In source 4 we also learn that much must have depended on diplomatic relations with Maximilian and Ferdinand, however Henry’s allies proved unfaithful and unreliable. Source 4, is written by a member of the Government of England. The government is who Henry and Wolsey would go to for Money for these situations. The Government did not like how much Money Henry kept asking for so this could have been reflected in Keith Randall’s report. Henry spent 1.4 millions pounds on fighting wars between 1511-25 and this set England back a far way.
Aside from reducing state revenues for overseas expeditions, the domestic policies of Philip II further burdened Spain and would in the following century, contribute to its decline. This caused inflation and a high tax for all the workers under his rule. The Spending of all this money lead to Spain's first bankruptcy in 1557 due to rising military costs. This eventually led to a failure in leading his people, and it was his debt that truly ended his reign. (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Philip_II_of_Spain) (Spielvogel,456, The Human
Before John was King of England, for many years, the kings defended English territory within France by using English men and money. King John acted in this similar way but his military campaigns were unsuccessful. England and France were constantly at war. By 1204, he had lost his lands in northern France; this included his family’s ancestral land in Normandy and Anjou to Philip II. In order to continue battling France, the King forced from his barons greater taxes and additional military services, this angered the barons because he did not consult them before raising taxes; this was a violation of feudal law and custom.
From then on party leaders were erratic and kept changing, meaning there was little stability in the Conservative party, which made them vulnerable to attack. After Peel was beaten in the Corn Laws crisis, many strong leader figures left with him such as Gladstone. This meant the party was left with the back bench aristocracy who were not all that interested in the wellbeing of the party and let it deteriorate. This was not at all the only problem that the conservatives faced. The truth was that their policies simply did not appeal to the majority of the voting population any more.
Previous kings had only used the Chamber erratically in times of war however Edward decided to make it more systematic, which in turn siphoned in much more money. This point does support how Edward was a good king because all sources show that it was his idea, not his exchequer. Edwards new policy showed that he managed the royal finances well because it meant that more revenue was coming in therefore he could run the country, as well as start paying of Henry’s debts. Additionally it meant that he could live of his own because he did not have to ask parliament to raise a tax. I think that this was possibly the most important cause to
The strength of the economy encouraged Americans to take out more loans and buy more stocks, making them susceptible to future changes in the economy. The freedom caused financial markets to crash globally which helped power the Great Depression. Another example of lack of government intervention was the robber barons, a term referring to the wealthy and powerful businessmen in the 18th century. They were also known as “pure capitalists”, because they believed in an economic system that involved minimal interference from the government. Those working for robber barons were beaten and threatened, and the working conditions were terrible.
This is demonstrated in documents 4, 5, and 6. Henry Haskell states that “The government undertook such far-reaching responsibility in affairs that the fiber of the citizens weakened” (Document 4) This shows that the decline of the empire was due to heavy taxation that couldn’t support the government. If the taxes couldn’t sustain the government then it wouldn’t be able to control the people. According to Montanelli “The military crisis was the result of… proud old aristocracy’s… shortage of children” (Document 5) This means that many children weren’t old enough to go into the military which caused the decrease of soldiers. With the lack of soldiers, it would be easier to invade Rome, which could’ve led to the decline of the Empire.
The Revolutionary War: Why was it fought and was it preventable? Many believe that the trouble started brewing in 1763 at the end of the French Indian War but in all truth the colonist first started feeling discontent with the passing of the Navigation laws in 1650. This law stated that all goods flowing to and from the colonies could only be transported in British vessels. It was aimed to hurt rival Dutch shippers. This law kept money in the empire but hurt the pockets of the wealthy colonists mercantilist that depended on the shipping trade.
Not only were the English more capable of winning a sea battle due to their superior Navy, they had the upper hand on land also. The English had many soldiers who were well trained, well disciplined, and experienced. Unlike the colonists’, this was not England’s first war.
Some nobles (William Stanley) were unhappy with this reward as they saw it as an empty reward, they wanted land or money instead. Henry VII did not appoint many new nobles or promote many nobles through his time. This meant that if you were promoted in Henry’s reign it was seen as a massive honour. This benefitted Henry economically also as he could take 100% of the money from the land instead of a small percentage that the nobles would have given him. Henry managed to consolidate his throne well by overthrowing his opposition.