Philip Augustus 's Success Of The Angevin 's Failure

The late seventeenth, the eighteenth, and the early nineteenth centuries saw political issues move away from religion and onto the issue of monarchies, especially of France and England. During this time, France’s power waned due to bad leadership while England’s, and later Great Britain's, power increased due to technology and overseas colonies.

However, when examining to what extent Machiavelli's maxims on ruler ship applied to Richelieu's own experiences, it is important to understand that a state's domestic affairs and it's international ones are mutually constitutive. It is apparent that the issue of internal security was crucial and impacted France's status in the international arena. From 1624-8, Richelieu's foreign policy was jeopardized by national concerns: the revolt of the Huguenots and inconveniences resulting from those who directly opposed him within France, specifically the noblesse and the peasantry. With increasingly power-acquiring factions, Richelieu understood that the greater part of educated, intelligent French citizens wished for a sound

In 1661 Louis appointed Jean-Baptiste Colbert as controller general of finances. This proved to be very successful in adding to the increase of France’s economy, and it helped Louis achieve his second goal of having “one law.” Colbert’s ideas were similar to that of mercantilism. He insisted on having an economic system that would make France a self-sufficient powerful country where they exported more than they imported. He improved France’s economy through the invention of a merchant marine fleet, the support of industries, the control of tariffs on French goods, and the collection of taxes. All of these gained money for France, which led to the creation of a powerful army. Due to a powerful army, France was able to secure its natural frontiers, even in the North East, which was France’s weakest natural border. While Louis claimed a flaw of his was that, “I loved war too much,” he was able to make a strong French presence in Europe, adding to his idea of “one law.”

Of all the absolute rulers in Europe, by far the best example of one, and the most powerful, was Louis XIV of France. Although Louis had some failures, he also had many successes. He controlled France’s money and had many different ways to get, as well as keep his power, and he knew how to delegate jobs to smart, but loyal people.

banner and quarreled with Philip Augustus, who returned to France after the fall of Acre. Richard’s candidate for the crown of

The twelfth century saw the demographic growth that led to the concentration of people into larger, more tangible and permanent towns outside of the feudal system. These large towns became centers of trade and monetary exchanges that would allow kings to tax their

How can one separate a mere normal man from a king? And which is more important between men with a passion from a man with a selfish desire? King Louis XVI was an example of a king unfit to rule. We will discuss King Louis’s early life, his reign as king, and the role he played in the French revolution.

The Capetians had no effect on the government and society of France. They lacked both the charisma and ruthlessness that characterized some of the greatest medieval kings, and failed to inspire either awe or fear, much less respect. They only ruled small holdings in Ile-de-France and the Orléanais, which were plagued with disorder and rivals. The Capetian dynasty reigned over France from 987 to 1328, a period which met a lot of resistance and victories alike. In the long list of Capetian monarchs, Hugh Capet was the first of many to tarnish the reputation of the Capetians. He was presented as a weak and unimposing king, a territorial prince with little authority beyond his principality, and who only survived because of the incompetence of his opponents (Bradbury 72). Hugh had an inglorious reign, brief and without prestige. His unexceptional rule triggered the weak dynasty that is often associated with the early

To what extent was Augustus ' achievement of power a continuation of the phenomenon we have been examining throughout this course? How was Augustus different? By the time of his death in AD 14, what had changed since the epoch of Scipio Aemilianus?

Philip's character itself is a critical as his personality and characteristics convey, not only himself, but also his empire to others. It is believed by some historians that Philip was a far poorer leader than his father, Charles I, who had reigned before him. Philip grew up to be an outsider and carried this flaw with him into leadership. He never fully trusted anyone and so was incapable

“I transferred the Republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome” Did Augustus Restore The Republic?

Augustus, during his reign as emperor proved effective in ruling through the ideas he implemented to solidify his country. Tacitus stated “nullo adversante” which translates into English “Wholly unopposed” (http://janusquirinus.org/Quotes/QuotesHome.html) this identifies the effectiveness of his reign and the strength he had politically over Rome. Important actions such as the creation of religious and moral reforms, the constitutional agreement and the implementation of the building programme all succeeded in creating stability within the Roman Empire.

On the 23rd of September 63BC a baby boy was born. Little did his family know that this amazing child was going to be one of the greatest politicians in Rome, he was also going to touch the lives of many Roman Citizens and to be remembered by thousands of people many years after his death. He was to rule an empire that stretched from Spain to Judea. Turn the Mediterranean Sea into a peaceful Roman Lake and was eventually to be worshipped as a god. The future Emperor of Rome was called Gaius Julius Octavious, whom we all know now as Augustus.

In July 1830 a second French Revolution caused the then monarch, Charles X, to abdicate. He was replaced by the Duke of Orleans, marking the end of the Bourbon restoration, which had seen the Pre-Napoleonic regime return to power after the emperor’s exile. Although it lasted 15 years, and must therefore be judged as having its successes, cracks began to form in the regime and general dissatisfaction led to outspread revolt and revolution. It can therefore be established that some fault does indeed lie with the Bourbons. However how much blame can be apportioned to them?

With this victory Phillip gained some control over the Mediterranean and his naval dominance was at its peak. Phillip also had control over the Spanish Netherlands which were another important source of wealth. Phillip II’s high tax in the Netherland’s trading system brought upon rebellions which Phillip was unable to shut down easily. In the end only some parts of The Netherlands remained catholic and loyal to Phillip II. Lastly Since there was an alliance between the rebelling Netherlands and England; Phillip planed revenge on England on 1587 not only for revenge but also for hopes of making it catholic once more. To activate his revenge, Phillip gathered a large fleet also known as the “Great Armada” and sent it towards England. Everyone had expected a victory from Phillip II but as the large fleet headed for England it ended up in the middle of a storm which shipwrecked a large portion of the fleet. To Phillips surprise his fleet was weakened furthermore by England’s strategic naval attack using fire ships. Lastly, since Phillip was a pure catholic like his father. He held on to the inquisition policy which targeted mainly Protestants like Calvinists. It was a mistake because it caused uneasiness between Catholicism and Protestantism in Spain. In conclusion Phillip II of Spain not only caused an economic depression for his nation but he destroyed its naval force, was unable to efficiently suppress uprisings in the