Which of the grievances of the Third Estates in France in 1789 were the most important?
Which of the grievances of the Third Estates in France in 1789 were the most important? In 1789 Louis XVI called for a meeting of the Estates-General pressured by social discontent and financial problems. The Estates-General had not met since 1614. This representative institution was divided among three groups: the First Estate, the Second Estate and the Third Estate. This last Estate ostensibly represented every one who did not enjoy of privileges. It consisted of the commoners. The Third Estate included the bourgeoisie and the peasants. On one hand, there were the bourgeoisie. They were the rich ones. They were rentiers, lawyers, financiers, doctors, shopkeepers, ship-owners, commercial traders, low ranking office holders, craft workers and small-scale manufacturers. On the other hand, there were the peasants. They were the poor. They included from gross fermiers to landless labourers. Peasants made up the largest group within the Third Estate. They were 80% of the total population in France. So on the whole, it can be said the Third Estate represented the majority of the French population. In anticipation of the meeting of the Estates-General, the king requested cahiers which were lists of grievances drawn up by local groups of each of the three Estates. Therefore, by 1789, the bourgeoisie along with the peasants had numerous grievances they wished addressed. But which of
Expain why the general strike broke out in 1926
Explain why the General Strike broke out in 1926. May 1926 saw one of the largest acts of union in British workforce history, the general strike saw much of Britain come to a standstill as the country's main traditional, staple industries ceased production. The strike began when 1 million miners were locked out by their employers for refusing to take a pay cut. The response of the British working class was magnificent. Over 2.5 million workers responded to the call for action and refused to work. There are several events that lead up to and caused such anger amongst the workforce and ultimately the General Strike. The first, and one of the most important in my opinion, was the economic situation of the time. Britain was at the beginning of a huge economic depression, and after the war found that they now couldn't compete with other countries in the international export markets. Germany and Poland were using more modern machinery and were able to churn out coal more efficiently and cheaper than Britain as she did not modernise her machinery, only 20% of British coal was cut by machinery, the rest was handpicked. In addition to this both France and Italy were receiving free coal from Germany as part of the reparations so had very little need to buy it from somewhere else. The problems with exports were only made worse by the decision to go back on the gold standard after
Assess the role of the nobility in providing political stability in Tudor England
Assess the role of the nobility in maintaining political stability in Tudor England. The nobility's role during the Tudor era was something of great importance in the maintenance of political stability, despite undergoing a dramatic change throughout the 16th century. Although not all nobles remained loyal to the Crown, the Tudors relied heavily on them as councillors, administrators and as military leaders, chiefly due to their desirable attributes including prestige, wealth and importance. The nobility however was not the sole factor in maintaining stability; the clergy, the gentry, local authorities and of course the monarch had significant parts to play in the keeping of authority. The Crown depended on the nobles a great deal, for instance all Tudor monarchs used the nobility as a source of advice, Henry VII summoned five great councils of the nobles and in the suppression of Lovel and Simnel he consulted with nobles such as Oxford and Pembroke. Pembroke again assisted Henry VIII with Wyatt's rebellion and both Henry and Elizabeth held assemblies of nobles in the 1530s and 1580s to discuss matters of state. Elizabeth, although only including one noble in her council of 1601, still expected every peer and leading gentleman to attend the royal court intermittently to pay his respects. Many nobles also held leading political positions in Tudor administration, for
How significant was Chinas intervention in deciding the course and outcome of the Korean War?
How Significant was China’s intervention in deciding the course and outcome of the Civil War? China’s intervention in the Korean played a significant part in deciding the course and outcome of the Civil War in a variety of ways. Among the most significant of these factors are the role played by the Chinese ‘volunteer’ army in pushing the UN forces back to the 38th Parallel and then South Korea, which prolonged a conflict which was seemingly going to be won by the UN. Without this intervention, the stalemate that led to the eventual Armistice would never have happened. Also, if China hadn’t intervened, then General MacArthur may not have been sacked by Truman, as part of the reason for his sacking was his failure to prevent the advance of the PRC; this would have been academic if the PRC hadn’t intervened in the war. If China had not intervened, MacArthur could have still been in control of the army ( as Truman would have had less reason to dismiss him), and as a result the US could have held a more aggressive stance towards attacking mainland China, as this is what MacArthur wanted in order to end the conflict quickly. Chinese intervention also meant that the damage and cost to all sides increased, as well as the significant impact China had on the eventual peace terms. One of the main factors that demonstrate the significance of the Chinese intervention was the
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Napoleons Empire in Europe after 1804 offered little benefit to its subjects.
Adam Appleby Centre No. 39339 Candidate No. 7004 Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Napoleon’s Empire in Europe after 1804 offered little benefit to its subjects. Views regarding if Napoleon offered virtuous benefits to the subjects of his Empire are fraught with different view points. Interpretations B and C both agree with the viewpoint that Napoleon offered very little benefit to his subjects, “The ideals of legal equality… social designs”, interpretation. Conversely, interpretations A and D support the opposite idea that being part of the Napoleonic Empire was actually very beneficial to the subjects, “liberated from seigniorial rights”; “Even the downsides such as… for a centralized state”. Taking all interpretations into consideration and actual knowledge of the Napoleonic Empire, it is easy to see that while Napoleon ruled with an iron fist, he did indeed offer several benefits to subjects of his Empire directly or indirectly which both can be seen in Poland by the use of Napoleon in their national hymn of living up to ‘us and Napoleon’ interpretation D. Both interpretations, A and D, show clear disagreement with the view that Napoleon was of little benefit to European subjects after 1804. Firstly interpretation A shows this with “Napoleon saw the Civil Code… the Civil Code everywhere.” This contradicts
Do you accept the view in Source V that Wolseys domestic policies were disappointing?
Question B Do you accept the view in Source V that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing? Wolsey was Henry VIII's chief minister and right hand man from his rise to power in 1514 after working himself up until his eventual fall from grace in 1529. During his time in power Wolsey made many changes to England's domestic policy. This essay will consider the view that these policies were disappointing. One of Wolsey's domestic policies that can be viewed as a disappointment is the way he dealt with finances. During this time in power Wolsey introduced amicable bonds. This system of taxation was designed to bring in more money to fund the Kings many European battles and invasions. Unfortunately the extra tax upset members of both the clergy and laity resulting in riots in East Anglia and Suffolk. Source T states that Wolsey's arrogant view that he could get whatever he wanted "aroused against himself the hatred of the whole country". Therefore this shows that this domestic policy was very disappointing as instead of raising much needed funds for the king it caused him great amounts of grief by displeasing so many of the common people and nobles, which also made it harder to bring about other change in his domestic policies. Contrary to this it can be argued that not all of Wolsey's financial policies were a failure such as levying tax which "favoured the people
Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?
Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658? To look at Cromwell's aims and whether he achieved them or not is to enter "a minefield of` historical controversy and uncertainty," as modern day historian Barry Coward put it. Cromwell's aims have always been somewhat of a paradox so to answer whether he achieved them all would be impossible. Many of his goals contradicted or obstructed some of his other views. The views which he held closest to his heart were 'Liberty of Conscience' - Cromwell's belief in religious toleration, a united National Church, the 'Reformations of Manners'- his goal of a nation of Godly people, and social and legal reform. Although these were his most favoured objectives, throughout his rule as Protector he attempted to achieve what he described as 'settlement and healing'- keeping conservative support and repairing the wounds of the civil war. This meant there were a number of other policies he strived to achieve, often having to contradict the religious and social reforms he desired, these were; establishing broad support- even including royalists; keeping government as traditional as possible and maintaining social order. The whole time he also wanted to keep the army satisfied, as it was his main source of power. However the army was associated with radicalism by the propertied and gentry, again causing more compromises for
The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions which had divided Germany before 1914. How far do you agree with this judgement?
'The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions which had divided Germany before 1914.' How far do you agree with this judgement? Germany's certain tensions politically and socially before 1914 can be seen in forms of the strikes that were taking place to deter the government and the military leaders away from the war, essentially the opposition to go to war. So, this would almost keep the tensions consistent as it was already relatively high. Other political tensions prior to the 1914 mark included the Zabern Affair in 1913 which increased tensions of the Reich as it was a political crisis. However, the tensions could have seen to differ after the war especially with growing opposition. As the Second Reich had a lot of issues already so the 'tensions' themselves were already in full effect and could be seen to only get worse with events such as starting a war that was preventable. Social tensions were as the statement suggests were present before WW1 in Germany. Pressure groups highlighted the divisions and tensions in Germany despite them usually focusing on single issues yet after the economic and social changes they emerged due to these changes. Although, it is seen to be that some social effects just didn't affect the tension in Germany. The 'silent dictatorship' also stemmed tensions as in 1916 Bethmann called off
Extended Essay: Bismarck and The Unification of Germany
Extended Essay To what extend does Otto Von Bismarck deserve his reputation as the man who united Germany? On the 18th of January, 1871, Bismarck proclaimed the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles. Germany had been unified be Prussia, under its prime minister Otto von Bismarck. The unification involved three wars and, it has been claimed, was not created by a desire for nationalism but a struggle to determine Prussian dominance within the German states. Up until World War II, it was widely accepted that Bismarck alone was responsible for unification. However, modern historians agree that Bismarck did not begin unification from nothing and have identified other factors influencing unification and the spread of nationalist ideas from 1815. These historians argue that if it weren't for factors such as the Zollverien, cultural and political nationalism and the Strength of Prussia and decline of Austria, Bismarck would not have been nearly as successful. Before Bismarck burst onto the political scene in 1862, it is clear to see that the foundations for unification were already laid, this is shown in the economic strength of Prussia prior to 1871. The Zollverien was and important factor as it brought many German states together economically and excluded Austria.
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945?
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945? I agree to some extent that the USA and USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945 due to their ideological differences which contradicted the beliefs of the other nation. The USA believed in a democratic world which would benefit the economic interests of the USA with free open markets. However the USSR with its new position in the world aimed to improve its security by spreading its communist influence in neighbouring countries. Security was an important issue due to its past experiences of being attacked by the west through Eastern Europe such as the west's intervention in the Russian civil war of 1917-18. This experience therefore led the Soviet Union to have a mutual suspicion of the motives of the USA and the west during the war. Therefore the USA and USSR were already divided by 1945. However they were not completely divided as they managed to become allies in their fight against Nazi Germany. The fact that they were able to unite to fight a common cause which was to defeat Nazi Germany illustrates that they were not divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945. The two nations were already divided due to their ideological differences as highlighted in source 1 which is from the
