To What Extent Was Responsible For Henry Viii's Failure
I agree with this view that Henry VIII was responsible for the English foreign policy failures in the years 1509-1529, and this is because he was too keen to establish his presence in international affairs and believed that he had to demonstrate his strengths to his subjects. This way of thought was due to his peaceful rise to the throne and because of his confident personality; Henry wanted to win victories on the battlefield and wanted to establish his image of a Renaissance warrior.
Henry’s first failure was in France, 1512. Henry persuaded his advisers that a foreign campaign would benefit England’s reputation, so he led an army to France in hope to revive the hostilities there, but achieved little as the expenditure was rapidly increasing and the soldiers, whom were ill or suffering from disease, then proceeded to quickly return back to England. Apart …show more content…
Henry did not self-indulge in financial or any matters, he stated what he wanted and relied on other people; Henry VIII was practically the opposite of his father, Henry VII. Henry also spent his wealth, he enjoyed grand feasts and owning luxurious items; he had the true image of a King. This could have led to his and England’s weakness, as the French and Habsburgs monarchies were great in size and wealth, and England couldn’t even compete with them, it was too weak.
Another aspect was that Henry didn’t and couldn’t have a lot of victories, this was due to England being poor. Instead, the 20 year old French successor, Francis I invaded northern Italy and recaptured Milan from the Habsburgs. Francis, like Henry, wanted to be the centre of attention and he could afford to. Another person who made Henry look weaker, was Charles V who became the King of Spain, The Holy Roman Emperor and the Duke in the Netherlands, he was the ultimate ruler, whereas Henry lacked great titles so couldn't compete and couldn't improve his ‘warrior
Henry’s first failure was in France, 1512. Henry persuaded his advisers that a foreign campaign would benefit England’s reputation, so he led an army to France in hope to revive the hostilities there, but achieved little as the expenditure was rapidly increasing and the soldiers, whom were ill or suffering from disease, then proceeded to quickly return back to England. Apart …show more content…
Henry did not self-indulge in financial or any matters, he stated what he wanted and relied on other people; Henry VIII was practically the opposite of his father, Henry VII. Henry also spent his wealth, he enjoyed grand feasts and owning luxurious items; he had the true image of a King. This could have led to his and England’s weakness, as the French and Habsburgs monarchies were great in size and wealth, and England couldn’t even compete with them, it was too weak.
Another aspect was that Henry didn’t and couldn’t have a lot of victories, this was due to England being poor. Instead, the 20 year old French successor, Francis I invaded northern Italy and recaptured Milan from the Habsburgs. Francis, like Henry, wanted to be the centre of attention and he could afford to. Another person who made Henry look weaker, was Charles V who became the King of Spain, The Holy Roman Emperor and the Duke in the Netherlands, he was the ultimate ruler, whereas Henry lacked great titles so couldn't compete and couldn't improve his ‘warrior