It is likely that neither of them is trustworthy sources. Froissart as a clerk in the English chancery was always going to praise the English king. Given that Scotland was going through a period of continuous war with the English at the time it would be likely that Bower would be prone to exaggerate things. It, therefore, seems likely that although Edward III was not the immoral King that Bower said he was that he was also not the chivalrous leader that Froissart claimed he was. This once again shows us Froissart 's viewpoint of chivalry.
The numerous battles didn’t resolve the disagreement between the two, but made things even worse than before. Conclusively, the battles created more struggles in the English Throne than before the conflict began. There have been other family feuds in history that are just like The Wars of the Roses. Even though they are all different, each feud proves that fighting doesn’t resolve disagreements. The Wars of the Roses involved an unnecessary family feud for the English Throne that caused after effects following the wars.
The King was worried that without a son, other countries could overthrow the kingdom easily. Since Catherine was originally married to King Henry’s brother, the king believed that he was being cursed with no sons as a punishment for going against the bible. King Henry also wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon because he was in love with Anne Boleyn during his marriage. Because the Catholic doctrine did not allow for a divorce at the time, King Henry asked the pope to annul Henry’s marriage instead. This clearly did not work, but the king found another way to get what he
Government officials agreed with the Espionage and Seditions Acts. The Acts were passed so that people could not say any statements that could interfere with the success of winning the war. People in the United States wanted to win the war, so they were willing to give up some of their rights. In 1918, Charles T. Schenck was convicted because he violated the Espionage Act. The Supreme Court said that “When a nation is at war many things which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured as long as men fight.” They upheld his conviction and sent him to prison.
Ever since he became Lord Protector of England there have been many interpretations of him. Some say he was an honourable hero while other say he is a vicious villain. Many Puritans and supporters believe he is a hero due to the fact that he abolished the monarchy, which was most despised at the time. He also won the civil war for the Roundheads, and although he was offered the crown, Cromwell refused because he had to intention to be a dictator like the King.
Lincoln felt certain that he would not be reelected because he had received a torrent of criticism throughout the war. Most recently, with the controversial Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln had earned the ire of several. And then when people, specifically Northerners, grew to understand the Proclamation as a way of speeding up the war, (something that had indeed been Lincoln's intention) the frustration against Lincoln only mounted once it appeared that the war was not going to be ending anytime soon. At the same time, Lincoln was rarely being regarded for certain strategic victories, such as the removal of the Confederacy from Tennessee. Lincoln's more realistic goal and Reconstruction plans were met with mixed feelings.
This means that despite the impacts of the war, many in America still believed that America’s role (and the best way to achieve its interests) was by leaving other nations alone. This is because the war was extremely unpopular. Many Americans did not trust that President Wilson campaigned for reelection on a platform of anti-war, but then got the United States involved. They also distrusted that he had promised a just peace in his fourteen point plan, but ended up with secret land deals and a punishing Treaty of Versailles, as opposed to a rehabilitory treaty. As a result, the irreconcilables in Congress voted multiple times to strike down the League of Nations.
With these causes, war is chosen more than peace, and often found as a noble and justified thing to do; however, it can be concluded that war cannot be justified and is not a noble deed. War especially cannot be justified if the option of peace is never explored nor ever acted upon. Although war is not a noble deed, in the time period for the warrior societies in Beowulf, war often lost its nobility because of the wreaking of havoc when a nation suffers a lost and the breaking of pacts and peace agreements, due to a nation’s being in weak state, especially after the loss of a leader. War is a force to be reckoned with and a force that in Beowulf prevailed over all other options of negotiation between clans of
Banquo, who had trusted Macbeth and promised to serve him forever, becomes suspicious and is killed by Macbeth’s hired murderers. His best friend’s betrayal of him is not the only backstab in the story. Another disloyalty happens with the “kings” death. Malcolm, the previous king’s eldest son, knew that the trust has been broken, so he and his brother flee to England in order to survive. So when Macduff goes to Malcolm and asks him to take his rightful place, Malcolm answers, “Boundless temperance in nature is a tyranny; it hath been Th’untimely emptying of the happy throne and the fall of many kings” (4.3.
Already agitated by the British Crown and rule taxation was considered theft for a war they didn’t ask for. Many Americans began to despise monarchy and began to call the actions of the crown unjust. Leading to riots of the actions of the British Government and beginning the sparks for the American Civil War. As we can see the French and Indian War was a long and complicated war. This war caused the final sparks needed to stir up a rebellion by the Colonists in America.