Henry VII was born in 1457 and died in 1509. His son with Elizabeth of York: Henry VIII was born in 1491 and died in 1547. Both kings are incredibly famous and changed England beyond belief, but who was the better king? Let 's find out…
Firstly, in terms of relations with foreign countries, I believe Henry VII was better. He took a non military/ no war approach to dealing with foreign affairs while Henry VIII took a more confrontational approach, for example his invasion of France. Henry VII established good trade relations with the Happisburgh Empire (Germany and Austria) and France. He also used marriage to make alliances with other foreign countries and to keep the peace between countries. One example of this is when he married his son Arthur to Catherine of Aragon from Spain. Sadly, Arthur died, but King Henry VII, not wanting to make Catherine’s father angry arranged a marriage between Catherine and his next son Henry VIII. When Henry VIII came to the throne he wanted to be a powerful king throughout Europe. For the first two years of his reign, he took a non military approach like his father, but after this he began to take a more confrontational approach. One of his main aims was to win back land in France conquered by Henry V and to lay a claim to the French throne. Sadly, he did not achieve this and did not have enough resources to defeat the French while they had a wide range of resources at their disposal. Another negative was that Henry was also manipulated
He did point out that he was tired of trying to get the England to understand. Patrick Henry was and anti-federalist. He wanted to go to war. He wanted the power of Britain by attacking
I think Henry’s views on whether or not to declare war against the British are entirely justified. Throughout history, there
Conclusion Patrick Henry’s speech was very powerful and moving for numerous reasons. First, he used a correct blend of logical and emotional appeals. Adding on, he used allusion to allow the audience to compare their situations to other situations, and rhetorical questions to get them to really think about the topic at hand. Also, his occasion, tone, and purpose of the speech all was appropriate for their status at the time. Over all, Patrick Henry’s speech was stronger than Jonathan Edward’s speech whose main issue was his tone, taking away his emotion and his purpose of the sermon.
To those who are weary of going to war and wish to seek a different route he explains “We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated, have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne” (Henry 2) While hope is important he implies it is foolish to hope for a resolution to this particular problem that does not include war, and at this point war is both inevitable and
Using his powers of leadership, he encourages his troops to put up the fight of their lives by stating that they will “close up the wall with our English dead” if they lose. As well as encouraging, he has also trained his archers and provided them with swords and axes. Additionally, Henry has to express pathos, in other words emotion.
Patrick Henry had the four Rhetorical Strategy to show the power of his argument to fight the England. The England may have had a bigger army but they didn’t give up what they had believed for freedom and to be with their families. Patrick Henry had a goal with the “Speech of the Virginia Convention” that he conquered to make it
First, he threw out the situation to the audience that they won’t have the peace through negotiations, the only way to achieve peace is to fight for their own; the war was around the corner and it was an unconquerable tide. To continuously argue that the inevitability of the war, Henry compared the coming war to the “gale “ that “sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms.” And then, he said a lot of questions to raise the empathy of the convention, some of those were rhetorical questions; some were used to inspire people to ask themselves inside.
Did you ever consider whether King George or George Washington would be better suited to lead? King George was not a bad leader as everyone claimed he was. King George and George Washington were both good leaders, but when you look deeper, you will realize who really was the better leader; King George. Thus, I believe King George would be better suited to lead, because King George was taught to be a leader since he was little, King George took care of his men well, and King George did what was best for the people. First of all, King George was raised being taught how to be a good leader since he was little, and he was born into a long history of kings and queens that all were experienced leaders.
Shakespeare’s play, Henry V, portrays the newly crowned king of England, King Henry V, as a committed, fearless, and relentless leader. France is England’s archenemy and their relationship only worsens after the Dauphin delivers a mocking message to England’s new king. The Dauphin frequently ridicules the English and King Henry, whereas, the King of France, Charles VI, does not underestimate Henry and his people as his son does. (Source B) Throughout the play, the two leaders display their differences in terms of personality, leadership, communication skills, and ethics.
He needed to get them to refuse to be a dog to the British and get the freedom they deserve. He used pathos as a persuasive technique in his speech to highlight fear and emotion to scare the colonists into agreeing with him. “I know of how way of judging the future but by the past.” (Henry 110) This was an effective quote because it is showing no matter what Henry is there with the colonist through this journey and that he cannot tell them exactly what is going to happen, but he can make a presumption based on what has already happened.
He had many wars that he fought in order to increase his land. He grew the country the France with these wars. By growing the land that France owned he increased his power by increasing the amount of people he ruled over, and also gained the respect of the people making it easier for him to be an absolute
He gives credit to their power as coming only from God and give the credit of raising up allies. Henry argues that the country should fight. In order to support his argument, he uses an appeal of vanity to point out he wants peace. Leading to this, Henry talks about working together and fight. Henry reveals his idea when he states, “ Peace, Peace”.
King Henry is portrayed to us as the main leader within the English ranks and an important component of their strategy. One characteristic of Henry’s leadership is that he is able to forge close connections with his men. During the Battle of Harfleur, we see him describe his men as “dear
He got his divorce and stayed on the throne” (Hung). In addition to the fall of Queen Catherine, others were punished for dishonoring the king’s commands. This included, the king’s Minister, Cardinal Wolsey, who “failed to get the divorce from Rome” (David 420 ). Evidently, Henry VIII was willing to do anything it took to get rid of people who dissatisfied him. This connects to the Code of Chivalry because similar to the relationship between knights and their King, Henry VII expected his wives and court members to maintain their loyalty.
Henry’s temper is hard for him to control because he is sometimes faced with situations when he cannot distinguish between King Henry and friend Henry. This duality, paired with the duality that is being a king is an obvious cause for confusion and rage. Henry had such a strong bond with his old friends, that when his new friends were so quick to betray him he was deeply hurt. Another time Henry exhibits incomplete control of his temper is during the battle of Agincourt. Throughout the battle, Henry’s soldiers have taken many French soldiers prisoner and seem to have the advantage.