'Repressive and emotionally cold'. Is this a true reflection of relations between parents and children in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England?
344885 2486 'Repressive and emotionally cold'. Is this a true reflection of relations between parents and children in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England? In sixteenth and seventeenth century England the parent-child relationship is often considered in emotional terms very different to the relationship we see today. Without doubt there are exceptions, but on the whole we tend to perceive these relationships in terms of altruistic love. Parents selflessly provide love and affection for their children, without exposing them to cruelty or any injustice. In regards to early modern Britain, some historians argue that this has not always been the case and that 'Repressive and emotionally cold' is a statement that can be applied to parenthood in sixteenth and seventeenth century. Scholars from this school of thought understand that parental altruism is somewhat a modern occurrence that began to occur with the rise of the sentimental family amid the industrial revolution. With industrialisation trade and industries began to develop and families tended to work separately. This led to the family no longer having to be relied upon for primarily economic reasoning leaving a whole new space open for love and affection. The supporters of this school of thought advocate the theme of change. 1 Lawrence Stone, for example suggests that children were simply viewed in this period as
How does a change in the mortality rate explain population growth in the early modern period?
Page 1 Sarah Humphreys How does a change in the mortality rate explain population growth in the early modern period? Throughout the early modern period the mortality rate varied a great deal, and was generally characterised by "dramatic short run fluctuations," low life expectancy, high infant mortality and increased quantities of deaths as a result of severe epidemic outbreaks.1 Throughout this era, Europe experienced numerous mortality crises in which the number of deaths vastly exceeded the average number of deaths. An example of this mortality crisis can be observed by looking at the parish of Os, Norway. 57 deaths was the average number of expected mortalities per non crisis year between 1669 and 1735. Os experienced 9 crises throughout this 60 year period in which the rate of deaths grew by 50%. 2 This pattern was common throughout Europe. There were three key factors that caused these great fluctuations in the amount of deaths between 1500 and 1789 and they were; epidemics, war and famine. Epidemics of the plague and diseases such as influenza, typhus, typhoid and smallpox were a principle reason behind the millions of deaths throughout Europe. Figures show the devastation caused by these epidemics; it has been claimed that during the period of 1557 to 1559 "a tenth of the English population died"3 as a result of influenza. The infamous plague ravaged
"In 1848 Europewas ablaze with revolutionary fervour affecting most countries. Germanywas affected but differently to the rest of Europe. To what extent was this the case?"
Year 11 IB History 2003 - The 1848 Revolution & Germany "In 1848 Europe was ablaze with revolutionary fervour affecting most countries. Germany was affected but differently to the rest of Europe. To what extent was this the case?" To a certain extent, Germany was affected differently to other European countries. Although many European countries were under revolution, they were affected in different ways. The Europeans wanted universal suffrage and economic improvement as well as an end to the old monarchy. The main difference was the fervent desire for unification. The causes of the revolution were similar - economic and social deterioration, but the outcomes were assorted. France had no trouble in acquiring a republic, but had difficulty in running it. Austria's racial differences caused disputes over the Diet language. The revolutions in Austria were successful in shaking the Hapsburg Empire in the beginning, however it eventually failed because of the conflicting economic goals of the middle and lower classes. Germany was after unification. There was no complication by racial differences, there was a mass of peasants to support revolts, a King that was initially willing to attempt to unite Germany, yet the revolution failed. The revolutions affected each country similarly in trying to bring down the long-standing monarchy, however outcomes of each were
"By 1849 the supporters of the Risorgimento had achieved nothing towards creating a free, united and independent Italy" - How far do you agree?
Mateusz Odziemczyk G11 For Mr.Morris "By 1849 the supporters of the Risorgimento had achieved nothing towards creating a free, united and independent Italy." How far do you agree? The fall of Napoleon led to the Vienna Settlement of 1815, by which the Austrians effectively restored the old ruling class. Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor, did all he could to foster any local loyalties that might weaken the appeal of unity, yet the years between 1820 and 1849 became years of revolution. Uprisings began in Sicily, Naples and Piedmont, when King Ferdinand introduced measures that restricted personal freedom and destroyed many farmers' livelihoods. A makeshift army quickly gained popular support in Sicily, and forced some concessions, before Ferdinand invited the Austrians in to help him crush the revolution. In the north, the oppressive laws enacted by Victor Emanuel I in the Kingdom of Piedmont sparked off student protests and army mutinies in Turin. Victor Emanuel abdicated in favor of his brother, Carlo Felice, and his son, Carlo Alberto; the latter initially gave some support to the radicals, but Carlo Felice then called in the Austrians, and thousands of revolutionaries were forced into exile. Carlo Alberto became King of Piedmont in 1831. A secretive, excessively devout and devious character, he did a major volte-face when he assumed the throne by forming an alliance
"Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution" Do you agree? Justify your answer.
"Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution." Do you agree? Justify your answer. I partially agree with the statement that Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution. During the reign of Alexander III, discontent of people grew as a result of his repressive rule and policies. Peasants' discontent grew because of the heavy redemption payments and land taxes, insufficient land and poor harvests. The discontent and economic hardship all passed to Czar Nicholas II. It is no doubt that when Nicholas II took over the Russian Empire, the familiar problems still existed, and some were even worse, such as the problem of peasantry. However, discontent alone could not turn to be a revolution. It was Nicholas II who made it a real one. The first revolution broke out in 1905. The chaotic situation was somehow inherited from Alexander III. The peasantry problem was a traditional problem of Russia. It became worse when in Nicholas II's time. The emancipation of serfs in 1861 liberated lots of peasants, but in turn they needed to pay redemption payments to their landlords and heavy land taxes to the government. However, due to poor harvests and insufficient farmland, the redemption payments and land taxes became a large burden of the peasants. As a result, discontent of peasants increased. In addition, the revolutionary activities had been generated in the 19th
Would you agree that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start? Discuss this with reference to the events of 1814-15?
Would you agree that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start? Discuss this with reference to the events of 1814-15? It is not fair to say that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start, because even though there were immediate drawbacks of association with an unpopular peace, this was more than balanced by the fact that France possessed economic and social potential. The good economy was demonstrated by the fact that much of Europe had suffered dislocation and devastation at the hands of warring armies, but only France had escaped lightly with only a few temporary difficulties. Also land was productive and populated by skillful peasantry and the industries could meet the demands of the country. Socially many of the tensions that had led to revolution in 1789 had been removed, due to the peasants been free and owning most of their land and so apposing any revolutionary activity, the bourgeoisie were no longer prevented from gaining social and political distinction and so would give support to any regime that would maintain the status quo and finally the church had more influence over the people therefore could teach people that existing social and political role was important. However even though it can be said that the Bourbon monarchy had not been doomed from the start, the events of 1814-15 did begin to question the future of the
Landlord Essay
What do you understand by Landlord Landscapes in Ireland? Discuss their origin, distribution, scale and demise Landlords were owners or lease holders of property who rented some or all their land to others. By 1703, most Irish landlords were of English or Scots origin, and had got their property during the plantations and land confiscations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Most of them rented it out to Irishmen while themselves remaining residents of England1. The subject of landlordism was a highly significant issue in the history of Ireland. This essay will examine the origin, distribution, scale and demise of Landlord Landscapes in Ireland. All the counties of Ireland were owned and controlled by a minority, the landed gentry. When the county is broken down by barony and parish units we can get a more accurate picture of landscape variations in the mid-nineteenth century. These baronies were taken by force of arms and settled by successive invading societies, spawning adjacent dependent towns and villages2. Examples of this are the North Salt barony in Kildare, controlled by Fitzgerald. The differences in barony sizes were immense, ranging from 8,748 statute acres for Kilcullen to 48,264 acres for Carbury. The great estates and houses, such as Carton and Castletown, may create the impression that Kildare's landscape was dominated by such grandiose enterprises.
Examine the role that the financial crisis played in the outbreak ofrevolution in France in 1789.
Question: Examine the role that the financial crisis played in the outbreak of revolution in France in 1789. By: Sasha James. The French revolution was a significant part of French, and European history. It was responsible for the end of the Ancien Regime, and the introduction of a more democratic government. While the financial crisis played an imperative role in the outbreak of the revolution, there were also other contributing factors. The financial crisis played a crucial role in the outbreak of the revolution. The financial state of France before the revolution was detrimental. The total revenue for 1796 calculated by Calonne, the controller general of finances, was estimated to be 475 million livres, while the expenditure for was estimated to be 587 million livres. The economy of France was at a deficit. There were many reasons for the deficit of the economy, with the main reason being the increase in state borrowings. These loans taken by the French incurred large annual interests and repayments that the treasury was obligated to pay. The debts that were acquired were so excessive that it cost almost half of the annual revenue. Another reason was that the French government borrowed money on terms less favourable that the British or Dutch because in France there was no publicly supported bank through which government credit could be cheaply channelled. French
The French Revolution
The French Revolution The French revolution was more than just a revolution to change the government of France in fact it changed the whole of France socially, economically as well as politically, to quote A. J. P. Taylor, " The French were confident that they were preparing a new age and that history would begin again from 19 September 1792, when the revolutionary Convention met". In this light it is obviously foolish to look for one neat explaination of the French revolution. There are long-term causes such as the divisions within French society,and the lack of representation for the people within government. There are also short-term causes such as the bankruptcy of the country caused by war coupled with the increases in food prices caused by bad harvests, the need for the absolutist government to call the parlements in order to reform taxation and the sucess of the American revolution which saw a just and rational system of government set up in the colonies which broke away from Great Britian. There are though other factors which need consideration if a true explaination for the causes of the French revolution is to be found. The very structure of the French regime is of vital importance to this question. An absolutist state such as France was then is, by it's very nature, bound to exclude the mass of the people from taking an active role in government and it will
Can the revolt of 1857 be described as a popular revolt against foreign domination?
Ravie Charles B.A.(Hons) History III St. Stephen's College Q. Can the revolt of 1857 be described as a popular revolt against foreign domination? An uprising is termed as popular on the basis of the degree of participation of the general populace and the geographical extent of spread. In addition, the class/caste/section-wise participation and identification of leadership are also taken into account. In case of the revolt of 1857, all these issues have been subject of contentions, and continuing, debates. Yet another issue of debate is about the identification of the target(s) of revolt. While some scholars see the revolt as an anti-British revolt, others consider it a civil war between the collaborators and resisters of colonial rule. Though the scale and intensity of the revolt of 1857 is generally acknowledged to be much greater than previous revolts, this fact by itself does not prove the popular character of the revolt. There was a significant threat to the British rule in India, when a number of Indian soldiers of the British Indian Army rose in revolt in 1857 against their officers and against the colonial regime in general. This revolt of the soldiers struck a sympathetic chord among many people who had their own reasons to be dissatisfied with the British rule. The revolt of 1857 consisted of both rebellion by the sepoys and the reaction from the sections of the