. These crucial factors ensured that appeasement policy would Utltimlty the appeasement directly resulting in the Second World War Brittan and France With the rise of Hitler Germany sought to revise the terms of paris peace settlement through aggression as he stated in mieng kamf he would “break the unjust terms of the treaty of versallies”. The memories of WW1 were still alive and Britain and France were disenchanted with the idea of using force to solve European disputes as they were economically. The feeling swept especially throughout Britain that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh, and Germany should be able to make some amendments to its more extreme elements.
It also served from the start to lift Allied morale. Thus, the Germans had made a big mistake by provoking the Americans to enter the war. In the end, the two front war proved too difficult for Germany. The Allied push continued, with the British advancing in the north and the Americans attacking through the Argonne region of France. While the Germans were losing their forces on the
They clashed with the main powers of Europe over territory like morocco, which ultimately strengthened Franco-Anglo relationships. Weltpolitik was a huge political risk and in the end the risks outweighed the positive factors, which resulted in the failure of the plan and ultimately was a great cause of WW1 In 1893 the Franco-Russian alliance was formed which meant that it allowed the possibility of encirclement of Germany, which made them paranoid. The Kaiser at the time was Wilhelm II and he surrounded himself with military figures so had a very militaristic point of view. So his response to the possible encirclement was to come up with a new plan called the Schliffen Plan. This stated that if a possibility of a two front war with France and Russia was ever to arise they would mobilise their troops quickly and beat the French within six weeks and then march back in time to meet the Russian army.
The reason for William I’s success in the Battle of Hastings revolves around three main factors: firstly and most importantly, Harold Godwinson’s mistakes before and during the fight, secondly the preparations that William took to increase chances of victory, and thirdly the Duke of Normandy’s war tactics pitted against Harold’s in battle. A significant point that brought about Harold’s failure was the way he responded to William the Conqueror’s invasion to the south. After fighting a very successful battle in the North at Stamford Bridge against Harold Hardrada and Tostig, his army, though satisfied, would have been exhausted and sluggish from its aftermath. Thus, rather than rushing back to prevent William from reaching London upon hearing that he and his Norman army had begun to ravage the neighbouring lands at Hastings, it may have been a much more rational idea to rest and wait for reinforcements. Since Harold’s brothers-in-law Edwin and Morcar were also marching south by the time Harold was at Hastings, so it would not have been difficult to draw thousands more men and starve out William than to go head-on into battle immediately.
The fourth crusade became terribly diverted from its original plans and became one of the most tragic and barbaric of all the crusades. When Innocent III was elected Pope in 1198 he wanted to ensure his superiority over the state. The Papacy was at its strongest when Innocent reigned as Pope from 1198 – 1216. He believed that the line of Peter’s bishops should control the church and help rule over all domestic affairs. Despite all of Innocent’s lofty views of himself he still maintained a pious and clear mind.
It was not until his successor, Pepin, saw it differently and decided to unite forces with the papacy. They made a deal; while Pepin protected the pope and church from the Lombards, the pope would support Pepin in his pursuit for the Frankish crown. Since he wanted his rule to legitimized by the pope, he petitioned that Pope Zachary would declare him a legitimate ruler. This came true in 751 when Pepin was crowned. The monarchy was genuine and ran through everyone in Pepin's bloodline.
Why was there a Civil War Between King Charles I and Parliament The English civil war made a big change to the countries history. It was Charles I VS Parliament. Charles was happy with his rules but parliament weren’t. So his parliament turned against him and started the civil war. Who, what when why that’s what we want to know.