Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?
Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658? To look at Cromwell's aims and whether he achieved them or not is to enter "a minefield of` historical controversy and uncertainty," as modern day historian Barry Coward put it. Cromwell's aims have always been somewhat of a paradox so to answer whether he achieved them all would be impossible. Many of his goals contradicted or obstructed some of his other views. The views which he held closest to his heart were 'Liberty of Conscience' - Cromwell's belief in religious toleration, a united National Church, the 'Reformations of Manners'- his goal of a nation of Godly people, and social and legal reform. Although these were his most favoured objectives, throughout his rule as Protector he attempted to achieve what he described as 'settlement and healing'- keeping conservative support and repairing the wounds of the civil war. This meant there were a number of other policies he strived to achieve, often having to contradict the religious and social reforms he desired, these were; establishing broad support- even including royalists; keeping government as traditional as possible and maintaining social order. The whole time he also wanted to keep the army satisfied, as it was his main source of power. However the army was associated with radicalism by the propertied and gentry, again causing more compromises for
Why did Disraeli pass the 1867 Second Reform Act?
Why did Disraeli pass the 1867 Second Reform Act? The 1867 Second Reform Act was an extremely intelligent piece of politics and demonstrated how clever Disraeli was as a politician, the act itself would enable Disraeli to the gain power amongst the Commons. With the death of Palmerston in 1865 the question of Reform was immediately back on agenda. Palmerston had been such a major political figure that while he was present, reform would never be an issue in the Houses of Parliament. Within a couple of months of the Derby administration coming into power there were two days of riots in Hyde Park over the reform of Parliament, involving clashes with police and the destruction of some of the park railings. If the Conservatives wished to remain in power something needed to be done, or so Disraeli said when he made a speech to the Commons in 186 7 saying that reform needed to be passed in order to "destroy the present agitation". However, we know that this is not really the case as these riots were nothing in comparison to the riots in 1932 over the first Reform Act when the entire city of Birmingham was seized by protestors and rioters, this was merely given as a reason to help gain support of the MP's in Parliament in passing the Act. A similar reason that Disraeli presented to the Conservative Party for the need to Reform was a phrase that he coined Tory democracy, this he
How did Wolsey managed to stay in power for so long?
How did Wolsey managed to stay in power for so long Wolsey managed to stay in power so long for several reasons, all of which stem from one thing, his ability to keep Henry VIII content and happy. He came to power by pleasing Henry's foreign policy aims, coordinating an attack on France. He fell from power when he was finally unable to please Henry's aims, and get him his divorce. Through out his time as Henry's "right hand man" he was able to make possible and practical Henry's desires. Where Wolsey was most successful was in foreign policy. At the time England was a comparatively small player in the "big game" of Europe, but Wolsey was able to make up for the shortcomings of England through planning, foresight, diplomacy and hard work. This brought several successes for England; the first one was the Battle of the Spurs, this was where the English routed the French and they "spurred "sway, hence the name of the battle. Although this was more of a propagandist then a militaristic success, it allowed for a large amount of glory, at least domestically for Henry. As Henry's main aim in foreign policy was to make himself appear as the "young buccaneer of Europe" and England as a country to be feared and respected, this was certainly a good start. However England at the time didn't have the men or the resources to become a great military power in Europe, which Wolsey realised,
How successful was English foreign policy in the years 1509 1529?
How successful was English foreign policy in the years 1509 - 1529? During these years Henry VIII was the monarch on the English throne, and his foreign policy reflected both his hunger for personal glory, and his desire to see England become a major power in Europe. During the later part of his reign, it seems his wish to control vast parts of Europe, and be an important player in politics, waned; but for the first twenty years of Henry's reign, from 1509-1529, important decisions and actions of the Monarch were dominated by foreign policy, and it was during this time that Thomas Wolsey, Henry's eventual right hand man, would rise to prominence. English policy enjoyed both successes and failures - but it is arguable as to what extent these successes reached. In 1511 was Henry's first opportunity to increase the reach of his control, and take part of France. King Louis XII, who the current ruler of France, had invaded Italy; leaving the Pope Julius II in a position where he was under threat. The Pope formed a Holy League agreement with Ferdinand, King of Spain, and as his son in-law, Henry offered his services. Henry joined the Holy League in the November of 1511, and in early 1512 he sent around 12,000 troops to invade southern France, led by the Marques of Dorset. However, Henry had not been aware that the Spanish had already defeated the French and made peace, and the
Explain how Ferdinand and Isabella dealt with the problems facing them before 1479.
HISTORY AS-LEVEL 2003 European History Essay Paper - Past Question Plans. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explain how Ferdinand and Isabella dealt with the problems facing them before 1479. This is an 'explain' type question - so it's asking you to do just that, but also a little more. Merely describing the measures Ferdinand and Isabella took to cope with various problems will get some marks, but more marks will be gained if you weigh up the outcomes of these policies, and register how successful they were. For example, you may say in the essay that Ferdinand and Isabella faced economic problems, and you may go on to explain what policy(ies) they introduced to solve the problem. This would be 'explaining' how they 'dealt' with the problem, but you can go further and say how well they dealt with it compared to other issues, etc. Also, refer to historians and what they said about how they dealt with problems. Always link back to the question. So - you must: a) Show what the problems were b) What measures they took to deal with them c) How successful these measures were, evaluating against other issues, historiographical interpretations, short-term/long-term instances. The essay: PARA 1 - WHAT WERE THE PROBLEMS: i) Civil War in Aragon - decline of Barcelona, civil disorder, social unrest. ii)
How successful was Wolseys Domestic policy?
Jack Stephenson How successful was Wolsey's Domestic policy During his fourteen years of chancellorship Wolsey exercised considerable influence over Henry VIII's domestic policy during the years 1515 to 1529, involving himself in economic, legal, aristocratic and church affairs. Wolsey's domestic policy was relatively successful with some failures. Wolsey was no domestic reformer in any modern political sense and he saw his prime duty as Lord Chancellor. Wolsey was either loved or hated for his wealth, position and lofty manner. Historians also differ in their views of Thomos Wolsey, Peter Gwyn sees Wolsey as a man of "enormous ability and unstoppable determination" with a huge capacity for hard work and whose reforms were limited because of the ambitions of Henry in Europe. Other historians like John Guy and David Loades acknowledge Wolsey's abilities but are less effusive in their praise and see his own deficiencies as responsible for the failure of some of the reforms he embarked on. One area in which Wolsey is seen as having a great impact on is legal reform. Wolsey was keen to make it clear that no one was above the law and that the law as applicable to all so the wealthy/powerful could not escape. In 1516 Wolsey put forward a scheme to improve the whole legal system, the power of the court of the Star Chamber was to be increased and ordinary subject were to file
Do you agree with the view that the 1832 reform act was a conservative measure with limited effects?
b) Do you agree with the view that the 1832 reform act was a conservative measure with limited effects? In this essay i plan to look at the statement that the 1832 Reform act was a conservative measure with limited effect. To do this i plan to not only use my knowledge of it but to analyse some primary sources from the time and secondary sources published afterwards. However before i start i think it would be important to define the term conservative. Wikipedia defines it as "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. " Firstly i plan to look at the reasoning behind agreement with the statement. Firstly in agreement with the statement was the fact that it only secured voting rights for a very select bunch of people. This is very much inkeeping with the definition of conservative i have given. This inkeeps with the political system when it was set up as only a very select amount of people had a say. This made the political parties alot less accountable. With only an electorate of 800,000 out of a population of 24,000,000 the parties were only accountable to the aristocracy and a select few of the middle class. Also it becomes clear to me from Source 4 and 5 that it was again a conservative measure with
To what extent was Henry VII a successful monarch?
To what extent was Henry VII a successful monarch? Henry the VII was a shrewd, enigmatic king whose meticulous manner contributed to his avarice, whilst he ruled over England. He was by no means the best King, but he was extremely successful in the fact that he had a strong hold over his reign, there was little war and conflict - shy of the Battle of Bosworth 1485 and the Battle of Stoke 1487 - and, most importantly, he was the only Tudor to come out of the throne not in debt; showing his capabilities with finance and control over the economy and expenditures. All these, and more, aided him in the establishment of his power and a dynasty. Henry's strong power and authority is shown by his winning of the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. This shows that he is capable of being a strong warrior king, and the fact that he lead a French army, meant that he must have had leadership skills and strong determination - which are traits needed for being king. His first few years were probably the hardest. There was great unrest amongst some of the people and there were also some minor rebellions arising - which meant that he had to secure his dynasty and his monarchy fast. He was a swift and decisive king who imprisoned and executed rebels such as de la pole - this was all done to neutralise opposition so that he could succeed in his reign. This worked with great success as by the end of
Why did Parliament win the English Civil War?
Why did Parliament win the English Civil War? There is no simple explanation that explains why Parliament won the English Civil War; there were many factors that culminated in the reformation of England into a republic. These factors consist of fundamental advantages that Parliament had before the commencement of battle (tax revenues for example) and specific events during the war (such as victorious battles). At the commencement of the Civil War in 1642, both the Parliamentarians and the Royalists had certain advantages over eachother, although it is popularly perceived that Parliament's advantages outweighed those of the Royalists. One of Parliament's advantages was that they controlled some of the more economically advanced areas of the country (most significantly the Southeast), this was an important factor as it allowed a more efficient production of weapons and other wartime essentials. Parliament also occupied areas with lots of armouries and troops, a prime example being Hull, which was a rich source of arms and also supplied an army of some 16,000 troops. Parliament also controlled London- the traditional centre of government, a big source of arms and very significantly a city with trained bands (trained armies). Parliament's other main geographical advantage was their control of most of the major ports including London and Hull, but also Plymouth, Bristol and
Why did the Liberals win the General Election of 1906?
Why did the Liberals win the General Election of 1906? The question that has to be looked is did the Conservatives lose the election or did the Liberals win it? Was the election decided on policies, personalities or other factors? Why did the voters abandon the Conservatives after ten years in power? Was there one big issue or simply a combination of reasons? A great Conservative decline occurred prior to the 1906 election. This decline can be seen as due to key domestic issues such as the Boer War and the Taff Vale, which the Conservatives failed to deal with in the best interests of the country. The Boer War at the start gained support back in Britain but as the war dragged on it was in its later years that many lost faith in the out-stretched war. The methods used by British soldiers to break the Boer resistance upset many. Back home people were embarrassed and outraged that the British army also took three years to overcome a group of out-numbered and out-gunned farmers. Acts were passed by Arthur Balfour, which he thought he could benefit from. The Education Act was passed in 1902. Although it was an achievement reflecting well on Balfour, it caused a storm of protesters in some areas. Similar to the Education Act the Licensing Act was passed which itself backfired on Balfour. Nonconformists opposed the Act arguing that it was introducing a charge so that brewers
