"Hero or Villain?" Evaluate the contribution of Napoleon Bonaparte to French history in terms of both domestic and foreign policy in the period 1799-1815.
Scott Sandoval AP European History Period B December 27, 2001 "Hero or Villain?" Evaluate the contribution of Napoleon Bonaparte to French history in terms of both domestic and foreign policy in the period 1799-1815. On August 15, 1769, on a small French governed, Italian cultured, Mediterranean Island, Corsica, Napoleon Bonaparte was born. Little did his upper-middle class parents know that on that day their miracle would write the history books and become one of the best military leaders for two centuries. Napoleon first joined the army when he graduated from school, age sixteen. He was quickly promoted to lieutenant colonel of Corsican National Guard, in 1791. Napoleon was patriotic to France and when the Corsican people revolted he fled to the mainly and took his family to with him. His first major combat came when we was assigned to quite a revolting naval base. He came out victorious and was promoted to brigadier general when he was only twenty-four years old. This was only the beginning of his career. Three years after marrying his wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais, was Napoleon's period of largest influence. This time period lasted for almost sixteen years and is known as the Napoleonic Era. During Napoleon's lifetime he acquired many territories, most of which were gained it the about 16 year span. Some believe that Frenchman Napoleon Bonaparte was the second
"How justified was Gladstone in his criticism of Disraeli's foreign policy as 'reckless, territorial expansionism"?
"How justified was Gladstone in his criticism of Disraeli's foreign policy as 'reckless, territorial expansionism"? Benjamin Disraeli was a divisive personality; he divided political opinion in his own time and has divided historical opinion posthumously. Some historians see him as a great statesman and father of the modern Tory Party, whereas others question the importance of him as a historical figure at all. The historical intrigue of Disraeli lies in his volatile with his opponent William Ewart Gladstone leader of the Liberal Party. The lead politicians of their day, the pair verbally sparred over many issues but none so frequently as Foreign Policy. Gladstone learnt early on in his career after the Crimean War, that his personal mantra of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform" didn't sit well with an imperial foreign policy, whereas for Disraeli the empire was the glittering jewel in Britain's crown as leading world power. Disraeli has been credit by many as a shrewd political thinker, and his idolization of Imperial Britain is seen by many as merely an effective device for uniting the electorate with jingoistic rhetoric. This essay will argue that Gladstone's criticism of Disraeli is misplaced, his actions were not reckless but carefully considered, and while some of his decisions were ethically debatable they were meticulously calculated to bring the Tory Party, (and
"Do you agree with Bismarck's opinion that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened?"
"Do you agree with Bismarck's opinion that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened?" Bismarck claimed that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened. I disagree with this, as it was definitely not the case. Events happened before 1848 such as cultural nationalism, the Industrial Revolution, the Zollverein and the growth of roads and railways. This was due to the increasing progress of German Nationalism. Germany was split into 39 different States, which were totally independent and able to make its own laws. It was this separation of Germany that enabled so much to happen in Germany between 1815 and 1848. Cultural Nationalism assisted the growth of nationalist ideas. Linked with the Romantic Movement it consisted of literature, music, art and national traditions. Scholars and poets concentrated in writing in their native tongues and even National Anthems were composed to arouse a German feeling. People also started taking an interest in the history that surrounded them. Someone in particular who contributed to these new ideas was Hegel, a German writer and philosopher. Having such a Nationalist philosopher present gave people a vision of a United Germany as did many other academics and University lecturers. Cultural Nationalism helped spread pride in Germany and encouraged movement towards unity. Another factor that did
'WELLINGTON'S WATERLOO' The French Revolution played a significant role in the history of Britain. The ideal of intellectual enlightenment and the idea of an end of a corrupt and antiquated government and monarchist rule, swept across Europe from the summer of 1789. This followed the highly symbolic storming of the Bastille, and the Declaration of the Rights of man. However, when the Revolution degenerated into 'The terror' of Robespierre's government by fear and terrorism, intellectual joy turned into conservatism, and a feeling of betrayal. Politically, the social consequences were profound. As Britain staggered under the shock of Industrial Revolution, Urbanisation and the creation of a working class, the authoritarian response to the French Revolution, was a series of repressive acts of parliament and social measures, like the suspending of the writ of habeas corpus. Just as the new society cried out for help, Reform was effectively quashed for thirty years. The French Revolution also gave rise from Corsican outcast to Emperor, of Napoleon Bonaparte. This man perhaps affected Britain the most, and much as been written about this legendary figure and his wars of aggression. The object of this essay is, however, to tell the story of Bonaparte's final fall, in terms of military history and one engagement, which saw Bonaparte meet an equally illustrious figure, his
Which better explains Britain's success in the Napoleonic Wars: military and naval power or gold and diplomacy?
Which better explains Britain's success in the Napoleonic Wars: military and naval power or gold and diplomacy? During the French and Napoleonic Wars Britain's main objectives in defeating France were to blockade the French coastline and attack enemy colonies by means of naval power, fight a war on the continent using small units of British forces, plus pay subsidies to allies; and lastly was to support opponents of the Revolution inside of France. The naval strategy was successful, the others less so. In the early nineteenth century Britain had one of the smallest army of all the major European powers. Although through tight discipline, shrewd tactics and sound command. This recognised Britain as being a force to be reckoned with. The strength of the British armies tactics and commend was a major factor in the downfall of Napoleon's empire. Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington), was in charge of the British army, he was a great tactician and strategist. When he became the leader he created the opportunity of undertaking offensive operations against Napoleon on a scale that was not before thought possible. Napoleon Bonaparte's army was thought of as being invincible throughout the whole of Europe. However Britain's successful Peninsular campaign proved that this was wrong. The British army however did not fight alone and for most of the earlier years of the wars
the troppau protocol
The Troppau Protocol, November 1820 ) The fifty-odd years after the Napoleonic wars, usually referred to as the "Concert of Europe or the "European Congress System" have been either praised for their stable peace or criticised for their reactionary anti-liberalism. Several arguments have been developed to explain their stability: balance of power, fear of causing revolution, change in preferences and general system legitimacy. The Congress System was an attempt to maintain peace and order through the mixed influence and actions of the major states. Some historians believe that the term 'System' is inaccurate because there was nothing systematic about the meetings and that they were individual responses to crises. Others see the congresses as a significant attempt to resolve tensions. Austria, Britain, Prussia and Russia formed the Quadruple Alliance and agreed to maintain peace. But the major powers had different aims. Austria and Russia were in favour to intervene against revolutions while Britain did not wish to join in internal arguments. Congresses were held to resolve quarrels. At Aix-la-Chapelle, France was allowed to the Quintuple Alliance that was when the occupation of France ended. Only Austria, Prussia and Russia met at St Petersburg in 1825 the last meeting of the Congress, which was an unsuccessful effort to resolve their problems. It was the loss of the
What was the significance of higher education for women
John Bolton, BA(chs) year 3 What was the significance of higher education for women, and why was there so much opposition to it? There are two issues for consideration here. The significance of higher education is that it allowed women access to a wider variety of occupations which were more befitting of skills women were not previously recognised as having. But not only that; it meant narrowing the gap towards equality between the sexes. It gave them recognition of intelligence, and gave them a status in society far grander than ever before. But it also meant they were encroaching, even trespassing, on the male sphere, which was the major opposition for higher education; Sandra Taylor explains that women were consciously contained within certain job categories in order that male jobs would not be threatened (1977). Josephine Butler expounds a reason why women desired higher education, and there is no doubt she can be considered a reliable source; in 1868 she wrote the pamphlet 'The education and employment of women', which presented far more thoughtful and intelligent reasoning and arguments that did many of the supposedly intellectual men of the time, such as Dr. Henry Maudsley in his 1874 article in 'Fortnightly Review' (to which we will come). She was also a key player in the campaign to persuade Cambridge University to provide more opportunities for women students
Why did Chartism Fail?
Why did Chartism fail? The question why Chartism failed and why it was so quickly has never been answered to a satisfactory level. If Chartism was a reaction to hunger and to the disorganisation of traditional industries then the good economic climate which followed the Great Exhibition of 1851, the increase in stability of Britain's industries in this period and the organisation in which new industrial workforce was allowed to develop is enough to say why Chartism declined and died. The 'hunger Chartism' was the rational movement moved into the organisation of consumer cooperatives, new model trade unions, reading-rooms, mechanics' institutes, local government, friendly societies and other organisations which skilled workers developed at the end of the nineteenth century. This implies to some extent a betrayal by the skilled and frequently employed of the ambitions of the less fortunate associate. This could mean that the idea of 'a conscious move by the employing class to divide the skilled workers from the rest'. The Chartist period shows a conflict between the 'hegemonic middle class and the traditional culture of the British working class'. This conflict is only seen by the end of Chartism and by the inclusion of articulate members of the working class into the traditions and values of the middle class. (Thompson p. 330) In the 1860s when parliamentary reform was looked
Book review- Harriet Ann Jacobs autobiography "Incidents in the life of a slave girl"
First published in 1861, Harriet Ann Jacobs' autobiography Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is part of the African-Americans' most popular genre in this time. Literature has also begun among the white Americans. Slave narratives are in generally chronicles from slavery to freedom, with descriptions of different tortures suffered during the trip until the acquisition of an education or an income or even emancipation. In contrast, Jacobs shades emphasizing her reliance on other people, the trust given to her close relatives, showing the different ways to escape the bondage. Under the pen name of Linda Brent, Harriet A. Jacobs shares her reflections of horrendous treatments she and others endured as a slave in the South in the nineteenth century, which was a recurrent theme in the African-American history. From happy days in her young childhood and before the freedom she reached decades later, it goes without saying that she had to pass through many different situations. Yet, slavery trades were abolished early in the nineteenth century in the United States, its system still remained in many states, which were distinguished by "free state" or "slave state". Persistently, she keeps her hate towards slavery and its consequences and does not forget to mention it. However, she was lucky: she was not treated in the same way as many other African-Americans generally did, as
Critical Commentary The first primary source I am going to discuss is the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen' of 1789. The second source I am going to discuss is the extracts from the 'Prussian State Laws' of 1794. This is a way of comparing two sources from roughly the same period but from two different countries i.e. France and Germany. The first document, 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen', is a written source written by the National Assembly of the French people who believed this declaration to be universally applicable. Therefore, all of these guided laws should be followed by all human beings in the whole world. 'Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided by law'. This guided law is still applicable to British Law and the idea of liberty is still very much part of our society today. However, it must be said that these guided laws were written by a society which had different views than society has today and they would have been written by men who most likely would have been from an upper class and it would be difficult to say if they would take into consideration the needs of the lower classes. It is also important that the French Revolution would have had an impact on the document produced. We do