Assess the importance of Economic factors in shaping Tudor ...



Assess the importance of Economic factors in shaping Tudor Foreign Policy

NB I would not worry overly much here about the distinction between economic and financial factors, as I feel that you could look at both.

Introduction/first paragraph

Establish what economic factors are- you may suggest it is both making money through setting up trade networks and agreements, whilst also saving money through avoiding costly foreign conflicts. Clearly such factors were a motive throughout the period, however it is noticeable that they were more of a motive to Henry VII (who had to set up trade links at the start of his reign), Northumberland (who had to deal with the problems posed by Henry VIII’s excessive spending and the collapse of the Antwerp Cloth Market) and Elizabeth as demonstrated by her attempts to break the control of the Spanish over the slave trade in the Americas. It is however important to stress the existence of other motives, and the fact that it was often the need for dynastic/national security that in fact shaped economic/financial policy. If you want to, you could also distinguish between financial and economic

Section 1; When did economic factors shape Tudor foreign policy?

At the start of Henry VII’s reign he was desperate to establish positive trading agreements, as demonstrated by the commercial treaty he signed with the Holy Roman Empire in 1486, the Treaty of Medina Del Campo in 1489 which gave free trade with Spain, and as shown later in his reign by his attempts to break the control of the Hanseatic League in the Baltic. The only other figure he can be compared with is Northumberland, who as Protector faced had to act quickly to minimise the effects of the collapse of the Antwerp Cloth Market, setting up a joint stock company aimed at finding a north east passage to China, and attempting to further trade with Morocco.

Henry VIII (to a small extent) and Elizabeth also showed that they were influenced by economic factors, however this came slightly later in their reigns. The classic example with Henry VIII is 1528 when he abandons attempts to invade the Netherlands, however the marriage to Anne of Cleves in 1540 can be partially seen as an attempt to break into the Baltic trade market. Henry was on the whole not particularly motivated by economic factors (he was driven far more by glory- which tended to be disastrous for economics, wasting huge sums of money and losing valuable trade with france). Elizabeth on the surface appears to be far more motivated by economic factors, as is evidenced by her decision to send Hawkins to the New World in an attempt to break into the lucrative slave market in the 1570’s. Further more, her use of privateers to disrupt Spanish shipping, and her attempts to capture Panama in 1596 (to secure their valuable silver deposits for England) point to the fact that she was incredibly motivated by economic factors (but stress that unlike Henry VII and Northumberland, she was not motivated by such factors at the very start of her reign, where she was more bogged down by events in Scotland and France. It is however extremely difficult to see Mary I as being at all motivated by economic factors.

Section 2 could it be suggested that economic motives masked other more important motives?

Ultimately, the most important motive for any monarch was national/dynastic security, therefore the economic motive of treaties such as Medina Del Campo should not be overated- Henry VII for example remained excluded from trade with the new world after the Spanish discovery in 1492, yet this did not bother him as his principle aim was to secure his dynasty by gaining the support of the Spanish!

The most obvious case of where economic motives masked other more important foreign policy motives is Elizabeth I, whose aggressive economic policies directed at Spain were not aimed at boosting England’s economy, but rather aimed at boosting England’s national security by stopping Spain becoming too powerful.

Section 3; How does the importance of economic motives compare to other foreign policy motives?

The best example of this is Henry VII’s decision to impose a trade embargo on Burgundy from 1493-5 (despite the fact that this meant losing trade with Antwerp) in protest to them supporting Warbeck.

This decision to threaten trade in order to protect dynastic/national security can also be seen to an extent with Henry VIII in 1528 (although he ultimately backed down), and with Elizabeth seizing the Spanish bullion (which led to a 5 year cessation of trade between England and Spain). What do these tell us about the relative importance of economic motives in comparison to other motives?

You could also expand this section to look at the desire to maintain national security, and how this was generally seen as more important than economic factors (e.g. look at the money that monarchs were willing ti spend going to war!)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download