(Original post by miranda123563)
I'd probably put that it was successful as A) Wolsey acted as a peacebroker and bound together 20 European States in the 1518 Treaty of London and largely promoted foreign diplomacy
B) he renewed his title as 'Renaissance king' with the capture of Tournai and Theouroanne
But I'd put against him achieving it
-The cost of his foreign policy and garrisoning of bolounge etc, the fact he had to debase the coinage, between 1511-25 he spent £1.4 mill on foreign policy (a **** tonne in Tudor times) and that his aims were unrealistic
B) that he allied with France!!!! Which was a massive problem as it prevented him from getting his divorce from Catherine of Aragon..
Hi Miranda, I understand that History is a subject 'open to interpretation'- different historians can perceive events in history differently to others and, so long as they justify why, you can put forward a strong argument.
That said, I think you may want to rethink your interpretation of Henry VIII's early foreign policy. Indeed, Henry sought military victory. His aim was to mimic the warrior king triumphs of Henry V and take the French Crown. Unfortunately, Henry did not achieve this. In fact, his foreign policy was one huge incoherent failure.
Yes, it may be perceived that the 1518 Treaty of london was a Diplomatic triumph, and Henry and Wolsey were lionised as the 'authors of Peace.' The best part of the treaty was the fact that all 20 nations that had signed, signed peace with England only- and not with each other. Yes, it opened up trading links with these nations, so it was financially advantageous...But, fundamentally, the treaty contravened Henry's true intentions. Henry wanted war! This treaty put Henry in a position of weakness. Additionally, the Treaty never lasted. War rapidly continued in Europe, and no such crusade against the Ottoman Empire even took place. A Diplomatic triumph? mmm in theory maybe, but a failure in terms of Henry's devout intentions.
Also, the capture of Tounrai and Therounne may have been regarded as a military success...but in reality, these towns were strategically and economically useless. When ever you think of Henry's early foreign policy (and the same can apply to his later policy in the 1540s)- every time he wins, he WINS NOTHING. The two French towns cost thousands to garrison. Eventually, the cost of maintaining the towns became too heavy a burden. Henry had been economically squeezed by the campaign in 1513 which cost him a hefty £300,000...and, as a result, he gave them back to the French. Capturing the towns was as transparent victory. It wasted him money in a politically futile endeavour.
you may also wanna check your dates. Henry didn't debase the coin until 1539 and he captured Boulougne in 1544