"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
Were there any significant ideological differences between Nazism and Fascism during the inter-war period?
NAZISM + FASCISM * Were there any significant ideological differences between Nazism and Fascism during the inter-war period? * Behind the official image of the new regimes in Italy and Germany was to be found the decomposition of nineteenth century liberalism. The 'new orders' established a different set of values and purposes as a reaction to western individualism and the laissez-faire society that was seen as decadent. The entry of the masses into politics and the intellectual revolution in social thought where 2 important developments at the turn of the century. In contrast to Britain and France, Italy had achieved national unification in the 1860's. Strong regionalism and weak inefficient governments presiding over an agricultural economy created social tensions. These were greatly heightened in 1896 when Italy was defeated in Ethiopia whilst trying to expand its fledgling empire. In Italy, in 1919 Mussolini's Fascist movement emerged onto the political scene. A revolutionary radicalism of the right, action orientated, ultranationalism, anti-Marxism, anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, anti-pacifism. Later that year a similar movement but far more racist and violent, Adolf Hitler's National Socialism, emerged in Germany. Ideologically the state, not the individual, counted. Politically, dictatorship from above, not consent from below was imposed.
Why were the games important for the Romans? The games were important to the Romans for three main reasons, which will be explored in this essay. Firstly
Part 2 - Why were the games important for the Romans? The games were important to the Romans for three main reasons, which will be explored in this essay. Firstly, and most significantly, they provided the Romans with a sense of civilised order and democratic influence. Secondly the games held a mythological importance and religious symbolism which was inherent in society. Finally, the games reinforced already strong Roman values and morals. Each of these elements served to make the games vital to Roman society and culture. When the democratic system was altered to an imperial one, the emperors needed a way to appease the people, although they had lost the right to vote. The games fulfilled this role. To the Romans, the amphitheatre was a place of order, a triumph over chaos and lawlessness. They could communicate their feelings, and as the Emperor attended these games, they had the opportunity to voice their opinions directly to him. Occasionally it might be complaints about the cost of wheat, or calling for the removal of an unpopular official. The security of the crowd facilitated this, and the impression of direct communication was perhaps of more importance than the actual communication. The arena was a place of justice, where people saw criminals executed and social order established, and Romans had an interactive part to play; "The spectators demand that the slayer
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
Industry and Community - View of the Agriculture of Middlesex, 1807.
Student Number: 9906884 Tutor ~ David Wrench Module: Industry and Community. Primary Source Document: Enclosure, John Middleton, 1798, View of the Agriculture of Middlesex, 1807 The parliamentary enclosures of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were controversial and stimulated collective debate amongst contemporaries. Whilst enclosure was not a new concept and had been in existence since the Tudor period, the enclosing of common land by enforcement was considered radical. As a result, enclosure encountered opposition from contemporary writers who postulated upon its adversary effect on rural life and the long-term social consequences. Yet despite criticism, the enclosure movement also attracted enthusiasm and gained support. The objective of this analysis is to examine John Middleton's excerpt and support his argument with both contemporary and recent historiography. Importantly, it is necessary to briefly discuss the process of enclosure and the agricultural developments that physically, economically and socially transformed Britain's countryside. The chronological history of enclosure was a continuous process that spanned over four hundred years in a somewhat sporadic fashion. Enclosure or engrossment of land was implemented in various manners, some less disruptive than others. Non-parliamentary enclosure occurred either by a gradual piecemeal
