Chapter 3.4
How signi cant was the challenge posed by John Oldcastle’s rebellion in 1414 to the
government of Henry V?
introduction
- the challenge posed bye Oldcastle’s rebellion in 1414 was not a largely signi cant challenge to
Henry V’’s government
- This is due to the (although disputed) small number of people involved and the shoddy nature
of the plot
- However - the rebellion posed a threat in the sense that it stood as an inspiration to future,
serious rebellions - however the legislation passed by parliament made sure this was not the
case
P1
- The challenge posed by Oldcastle’s rebellion to Henry V’s was not hugely signi cant
- Despite rumours that there were 25,000 rebel Lollards which was then repeated bye
chroniclers, only 220 people were known to be involved, and of these, 61 were convicted of
treason
- The rebels were killed (despite oldcastle escaping) and the plot was ill-conceived (disgusting as
actors and entering the royal palace, then kidnapping the king) an was unlikely to ever receive
widespread force - eg replacing Henry as King or making him accept lollard views - not huge
ingenious
- Therefore although it was a challenge to the king - it was a movement which opposed what
Henry stood for and made an attempt on his life - it was not a huge challenge .
- Rather the challenge was a larger one to the church and archbishop Arundel as ideologically it
opposed what the church stood for (lollard teaching taught the church shouldn’t hold huge
wealth, scripture should be available in egnlish, purgatory didn’t exist, pope shouldn’t be
regarded as head of the church) - more so then to the king (Henry)
P2
- however it could be argued that John old castle’s rebellion in 1414 was a signi cant challenge
to Henry v’s government
- He undermined his authority by escaping from prison
- He also posed a threat as he was a previously former close associate of the king and it
occurred early in the reign, before Henry had time to consolidate his position, especially as he
was about to go to France
- However - it was not a major challenge
- He was also able to easily overpower the rebels through a network of spies and then easily
captured the rebel - this enhanced his reputation for omniscience - in a way then it was a
positive to Henry as helped consolidate regime early on
P3
- could be argued it was a large challenge in the long term as it led to further lollard rebellions -
eg Baron Scrope’s rebellion, which was more of a threat as it had support of welsh and Scottish
rebels, and earl of northumberald - and also probably French king to distract him from planned
invasion of France
- This was a long-term signi cant challenge of old castle’s rebellion. And although it was certainly
a challenge, these plots were swiftly thwarted. Henry;s personal authority ad popularity after
success in France meant that any attempts to conspire against the sign would not be popular
- Also the long-term e ects of the rebellion was the Statue of Lollards being passed to crack
down on heresy and lawlessness - the secular judicial system could prosecute Hersey and the
o cers of the crown were responsible for rooting it out. The statute of riots strengthened this
even more by allowing courts to action against escaped criminals (such as Oldcastle)
- Therefore in the long term was not a signi cant challenge to Henry iV’s government either, as it
increased the power of government
Conclusion:
Although Oldcastle’s rebellion of 1414 had the potential to be a challenge due to the timing of it
before Henry had consolidated power and entered France, it was not a sign ciant challenge to
Henry- this is as it strengthened his position and government’s position in the long-term and was
easily defeated. It was a larger challenge for the church
ffi fi ff fi fi fifi fifi
, Chapter 3.4
How accurate is it to say that Henry V’s campaigns in France were a complete success in
the years 1415–21?
Introduction
- It is accurate to say that Henry V’s campaigns in France were a complete success in the years
1415-21
- Due to a mix of luck and skill, the French were defeated on multiple occasions and lost
signi cant strongholds and were forced to sign the Treaty of Troyes which gave the English crown
power over some of France
- Henry V’s campaigns were a complete success as they succeeded militarily, politically and
increased his own personal power and prestige
P1
- the campaigns in 1415 were a complete success
- The English took Har eur and then proceeded to Calais after crossing the River Somme
- At the Battle of Agincourt, the English won a signi cant victory over the French. Although they
su ered losses, the French had far more signi cant losses , enhanced by Henry’s decision to
kill prisoners he took - including 1,500 knights and 120 barons = military success
- Could be argued that wasn’t successful as English su ered losses eg Edward duke of York,
however this is less convincing as despite being outnumbered the English still won and su ered
far fewer losses - the battle is seen as a factor in shaping English patriotic pride
- It secured Henry v’s place as a military hero = success - when he returned there were
processions, celebrations, feasts etc and before he even returned, parliament had agreed to
give him generous taxation revenue with little requested in return. Parliament were also
enthusiastic in funding further military campaigns
- Also seen as bringing Henry’s reign political stability - seen as being the rightful, god chosen
king and a strong militarily defender , and reduced threats of French invasion (signi cant during
reign of Richard II) and of French naval raids on the south coast (a feature of Henry VI reign)
- Therefore was a military, personal and political success = It is accurate that Henry v’s campaign
1415 was a complete success
P2
- the campaign 1417-20 were also completely successful
- Henry aimed to conquer Normandy and brought an army of 10,500 over. They were successful
in capturing city after city - eg Caen, Cherbourg , Rouen - all important
- They seiged them, and then established a system of government within it to consolidate power.
Eg in Rouen, the city was seiged for several months, then ned the city £50,000 and was forced
to recognise Henry as their feudal lord after he seized the castle (politically signi cant as usually
held by Duke of Normandy)
- The Burgundian / Armagnac con ict also bene tted Henry V’s campaigns in francs as it led to
futture success as the Burgundians allied themselves with Henry
- This led to the successful (for the English) Treaty of Troyes, which recognised Henry as a heir to
the throne until Charles VI died, Henry married the French princess, Henry ruled as regent of
France, Normandy regarded as separate to France until the king died, and made a formal
alliance w Burgundy
- Therefore the second campaign was also a complete success as it gave Henry huge amounts
of power and was politically and militarily bene cial as well = whole success
P3
- however could be argued that the campaigns were not a complete success as they led to a
nancial burden.
- The military campaigns were funded through heavy taxation packages which placed
considerable strain on nance in England - there was growing concern about royal nance .
Although parliament wanted the French conquests to fund the French conquests ie taxing the
French, this was unrealistic due to huge damage in France - eg Gascony’s wine exports were
heavily depleted and due to population displacement and poor weather meaning a low harvest
there was much starvation
- Therefore it could be argued that the nancial issues meant that Henry V’s campaigns 1415-21
were not a complete success
fi ff fi
fl fi fl fi fififi fi ff fi fi fifi ff
How signi cant was the challenge posed by John Oldcastle’s rebellion in 1414 to the
government of Henry V?
introduction
- the challenge posed bye Oldcastle’s rebellion in 1414 was not a largely signi cant challenge to
Henry V’’s government
- This is due to the (although disputed) small number of people involved and the shoddy nature
of the plot
- However - the rebellion posed a threat in the sense that it stood as an inspiration to future,
serious rebellions - however the legislation passed by parliament made sure this was not the
case
P1
- The challenge posed by Oldcastle’s rebellion to Henry V’s was not hugely signi cant
- Despite rumours that there were 25,000 rebel Lollards which was then repeated bye
chroniclers, only 220 people were known to be involved, and of these, 61 were convicted of
treason
- The rebels were killed (despite oldcastle escaping) and the plot was ill-conceived (disgusting as
actors and entering the royal palace, then kidnapping the king) an was unlikely to ever receive
widespread force - eg replacing Henry as King or making him accept lollard views - not huge
ingenious
- Therefore although it was a challenge to the king - it was a movement which opposed what
Henry stood for and made an attempt on his life - it was not a huge challenge .
- Rather the challenge was a larger one to the church and archbishop Arundel as ideologically it
opposed what the church stood for (lollard teaching taught the church shouldn’t hold huge
wealth, scripture should be available in egnlish, purgatory didn’t exist, pope shouldn’t be
regarded as head of the church) - more so then to the king (Henry)
P2
- however it could be argued that John old castle’s rebellion in 1414 was a signi cant challenge
to Henry v’s government
- He undermined his authority by escaping from prison
- He also posed a threat as he was a previously former close associate of the king and it
occurred early in the reign, before Henry had time to consolidate his position, especially as he
was about to go to France
- However - it was not a major challenge
- He was also able to easily overpower the rebels through a network of spies and then easily
captured the rebel - this enhanced his reputation for omniscience - in a way then it was a
positive to Henry as helped consolidate regime early on
P3
- could be argued it was a large challenge in the long term as it led to further lollard rebellions -
eg Baron Scrope’s rebellion, which was more of a threat as it had support of welsh and Scottish
rebels, and earl of northumberald - and also probably French king to distract him from planned
invasion of France
- This was a long-term signi cant challenge of old castle’s rebellion. And although it was certainly
a challenge, these plots were swiftly thwarted. Henry;s personal authority ad popularity after
success in France meant that any attempts to conspire against the sign would not be popular
- Also the long-term e ects of the rebellion was the Statue of Lollards being passed to crack
down on heresy and lawlessness - the secular judicial system could prosecute Hersey and the
o cers of the crown were responsible for rooting it out. The statute of riots strengthened this
even more by allowing courts to action against escaped criminals (such as Oldcastle)
- Therefore in the long term was not a signi cant challenge to Henry iV’s government either, as it
increased the power of government
Conclusion:
Although Oldcastle’s rebellion of 1414 had the potential to be a challenge due to the timing of it
before Henry had consolidated power and entered France, it was not a sign ciant challenge to
Henry- this is as it strengthened his position and government’s position in the long-term and was
easily defeated. It was a larger challenge for the church
ffi fi ff fi fi fifi fifi
, Chapter 3.4
How accurate is it to say that Henry V’s campaigns in France were a complete success in
the years 1415–21?
Introduction
- It is accurate to say that Henry V’s campaigns in France were a complete success in the years
1415-21
- Due to a mix of luck and skill, the French were defeated on multiple occasions and lost
signi cant strongholds and were forced to sign the Treaty of Troyes which gave the English crown
power over some of France
- Henry V’s campaigns were a complete success as they succeeded militarily, politically and
increased his own personal power and prestige
P1
- the campaigns in 1415 were a complete success
- The English took Har eur and then proceeded to Calais after crossing the River Somme
- At the Battle of Agincourt, the English won a signi cant victory over the French. Although they
su ered losses, the French had far more signi cant losses , enhanced by Henry’s decision to
kill prisoners he took - including 1,500 knights and 120 barons = military success
- Could be argued that wasn’t successful as English su ered losses eg Edward duke of York,
however this is less convincing as despite being outnumbered the English still won and su ered
far fewer losses - the battle is seen as a factor in shaping English patriotic pride
- It secured Henry v’s place as a military hero = success - when he returned there were
processions, celebrations, feasts etc and before he even returned, parliament had agreed to
give him generous taxation revenue with little requested in return. Parliament were also
enthusiastic in funding further military campaigns
- Also seen as bringing Henry’s reign political stability - seen as being the rightful, god chosen
king and a strong militarily defender , and reduced threats of French invasion (signi cant during
reign of Richard II) and of French naval raids on the south coast (a feature of Henry VI reign)
- Therefore was a military, personal and political success = It is accurate that Henry v’s campaign
1415 was a complete success
P2
- the campaign 1417-20 were also completely successful
- Henry aimed to conquer Normandy and brought an army of 10,500 over. They were successful
in capturing city after city - eg Caen, Cherbourg , Rouen - all important
- They seiged them, and then established a system of government within it to consolidate power.
Eg in Rouen, the city was seiged for several months, then ned the city £50,000 and was forced
to recognise Henry as their feudal lord after he seized the castle (politically signi cant as usually
held by Duke of Normandy)
- The Burgundian / Armagnac con ict also bene tted Henry V’s campaigns in francs as it led to
futture success as the Burgundians allied themselves with Henry
- This led to the successful (for the English) Treaty of Troyes, which recognised Henry as a heir to
the throne until Charles VI died, Henry married the French princess, Henry ruled as regent of
France, Normandy regarded as separate to France until the king died, and made a formal
alliance w Burgundy
- Therefore the second campaign was also a complete success as it gave Henry huge amounts
of power and was politically and militarily bene cial as well = whole success
P3
- however could be argued that the campaigns were not a complete success as they led to a
nancial burden.
- The military campaigns were funded through heavy taxation packages which placed
considerable strain on nance in England - there was growing concern about royal nance .
Although parliament wanted the French conquests to fund the French conquests ie taxing the
French, this was unrealistic due to huge damage in France - eg Gascony’s wine exports were
heavily depleted and due to population displacement and poor weather meaning a low harvest
there was much starvation
- Therefore it could be argued that the nancial issues meant that Henry V’s campaigns 1415-21
were not a complete success
fi ff fi
fl fi fl fi fififi fi ff fi fi fifi ff
