Do you agree with the view that in the years 1511-1527 english successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures?
Do you agree with the view that, in the years 1511-27, English successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures?
I agree with the view that English successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures in the years 1511-27 to a certain extent. England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and wolsey was flexible in his diplomacy. However, it could also be argued that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly given how little of long term value it brought to England. His allies also often let him down and put their own aims before those of England. In this essay I will be looking at three sources and weighing up the two sides of the argument.
A point in support of this view is that that England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is shown in source 4, where MD Palmer tells us that Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514 and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518. He also planned the Field of the Cloth of Gold of 1520 and negotiated peace between the Empire and France at Calais in 1521. Wolsey’s peaceful approach also benefitted England in that it reduced costs at a time when the country could not afford another war, and successfully made England a major ‘player’ in Europe, which was a desire of Henry’s.
Another point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that Wolsey was sly and flexible in his diplomacy. We can see this is source 4 which shows us how Wolsey used the pursuit of peace as a weapon to deceive the French. This argument is also supported in Source 6, where Alastair Armstrong gives Wolsey credit for aligning England with the strongest power in Europe from 1521, in spite of criticising other aspects of English foreign policy.
Source 5 is against the view that
I agree with the view that English successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures in the years 1511-27 to a certain extent. England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and wolsey was flexible in his diplomacy. However, it could also be argued that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly given how little of long term value it brought to England. His allies also often let him down and put their own aims before those of England. In this essay I will be looking at three sources and weighing up the two sides of the argument.
A point in support of this view is that that England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is shown in source 4, where MD Palmer tells us that Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514 and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518. He also planned the Field of the Cloth of Gold of 1520 and negotiated peace between the Empire and France at Calais in 1521. Wolsey’s peaceful approach also benefitted England in that it reduced costs at a time when the country could not afford another war, and successfully made England a major ‘player’ in Europe, which was a desire of Henry’s.
Another point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that Wolsey was sly and flexible in his diplomacy. We can see this is source 4 which shows us how Wolsey used the pursuit of peace as a weapon to deceive the French. This argument is also supported in Source 6, where Alastair Armstrong gives Wolsey credit for aligning England with the strongest power in Europe from 1521, in spite of criticising other aspects of English foreign policy.
Source 5 is against the view that