Do you agree with the view that Henry VIIIs foreign policy in the years 1514-25 failed because he lacked the resources to fulfill his aims?

The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many factors. Undoubtedly, the lack of resources was one of the main factors that contributed to the failure of Henry's foreign policy. However there are other factors that contributed to Henry being unable to fulfil his aims. Sources 4 and 6, both support the fact that the foreign policy did fail because of the lack of resources to fulfill the King’s aims. However all sources also suggest other possibilities to Henry's failed foreign policy.
As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war, perhaps to show off his power. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country. Henry's father, Henry VII, left the country in quite a stable state economically, but Henry devoted most of England's money into his campaigns to take over France. To some extent source 4 supports the idea that the foreign policy did fail due to the lack of resources, because it states that “the young warrior family accepted the fact that royal finances could not support a repetition of the campaign of 1513”. This quote implies that lack of resources seems to be the dominant reason for stopping Henry from invading France and therefore source 4 supports the statement to some extent. In the years 1514-25, it's clear that Henry VIIIs foreign policy failed, because instead of becoming the king of France like Henry thought he could, 'Henry made peace with him." Source 4 is a contemporary source. It's an extract from a book written by Keith Randell who is a historian. This source can be considered reliable because the author would have more time to look at plenty of information related to this topic. Therefore he would use this information to give a complete overview of what was happening at that time and would not be influenced to misrepresent the facts. However source 4 was written 400 years after the events and therefore the perspective with which one looks might change, altering the whole meaning of an event.
It was clear that Henry lacked the basic economic resources that he needed in his aims to become king of France and due to this; the whole of the foreign policy was affected. Evidently the royal finances did limit Henry’s chances of invading France, because he simply could not afford the troops weapons and other essential supplies needed for war, making it impossible to fulfill his aims. At the time, Parliament was not supportive of a war with France, because it could turn into a very expensive and drawn out affair, which England could not afford. Nevertheless, King Henry was determined to invade France and he followed Cardinal Wolsey’s advice and imposed the Amicable Grant to fund the invasion. Finally the King began to look forward to war. Unfortunately for him the public were outraged by the tax, and many refused to pay it. Most people were overtaxed as it was, paying other taxes on top of the Amicable Grant, as well as a subsidy passed in 1523. As a result in 1925 Wolsey recognized that the Amicable Grant would do more harm than good and convinced Henry to repeal it. This suggests that the lack of resources made it impossible for henry to be unable to fulfill his aims.
The letter from archbishop Warham in source 6, tells us that people of England did not want to pay the Amicable Grant because they “complain that the last loan is not repaid, nor this will be” and “some would give, but cannot”. On one hand this suggests that people of England were unsupportive and unwilling to finance him. On the other hand this implies that some people didn't trust Henry with his decisions or could simply not afford to pay the tax. Additionally this also suggests that Henry did not care about his people, because he didn’t understand that did not have that much money to pay for the amicable grant. Finally this suggests that Henry only cared about fulfilling his own aims such as going to war. This implies that the lack of resources was again the main obstacle for henry to fulfill his aims. However source 6 states that Henry “had not lacked the riches and wisdom to win the kingdom of France if he had thought of it worthwhile” and suggests that the foreign policy did not fail only because of lack of resources but also because of Henry’s lack of knowledge. This source also tells us that some people at the time said that “all the sums already spent on the invasion of France have not gained the King a foot more land than his father had” which suggests that people did not see the point of invading France considering that the last invasion failed and therefore it is obvious that they did not want to spend their money on something that may also fail. Overall this source suggests that Henry lacked both the resources but also knowledge to defeat France in battle. Although the source was written at the time (meaning that the information in the source wasn't distorted), the reliability of this source remains questionable. This is because it was written by William Warham, the archbishop of Canterbury, who strongly opposed to war and as a result the source might have been influenced by Warham’s opinions, because Henry’s main ambition was to go to war. Therefore the overall accuracy of the information in the source is uncertain.
In source 5 the cause of failure of the foreign policy was partly luck, within a year after the treaty of London, Emperor Maximilian died. The source states that “the treaty was wholly at the mercy of shifts in ‘great power’ politics” and that “The victory of Charles V in the imperial election (…) caused the greatest of these shifts”. This suggests that the election of Charles V has brought an imbalance of power and thus the break of the treaty of London. However the quote: “The treaty was wholly at the mercy of shifts in ‘great power’ politics” also suggests that the lack of resources was yet again a problem, because if England had been more resourceful it could have aligned the balance of power and hence preserved The Treaty of London. Source 5 is a secondary source and was not written by people who experienced these events. Therefore this source can be limited. On the other hand this source is from a history book written by a historian. This means that he is an expert who has already analyzed a number of primary sources and has used them to reconstruct the past.

The Treaty of London in 1918 was a treaty of peace between all the great nations as well as some lesser powers. The Pope, the Empire, Spain, France, England, Scotland, Venice, Florence, the Swiss, Burgundy and the Netherlands all agreed not to attack each other and to come to the aid of the other nations if they were attacked. The treaty of London was a diplomatic triumph for Wolsey and certainly showed Henry in an extraordinarily good light. In 1519 Maximilian died and his grandson Charles V was elected Holy roman emperor. As he was also ruler of Spain, Burgundy and the Netherlands his territories covered a large area and encircled France. Francis had also hoped to be elected and the failure renewed his interest in Italy. All this caused relations between him and Charles to break down. Henry, in his quest to be the peace maker of Europe, tried to act as an arbiter between them both. In reality he was playing them off against each other but they were also doing the same to him. Source 4 tells us that Henry’s “allies proved unscrupulous and unreliable” and left Henry to “fight alone”. This implies that one of the factors that contributed to the failure of the foreign policy was also the fact that Henry’s allies were unreliable.
In 1520 Francis requested a meeting with Henry so Wolsey started preparing an extravagant spectacle. At the same time he also arranged a meeting with Charles so as to keep both of them on side. The kings set out to impress and outshine each other, arriving at the meeting with large retinues. The meeting, which had taken place over three weeks nearly bankrupted France and England, and was useless politically. Francis and Henry signed no treaty, and a few weeks later Henry signed a treaty of alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V. Within a month, the Emperor declared war on Francis and England had to follow. In august 1523, Henry had an opportunity to undermine Francis’s power when the French king was faced with a serious rebellion from Charles, Duke of Bourbon who was a French noble who felt that he had been denied his territorial inheritance by Francis. Henry and Bourbon planned an assault involving imperial and English troops. The English force cost 400,000 pounds and the rebellion came to nothing. The English army fell apart due to a lack of supplies and the bad weather conditions. This suggests that the failure of the foreign policy was also caused by Henry’s bad decisions. If Henry and Wolsey didn't make such rushed decisions, then maybe he wouldn’t have lacked the resources in the first place. If his money was not wasted on unneeded events such as the Field Of Cloth of Gold then perhaps he would have had the money and resources in order to fulfill his aims. In addition, between 1523 and 1525 Charles was aware England’s loyalty was fading, because Wolsey was eager to make general peace with France. Henry thought that he could profit from Charles’s victory over the French in 1525. Henry hoped that he could lay claim to the French crown. However Charles did not allow it. Indecisiveness, unrealistic aims and constant switching of allies could also be the reasons for the failure of Henry’s foreign policy. It is possible that if England allied itself with Spain from the beginning, eventually it would have benefited greatly. Instead the alliances were constantly changed which encouraged betrayal and plotting.
In conclusion the lack of resources was a main and long term factor that contributed to the failure of Henry's foreign policy. Henry did not help himself or his country, when he continued to waste money on unneeded events such as the Field Of Cloth of Gold. All of the sources seem to prove that the foreign policy did fail because of the lack of resources. The evidence on the lack of resources in sources 4, 5 and 6 outweighs the information about other factors such as Henry’s lack of wisdom or unreliable allies. However Henry’s indecisiveness and bad decisions were also important factors that contributed to the failure of his foreign policy. Therefore it can be said that that this failure was caused by variety of factors. Overall, the lack of resources was the main cause of the foreign policy failure, but there were also more, smaller contributing factors.