How Effectively Did Tudor Governments Deal with Rebellion in England and Ireland?
How effectively did Tudor governments deal with rebellion in England and Ireland?
Tudor governments were relatively successful in dealing with the problem of rebellion, although this was more effective towards the end of the period than at the beginning shown through the decline in rebellion after 1549: only 5 English rebellions occurred as opposed to 10 before 1549. Over the course of the Tudor period the main aims of rebellions were only fully achieved in the rebellions of 1525, the Amicable Grant and 1553. In addition to this the reforms made to local government, policies directly implemented by central government and the effects of trials and retribution, such as Henry VII’s concessions made to the late 15th century pretenders, Lambert Simnell and Perkin Warbeck and later in the period during Elizabeth’s reign, who recognised rebel Shane O’Neil as Earl of Tyrone, all contributed to the reduction in the frequency and scale of English rebellions. Pre-emptive strikes implemented by Tudor governments were also instrumental, especially during the start of the period in Henry’s reign and later in Elizabeth’s reign, in preventing rebellion or stopping riots from becoming dangerous rebellions. In some areas these strategies and tactics worked better in some areas than others; Irish rebellions were generally more costly and more difficult to suppress.
Tudor governments can be considered to have dealt poorly with rebellion on account of repeated noble support for rebellions throughout the period. The support of the nobility was crucial to maintaining control of the localities and additionally, noble support of a rebellion could increase the risk of a rebellion overthrowing the monarch. This was due to the likely contribution of funds to bolster supplies and troops with the involvement of retainers and experienced foreign mercenaries. Lack of noble co-operation with the government could also increase the threat of rebellion. This can be seen in the Cornish rebellion of
Tudor governments were relatively successful in dealing with the problem of rebellion, although this was more effective towards the end of the period than at the beginning shown through the decline in rebellion after 1549: only 5 English rebellions occurred as opposed to 10 before 1549. Over the course of the Tudor period the main aims of rebellions were only fully achieved in the rebellions of 1525, the Amicable Grant and 1553. In addition to this the reforms made to local government, policies directly implemented by central government and the effects of trials and retribution, such as Henry VII’s concessions made to the late 15th century pretenders, Lambert Simnell and Perkin Warbeck and later in the period during Elizabeth’s reign, who recognised rebel Shane O’Neil as Earl of Tyrone, all contributed to the reduction in the frequency and scale of English rebellions. Pre-emptive strikes implemented by Tudor governments were also instrumental, especially during the start of the period in Henry’s reign and later in Elizabeth’s reign, in preventing rebellion or stopping riots from becoming dangerous rebellions. In some areas these strategies and tactics worked better in some areas than others; Irish rebellions were generally more costly and more difficult to suppress.
Tudor governments can be considered to have dealt poorly with rebellion on account of repeated noble support for rebellions throughout the period. The support of the nobility was crucial to maintaining control of the localities and additionally, noble support of a rebellion could increase the risk of a rebellion overthrowing the monarch. This was due to the likely contribution of funds to bolster supplies and troops with the involvement of retainers and experienced foreign mercenaries. Lack of noble co-operation with the government could also increase the threat of rebellion. This can be seen in the Cornish rebellion of