Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state. This caused the Frankfurt Parliament to fail because Prussia did not grasp the opportunity to unite and neither did the King, therefore Germany remained divided. Although he desired power, William IV was not willing to put himself and Prussia under control of the Frankfurt Parliament as he distrusted ‘the gentlemen of Frankfurt’. This meant that the Parliament had no real leader, and so lost support because people distrusted the parliament as an influential figure stated he would not be associated with them. This aided in causing the failure of the Parliament because with no real leader, no one could influence the masses or help to make decisions.
I personally think that Henry failed in his foreign policy because he didn’t end up gaining a full grasp on France, this was the main precedence. The initial aim was to capture more land, gaining more land meaning capturing France and knowing Henry’s ambitious mindset, he most probably had his whole mind set on creating an empire and France was a good place to start. Had Henry been what he said he was ‘a warrior king’ he wouldn’t have been used as a toy twice throughout this unsuccessful foreign policy. Charles took advantage of Henry. At the Battle of Pavia, the French were defeated and Francis along with his strongest supporters were held captive.
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.
The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
The Main Reason For The Defeat Of The Royalist Cause In The First Civil War Was The Leadership Of Charles l – Assess The Validity Of This View With Reference To The Years 1642-1646. In the period up to the outbreak of civil war in England, there were several reasons as to why the Royalist Cause and Charles were defeated. Many of his subjects came to question whether he was a monarch who could be trusted to rule within the ambiguous bounds of the unwritten ancient constitution. Firstly, Charles alone contributed heavily to the defeat of the Royalist cause. He was hampered by a speech defect which made communication difficult and communication with Parliament suffered as a direct result.
Do you agree with the view that Henry VIII’s foreign policy in the years 1514-25 failed because he lacked the resources to fulfil his aims? Source 4 indicates it was the ‘unscrupulous’ allies that led to the failure of Henry’s foreign policy and source 5 demonstrates how the real European power plays were beyond Henry’s sphere influence. Thus, it insinuates he could’ve never fulfilled his diplomatic aims for the European powers were too prevailing for him to manipulate. Source 6 suggests it was his lack of resources that stopped him from succeeding. The truth lies most evidently in source 6, for the context of Henry’s reign gives an insight into these situations being rooted in Henry’s menial resources.
It was often the cases of self interest that these two nations resorted too. In Manchuria, Britain and France were unwilling to send their armies nor fleets, in Abyssinia, they did not close the Suez Canal , which could have stopped Mussolini's invasion and they did not ban important war materials such as coal, oil and steel. The USSR was the only country powerful enough to send troops to force the aggressors into accepting the League's wishes, but they weren't in the League. Without the USA, the League was permanently weakened. Had the USA been in the league, Japan wouldn't have conquered Manchuria and Mussolini would have backed off Abyssinia.
Thus the French were at a major disadvantage as they failed to effectively gain political control of Indochina. The tactical and strategic blunders the French military suffered ultimately proved to be the most devastating of all. The military’s inability to adjust into the unique situation combined with Vietminh mastery of, “hit and run ambush tactics… embracing Mao’s strategy of wearing the enemy down while building conventional abilities” ultimately led them to stalemate. The political and economic limitations
It was not the strength of the opposing forces, both liberal and conservative, but rather the stubbornness of Wilson that led to the defeat in the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson himself was an incredibly stubborn man and was the main reason the treaty failed in his hands. His inability to compromise caused him to loose support within the Democratic Party, thus resulting in the Senate defeat of the
Unlike the previous countries, France viewed reason as their end and their ‘new truth’. Thus, France’s attitude on ‘latitudinarian’ is one of disdain. Under the reign of ‘reason’, the French began to overthrow their society rather than make reasonable improvements. There were constant rebellions and overthrow of powers, which led to the Reign of Terror. Conclusion: Although the 3 revolutions were