How has the nature of leadership changed over the period 1790-1945?
How has the nature of leadership changed over the period 1790-1945? Developments in warfare over this period have undoubtedly been dramatic, and the changes have necessarily occurred in all areas as individual sectors respond the challenges or opportunities presented by a certain catalyst. And, in the case of warfare developments have stemmed ostensibly and most significantly from the increasing technological proficiency across the range of procedural units which define the armies' strength. While we may be drawn naturally to the dramatic advancements in weapons technology, the nature of modern warfare is obviously also reliant on the improvements made in areas such as communication and transport because these even more clearly have allowed for the rapid expansion in forces involved in combat. In scale the World Wars of the 20th century were unprecedented, but in the conflicts of the previous decades the developments were evident and visible in a number of ways. The precedent for Blitzkrieg tactics is arguably to be found in the Franco Prussian war, and J.C Fuller also drew attention to this conflict in order to provide a degree of context for his assessment upon the effects of mechanization on the nature of warfare and its effects on the individual soldier. And, the principle of total war, to which the 20th century wars seem to conform most unarguably, was enshrined in the
The cult of Stalin and the purges of the 1930(TM)s were two aspects of Stalin(TM)s determination to retain supreme power. How far do you agree with this opinion?
"The cult of Stalin and the purges of the 1930's were two aspects of Stalin's determination to retain supreme power". How far do you agree with this opinion? There is little doubt that Joseph Stalin made drastic and continual efforts to retain his supreme power during the 1930's. The two main methods and perhaps the most memorable are 'the great purges' (otherwise known as the 'great terror') and 'the cult of Stalin'. Although Stalin had been triumphant in the 'power struggle' against Leon Trotsky in 1929, rather than alleviating his insecurities, Stalin became increasingly paranoid. It seems that the more power and control he gained over Russia and its people, the more irrational and mistrustful he became. This was more than likely because he had more to lose and this encouraged him to instigate a more brutal and controlling regime. Other examples of his vindictive rule were the purging of kulaks during collectivisation and the excessive demands he made during industrialisation and the five-year plans. He also conducted purges targeted at Bolshevik opposition. He insisted on members reapplying for their membership to the party using excuses like corruption, drunkenness and being politically inactive to dismiss them, thus frightening members into submission. This was because if they lost their party cards they could lose their jobs, which ultimately meant they lost
What was the impact of the Norman Conquest
The Norman Conquest of England Question 2: How much impact did the Norman Conquest have on society and government in England in the 11th century? The Norman Conquest of England started in 1066, when William the Conqueror (Duke of Normandy) led the invasion. His success at the Battle of Hastings, against Harold II (the last Anglo-Saxon King of England), allowed the Normans to rule over England (although it took until 1071 for the country to be fully subdued because of numerous rebellions). William I was finally crowned and became King of England on Christmas day 1066, after he had forced the submission of the Witan and other opposition leaders. But he still faced much resistance from the locals for many years, particularly Northern England, so he had them restrained. After, he ordered the execution of the 'Harrying of the North' and its impact was immense; it had enormous burden costs to the economy, society, and culture. Thousands were massacred and entire villages were burned, leading to food shortages. The survivors of the initial attack would soon perish due to starvation over the winter cold. The Domesday Book, written almost two decades later, verifies that the area was destroyed and masses were killed. This brutal act ensured that there would never be any further noteworthy defiance against William, as a result of the fear generated from the violence. This cruel deed
The Spanish Civil War
Spanish Civil War The Spanish Civil War (July 1936-April 1939) was a conflict in which the incumbent Second Spanish Republic and political left-wing groups fought against a right-wing nationalist insurrection led by General Francisco Franco, who eventually succeeded in ousting the Republican government and establishing a personal dictatorship. It was the result of the complex political, economic and even cultural divisions between what Spanish writer Antonio Machado characterized as the two Spains. The Republicans ranged from centrists who supported capitalist liberal democracy to communists or anarchist revolutionaries; their power base was primarily urban (though it also included landless peasants) and secular and was particularly strong in industrial regions like Asturias and Catalonia. The conservative Basque Country also sided with the Republic, largely because it, along with nearby Cataluña sought autonomy from the central government which would later be suppressed by the centralizing nationalists. The ultimately successful Nationalist rebels had a primarily rural, wealthier, and more conservative base of support, were mostly Roman Catholic, and favoured the centralization of power. Some of the military tactics of the war foreshadowed World War II, although both the nationalists and the republicans relied overwhelmingly on infantry rather than modern use of blitzkrieg
Revision Table - Tudor Rebellions
Context Causes/Motivations Actions Consequences Government Response Leadership/ Personalities Threat to Government Success/Failure Lambert Simnel * New monarch on throne --> H7 following Wars of Roses. Potentially vulnerable. * No religious divisions. * Economic stability. * Middle of winter. * Extension of the Wars of the Roses --> Political * Simon's, a priest, attempts to pass off Lambert Simnel as Richard, Duke of York. * H7 parades the real DofY, plans change, Simnel is Earl of Warwick. * Gathers support from various Yorkist nobles. Margaret of Burgundy sends 2000 mercenaries. * Rebels made for London. H7 met them, 4000 Yorkists were killed. * Yorkist nobility continued to openly oppose the monarchy. * Margaret goes on to support Perkin Warbeck. * H7 marries E of York. * Papal bull told the Irish not to rebel against that nice Henry chap again, or else. * Lenient. * Simon's imprisoned for life, Simnel given a job. * Seized lands of nobles who had fought against the Crown at Stoke. * Simons --> just a parish priest? Under influence of Bishops? Leadership significant? Ask Mr H. * Simnel --> Boy being tutored by Simons. * Margaret --> Richard III's sister, Yorkist. * As a political rebellion it posed a threat, but a 'comfortable' one because - * H7 had real Earl of Warwick * However, did draw King out of London onto battlefield. * ^ Pot.
How and why did the Bolsheviks gain power in 1917?
How and why did the Bolsheviks gain power in 1917? While the February Revolution of 1914-17 had succeeded in overthrowing the Tsar, the battle for a Russian Soviet Government had not yet concluded. There were many factors that led to the ultimate victory of the Bolsheviks, including the disarrangement of the army, siding with the majority - the peasants; with promises of greater standards of living, and more importantly; land and equality. Another key aspect of the Bolsheviks would have been their intelligentsia-based party population, arguably one of the strong points which made them so successful. Thus, it can be said that the "Bolsheviki", through the careful manipulation of the country's political and social unrest at the time, seized power of Russia in October, 1917 under the leadership of Vladamir Ilyich Ulyanov - otherwise known as Lenin. Vladamir Ilyich Ulyanov - Lenin, was one of the most significant intellectual driving forces behind the Bolshevik movement. As far as revolutionary plans were concerned, Lenin believed that he knew the best way to deal with it, and quite expectantly of someone of such an arrogant manner; believed that anyone who disagreed with him should not be allowed to express themselves at all if there was a "way to silence them". After creating the very split in the Social Democratic Party, he incited speculation as to who should be made party
Consider David Starkey(TM)s and Francis Pryor(TM)s respective versions of the nature and extent of Anglo " Saxon Settlement between AD 400 and 600. Which of them of you find the most persuasive and why?
Consider David Starkey's and Francis Pryor's respective versions of the nature and extent of Anglo - Saxon Settlement between AD 400 and 600. Which of them of you find the most persuasive and why? There is considerable speculation over the events of this period depending on the background of the Historian or Archaeologist and on the sources they depend upon. Therefore it comes as no surprise that there is such a stark contrast between the interpretations of Starkey and Pryor regarding the events following the fall of Roman administration in 410. Starkey argues a full blown invasion by Germanic tribes as described by Bede and Gildas. This was "ethnic cleansing at its most savagely effective". Pryor on the other hand believes in continuity, that life went on just as it had during and even before the Romans. He argues that rather than the invasion force there were a "few economic migrants". In this scenario, life went on as it did during Roman times and the only change was this cultural exchange. When one looks beyond Starkey and Pryor and at other historians (and archaeologists) you find that there seem to be four distinct possibilities for what happened after Romans left Britain. The first is migration; under this interpretation the country was flooded by economic migrants from the Germanic tribes who had been displaced by pressure from the Huns who were rapidly advancing
Research Paper; The Important Scientific Discoveries of the Renaissance: Medicine
Important Scientific Discoveries of The Renaissance: Medicine Research Paper Kyra Connelly Honors History 9 F Block October 31, 2011 Mr. Deeb Life without medicine does not even seem possible, but the medical knowledge society has today must come from somewhere. It must have begun at a time when ideas were being put to good use, and everyone believed them. The time period ranging from 1350-1550 marked the span of the Renaissance ("re-birth"). It was during this time in Europe that cities that had just recovered from the Black Plague were starting to re-build and gain strength in their country again. In addition to this, there was a major progress of medical knowledge and renewed interest in the ancient ideas of the Europeans before them. This was made possible by technological advances, accidental discoveries, and continued learning. The entirety of medical development didn't make a drastic change in Europe right away, but the effects that could be felt later started with a few basic conceptions in the beginning; from the time before the Renaissance to the processes scientists discovered that had a big impact on the advancements we have today. Medicine's distinctive ideas and most important written sources of authoritative teaching did not originate in western Europe but were drawn from Greek antiquity and the world of Islam. The understanding of ancient medical
To what extent is it true to say the Provisional Government faced an impossible task?
'To what extent is it true to say the Provisional Government faced an impossible task?' Although the Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia for over 300 years, once its demise had begun it took only a few days for Tsardom to fall. Immediately after this collapse the whole country seemed to breathe a sigh of relief as it entered into a 'honeymoon' period during which time exuberance and celebration was rife throughout Russia. However, the fact remained that although hopes and expectations were high regarding how Russia's new government could better the lives of the Russian people and the future of Russia itself, the new Provisional Government still had to face those same problems that the Tsarist government had failed to solve; such as the ever deteriorating economy, the social unrest and the diabolical living standards in the towns and cities, all of which were exacerbated by Russia's involvement in the war. The newly formed Provisional Government also had problems of its own to face, such as its controversial claims to legitimacy and the threat posed to it by the possible return of some of Russia's most dangerous and influential exiles. Some historians believe that the Provisional Government faced an impossible task, due to the troubles it inherited but also due to the mistakes that the Provisional Government itself made which worsened the condition of the task they faced. Given
To What Extent Does History show that there is no such thing as absolute power?
To What Extent Does History show that there is no such thing as absolute power? Over history many rulers have claimed to be in total control and even revisionist theories have depicted an image that certain rulers have been absolute monarchs or dictators, however, in my opinion history proves that there is no such thing as absolute power. Most dictionaries give the definition of absolute power that ‘a ruler controls the decisions made within the country and controls the people also and is therefore in total control of anything that happens over the land ruled’. However, in my view history has contradicted this definition and although certain leaders and rulers have had the term ‘absolute power’ bestowed upon them I believe that there is too much evidence proving that one person has never truly been in control. To prove this, I have taken four periods within history and the most prominent dictators, monarchs or rulers from each period with the intention to prove that even the most powerful have either collapsed due to internal factors, opposition or not been an ‘absolute power’. I shall be analysing how these four different absolute powers were torn apart from the inside despite being an “absolutist state”. For example, during the Ancient age there were many pharaohs of Egypt, and most famously known was the young pharaoh Tutankhamen. During Ancient Egypt the
