How far did Cromwell succeed in enhancing Royal Power by 1539? (30marks) Thomas Cromwell started from quite humble origins, and managed to work his way into some of the most prestigious positions in England at that time. Cromwell stayed with Cardinal Wolsey when he fell from power, which proved his loyalty, which impressed Henry VIII. As well as his position in Parliament where he tried to reduce the power and influence of the church. It is now widely accepted that if his plans to enhance royal power and revolutionise the government were not far-sighted, his political and administrative skills were essential to their success.
How effective a king was Henry 7th? Henry 7th is very well know as the conqueror of Richard 3rd and father of Henry 8th, but how effective a king was he? He had to secure the Tudor dynasty, secure the nobility, keep financially stable and strengthen his foreign position without appearing weak. He dealt with these problems on the whole, extremely well, suggesting that he was an effective king, but he made some mistakes to. Henry 7th was ruthless in securing the Tudor dynasty.
He also would have more money to leave in the treasury, not only for himself but future generations. The money would lead to power; his greatest desire. To carry this power on he wanted it to be entrusted in a son. All of the reasons link together to show his need for power as king. One of the reasons why Henry broke from the Roman Church was because he had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn but was married to Catherine of Aragon.
Succeeding James I was Charles I, and his policies propelled England to civil war. In the early seventeenth century, political and economic conflicts between the English monarchy and Parliament resulted in the English Civil War. James I’s political and economic struggles with Parliament are what began the slump of the English government. He believed in the “divine right” of kings, meaning that he considered himself to be God’s representative on Earth and no one could challenge his authority. Because he wanted as little interaction with Parliament as possible, he levied new custom duties called impositions to raise funds.
The Reign of Terror: Justified or Not? The Reign of Terror, a year-long bloodbath of the French Revolution, was it justified or not? Was there actually a reason why the Reign of Terror was necessary? Well, in fact, there was a reason it was necessary for the revolution. Although the Reign of Terror did not protect the rights of man like the starters of the French Revolution wanted, it helped secure military victories for the French against external enemies, quelled the counterrevolution that was stirring in France due to nobility and clergy, and the speaking prowess of political leaders, such as Robespierre, helped convince the common peoples to join the Reign of Terror in extinguishing external and internal enemies of France.
The discovery of a new trade route by a Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama destroyed Venice’s monopoly in the popular spices trade. Venice’s traditional route was shorter, time consuming, however, it is considered unsafe due to robbers and plunderers. The new trade rivals, who were the English and British, Venice continued to suffer. The new trade rivals were equipped with better ships so they were better in a way then the Venetians. Venice then imposed a protectionist policy and higher duties on foreign trader.
With industry and economy booming, one could say that Bismarck was relatively successful during 'foundation time', opposing the suggestion. Yet Bismarck was a pragmatist, and just as he had changed policies prior to 1870, so he continued to change his line of attack in the post-1870 period. Following the impact of the 'Great Depression' in Europe, the political basis upon which Bismarck had founded his power was undermined, and so Bismarck was forced to return to more protectionist policies. Added to the fact that in the Balkans there had been split alliances, the National Liberals and Bismarck were further split here. Not only did they oppose his rule of parliament, constitutional rule, but they were opposed to the policy of protectionism that Bismarck proposed, being in favour of free-trade.
The Crusades aided the movement towards a new way of government. The political effect of the Crusades impacted everything from existing nations' relationships with each other to the formation of completely new political states. Vassals thought themselves to be masters and Kings had a difficult time obtaining obedience from them. “The collection of money made for the crusades paved the way for tax systems; the protection of crusaders' property legitimized the intervention of sovereigns.” (Richard). Lords often deserted a family legacy of increasing the wealth of their land after they transferred ownership rights of their lands to another when they left to support the crusades.
By 1529 England was diplomatically isolated and this might be considered a consequence of Wolsey’s advances to the French • the increasingly central position of Norfolk, Suffolk and Rochford at Court was recognised even by Wolsey in the Eltham Ordinances. It was the King himself who ordered Wolsey to appoint more counsellors • Failure of the Amicable Grant. Factors suggesting other factors were important might include: • Henry VIII had increasingly separated himself from Wolsey. Yet the Eltham Ordinances were used to Wolsey’s advantage in effectively reducing the number of courtiers around the monarch • failure to secure the annulment of the King’s marriage was a significant factor for it angered the King. On a simplistic level, Wolsey was protected only as long as he proved to be useful • opposition to Wolsey’s foreign policy came from a range of sources, for example the Church.
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