Therefore I believe Lord Curzon was indeed a successful viceroy. Of the Sources, source two is intended to convey Lord Curzon’s tenure as Viceroy in the most positive manner .It lists his positive qualities that made him “India’s best ruler under the raj” . However given the nature of the British Empire in countries such as India the main priority is not always the well fair of the country. For instance many believe Britain was draining India of its wealth rather than helping develop the country, Dadabhai Naoroji's created this “drain theory”. Britain had used combination of force as well as divides and conquers to control India Up until this point.
This shows Henry as being more important as he was at a higher position from the start. However their relationship may make them seem more equal then any more important then the other, as John Guy says “Between 1515 and 1525 it can be argued that Henry treated him more as a partner than a servant.” This perhaps gives a clear image of their relationship but not their importance in foreign policy. However this does show that perhaps their overall importance to the country generally was equal. It can also be argued that Henry gave Wolsey the authority and without Henry there would be not much power for Wolsey at all. Henry can be said to have given power in the case of the 'amicable grant' to Wolsey however historian J.J.Scarisbrick said “Henry never knew of the demand” this argues
How far do the sources suggest that the work of William Russell and Roger Fenton presented the British public with a realistic portrayal of the Crimean War? Source 4 completely agrees that Roger Fenton’s presented the British public with a realistic portrayal of the Crimean War because it states that Simon Grant thought they were a “huge Success”. This is because Fenton wasn’t creating a perceived painting of “smoke-filled battle scenes” and wasn’t going for the “propaganda picture” based on a returning soldiers’ account but instead, created an approach with a “ new feeling of empathy towards the military”. This is similar to source 5 when it states “God Forbid that I should cast a shade on the brightness of Nolan’s Honour” because it’s William Russell empathizing Nolan’s honor. I think due to Fenton not going for that “propaganda picture” makes this source more trustworthy than that of source 6.
Weatherford’s portrayal of Genghis Khan is “a progressive leader whose primary mission was to bring peace, not war, throughout his empire”. Though Weatherford’s perspective on Genghis Khan may be a little over the top with romanticism, he is not too far off what I have come to believe about him. The many accomplishments of Genghis Khan heavily outnumber all else that he did. Like Emperor Qin Shi Huang of the Qin Dynasty, Genghis Khan probably had more of an intention of uniting rather than destroying. If he had an intention of just causing havoc and war, then he would not have ended up encouraging trade and enlightening himself and those around him of foreign cultures.
As well as this, Henry needed to be effective at getting England onto a secure financial footing. He did this by not fighting foreign wars often; he had already defeated Richard so he
This made his position a weak one, forcing Edward to bind himself to Godwin, as the Earl of Wessex and most powerful man in England at this time. Earl Godwin was the only member of the witan offering to support Edward. The reasons for this are unclear though it is likely Godwin felt that he could exert influence over the inexperienced King and therefore gain yet more power over England. Despite the odds being stacked against him, Edward took the English throne from the Danish royal family and established himself as a strong and wise King. Clearly his success had to be dependant on a number of weighty advantages, his growing up in Exile for example.
One aspect that Wolsey did have great impact was justice, with him introducing many new ideas. Although, some of his policies were unsuccessful such as the Enclosures, the policy that was the most unsuccessful and almost a complete failure was the amicable grant. This was a factor in Henry’s lack of trust in Wolsey during the latter part of his position as Lord Chancellor. The first part of his domestic policies, and arguably the most successful one is justice. Unlike his other policies, the justice system was now greatly improved by Wolsey.
The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The act was named after Secretary George Marshall. The Marshall Aid was so important because it was used to restrict the Soviet “sphere of influence” from expanding as European countries preferred the idea of being rich instead of having to share their wealth with others. Many countries that were unofficially owned by Stalin were more interested in joining the USA with the Marshall Aid, but Stalin managed to “persuade” them to protest against Truman’s methods. Despite this, the Marshall Aid was a success and it bolstered the armies of Europe significantly, which put Stalin in a more vulnerable position.
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.
Some might say that Wolsey’s rise to power was based solely on luck however the strongest argument suggests that it wasn’t solely based on luck and that Wolsey was a skillful man. Wolsey’s rise to power can be seen as solely based on luck due to the strength that all 3 sources give to the argument. Source 2 depicts a young, naive king Henry who is easily manipulated. Wolsey is lucky that Henry is easily manipulated and uses this to his advantage as Wolsey would present Henry with “A jewel or ring or gifts of that sort” when bringing forward “the project on which his mind was fixed”. Some say that if Henry was older when he became king then he would of been able to spot that Wolsey was manipulating him, therefore he wouldn’t of given into him as easily, stopping Wolsey rising to power.