How important was foreign support for Henry Tudor in explaining Richard III’s defeat at Bosworth? Foreign support was instrumental in allowing Henry Tudor to defeat Richard at the battle of Bosworth, if it were not for the support that Henry gained from foreign sources he could not have invaded England. Henry Tudor spent 14 years in exile in Brittany and France, with his chances of claiming the throne of England fading as Edward IV’s second reign proved stable and his heir approached adulthood. However after Richards usurpation of his nephews throne Henry’s court in grew especially after the Buckingham Revolt, but required assistance from the King of France (men and ships) before he could land in Wales and begin the march to Bosworth. When the French king heard about the alliance between Richard III and the Duke of Brittany he decided to back Henry Tudor as he felt they might have joined together against France also he thought that Duke of Brittany was too powerful and by helping Tudor would weaken Brittany. Charles VIII of France supplied Henry with the means by which to invade and the nucleus of an army. When Henry Tudor was in France he did not know if h had any support for when he arrived so the men he had been given by the French king were extremely important as they were the ones who would help him defeat Richard III at the battle of Bosworth. Clearly foreign support made the invasion possible, but it could not mean the invasion would be a definitive success. Philibert de Chandee who led the French mercenaries given to Henry played a crucial role in the defeat of Richard at Bosworth. Following Richard’s reckless charge at Henry in the hope that he would be able to kill Henry in hand to hand fighting, Chandee manage... ... middle of paper ... ...The foreign support that Henry received was pivotal in starting Henry Tudor’s second attempt at invading England as otherwise he would never have been able to land and gather troops and support from domestic sources. However, once in England the support that Henry gained from welsh and English nobles and Barons meant that he was able to face Richard and defeat him at the Battle of Bosworth. Whilst support is vastly important in explaining Richard’s defeat, other factors such as Richard’s mistakes like policies that drained the Treasury (e.g. the war against Scotland) are to blame. This particular mistake prevented Richard from being able to stop Tudor from crossing the channel, and so it was left up to nobles Richard believed to be loyal to resist the invasion, this belief also backfired when Rhys ap Thomas joined Henry when he was promised the Lieutenancy of Wales.
Lambert Simnel as a Greater Threat to the Security of Henry VII than Perkin Warbec
Henry had no means of knowing how much support the rebels might attract when they landed. This suggests that Henry was not fully aware or informed of the rebellion and therefore was unsure what to do. Without knowing fully about the challenge the success with which he could deal with the challenge was severely undermined. Henry raised an army to answer the rebellion and on the 16th June, the two armies met at East Stoke; just outside Newark.
Another cause for his unpopularity was the question of benevolences. When he was crowned Richard promised to stop the use of benevolences as this was particularly disliked by the nobles. However because of the war with Scotland , the threat of Henry and rebellions Richard had to later ask for benevolences once again. This made him even more
He eventually was weakening the nations funding in huge amounts. Richard had made large mistakes in his previous years, including when he offered the Duke of Brittany a whole legion of British Archers in return for Henry as a prisoner. This event backfired when Henry fled to France after hearing of the plot, he then revealed this offer to the King of France, which enraged him, as the British were cooperating with the Bretons. The King of France gave Henry huge support, including financial backing, and military backing so that he could overthrow Richard III. It is certain that lacking this support Henry Tudors attempted revolt would have been suppressed.
Although there are many examples of extreme factors that contributed to instability of England. Other historians talk say that the loss of Normandy did have a huge effect on England and English rule at the time and still is the major contributor to the Battle of St. Albans which would be the start of War of the
France chose of deciding to side with america was a part of the outcome. Although they had doubts if they would win, having some type of loyalty made a big difference in the outcome. France did not just only helped by providing soldiers but also ideas in how to attack and when to attack. During the American Revolution many battles were fought that created changes in America but only one battle lead to America’s independence that battle was “The Battle of
...ample. Henry VIII was also responsible for the religious reformation in England and changed the religion of England from the Roman Catholic faith to the Protestant Religion, and established the Church of England. If it weren’t for King Henry VIII, England would not have been as wealthy as it was because of the dissolution of the monasteries. The Act of Appeals aided the constitutional development of England, once again, all thanks to Henry VIII.
Henry II also controlled a lot of France at this time. William the Conqueror had been his great-grandfather and he had inherited his French territories as a result of this. When Henry was in France sorting out problems there, he left Becket in charge of England - such was his trust in him. Becket became Henry’s chancellor - the most important position in England after the king.
However, he didn't listen to the duke of york who desperately wanted a say. This could have been another reason for the outbreak of conflict because the people didn't think he always made the right decision and the duke of York didn't like not being listened to. Another problem was with patronage, as Henry was overgenerous, but only to some people, he would give lots of patronage to Somerset and Suffolk but none to York. This was even worse because he had borrowed from York and instead if paying him back, gave patronage to others. He gave away more and more money and land so that there wasn't much left for important times like war and to make people happy or come onto his side.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
I side with Loades on this as despite resentment from the nobles, after the Perkin Warbeck imposture there were no more serious uprisings which strongly support the success of Henry’s policies. Whilst most nobles would see his methods as unjust (especially the wide of use bonds and recognisances) Henry succeeded in increasing the crown’s standing at the expense of the nobility, securing his position whilst weakening the nobles. Through most of his policies Henry was successful in limiting the powers of nobility. Henry sought to restrict the noble’s power and yet at the same time needed them to keep order and represent him at local levels, therefore Henry sought not to destroy the nobles but to weaken them enough that they did not pose a threat, he needed a balance of control over the nobles and strong nobility.
Wars of the Roses were not suitably displayed. The participants in Shakespeare’s Richard III were Henry Tudor, Clarence,
...historical background set forth in the film, with the broad details of the attempted rebellion propelled by Queen Eleanor and led by Richard and Geoffrey are accurate, as is the attempt by Philip of France to undermine the Angevin Empire to regain the provinces acquired by Henry through his marriage to Eleanor. As depicted in the film, the indecision, faced by Henry II in attempting to determine which son to name as successor resulted from his desire to have the empire that he had created remain intact, rather than dividing the empire between his sons and this, in turn, led to the fracturing of both family and political cohesion, leaving the empire vulnerable to outside forces. Both Richard and John eventually ruled the empire, supported and influenced by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was released from her Salisbury prison upon the death of King Henry II.
First, England protects us from enemy’s attack or during fight. England sent General Edward Braddock to help us to force French out of the land during the French and Indian War. Even though Braddock failed, we were thankful to England for helping them. Also, for consequent,
Nevertheless, as a man of action, Bolingbroke has achieved for himself the goal of retrieving his father Gaunt's estates and much more. He, in the end, is king, King Henry IV. And though Richard as king was full of pomp and ceremony, those things were no match for ambition carried to its fullest. His strong words belied incompetence as a ruler, and he could not hold his position. It seems that it was inevitable that Bolingbroke would be the victor at last. Richard should have taken more note of his usurper, before he was such, this man he called "[Gaunt's] bold son" (1.1.3).