Why was Africa colonised in the years 1870-1914?
Why was Africa colonised in the years 1870-1914? The period of 1870-1914 saw the partitioning of Africa at its greatest - from only 10% of the continent under European control in 1875, to an amazing 90% under European control in 1895. The colonisers included the vast majority of the major imperial powers of Europe - Britain, France, Russia and Germany. There are various motives for colonisation during this period and include not only the economic and political state of Europe, but also less documented reasons such as religious beliefs and feelings of social supremacy. We shall examine each motive separately and then examine whether there was any interdependency within them. The Berlin West Africa Conference (1884-1885) saw the partitioning of Africa amongst the European nations after the speedy 'Scramble for Africa' during the period 1870-1914. The Portuguese colonised both Mozambique and Angola, in southern Africa, whilst South-western Africa, along with Tanganyika in East Africa were under German rule. The Congo was under King Leopold II's rule (eventually Belgian) and Senegal, Cameroon, and several other colonies in the western Sudan and Central Africa were gained by France. However it was Great Britain that colonised vast areas of Africa - Kenya, Uganda in East Africa, the Gold Coast (now known as Ghana) and present day Nigeria in West Africa were all under its rule.
Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks
Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks? Since 1613 Russia had been ruled by members of the Romanov dynasty who were absolute autocratic monarchs; there was no parliament, political parties or local governments. A strict press censorship was in organisation and 90% of the population were serfs. Despite this, Russia was a country of revolutionary tradition, which can be seen in the Decembrist revolt of 1825(which resulted in assassination of Tsar Alexander I). This shows there was national discontent throughout the Tsarist period. To combat this, Alexander II (The tsar liberator) passed the Emancipation Edict in 1861. However, most found this emancipation legislation unsatisfactory (due to redemption payments, the Mir etc) and it is said that the 1905 revolution was a result of the anticlimax of the emancipation, however revolution was always on the agenda in Russia and it was eventually the masses that made it happen. Nicholas II managed to survive this revolution but it did have consequences such as the October manifesto In 1900 Lenin a member of the Social Democrat Party, left Siberia(where he was exiled) and travelled to Europe where he founded a new revolutionary underground newspaper called Iskra (the spark) with which he intended to develop a strong organizational party network.
Thucididies and Heroditus
"The historian's most important quality is accuracy". Discuss this view, with reference to any two historians in the classical period and explain how they contributed to history and if their work is reliable. Herodotus and Thucydides are two of the first historians that contributed greatly to historiography yet their styles of conveying and writing history are vastly different. Herodotus changed the way in which history was presented but it is mainly suggested that he was a great story teller and told facts. Yet, Thucydides is regarded as the Father or history as he went further, Thucydides did not merely attempt to retell history but went as far as to analysis sources and ask existential questions and hence he presented truth in history. Herodotus' methodology was a combination of "disciplined enquiry, based on research, observation, scepticism about information," and a "richness of storytelling". Herodotus broke away from the traditional written form for history which was epic poetry. He instead wrote in prose, "in what was then a relatively new literary form". He did this because he believed that "prose is more flexible." He believed that unlike poetry, prose allows for the entertainment of "all sorts of possibilities" and the playing "of stories one against the others" and as such he believed that prose supplied "freedom to historical writing". Herodotus in this
"Assess the differences and similarities between the tombs belonging to kings and those of their subjects".
"Assess the differences and similarities between the tombs belonging to kings and those of their subjects" To first assess the differences and similarities between the tombs of the pharaohs and those of their subjects, it is perhaps fitting to discuss why tombs were such a focal point of ancient Egyptian life. It was not uncommon to spend a good proportion of one's life preparing the place where you would be buried; the ancient Egyptians had relatively short life spans, and especially amongst women fatality rates were high. Thus it made sense to prepare one's tomb early on to avoid being caught out by death. The tomb was seen by all, king or peasant, as a home for eternity; life did not end with death. This is a very contrasting view to the one many of us hold today, which is why it is at first perhaps hard to grasp, but it was believed wholeheartedly that one passed into the afterlife after dying, where you would continue to live for evermore. A person was considered a split entity, comprising of at least three parts; the body, the soul and what was known as the ka, or the double. The ka was of grave importance, being considered as a spiritual being that was present at all times with a person. It was thought that a person's activities were actually those of one's ka, thus it was important to do that which would please the ka. This spiritual ghost remained in the tomb
"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
"Debased Roman, yet Roman still": compare the roles of 'Romanitas' in two barbarian kingdoms - Ostrogoths in Italy and Merovingians in Gaul.
"Debased Roman, yet Roman still": compare the roles of 'Romanitas' in two barbarian kingdoms - Ostrogoths in Italy and Merovingians in Gaul Before the barbarian states established themselves as replacements to the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, Germanic soldiers had served in the imperial army, rising in rank and even all the way to the Senate; thus they had a similar material culture to Romans, and apart from their names, one could argue, they were indistinguishable. This dates back as far as the mid fourth century, where the Frank, Bonitus, served under Constantine I. Such prominent soldiers were normally more than illiterate boors. Some were self-made, for instance Arbitio, who became Master of Cavalry under Constantius II, having begun his career as a mere soldier. Other barbarians transferred their military power into Rome. These examples indicate an ostensible absorption of barbarians into Roman society. The disappearance of 'us' and 'them' probably did occur before 476, especially in the army. Resultantly, many Germanic leaders became highly Romanised, and this was reflected in their respective societies after the fall of the Western Empire. The Germanic people never destroyed nor restored the Roman world- they just found a home for themselves within it. One emperor in the East however, was enough for them. Romanitas is a concept of wider emporium,
"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
"Europeans were less interested by the New World than their Classical Heritage"
"Europeans were less interested by the New World than their Classical Heritage" The discovery of the Americas in 1492 was a massive challenge to the accepted notions of the world; a world which was still viewed by many in Ptolemaic terms, and laid claims against the accepted wisdom concerning geography, theology, history and the very nature of man. However, despite the momentous implications of a new land and, more importantly, its heathen peoples, there was an apparent slowness to take any real notice of the New World from within the Old World. This lag cannot be explained either by slow dissemination of the news, nor by a lack of understanding of the importance of the discovery. Peter Martyr wrote to the Count of Tendilla and the Archbishop of Grenada in September 1493 to spread the news, opening with the words "Raise your spirits... Hear about the new discovery!" He talked of the gold Columbus found as well as the important news of the men they found, who were naked yet fought with bows and staves; men who had kings competing for power and yet worshipped celestial bodies. The excitement of the initial news was tremendous, and this was reflected in the demand for literature concerning the new discovery. Columbus's first letter concerning his discovery was reprinted 9 times by the end of 1493 and at least 20 times by 1500. Montalboddo's voyages went into print 15 times by
THE RISE AND FALL OF PAGANISM
To what extent did Julian's paganism resemble pre-Constantinian pagan religious practice and how did it differ? What problems did pagans have with Julian's religious approach? THE RISE AND FALL OF PAGANISM A vital aspect of any civilization is their religion. Not only does it serve as a guide for communities on how to act and to live together, but it is also a central governing body of the community, often working side by side with the local government. In today's society Christianity is the most common and popular religion. It has also given rise to other religious groups such as Protestantism and Anglicanism. In ancient times, however, paganism was the standard of religion. According to the definition found in the Catholic encyclopaedia, Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism (q.v.). It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i.e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian.1 Paganism can also be described as a religious practice that was formed from the merging of fragments of beliefs, rituals, superstitions and traditions of the ancient civilization. There is no one doctrine or central writing
