Other examples include Henrys betrayal by Charles, the uproar caused by the Anglo-French alliance and the Amicable Grant. Nevertheless, the extent of the failure can be greatly disputed, for their were some successes such as the treaty of London, and although the field of cloth of gold failed to achieve anything diplomatic, it still brought a lot of honour as mentioned above. Source 6 greatly contradicts the claim that Henry and Wolsey conducted an effective foreign policy, “failed to bring great gains to the country”. This is further reinforced by other policies that they introduced, the amicable grant 1525 and the Anglo-French alliance both of which resulted in huge unpopularity and debt. Similarly in source 5, the dukes of Norfolk describe how they “never saw the time so needful for the King’s Highness to call his council”.
It is true that the English navy’s long range canons prevented the Spanish from exercising tier preferred method of attach, which was to mount the oppositions ships. On the other hand the weather played a huge role in the Armada’s defeat as strong winds blew them off course. It is therefore debatable whether Elizabeth dealt with the problem at all, let alone effectively. There is the possibility that if the Armada had reached the shores of England, despite their numerical superiority, would have lost to the professional Hapsburg army. Although the Armada failed this may not really be due to the effectiveness of Elizabeth and her government.
Another example is when Charles delayed 6 weeks at Edinburgh to allow George II to regain hardened troops from Holland, if this hadn't happened then Charles would have been able to strike much more fear in the Londoners. Bonnie Prince Charlie's lack of strategy was the most apparent causes of his failure and it would of made the invasion much swifter. If he had organized his strategy better he would have probably if not definately won. Leadership is the ability to lead a group.Leadership could have made the men more efficient in their fighting and a clear understanding of the enemy would have given him an advantage.The immaturity of Charles would have been a key factor to consider eg; At Prestonpans Charles didn't take George Murray's advice, and the arrogance and self-belief of Charles cost the army many opportunitys to invade. Also because of Charles' arrogance he treated the Scottish Clans as total inferiors and took no notice of their customs.
However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country. Henry's father, Henry VII, left the country in quite a stable state economically, but Henry devoted most of England's money into his campaigns to take over France, because he believed had a right to the Throne. To some extent source 4 supports the idea that the foreign policy did fail due to the lack of resources, because it states that “the young warrior family accepted the fact that royal finances could not support a repetition of the campaign of 1513”. This quote implies that the lack of resources seems to be the dominant reason for stopping Henry from invading France and therefore source 4 supports the statement to some extent. 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.
Despite the undoubtable successes of the Treaty of London and Field of Cloth of Gold as clearly described in Source 4 as the “Greatest Triumph” as well as the Successes at the Battle of Spurs and Flodden, the sheer squandering of Henry XII’s Legacy and the limited wealth of England being wasted completely outweighs the successes in Foreign Policy. Overall the embarrassing and naïve Failures outweigh the Successes in English Foreign Policy in the years
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.
M.L Bush said that ‘It was interconnected regional rebellions rather than one fluid movement’ because once the rebels had gone back to where they lived dotted across the North of England they would all have to meet up rather than go down to London in one group. Also the rebels outnumbered the King’s army 4:1 when they were confronted at the River Don. Instead of accepting the King’s pardon they should have risked battle once they dispersed they were no longer a threat to Henry. They were the stronger force but they tried to negotiate before they had achieved anything. This is another point towards poor leadership because there was no clear plan in how they were going to get their terms accepted only what terms they wanted.
The Yorkshire rebellion in 1489, which was due to people in Yorkshire having to pay taxes for a war in Brittany, was not really a success for Henry; although he dealt with it sufficiently for it not to seriously affect his reign, it was not as much a success as he might have hoped. It was partly successful in that it remained a local uprising and did not spread to London or garner any major support. The most influential person to be associated with the rebellion was Sir John Egremont, an illegitimate member of the Percy family, who fled England for the court of Margaret of Burgundy. However, in the end the rebellion did not turn out in a way that overly benefited Henry. An influential nobleman, the Duke of Northumberland, was killed by the rebels whilst attempting to negotiate a peace with them.
If it wasn’t for the colonists’ spirit, Americans probably never would have won the war. The British didn’t win, even though they had the best military in the world, because they had no motivation. The colonists’ wanted freedom and they fought diligently to
The tanks were not designed to travel over the rocky beach and resisted to movement in a mere matter of minutes since departing the boats. The artillery used, Bren guns and Tommy guns, was mediocre and in some instances their trajectory was too low so that their missiles failed to reach the appropriate destination. Although that was an unwanted nuisance it was not the main issue, the real problem was the lack of weapons. Since this was supposed to be a surprise attack the allies wished to be light in order to move quickly among the sea. This would include not bringing very important bombs and mortar shells and heavier guns, these weapons were close to or equivalent to the German artillery.