Historians have different opinions about the importance of events in Scotland in causing the English Civil War. While some historians state that Scotland was very important others highlight Ireland as a more important external reason for the conflict. Ann Hughes argues that the rebellion brought serious conflict to England, causing a military struggle that could not have been generated by English divisions (1998: p30). Although the Long Parliament was called due to the Scottish Rebellion, it was the sole reason for the civil war. The events in Scotland began with Charles introducing the English bible into Scotland, from there a religious protest developed and ultimately the National Covenant was set up.
Catherine of Aragon played a vital role in delaying the annulment from Henry VIII. Her links to Charles V, her defence and her delaying strategy ultimately prolonged the annulment from Henry. However, we also must into account other factors such as the Sacking of Rome in 1527 where the pope himself was taken prisoner. Also, Henry’s timing of the annulment and his very poor strategy meant Henry was delaying the annulment himself due to this poor strategy. Firstly, Catherine of Aragon played a vital role in delaying the annulment from Henry because her links to Charles meant that Charles himself could intervene with the annulment.
France protested because they thought that having German influence on both sides would be too much if conflict would have occured. William the King of Prussia withdrew Leopold but the French still did not let this situation rest at hand. The French influence group led by Empress Eugénie wanted war with Prussia. So they sent a French ambassador to seek William I and ask him to sign papers
This Alliance consisted of Holland, England, Brandenburg, Portugal, Savoy, and the Holy Roman Empire. At the time England did not want another War following the events of 1698 and as for France, Louis believed that another major conflict would be unnecessary. After Charles II’s death the European powers found themselves in a provocative and ambiguous situation that was turned on its head following Leopold’s declaration of War following the acceptance of the throne by Louis’ grandson in 1700. This ascension to the throne had
The invasion of Belgium broke the treaty of London, meaning the European powers who had signed the treaty were immediately forced in to action. The invasion of Belgium also nullifies the argument that the plan was deployed for defensive purposes as it was the French who posed a threat while Belgium remained neutral. This point can be furthered as Taylor explains ‘the moment that the Germans decided on mobilisation, they decided for war’ which suggests that the Germans knew their deliberately aggressive actions, such as invading the protected Belgium, had the potential to initiate wide scale war amongst European powers but still invaded. Taylor also stresses ‘that there could be no delay between mobilisation and war’ and in general emphasises the rush that the Germans had to take to ensure they were not trapped in a two-front war with France and Russia that they could not afford over an extended period of time. Taylor’s argument, which heavily uses war by
This was surprising to many people, as Britain and France had historically been enemies. The alliance was different to a full alliance in the form that it was an agreement not to attack each other, but did not mean protection from other attackers; this was because neither country wanted to be ‘dragged’ into a war. The alliance was then altered when Russia later joined, and the alliance changed to ‘The Triple Alliance’. This was to aid the prevention of future war, especially with Germany. The alliance would act as a ‘buffer’ towards Germany.
Militarily, in order for the strategy to succeed, they only needed a decisive victory over Washington's fledgling army. However, the colonial leaders argued that the outcome of the Revolution depended upon keeping an army in the field harassing the British and merely had to avoid losing. Both George Washington in the northern campaign, and Nathaniel Greene in the southern campaign, executed similar strategies. Both leaders actively avoided direct battle with the British Army except when strategically useful. They looked for opportunities to attack isolated
I don’t think the play was written to show how King Henry V was a fanatic about going to war with other countries, but I think that it was also wrote to show how understanding he could be about war. I think the only reason that King Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt was because the French gave him a reason to believe that him and his men could overcome them and they did. King Henry V had so much confidence in himself and his men that they won the battle although the number where very different. Henry wanted to take over France and he knew that if he wanted to do that he would no doubt have to go to war with them. In the beginning of the play King Henry is having a meeting with his counsel; some French ambassadors arrive with a sort of gift for Henry from The Dauphin.
Schlieffen believed that the most decisive area for any future war in Europe would be in the western sector. Schlieffen believed that France was the most dangerous opponent for Russia was not as advanced as France was and Schlieffen believed it would take six weeks for Russia to assemble its forces. Therefore, Schlieffen set out to defeat France by going through Belgium first. The Schlieffen Plan was necessary for Britain joining the war because in 1839 the Treaty of London was signed. In Article 7 it stated “Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles 1, 2, and 4, shall form an Independent and perpetually Neutral State.
These historical evidences strongly supports that unipolar moments cause geopolitical backlashes that lead to multipolarity. One theory of the wars origin that is not plausible is the one presented by Layne (non realist theory) that it was the Anglo-Austrian response to French hegemony for preserving the European balance of power. But there was another contest in Europe in the 1600s, not mentioned by Layne, was a series of war involving Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and other states and the Empire, over territorial and commercial domination of the Baltic region. The outcome of these wars was