TWE was Elizabeth's government a turning point in how Tudor monarchs dealt with rebellions?

Elizabeth's government can be considered a turning point in regards to her strategies and tactics
that were used to supress rebellions. Whilst it is true that all of the Tudor Monarchs utilised armies
and military force in order to supress rebellions throughout the tudor period, none went to the
extent that Elizabeth as shown through the Tyrone rebellion where there were roughly 30,000
English troops deployed against the 6000 Irish rebels over the 9 year period that the rebellion
occurred for. Typically, Elizabeth’s main method of getting rid of rebellion was to gather a large army
and deal with the rebels through military power, even against the smallest rebellion of the Tudor
period, Oxfordshire. Not only did Elizabeth use a disproportionate amount of troops compared to
other rebellions (The Pilgrimage of Grace consisted of around 30,000 but was faced by 8000 troops),
but she also was one to refuse to negotiate with the rebels. We see with the majority other Tudor
monarchs that they were willing to negotiate with the rebels and won through this method as shown
by the Pilgrimage of Grace, the massive rebellion was promised pardons by the Duke of Norfolk if
they dispersed. We also see it within the Amicable Grant where the rebels are negotiated with and
get what they wanted. However, this is not entirely the case of all the Tudor Monarchs as during
Edward’s and Mary’s reigns there was also a lack of negotiating. As Mary was faced with two political
rebellions, the nature of which they cannot be negotiated with due to their aims of removing some
power of the monarch be that over the country or over the heir, then perhaps there was no room
for negotiations and thus this is why she was forced to utilise military power. Within Edward’s reign
there was a lack of negotiation as shown by the battle of Dusindale where the Kett rebellion was
annihilated despite there being an opportunity for negotiations. However, it can be argued that this
was not the will of the Monarch as Edward was not in control of the country but rather the Lord
Protector Summerset. Therefore, Victoria can be considered to be somewhat of a turning point in
the way that tudor monarchs dealt with rebellions as while others had dealt with their rebellions
through force, she did it to a much greater extent and also refused to utilise negotiations even when
she had the chance, instead relying solely on her own military power.

Another way in which her government was a turning point can be seen through her punishment of
the rebels. Typically, the Tudors were more lenient towards rebels and favoured pardoning the
rebels rather than executing them, as seen through Mary only executing 150 of the 3000 rebels in
the Wyatt rebellion, Henry VII’s use of bonds to ensure good behaviour, and the pardoning of those
within the rebellion against the Amicable Grant in 1525. Whilst it can be said that Henry VIII was
actually harsh in his treatment of the rebels within the Pilgrimage of Grace, he only executed 200 of
the 30,000 and only after they did not listen to him and attacked another place, thus whilst not
entirely warranted, still not harsh enough to be considered on the same Level as Elizabeth. This idea
of pardoning and forgiving of the other Tudor Monarchs is contrary to the behaviour of Elizabeth
who was very harsh in her treatment of the rebels after their failure. Even with a rebellion as small
as the Oxfordshire rebellion, Elizabeth was very harsh and executed 5 rebels despite the rebellion
posing almost no threat to the government. This harsh treatment is further seen in her reaction to
the rebellion led by the northern earls; she executed hundreds of innocent people, razed Northern
Villages and even executed Mary Queen of Scots who was arguably just a bystander. Therefore it can
be said that Elizabeth’s dealing with the rebellions is definitely a turning point in terms of how
harshly she treated the rebels due to how she executed large numbers of the rebels and essentially
innocents which is different from the other monarchs who only executed fractions of the rebellions.
Elizabeth’s government can also be seen to be a turning point in the Tudor Monarch’s ways that they
dealt with rebels through her reforms. Throughout the Tudor period, reforms were made after the
rebellions in order to placate the people who were inclined to rebel. This is true of the end of the
period with Elizabeth who created the Poor Law act in order to help the poor people within society
and make them less enticed by the idea of rebelling, she also passed an act after the Oxforshire
rebellion that would increase the inspections into enclosure to ensure that they were lawful and to
prosecute any that were not. Making reforms after the rebellion was not just something that
occurred towards the end of the Tudor period but rather is clearly something that has occurred all
the way through the period with Henry VII’s changes to his acts after the Cornish and Yorkshire
rebellion with him stopping the taxes; it is also present in the middle of the period after the
Pilgrimage of Grace when the Statute of limitations was used to placate the people. Therefore,
reforms were present throughout the period, however, it can be argued that during the reign of
Elizabeth then there was a greater number of reforms than with any other monarch, and thus can be
considered a turning point in the way that rebellions are dealt with.

To conclude, it must be said that Elizabeth;s reign was a turning point in the way that rebellions
were dealt because although she does similar things to the rest of her family and prior monarchs,
she does them to such a greater degree that she can be considered to be running her country in a
much different way.