The Fall of the Tsar
The Tsar and his ancestors has been running Russia as an autocracy for over 300 years. Running the worlds biggest country as an autocracy with a very incompetant Tsar was inevitably a recipie for disaster. Running a 6592800km² country single handedly was obviously never going to work. Tsar Nicholas II hated people giving him advice, even if it was good advice. He clearly didn't like people who were cleverer then he was. For example, the Tsar replaced Goremykin with Stolypin as Prime Minister. Stolypin used harsh methods of ruling which ended up with good results; however, Stolypin was assassinated just before Nicholas was going to fire him. The Tsar was also a very ignorant man who would ignore almost all advice he was given, even if it was good advice. Nicholas would only ever listen to his friend and people who were in great power, who funnily enough were his friends. The second reason as to why the Tsar fell from power was World War 1. The Russian Army was terribly run. The Tsar himself had chosen the Army Generals based on their status and friendship to him. They had to army experience and almost no idea what they were doing. They were very poorly equiped and some soldiers went into battle without guns. They were instructed: "If a man near you dies, pickup his gun and use it." Because Russia was so big and the army generals were so unexperienced, they used soldiers
How valuable is the southwell workhouses a source of evidence of how far they were treated in early Victorian times?
How valuable is the southwell workhouses a source of evidence of how far they were treated in early Victorian times? The southwell workhouse was built in 1834, introducing a harsh and revolutionary system that was designed to cut the cost of caring for the poor. This system was later adopted adopted across a national network of over 600 workhouses. In this essay I will explain how life was in the southwell workhouse and how paupers were treated there back in the 19th century. The workhouse was built in southwell after the poorlaw amendment act was passed in 1834. The building housed 158 inmates and was designed specifically segregate the different classes. This gave the effect of a prison building. When you come up to the workhouse you are left with a path down the left hand side of the building which was known as paupers lane. Here the paupers would walk until they were faced with the massive building where they would be working. Before entering they would have to go through an interview and a short medical. After this they were issued with a workhouse uniform and then put into there category.Segregation was a harsh reality of workhouse life especially if families and small children were seperated. The workhouse was bought for £250,000 in the summer of 1997.The national trust purchased the building in order to restore it as a museum. After its restoration of around 12
Why Did They Build The Berlin Wall In 1961?
Why Did They Build The Berlin Wall In 1961? The Berlin Wall was built in 1961 and for twenty-eight years it separated friends, families, and a nation. A lot of suffering began for Germany when World War II started, but by the end of the war Germany had a disaster waiting to happen. After WWII was over Germany was divided into four parts, America, Great Britain and France all controlled the three divisions that were formed in the Western half then Eastern half was controlled by the USSR. The Western divisions eventually united to make a federal republic, while the Eastern divisions became communist. One of the many reasons why the Berlin wall was built was because of the tension between America and the Soviet and the fact they both had different beliefs and ideologies. First of all America was a capitalist country. This meant they believed that businesses were aloud to make a greater profit and to be more successful than others. On the other hand there was the Soviet what was a communist country this meant that they believed every one should be equal and the government got the profits. The differences caused by the beliefs were ghastly because both countries disagreed with each other just causing more tension and most people in the Soviet disagreed with being a communist country and this made them wanting to leave because of this so therefore this may of lead to the wall
Does Churchill's description of the operation (source B) support the evidence of sources C and E?
Question 2, Does Churchill's description of the operation (source B) support the evidence of sources C and E? Churchill's description of the operation, source B, in some cases supports the evidence that the operation of D-day was a difficult and complicated one. Source C does support this. The papers on Churchill's desk are messy and untidy, which suggests it was complicated, also his cigar smoke forming a question mark shape suggests D-day was difficult to plan. However, source E suggests quite the opposite. The plan looks very straight forward and simple. There is no evidence to show the devastation of D-day. Source B also suggests that there was lots of people involved and that it was a huge operation. Source C does infer that it was big, because of the importance put on Churchill, but it doesn't seem as though many people are involved only four people are in the picture. Alternatively, source E does suggest it was both a big operation and lots of people were involved. There is lots going on in the map, and although the map has no scale, you can tell that it is over a very big area. Source B mentions that all three armed forces are involved. Source C shows the definite involvement with all three services which are represented by the three boys at the door. More over, source E infers the involvement with all three services from the parachutes on the map, which shows the
Who was the real Custer, and to what extent was he to blame for the defeat of the 7th Cavalry at the Battle of Little BigHorn?
Who was the real Custer, and to what extent was he to blame for the defeat of the 7th Cavalry at the Battle of Little BigHorn? There have been many arguments and variations to why the 7th cavalry were beaten at little bighorn on the 25th June 1876. I am to analyse these and Custer himself to conclude whether it was Custer's fault or whether defeat was out of his control. In 1876 the Us army dispatched three columns (1800 soldiers) to attack in a co-ordinated fashion. One of which, led by Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer, was the 7th cavalry. They all planned to attack Sioux and Cheyenne Indians who had gathered in Montana with the great warrior sitting bull to fight for the right of the land, not for ownership. The seventh cavalry consisted of about 225 soldiers. Due to early arrival, they attacked the camp housing 12,000 native Americans, without the help of the other 600 soldiers and many other reasons, the 7th cavalry were tragically defeated and, not a single soldier under Custer's command survived, even Custer himself did not live. So it is impossible to tell what exactly happened over that short period. "What happened to Custer and his men is not clear as there were no survivors from his force" this was from the public statement of the president (Ulysses S. Grant) shortly after the battle in June 1876. The source is quite clearly truthful because there are facts
Recipes For Society In Atlantic Canada
RECIPES FOR SOCIETY IN ATLANTIC CANADA While Acadia (present-day Nova Scotia) has often been characterized as the "step-child of French colonial policy,"1 Newfoundland could probably be characterized in a similar manner, except that it was Britain's step-child. In their early days, control of each province was tossed back and forth between France and Britain, much like a juggling act. The appeal of Acadia was that it was ideal to establish a settlement there for the benefits of a harbour for trade and naval strength. Newfoundland's main appeal lay in its fishery. As Keith Matthews points out in his article "The Nature and the Framework of Newfoundland History", Newfoundland was "rather different from the English mainland colonies."2 Likewise, Naomi Griffiths, in her article "The Golden Age: Acadian Life, 1713 - 1748", tells us that the Acadians had a "life of considerable distinctiveness."3 The acknowledgment of the uniqueness of each province when compared to the mainland North American colonies (whether French or British) is one of two main similarities between these two articles. The point of my essay is to point out what each of the two authors regard as the key ingredient (or ingredients) in the early societies of the two colonies. In my readings of these two articles, I discovered very contrasting approaches to the histories of the colonies. While Matthews
How Reliable is Schindler's List As A Representation of the Holocaust?
How reliable is Schindler's List as a representation of the Holocaust/Final Solution? Schindler's List is a blockbuster movie based on Thomas Keneally's book, 'Schindler's Ark', which is based on 50 eye witness accounts of the Holocaust. The movie is based around the life of Oskar Schindler, a rich German business man (who is by no means a flawless hero) who risks everything in a bid to save as many lives as possible nearing the end of the Holocaust. Steven Spielberg, a well known Hollywood director, made this movie and tried to keep it as close to the book as possible. He liked the idea of this book as Keneally kept it as close to fact as possible so as he wouldn't debase the original event, but it drew people in emotionally because it was told from an eye witness point of view. Spielberg made this movie to inform people about the Holocaust, but also to make money, so he threw in a mix of fact and fiction, which is why we need to explore this further. We can tell from the film what is fact reasonably easily because of our thorough knowledge of the Holocaust already, and also our source pack is useful here. We are shown how the Jews are treated in great detail in this movie, beginning with them being herded into ghettoes to live, and the conditions in the ghettoes are shown to be appalling. Many people died from 'natural reduction' - starvation, illness and general
History of darts
Darts have been used as far back as man can remember where flint-pointed darts were used for hunting wild game. The first recorded game being played in Dartford, hence the name. The dartboard has a distinct resemblance to the cross section of a tree trunk and the old term used for the first type of dartboard was butt, because the bottom of wine barrels or butts were used. It probably stems from the french word of butte meaning target. The game was established in England back in the Middle Ages at a time when soldiers used the bottom of wine barrels to throw short arrows at, seeing who could get closest to the bung. As usual some genius (there's always one around somewhere) came up with the idea of using a cross-section of a tree, the rings on it making it easier to determine who was closest to the middle. In 1530 Anne Boleyn presented Henry VIII with a set of ornate darts showing that the game had become more widespread during the medieval period. In 1844 there was a version of darts called Puff and Dart where a blowpipe was used to fire a dart at a target, but a London dart blower made a mistake and sucked instead of blowing unfortunately leading to his death. Hockey & sons brewery firm were recorded for creating the throwing line rule, and used three foot beer crates lined up, making the throwing distance nine feet. Later shortened to eight feet as the crates got
This essay will set out to discuss what history is, why we study it, and how we know it's true.
Lauren Feuer SLS 240 Assignment B History can be defined in many ways. To a young student history is just the study of dates, names, and past events. To an Historian it is the study of the human past. I believe it is a mixture of the two. This essay will set out to discuss what history is, why we study it, and how we know it's true. History is the study of all significant human experiences from people, institutions, ideas, and events past and present. History is all aspects of past human life. From social and cultural conditions as well as political and economical events. We study history to understand how people of other times acted and thought. I feel it is important to study the past so we understand how we came to our present and know what we want with our future. Events in the past have made us what we are today. Historical knowledge gives a full understanding why events happened as they did. History should be studied because is it essential to individuals and society to help form our future. History helps us understand people, societies, and how the society we live in came to be. Historians use evidence of written documents, artifacts, and buildings to make accurate decisions of what is true or false. Understanding history can help us understand the present and it can help us understand things that happened around us everyday. It doesn't provide all the answers,
Using Livy, How Great a General was Hannibal?
Using Livy, How Great a General was Hannibal? When Hannibal left Italy in 203 BC "he had filled Italy...with monuments of his tremendous campaigns"1. In this essay I will consider Hannibal's legacy and what aspects of his personality created these 'monuments.' After research,2 I have set out some criteria of a great general and in this essay I will attempt to establish to what extent Hannibal fulfils these criteria. According to Lazenby, to do what Hannibal did required "great strategic skill, tactical ingenuity and sheer force of personality"3. I will consider where these characteristics came from and how he used these characteristics to his advantage in the Second Punic War. After Hasdrubal was assassinated Hannibal became general of the Carthaginian army in Spain. He had had an interesting upbringing as the son of a popular war hero, Hamilcar. Hamilcar "led the boy [Hannibal] to the altar and made him solemnly swear...that as soon as he was old enough he would become an enemy of Rome"4. There was some debate as to whether Hannibal should become commander at this young age. However "the troops received him [Hannibal] with ominous enthusiasm, the soldiers feeling that in the person of this young man Hamilcar himself was restored to them...the same vigour in his look, the same fire in his eyes"5. Indeed one of Hannibal's flaws was, according to Caven, "his all consuming
