• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

University Degree: 1600-1699

Browse by

Currently browsing by:

Meet our team of inspirational teachers

find out about the team

Get help from 80+ teachers and hundreds of thousands of student written documents

  • Marked by Teachers essays 2
  1. Why, and with what consequences did Charles I fail to defeat the Covenanters in 1639-1640?

    Firstly it is important to assess Charles's failure to defeat the Covenanters in the First Bishops' War of 1639. David Scott states that 'the Scot's military preparations were more than matched by the King's own ? at least on paper'.[1] This is true to an extent as Charles and his advisers drew up an extensive war plan for the campaign against the Covenanters. The marquess of Hamilton was to launch an amphibious assault on Scotland's eastern coast, the Earl of Strafford was to raise ten thousand men in Ireland and Charles himself was to march an English Army to the

    • Word count: 2752
  2. How far can the problems facing the colony of Virginia from 1607 to 1624 be explained by the quality of the settlers?

    Traditionalist historians such as Edmund Morgan put forward the view that the poor quality of the settlers was the main reason for the problems suffered at Virginia. While clearly some of the problems suffered at Jamestown can be blamed on the settlers, there are also other more significant reasons for the problems faced by the colonists at the settlement such as drought. The main themes which will be assessed in this essay are malnourishment and starvation in Virginia, the quality of the governance of Jamestown and the relationship between the English colonists and the local Native American tribes of Virginia.

    • Word count: 2991

Conclusion analysis

Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.

  1. Do they use key words from the title or question?
  2. Do they answer the question directly?
  3. Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
  • To what extent do you agree with the view expressed in the extract on the importance of the New Model Army during the years 1645-1649?

    "In conclusion, the Army was the "mainspring of the Revolution and the force that deterred more radical change". However, an ongoing bad relationship between King and Parliament influenced this. If their disagreements and arguments had not reached stalemate, perhaps the Army would not have become such a politicized force. The Army deterred social radicals though. Groups such as the Puritans, Presbyterians, the Levellers and the Diggers all failed to gain complete control even though they did try. The Army intervened by using force and stop radical succeeding: "This was a revolution in that it involved a change of a political system by force" (Christopher Hill). This quote sums up the situation completely. The political system was changed due to the force of the New Model Army. Finally, the English Revolution had took place and though the Monarch was restored in 1660, "there could be no question of putting it back to where it had stood before the Civil War" (R.C Richardson), due to the actions of the New Model Army sparking off and making a Revolution inevitable."

  • Would you agree that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start? Discuss this with reference to the events of 1814-15?

    "In conclusion it can be seen that to a certain extent it is not entirely fair to assume that the future of the Bourbon Monarchy was doomed from the start. This was because despite the events that occurred during 1814-15 the economic and social aspects of France outweighed these. It is certain that the election of Louis XVIII was not a very good idea because even though he did make some changes, these did not pacify the people and due to his bad personality he was not well respected as a leader. This will have led to people questioning the future of the Bourbon Monarchy, but it will not have been definitely said that it was doomed for failure."

  • Between 1661 and 1684 French Foreign Policy Was Conducted With Skill and Success.' To What Extent Do You Agree?

    "In conclusion, Wilkinson states that Louis' 'success doomed him.' To an extent this is true. It supports his theory of 'Dragon's teeth' being laid as the success that Louis had in capturing land and attempting to secure his North-Eastern frontier laid the 'Dragon's teeth' and therefore turned many powers on him. Some of these new enemies did turn on him from Louis actions, however some powers turned on him through fear. Although Louis may have caused problems for which he will be accounted for later, he did make a considerable mark on European politics in the years 1661-1684. Alex Lawson 5/2/07 1204"

Marked by a teacher

This document has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read the full teachers notes when you download the document.

Peer reviewed

This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review on the document page.

Peer reviewed

This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student document reviewing squad. Read the full review under the document preview on this page.