Phillip the Great

Philip II, the father to Alexander the Great quite often goes under the radar due to the successes of his son. But Philip’s legacy is just as important as Alexander’s for one key reason. Alexander would most likely not have succeeded had it not been for Philip.

Was the failure of Jacobitism inevitable?

The rejectionist and optimist claims are outlandish. Rejectionist simply ignore the threat of the Jacobites: they ignore their relative success when they arrived in Derby, they ignore the well-funded invasion threats, they ignore the support within powerful corners of the Tory Party and they ignore the disapproval of many Britons to the Hanoverians. But the optimists are no better. With strong British defences, issues in the compatibility of Jacobites and a small Jacobite presence in Westminster and the nation their chances of success were limited. Instead, the Jacobite success was unlikely but not impossible. The seawall and navy proved strong but not impenetrable. The Tory Party proved to be an unreliable but infiltrated. British support was predominantly Hanoverian but with a skilful Jacobite base. Therefore, the Jacobites were not inevitably going to fail, but they were irrefutably up against it and success was improbable.

Why did Labour replace the Liberal Party as the second main party in British politics after 1918?

The accidentalists consider Liberal capitulation during the Great War as having caused the switch, indeed prior to 1914 the Liberals were in a relatively stable position; entering war was the beginning of the end.[4] Dangerfield argued that Liberal infighting occurred in the early 1910s and that the death took place before a bullet was fired. Dangerfield faced criticism for the death of Liberalism in 1913, but a reformed version of Dangerfield’s argument works. Liberal miscalculations since 1903 brought about their downfall. The current schools are erroneous. Instead the most conclusive answer comes from amalgamating accidentalism and Liberal infighting before the war.