' Did Alexander II deserve the title Tsar Liberator
' Did Alexander II deserve the title Tsar Liberator? ' Justify your view. In the 19th Century, Russia had no zemstva, very little education, industry and railway building, a biased judicial system and very few freed peasants. Czar Alexander II, who succeeded Nicolas I in 1855, went some ways to remedying these deficiencies through a series of reforms. Alexander II became the great modernizer of Russia, walking a delicate line between preserving Russia's Slavic identity and enabling its people to benefit from Western advancements. For this reason he was known to some as the ' Czar Liberator'. However, indeed he was a liberator in name only. Alexander II initiated substantial reforms in education, the government, the judiciary and the military. In 1861, he proclaimed the emancipation of about 20 million privately held serfs. It has been described as "the greatest social movement since the French Revolution" and constituted a major step in the freeing of labour in Russia. Yet at the same time, it helped to undermine the already shaken economic foundations of Russia's landowning class. The Czar abolished a Russia tradition, the serfdom, which symbolizing class struggle and feudalism. This was a very great step forward in the modernisation of Russia. Reforms of local government were closely followed emancipation. Russia, for the first time, was given a judicial system that in
Elizabeth I: There is much debate amongst historians concerning the religious priorities of Elizabeth in formulating the momentous Church Settlement of 1559
Elizabeth I: The Religious Settlement of 1559 There is much debate amongst historians concerning the religious priorities of Elizabeth in formulating the momentous Church Settlement of 1559, which was to shape the Church of England for years to come. Many factors can lay claim to shaping the Settlement, but in order to judge which one influenced it most strongly; one must look at the Settlement itself, which contains a strong base of Protestantism but with conservative concessions. Taking into account Elizabeth's own personal beliefs, which were conveniently politically shrewd, Elizabeth seemed to have adopted the pragmatic policy of trying to please everyone and to keep internal peace, with a Settlement containing enough Catholic superficiality to keep her conservative subjects, if not bishops, contented. The traditional view of the Settlement, taken by historians such as J.E Neale, is that it was influenced by Protestant pressure applied by Puritans returning from abroad and that Elizabeth herself favoured the conservative methods. This view relied mainly on evidence about the 'Puritan Choir', a group of committed Puritan MPs led by Sir Francis Knollys and Sir Anthony Cooke, making up a quarter of the 404 members of Parliament. After the Protestant burnings of the reign of 'bloody Mary', many radical Protestants returned to England from their refuges of Geneva and
Conservative scandals were the most important reason for why they lost in the 1964 election. Do you agree?
Conservative scandals were the most important reason for why they lost in the 1964 election. Do you agree? For the Conservatives, the loss of the 1964 election was due to a number of factors, including the scandals that affected their party's image during this time. Other factors include the Profumo affair, another more significant scandal, the leadership troubles that the Conservatives faced during this time, and a general lack of spirit from the party after a tiring 13 years in government. As well as this, Labour's growing strength played a part in their winning of the election. Scandals played a major part of 1963 for the Conservatives, with three different occurrences happening during this time. These scandals included the Vassall affair, which made the government look bad as they tried to protect a Soviet spy and ultimately protect themselves from the trouble of not catching him sooner, but it backfired and the truth was revealed to the public. This scandal would reflect badly on the MPs involved as it shows them as untrustworthy, and also links them to the Soviets and could be perceived as them trying to protect them. Another Soviet spy case, the Kim Philby scandal, showed the government to be incompetent as they hadn't caught a spy for decades, reflecting badly on them as it once again highlighted the disorganisation of the government. The third case, the Argyll
History of british race relations
The Celts are the first to lay claim to being the indigenous people of the British Isles, in a period of Britain referred to as the Iron Age. For 500 years before any Roman invasion they managed to firmly establish Celtic culture throughout Britain. The Celts themselves where hunter/gathers and very resourceful farmers. They adopted a clan mentality and were ferocious are proud warriors, which would eventually be there undoing as infighting among the various clans was rife. The lack of unity left them susceptible to attack, which the Romans seized upon. Julius Caesar Claimed "it was necessary to stop British support for the Celts still resisting there" (Black, Jeremy, 'A history of the British isles', 1997) The subsequent Roman Conquest and occupation of Britain (AD 43) saw the arrival the first blacks in England. The Romans brought with them the infrastructure; Britain gained urban systems linked by roads, Romanised farms and cities like London, York, Bath and Colchester became centres of roman culture and eventually Christianity was introduced to Britain. Britain ultimately began to come under attacks from "Barbarians" (the angles, jutes and Saxons) the ability of the Roman Empire to resist these invasions began to falter, thus ended the occupation of Britain by the Romans (410AD). It remains unclear why the "Barbarians" came to Britain. It may be down to their
How successful was Wolsey in his Domestic Administration 1515-29?
How successful was Wolsey in his Domestic Administration 1515-29? Wolsey's rise to power was for many reasons: his low social background drove him to succeed; his force of personality; his natural intelligence - the boy bachelor; his oratory skills and his understanding of the King. Wolsey was blessed with these gifts and with the trust of the King Wolsey had the potential to be great. Wolsey was in the position to do this, so why is his success in domestic administration such a debated matter? I feel his success depends on how and what we are judging his achievements on. There was much pressure for reform within the church during Wolsey's time in power. Bishops and Archbishops were criticised of nepotism, meaning uneducated and undeserving men were throughout the clergy. Priests were immoral, breaking their oath to celibacy and in some cases with their own daughter. The papacy was in turmoil and it was disrespected. Anticlericalism was becoming prevalent and Christian humanists were pushing for reform. They were trying to educate, translating the bible into different languages so people could read it and they were challenging Catholic ideas, like the pope's behaviour and the role of the priest. With this pressure for reform Wolsey could have become a great figure in the Church and create successful reformer, but he did not take this opportunity even though historians such
Why did the liberal government introduce social reforms 1906-1914?
Why did the liberal government introduce social reforms 1906-1914? There are multiple reasons why the Liberal government introduced acts of social reform between 1906 and 1914. The obvious reason is that there was a great need for reform(change) but there are also many other factors that played a part in the decision for a reform. This change was really required to help and improve Britain. The reason for this need for change was the poor conditions that all parts of Britain had been left in after the conservatives had been in power. It is often said that the Liberals had to introduce in social reforms due to pressure from the Labour party. This new party was formed in 1903 and had very little major union connections even though there policies were committed to reform Britain. This idea is very realistic as three reforms were influenced by the Labour party. Both parties main aim was to eliminate the poor and introduced benefits for the unemployed, elderly and ill. By introducing just some social reform the Liberals believed it would stave off threats from the Labour party and hopefully lessen the demand for more. There were two key event that brought the Liberals into reality and made them realize what poor health Britain's population was facing and the actual need for reform. The first reason was that of the Boer War. There was many difficulties experienced in trying
The Liberal Reforms (1906-1914)
The Liberal Reforms (1906-1914) Between 1906 and 1914, the lives of many British people were improved due to the introduction of a series of welfare reforms by the Liberal Government. In 1906, the Liberals won the general election based on the values of "old" Liberalism, which favoured Laissez-Faire rather than government intervention. However, with the resignation of Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and the introduction of David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill to the cabinet, these values were replaced by the values of "new" Liberalism. Both Churchill and Lloyd George were New Liberalists who believed that the state should look after the Welfare of those who could not help themselves. The government identified five main groups of people who were in need of help (the young, old, sick, unemployed and employed) and attempted to aid these groups of people by introducing several reforms. After it was made compulsory for children to attend school until the age of ten, it became obvious that many children were going to school hungry, dirty and/or suffering from ill health and hence were unable to focus on their work. This meant that children were not fully benefiting from the education system. Margaret Macmillan was an educationalist who firmly believed in the adage, "Feed the stomach, then the mind", and she pushed forward educational reforms. Also, the government had recognised
Explain why free trade was an issue for the 1906 General Election. (12 marks)
Explain why free trade was an issue for the 1906 General Election. (12 marks) There were various reasons why free trade was considered an issue around the 1906 General Election, much of this in my opinion was around the opportunism that was on offer to the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party had been rather factious showing poor leadership under Balfour and had a "3 way split". Free trade achieved a mandate under the Liberal victory of 1906. There was a use of propaganda with the "Small loaf, big loaf" poster which showed that bread would be expensive under the Tariff Reform. The small loaf represented the fact that food would be affordable (under the Liberals) and the big loaf was there to show that with tariffs, the core necessities would be unaffordable. The issue was that people just wanted cheaper food prices as it was high-priced - this is what brought attention to the "free trade" issue. In the long term - free trade would bring down the price of food as there were less restrictions. Furthermore, the "small loaf, big loaf" campaign by the Liberal Party won favour with the working /middle class electorate - because they were able to actually afford the food. This, as well as the poor leadership that was presented by AJ Balfour for the Conservative Party meant that the Conservatives looked rather out-of-touch with regards to the issue of free trade - he was not able
Assess the view that Henry VIII's wish for a male heir was the main reason for the break with Rome.
Assess the view that Henry VIII's wish for a male heir was the main reason for the break with Rome. Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon's was claimed void by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Was it the fact that Henry wanted a male heir to the thrown that he decided to break from Rome? Or did Henry decide to break from Rome due to his desire for Anne Boleyn. Henry married Catherine in 1509, aunt of Charles V of Aragon, Spain. She bore Henry six children five died (two of which were boys) and one survived, Mary. Since Catherine had failed to produce a male heir and therefore this may have led to a succession crisis or possibly a civil war when he died. There was Mary of course, who was nine years old in 1525, but it was seen as unseemly to have a female heir. (Salic Law) So looking at this we can see that at this period in time it may have been worrying for a king to have no son to carry on the throne. But would this have been a good reason for the break with Rome? At this early stage it is probably not the main reason. Henry used an idea from Leviticus, that if a man should marry his dead brother's wife (Arthur) then he shall remain childless, even though this was note entirely true as Henry did have Mary. Also as Henry wished for this divorce so much (as he had already become infatuated with Anne Boelyn) it might have been for this reason that he created this new
Richard Arkwright.
Richard Arkwright Hero or villain. This essay will try to give an incite into Richard Arkwright. It will show the good things about him being an employer and the bad. I will begin by stating all of the topics I will discuss: The wages, the distribution of management; the business the factories bought to local areas, the health of the children in the mills and the invention of the spinning frame. The wages that Richard Arkwright paid to his employees was appalling, even by olden day standards but the workers would not have to pay for meals as this was included with the job. Every person working in a factory or mill at that time would have received very low pay it was not just in Richard Arkwright's mills or factories. Richard Arkwright was the 13th child in a poor family (from Preston) he would therefore have known what it was like to work for a living. Richard Arkwright spread out managing his mills and factories which could be described as trying to spread work so that he did less or if there was an accident in one of the mills Richard Arkwright would not be held responsible. Richard Arkwright became very rich so his idea was clearly a good one because if there were a claim against the factory the manager would be responsible for sorting it out. You could also say that he did this so his factories would be more productive and efficient, and he would then gain more
