Why did the question of whether history was a science become so important in the second half of the nineteenth century?
Why did the question of whether history was a science become so important in the second half of the nineteenth century? The question of whether history was a science become so important in the second half of the nineteenth century because of the accumulation of various factors both present and brewing in the pot of 19th century society. This essay will examine both those who viewed history as a science and those who did not and by comparing the merits of each school of thought, reach a thoughtful conclusion as to why the issue became important, explaining the mutual misunderstandings between the two schools. Before the 19th century, 'science' had been used to refer only to the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry. The dominance of science over western culture and thinking led many historians to approach history in a much more scientific manner. Historians were split, with some wanting to follow the methodology of science and form a new set of laws to use in the study of history. Others favoured the traditional methods already applied in the discipline of history and viewed history as fundamentally different to the natural sciences, due in part to the role of human action and the inherit unpredictability of the human mind. For those who supported the importance of history as a science, it was history's reliance on facts and documents that they believed made it
Influences that led to change within the system of nations in the period 1815-1914.
Influences that led to change within the system of nations in the period 1815-1914. Kevin L. Boyd Norwich University Abstract The world faced drastic changes during the period of 1815-1914 with many nations entering the industrial revolution, fighting the first modern wars, and revolutionized agricultural practices taking hold. The period that I am looking at in this paper began with the Congress of Vienna from September of 1814 until June of 1815, where the nations allied against France dictated their terms and in doing so changed the way diplomacy was conducted. This period saw the era of Pax Britannica, which was the expansion of the British Empire into all corners of the globe. Several modern European nation-states unified into the modern nations of Germany, Italy, and Austro-Hungary. Democratization took hold in most continental European nations, and vast majorities of the population began to migrate to cities leading to nation-states becoming more urbanized. The United States of America fought a terrible civil war that affected Europe both in trade and in ideals. And finally this period ends with the clouds of war gathering over Europe for a conflict unlike any the world has ever seen before. I will look at the resulting changes, whether they could have been sustained, and the consequences of the changes. Keywords: Industrial Revolution, Congress of Vienna,
What interpretations can be made as to the extent of brigandage and also the way in which it was combated throughout the 1860s in Southern Italy?
What interpretations can be made as to the extent of brigandage and also the way in which it was combated throughout the 1860's in Southern Italy? The term Brigandage can be described as an outward expression of social protest. The Brigand is often an individual that becomes immortalized through the medium of literature and folklore. Within the Italian context, these were epitomized by certain bands of people from within the ranks of the poorer classes. They succeeded in causing chaos within the context of a newly unified nation. Common features of these Brigand groups were their capacity to commit a wide range of crimes and atrocities to attain a specific goal. Such crimes included robbery and the sacking of villages, kidnapping for monetary gain and even the act of murder. It can be said that this primitive form of social disobedience struck at the heart of a nation and had the capacity to function as a means of destroying the state. It is also true however, that a state in itself can be reconstructed, unlike the deep rooted sense or innate sense of immorality that existed within the minds of these characters. As the groups carried out their crimes, the opposing forces found themselves in a new and morally confusing dilemma. In order to combat such banditry, they themselves would also have to commit unlawful acts and lower themselves to the level of the perpetrators. In
The Louisiana Purchase.
To my mind, the single greatest accomplishment during the first half of the 19th century, had to be the acquisition of the landmass (known as the Louisiana Purchase), which encompassed the middle third of the American continent. The United States went from being a relatively small, recently independent country one moment, to emerging as one of the world's largest sovereign nations, the next. The existing national resources more than doubled immediately upon the closing of the deal. And although the amount was considered a goodly sum back then, when considering the totally package from the usually infallible perspective of hindsight; and taking into account all of the advantages which the purchase allowed the fledging U.S., it was actually a mere pittance of the true value of the deal. Also, without the ownership of this vast expanse of natural resources, western expansion would have been almost impossible. In 1762, France had practically given the land to Spain, but in 1800, the treaty of San Ildefonso allowed the French to reacquire the area. At the time, Napoleon Bonaparte had grand dreams of a French Empire in the New World. He was hoping to use the island of Hispaniola as the center of his domain, with the Mississippi Valley as the main food and trade route from which to support his empire. Unfortunately for him, a slave revolt led by Toussaint L'Ouverture dashed his
Explain why Gender was used for such diverse political purposes in the late 18th Century
Explain why gender was used for such diverse political purposes in this period? During the late eighteenth through to the early twentieth centuries, gender has been used in various different ways to aid and hinder political activism. Historians often use the term 'gender' to explore the differences between men and women during this period which allows us to see how they interact with each other. Indeed, in recent years, there has been an increased interest in the part that women have had to play in history and the influence that they have had on political events. Feminists have often asked how and under what conditions the roles and function of each sex have been defined: "how the very meanings of 'man' and 'woman' varied according to time and place"1. However, it is also important for historians not to fall into the trap of taking the term 'gender' to only be in reference to the roles and lack of attention that women have received throughout history, and for this reason, I wish to discuss the importance of both men and women in the changing political climate. This era of 'modern' history can be seen as a time of great change, with significant developments in the fields of science, politics, warfare and technology. With the outlook that this was the age of discovery and globalisation, it easy to see why European powers began a political, economic and cultural colonization of
Was Disraeli a Genuine Supporter of Parliamentary Reform by 1867?
Was Disraeli a Genuine Supporter of Parliamentary Reform by 1867? In 1867 a Bill was passed extending the limits to which voters were bound by. It meant that Disraeli could use this new voting populous to help his party gain power or that it was a result of his genuine desire for democracy. Robert Lowe believed that Disraeli used the reform bills to his political advantage, writing in 1867, "They were to enjoy the popularity that is caught by bringing them in". AJP Taylor highlights that Disraeli wanted populous voting, "Disraeli made mass parties inevitable". However in 1859 Disraeli was opposed to such reform because he thought suffrage should be permitted by qualities such as intelligence and not by your mere existence. Speaking in 1865 Disraeli said, "My present opinion is opposed, as it originally was, to any course of the kind," referring to the modification of the franchise to allow more voting. At this point, Disraeli objected to increasing the voting populous because he felt "suffrage should remain a privilege". It is obvious that he was not a supporter of parliamentary reform because he believed it would subsequently change the constitution. In 1866 he made a passionate speech against universal suffrage claiming it would lead to "the rule of mobs in great towns". So if Disraeli was opposed to reform in 1865 and 1866, the years leading up to the bill in 1867 was he
What was the significance of the Paris Commune of 1871?
The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Faculty of Humanities and Education Department of History Coursework Assignment Name: Lyndon C. Harrington ID#: 809001640 Course: Continuity and Change in the 19th Century Europe (Hist. 2401) Lecturer: Mr. Jerome Teelucksing Question #1: "What was the significance of the Paris Commune of 1871?" On March 18th, 1871, the revolutionary workers of Paris established the Commune. It was the first attempt at proletarian dictatorship; according to Kropotkine (1896) "the people of Paris rose against a despised and detested Government, and proclaimed the city independent, free, belonging to itself." The late1860s were a period of social and political ferment in Paris as well as the rest of urban France.1 In part because of an 1864 law legalizing strikes and an 1868 law liberalizing controls on the press and public meetings, but also because growing discontent with the regime of Emperor Louis Napoleon, strikes became more frequent throughout France's industrial regions and calls for social and political reforms became more vociferous. The Paris Commune only lasted 72 days, but it had a great many victims. More than 100,000 men and women were killed or exiled to the colonies when the bourgeoisie triumphed. The Commune is the great tradition of the French working class. The mute walls of P?re Lachaise2 remind the French workers of
How far was Austrian weakness the most important element in German Unification?
How far was Austrian weakness the most important element in German Unification? When the German Confederation was introduced in 1815, Austria was the leading state out of the 39. They held the place as the most influential and dominant force in the Confederation. AJP Taylor refers to the Confederation as the pivotal point in the Unification of Germany. He says that this factor, along with others, led to the 'inevitable' unification. I am going to look at whether the decline of Austria from the very top and their weaknesses were the most important factor in unification. Since the introduction of the German Confederation in 1815, Austria and Prussia began a period of rivalry or 'peaceful dualism'. Austria was the most powerful state in the confederation, allowing them to control most of what was going on. This was always going to lead to the rivalry between the two states. Between 1815 and 1848, Austria's Chancellor, Metternich, defended Austrian status quo. He was heavily dedicated in keeping the state the same and not making changes to a 'working' system. This seemed a good idea at the time, as Austria was prospering in the early 1810's and 1820's. Metternich was a reactionary leader and this led to the demise of the state, as progress couldn't be made due to changes not being made. This was made worse by the fact that there was no competent replacement after
Which leader was more successful in terms of their legislation? Disraeli or Gladstone?
Which leader was more successful in terms of their legislation? Disraeli or Gladstone? During the latter part of the nineteenth century party politics especially was beginning to emerge for the first time. Politics suddenly became important to people who could foresee an advantage to parliamentary reform, when after the Second Reform Act (1867) propaganda started to encourage the populous vote. This Act was a result of the first, thirty-five years previously which left people wanting more. Brett (1934) described it as, "the nation [beginning] to clamour for further extensions of the franchise". In 1867 Disraeli surfaces as more radical than the Liberals but were the bills that he passed a success? With regards to legislation which leader was truly more successful? It appears that the legislation both Gladstone and Disraeli made can be distinctly characterised. In this Victorian period class-based politics are evident in recruiting voters, legislation is aimed at particular classes and the different classes represent the new politic parties and politicians. Gladstone uses it to adhere to his own religious beliefs (Licensing Act, 1872) or which primarily relates to the middle or upper classes (Civil Service Act). Furthermore he introduced a formal examination to enter the Civil Service which was very prestigious and did not attract the intellect of the working classes. The
The Age of Napoleon Napoleon brought an end to the revolution in 1799 called himself the Son of the Revolution
Chapter 19 Third Reading Pages 544-550 The Age of Napoleon * Napoleon brought an end to the revolution in 1799 * called himself the Son of the Revolution * "I am the Revolution" The Rise of Napoleon * in October 1795, Napoleon saved the National Convention from the Parisian mob and in 1796 he was made commander of the French army in Italy * defeated the Austrians and dictated peace to them in 1797 * in 1797 Napoleon returned to France * proposed an indirect attack on Britain by taking Egypt and threatening India * British controlled seas and cut off Napoleon's army in Egypt * abandoned troops and returned to Paris * participated in the coup d'etat that ultimately led to his dictatorship of France * with the coup of 1799, a new form of the Republic was proclaimed with a constitution that established a bicameral legislative assembly elected indirectly to reduce role of elections * Article 42 of the constitution said "the decision of the First Consul shall suffice" * Napoleon directly controlled the entire executive authority of government * Napoleon was made consul for life in 1802 * crowned himself Emperor Napoleon I in 1804 Napoleon and the Catholic Church * Napoleon made peace with the Catholic church in 1801 * made negotiations with Pope Pius VII to reestablish the Catholic church in France * both sides gained from the Concordat that Napoleon
