Was the industrial Revolution a good thing?
Was the industrial Revolution a good thing? The Industrial Revolution was a series of many changes that took place in Great Britain from 1750 to 1900. There is much controversy as to whether the changes were for better or for worse and to whether the Industrial Revolution was a good thing or a bad thing. Some people say that it improved peoples' lives, and that technology and entertainment got better. They say that Britain was made a great, rich and powerful country. Others disagree and say that it was a bad thing and that during the Industrial Revolution there were terrible working and living conditions and many people suffered because of the changes that took place. They also say that it caused a lot of pollution and that it changed many people's lifestyles for the worse. In this essay I will investigate the bad and then the good things that happened to people's lives in Britain between 1750 and 1900 and then make up my own mind as to whether the Industrial Revolution was a good thing or not. In the early 1700's a lot of people worked on the land. Nearly all of the people that didn't work on the farms worked in their homes, spinning or weaving. Most families spun and wove in the same room as they did all of their domestic chores. This room was usually quite full, with the children, adults and even the elderly all helping to produce wool and cloth. This was a good idea,
Did agricultural prosperity help or hinder British industrialisation?
Gordon Shannon Topic 2 Did agricultural prosperity help or hinder British industrialisation? I believe that before answering this question it is important to note in the phrasing of this question the word "prosperity" is used in describing agriculture. Prosperity is different from a growth in output or an increase in productivity in that it implies that those involved with the agricultural sector on the whole become more affluent and the consequences of this must be kept in mind. By examining the timing of the "Agricultural Revolution", the changes that took place in agriculture and the effects these may have had on industrialisation we can consider the arguments for and against both sides of this question and then draw an overall conclusion. As is the case with most subjects in the Industrial Revolution there is no clear consensus on when the "Agricultural Revolution" took place. Many historians locate the majority of agricultural developments as taking place between 1700 and 1800 however more recent historians also claim many changes took place before 1700 and in the first half of the 19th Century. They also place greater emphasis on the gradual rather than sudden nature of these developments i.e. many small inventions and innovations where introduced one at a time with each one taking time to diffuse into general use across the country. On the whole though
Should 'westernisation' be regarded as the distinguishing feature of Peter the Great's reign?
Should 'westernisation' be regarded as the distinguishing feature of Peter the Great's reign? On the eve of Peter the Great's accession, Russia was faced with problems on a huge scale. The pace of progress in Europe had left her well behind, and she had become a weak, backward, inward-looking state, increasingly threatened with destruction from the west. A plan drawn up by Liebniz in 1670 outlined a united Europe with Russia merely as an area for colonisation, and while this scheme was never likely to be made a reality, it showed the danger which Peter faced at the start of his reign. Realising this, he embarked on a series of reforms with distinctive western origins, and, "...Russia, raised to her feet by Peter and exerting all her strength, met the challenge." Clearly, the most important target for reform in order to meet the pressing threat of European expansion was the armed forces. Peter inherited a largely inadequate army still constituted to a great extent along late mediaeval lines, though partially modernised by his predecessors. His reorganisation began in 1698 with the formation from conscripts and volunteers of 27 infantry regiments and 2 dragoon regiments, numbering around 30,000 men. Such growth continued throughout his reign until by 1725 some 285,000 men had been recruited. Together with the introduction of standard drill manuals for the whole army,
Does it make sense to use the word ‘Revolution’ to describe the Socio-economic and industrial changes, which occurred in Britain between 1760 and 1830?
Does it make sense to use the word 'Revolution' to describe the Socio-economic and industrial changes, which occurred in Britain between 1760 and 1830? The so-called 'Industrial Revolution' of Britain between 1760 and 1830 poses many questions amongst historians and is a particularly complex issue. Debate surrounds whether or not the industrialisation and the changes it brought about can really be referred to as a revolution. The term Revolution is a complex term and difficult to define. One may argue that in its simplest form a revolution refers to a total transformation, past the point of no return. The term revolution has been applied to the Industrialisation of Britain and the socio-economic and industrial changes it brought with it for many reasons. Deane argues that through industrialisation 'there are certain identifiable changes in the methods and characteristics of economic organisation which, taken together constitute a development of the kind which we would describe as an industrial revolution'.1 However there have been many arguments put forward against that idea that a 'revolution' took place. For example one could argue that Industrialisation was a slower process, and gradual development and therefore not really a revolution. Whatever side one chooses to support it is clear that there were many socio-economic and industrial changes as a result of
Why was there a terror in France?
"Why was there a Terror in France in 1793-1794?" The causes of the Terror in France are one of the most hotly debated topics in modern history. The Terror was implemented to purge France of those who were deemed to be against the new Republic. There are three main causes of the Terror. Firstly, the European war was not going well- despite some victories. The defeats they suffered were more significant than their victories. Secondly, economics played a role. There was great inflation in France which caused great unhappiness and even riots. Thirdly, the Civil War in the Vendée caused national unrest and weakened the army as it drew troops away from the front and back to fight in France. In addition, there was resistance to the Revolution right from the start, these people are referred to as counter-revolutionaries and specifically there were linked to the church and the provinces. Each of these factors helped to contribute to the Terror becoming the order of the day on September 5th 17931. There is a division in the historiography over this event. Traditionalists such as Lefebvre2 and Soboul3 believe that the Terror was due to circumstances at the time. They argue that socio-economic problems in France were so severe that the Terror was needed to control the discontented population. In addition, the war against the majority of Europe was going badly at the time- reinforcing
To what extent was perestroika little more than a Soviet form of democratization?
To what extent was perestroika little more than a Soviet form of democratization? Edward Skinner (0349801) Gorbachev became the Soviet leader on March the 11th, 1985. He became President of the world's second super power, with a population of 265 million1, when it was facing three fundamental problems. These were: . An aging and largely corrupt leadership. 2. A society which was low on morale. 3. An economy which was in sharp decline. Average citizens in the USSR consumed a third of the goods and services, and lived in housing one seventh of the area of their American counterparts. This led to a sharp declined in morale resulting in widespread corruption and crime. Many people turned to vodka in order to feel better, and it is estimated alcoholism alone resulted in a 10% loss of productivity. The challenge for Gorbachev was to rectify all these problems. This he attempted through various fundamental changes. I will begin by examining these reforms, and then move on to gauging how far these reforms can be thought of as being Soviet democratization. The reforms began almost immediately when Gorbachev took office. Between 1985 and 1986, Gorbachev introduced legislation aimed at cutting alcoholism and corruption. These campaigns began on the 5th of April, 1985.2 In May of the same year, this drive to cut alcoholism closed off licenses, reduced hours of sale and raised
The Bolsheviks did not seize power in October 1917, it fell into their hands
The Bolsheviks did not seize power in October 1917, it fell into their hands The very nature of revolution is to seize power and this the Bolsheviks did, but they were greatly assisted by circumstance and the incompetence of those around them. Their ascent to supremacy began not in October but years before. To rigidly frame the Russian Revolution as one of the above statements is thus simply a matter of semantics. Lenin himself admitted that power had not so much been seized as had fallen to him like a ripe fruit from a tree. Yet the events of October were the culmination of decades of turbulent high politics, universal social revolution and Bolshevik spadework. There was no great, symbolic battle to announce a traditional seizure of power - it was the inadequacies of every Bolshevik rival that meant the opportunity to take power was presented and duly taken. From February through to October, there were abundant openings for various political parties and individuals to take control but none took full advantage. With the increasing socialist nature of society, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries had as equal an opportunity as the Bolsheviks, but they either failed to recognize power was in their grasp, or they couldn't bring themselves to brake with the liberal coalition. Lenin showed prudence to ensure that events would unfold to his benefit, but that the
The growth of America's industrialisation was considered the 'gilded age'.
The growth of America's industrialisation was considered the 'gilded age'. In comparison to Britain whose industrial revolution had spanned 100 years, America's rapid transition had taken less than half the time.1 The late 19th century was dominated by a few prominent figures who were regarded as 'captains of industry' - millionaires at the helm of industry and business. This paper will examine whether the growth and success of the industrialisation was attributable to them by considering the success of industrialisation. Secondly, the focus will be on three prominent figures, these being John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J. P. Morgan. By examining their contributions and the conditions which supported them, it can be established as to whether they were responsible for the growth and success of industrialisation. Other aspects to consider include the progress of the railroads, availability of natural resources and the industrial workforce. Finally, the use of new technological advances and marketing techniques will be assessed to determine their impact on the industrialisation process. When measuring the success of America's industrialisation in urban terms, the emergence of cities in 1880 was concentrated in the northeastern side of the country until the advance of the railroads. Agricultural industries in the south and mid-west 'fuelled the rest of the economy'
Define the changing relationship between masters and slaves in the antebellum South
Define the changing relationship between masters and slaves in the antebellum South Define the changing relationship between masters and slaves in the antebellum South Few institutions in American history have made such a fundamental impact as slavery, from it's origins in the mid-seventeenth century, to its abolition in 1863, following President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the North's victory in the American Civil War. In attempting to study the history of black slavery in the antebellum South, it is fundamental to consider that the institution of slavery was dynamic, as the relationship between masters and slaves altered over time. This changing rapport was largely shaped by events in American history, and can be analysed in several different time-spans: early colonial America, the effects of the American Revolution, and the modern slave status resulting from the Industrial Revolution. The first African slaves were transported into the Chesapeake, after 1619, when a Dutch vessel unloaded "Twenty negars" in Jamestown, Virginia. Some of the first black settlers were treated as indentured servants, with a limited period of servitude, gradually achieving liberty and land; by 1660, a racially-constructed system of black slavery was in operation. It is apparent that the early colonial Southern society treated blacks in a differential manner to the white population:
French Revolution
'The French Revolution: Causes and Outcomes' Braidot, Agostina Mores, Evangelina Instituto Superior de Profesorado n° 4 'Ángel Cárcano' E.D.I. - Social Studies III Ms Maggio June 22nd, 2010 Introduction In the last years of the eighteenth century, France lived a period of political and social commotion due to a number of factors which inevitably led to a massive revolt. That rebellion soon turned into a revolution of people deciding to rewrite their history and that of the modern world. Although Louis XVI's reign and his affairs in war were a major cause of a revolution, there are also other aspects which added to the chaotic situation, such as the high and unfair taxation and the influence of the Glorious and the American Revolution. The French Revolution Causes Lay (1960) remarks that Louis XVI's (see appendix 1, picture 1) lavish kingship together with the unequal social and economical condition of the lower classes triggered a violent revolt the world had never seen before. France's financial problems started several years before Louis XVI inherited the throne. Barnes and Noble (2010) claim that the French engagement in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) made the country face a substantial deficit. Such an economic crisis was deepened when Louis XVI decided to grant the American aid for their revolution (1775-1783), and therefore partake in a war that
