Henry 7th was ruthless in securing the Tudor dynasty. Firstly he quickly married Elizabeth of York, which not only united the country, but also gave him two sons, Arthur and Henry, which meant that the Tudor line was secure. Next, to protect the marriage of Arthur and Catherine of Aragon, Henry executed the Earl of Warwick who was in the tower. This was a smart move by Henry because Warwick did have a claim to the throne and could have not only split up the marriage of Arthur and Catherine, but also threaten Henry’s stability as king. Henry also needed to control the nobility because if he didn’t, or only managed to control a minority, he could have a revolution, and Nobles, together, had a lot more money and power than the king himself.
Oliver Cromwell became the most important general on the Parliamentarian side and Prince Rupert on the Royalist side. Oliver Cromwell was famous for his well thought out tactics and his well disciplined army, where as Rupert, the kings nephew, made decisions without thinking them through and was not always in full control of his men. Before the war, Oliver Cromwell was worrying whether or not his army would want to fight the king because in those days it was said that the king is Gods representative. The king also had much more money because he was supported by some very wealthy men, so he had more money. However, as the war went on, the king’s money dwindled away, and Parliament raised taxes, therefore they had more money than the king.
Another reason America had an advantage over Britain was that the English citizens were tired of war. The war had begun to turn into years and citizens were getting tired of paying taxes and just the war in general. In my opinion one of the biggest advantages the colonists had was how great a leader George Washington was. American soldiers were outnumbered and not as well trained as the English soldiers, but because of Washington’s brilliance and strategy it helped the colonists prevail over Britain. On the other hand Britain also had many advantages over the Americans.
They were also the seven seas most powerful and wealthy country, so shouldn’t they have been the obvious victor for this campaign? Consequently they had a lot of disadvantages to; the most apparent one was the distance. They were three thousand miles away from reinforcements, supplies and they were completely unfamiliar with the terrain. They were also engaged in other, more pressing wars at the time and couldn’t afford to send their best troops to the colonies. The size of the colonies was also a huge problem; they had enough men to defeat the colonists on the battlefield but not enough to occupy the places they conquered because if a land was controlled by the British they had to leave a significant amount of troops behind or else the colonists would regain control.
As the attempted capture of foreign fields would undoubtedly be a declaration of war, a strong of the Armed forces would be a necessity especially as Scotland was allied with France and they could theoretically face an attack from two angles simultaneously. Also as a true renaissance King, Henry VIII would have liked to promote a strong image to the international community at the time as well as pursuing a never-ending quest for glory. In addition to that one can deduce that Henry would have also liked to keep peace and forge new alliances (political and financial) with strong nations such as the Holy Roman Empire and Spain. Using this criterion one can determine what would have been classified a success or failure in relation to the foreign policy initiatives taken at the time. After Henry VII had died, Henry decided to marry Catherine of Aragon.
Although the stadholders were not sovereigns they still had a lot of power which gave them an almost sovereign position. The stadholder of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht also became the captain-general of the army. It was good for him if there was war because then he would have the chance to prove himself and he would have more power. Prince William II became stadholder in 1647. Soon after his appointment he clashed with the States General over the budget for the army.
This for the both of them ended up being Napoleon III. Cavour and Bismarck used Napoleon III as a way to form alliances and in turn promised him land as long as he helped them to be successful. The two of them used their surroundings and what they knew from past successes in order to manipulate those like Napoleon. Each of them was highly intelagent in their own ways which they knew how to use to their advantage. They used their intelegence to establish alliances and even to make new policies.
All payments went towards the king, this would've also made the Earls not feel powerful enough, especially Harold Godwin who was seen as the most powerful man in England, but theoretically he wasn’t. However the Economy was well governed because the trade increased, which encouraged both the growth of towns and foreign contacts, this demonstrates that England were still involved in trade, which was good for the economy. However the economy was not very well developed especially compared to the Byzantine Empire and Muslim world. Those economies were massive, especially when compared to England’s. Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned.
They were very close because in the first 5 days they were doing so well. The Ludendorff offensive was far from winning because the western front had broken, this was a disadvantage of winning because, they wanted to split the British and French and be able to push the British and conquer the French but it’s was late because the British and French had agreed to be like a team. The British had the best scientists in the war; these helped then have fast planes and they were able to use it wisely and quick therefore the German’s were losing by shortage of men as they were
Was Tsar Alexander II worthy of the title ‘Tsar Liberator’? When Alexander II came to power in 1855, he inherited many of the issues left behind by his father Nicholas I. Alexander II believed that a more liberal rule than his father had established was necessary. He therefore undertook a series of reforms, which lead to him being given the title of ‘Liberator’, history however shows he was not prepared for the implications of change and showed weaknesses when dealing with it. Alexander II found himself with a Monarchy, which had not kept up with other major European powers. Industrial progress was slow and there was growing rural discontent and poor communications.