Also, his high debts led to taxes which he imposed on the citizens of Spain. Philip II did nothing a leader should do, a leader should be able to allow there people to be secure, allow the people to allow them to grow financially, and allow them to follow their religion of choice. Since Phillip failed at leading his people his whole kingship can be considered a failure. If Phillip II changed his tactics then his kingship may have led to success and prosperity. But in the end Philip II will go down in the Books as a Catholic Zealot who was reckless with money, and the loser of the Spanish armada.
There were also reports that John severely punished his enemies and used the courts to help his friends. He was also accused of killing his own nephew Arthur because he was a rival to his throne. Most of these reports on John were written by monks and these were unreliable because John had quarrelled with their leader the Pope. This meant only a few monks were unbiased and wrote truthfully about John. For example another source this time written by a monk in Barnwell said that John was a good ruler and that his own men should not have deserted him.
Henry was supported and manipulated by William de la Pole, Edmund Beaufort and his French wife, Margaret of Anjou. His uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and Richard Duke of York were opposed to Henry’s “peace at any price policy”. The unhappiness with the Kings rule can be reflected in Cade’s Rebellion in 1450, representing the frustration with the weak king. Though however, it was not this rebellion that lead to the outbreak of conflict. Henrys weakness was obvious, and his power was easily harnessed by those at court, in particular by his favourites, the Beaufort family and William de la Pole.
When the men were hung, Mr. Davies thought he had failed at his responsibility and was a poor leader. Mr. Tetley believed the three men were guilty and he convinced most of the people to believe they were guilty. Mr. Davies has a very strong argument but I, personally, cannot agree with it. He did the most he could to protect their lives. If he had shared Martin’s letter to his wife, the men would not have been hung, but Martin asked Mr. Davies to keep the letter private and he respected Martin’s request.
Terrell Richardson AP US History November 26, 2012 Ms. Lister Period 4 The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson The election of Thomas Jefferson was seen as a revolution for Democratic-Republicans because the Federalists were losing power in government. Even though Jefferson was a Republican, he was believed to compromise with the Federalist beliefs for the good of the nation. Professor Morton Borden argues that Jefferson was a pragmatic politician who placed the nation’s best interests above his own. Professor Forrest McDonald believes that Jefferson was trying to replace Hamilton’s Federalist Principles with Republican’s. Jefferson supported ideas that were beneficial to the nation even if he had to compromise with the Federalists which caused him to be seen as a political compromiser.
The death of Thomas Becket is split between the 3 people, the king, Becket and the knight. The king was blamed for some of the incident as Henry didn’t order the murder but it was clear he wanted it done. So he should be more carefull about what he says. Also the king wanted power and was greedy and selfish which is bad it its self but he wanted the churchs power and so put a non-religius man in a place of 2nd in charge of church this was very
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
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.
The government could not control all these invasions, so this was another component that helped the fall of the Roman Empire. Document 5 shows bias because it blames the fall of the civilization on internal decay. This is significant because if a very well organized government that had been able to keep order throughout such a large empire could no longer do it, then this meant nobody else could. All of these political
Barons have their own castles and armies so they are protected when the King decides to attack them. Also King John may be in a bad situation when this happens because he may not have a big enough army to protect himself. Philip II was also a major threat to John! The Angevin empire includes large parts of France and he wants to win back these English lands. He has stirred up rebellions which he hopes will weaken King John and England’s