Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor. However, although these events showed that he was not controlled by Warwick, there were many failures that outweigh his successes when it came to dealing with the over mighty subjects. Edward was said to have ‘alienated’ Warwick, which then caused him to become over mighty. Warwick was the biggest land owner in England and therefore had a lot of power, maybe even too much power as some people thought when it came to Edwards’s decision. Edwards marriage to Woodville was said to show favouritism as he subsequently gave the Woodville family titles and arranged the best marriages possible for Elizabeth’s sister, meaning that Warwick’s daughters did not get the desired marriages.
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.
In my opinion his health was the only factor causing him to gradually lose control. It was evident that Henry was still in control, I say this because in 1544 Henry proved he was willing to send soldiers into battle against the French. Furthermore in my opinion I think that Henry could clearly make decisions and take control, for example his attempts to even consider trying to help the economic issues, even though debasement was not a logical means of helping the economy Henry still looked through many options to help the
This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear. The 49 year redemption payments were a huge limiting factor in allowing peasants economic freedom to then have social freedom, and class was still a major issue even if it had been reduced. The highly inflated land prices that ensued meant that very few peasants could afford land, and Alexander II did nothing to resolve this. It does lend to the idea of his ‘radical’ reforms being fairly reluctant as he did not go further with them. Alexander III took an even more conservative view during his reign, repealing many of Alexander II’s social
The battle of the Spurs (1513) and the Battle of Flodden (1513), although to some considered small skirmishes, did make the countries of Europe start to notice England as a possible threat and certainly now knew about Henry VIII. England didn’t really gain the Honour and Glory that Henry VIII claimed they had gained through these two battles but it certainly did make other countries start to notice England and Henry VIII. One big success that Henry VIII did manage to accomplish in the early years of his reign was that he was able to gain the French pension he felt England deserved. After the capturing of the two towns Tournai and Thérouanne Henry demanded the French compensate the English for the areas that had been previously under English control. We can infer that this demand for the pensions was more
Certainly these changes were massive, quite abrupt and differed drastically from the norm; however that does not necessarily make them bad. Except, that is how they are viewed by many historians today. The historian N.Reeves believes Akhenaten was unsuccessful, but more in his religion reforms. 'For ordinary folk, there is little doubt that Akhenaten's actions as king over time inflicted the greatest misery: the people were confused by the man's religious vision, frightened by the ruthless manner in which it was imposed and quite likely appalled by his personal behaviour.' Reeves believe that the changes would have confusing and scary for the common people.
With the lack of soldiers, it would be easier to invade Rome, which could’ve led to the decline of the Empire. This proves that internal decay was one of the major causes for the end of Rome. Document 6 shows the invasions of Barbarians in 476 on the Roman Empire. This demonstrates that the government and military were becoming weaker to the point where they weren’t strong enough to protect the empire from invasions. The government could not control all these invasions, so this was another component that helped the fall of the Roman Empire.
Despite the increased responsibility and independence the senate became more subservient to him, “Though at first the senate showed real independence, it soon realised the risk of encroaching too far” (Scullard). This was due to the fact of the growing treason trials and Sejanus’ influence, senators afraid of their safety began to win favour by sycophancy. Whilst through his reserved temperament and ambiguous instructions led confusion to the senate steering towards deterioration, Tacitus notes he remarked them “men fit to be slaves”. This declining power of the senate under Tiberius became more obvious when he administered the empire from Capri failing to create the diarchic balance, Scullard writes “Tiberius had tried and failed and his failure was made irremediable by his retirement to Capri” illustrating the impact on Princeps becoming more dominating issuing imperial
Some were extremely successful, and others not so much. People like Qin Shi Huangdi folded under the pressure, and became too paranoid of his own people. Octavian on the other hand, knew the possibilities of internal and external threat, but actually made successful reforms to eliminate the possibility. A lot of the success rate of these empires
The opportunity to beat fate was too good to pass up. It did not help that his wife felt the same way as well. She facilitated the murder and assured her husband that it was what needed to be done. After Macbeth killed the king, he found himself no longer a true and loyal soldier, on the inside that is. He made sure to put on a façade which would lead the King’s men to believe he was still a respectful and loyal man.