Napoleon Bonaparte was an important French political and military leader in the early 1800s and was one of the most important leaders in history. Napoleon became the first French consul after conducting a successful coup d’etat in 1799. Napoleon was very important during the French Revolution, and also went on to rule France and most of Europe from 1799-1805 due to his obsession of power and control. Even though Napoleon had some accomplishments, Napoleon treated his people like a tyrant would and thought of only himself. Because of Napoleon’s selfishness when conquering other countries he is considered a tyrant.
Germany in 1914 was a growing Parliamentary democracy rather that an entrenched autocracy. How far do you agree with this view? Leading up to 1914 Germany, in the Second Reich, could be considered an autocracy because of the way Bismarck had left the Reichstag the Kaiser had a great deal of power that the German people had very little say on. However, I believe it would be very harsh to label the autocracy as entrenched as there was a constitutional crisis and this shed light on the fact that the Kaiser’s power was not absolute. Also, events such as the Hottentot election of 1907 and the Daily Telegraph affair were examples of when the Kaiser had to work and deal with the democratic sides of the constitution.
In addition, the wars only ended when a strong King returned to the Throne; Henry IV after the ninth war. Until 1559, France’s Monarchs, such as Francis I, Henry II and Louis XII, portrayed themselves as ‘fathers of the people’, and were used to getting their own way. They were not young and weak when coming to the throne, but were already well established Dauphins. These men were used to getting their own way; for example, the Bourbon rebellion was crushed easily by Henry II, and when the Parlement of Paris rejected the Concordat of Bologna in 1516, Francis I threatened them and in the end forced it through. However, the dominating nature of these kings, while keeping the country in order, did lay the foundations for war later on in the century.
France wasn’t part of the colonies like America was, America was sick of being treated badly, and unfairly so they decided to fight. But as for France they were having trouble with their government and needed to create a new one witch they did. And to me it seems like America had much more at stake. The American and French Revolution both worked out in favor of France and for America they both got what they wanted France got the government they fought for, and America parted ways with Britain. The two revolutions were a big part in both America’s history, and a big part in Frances history.
Henry was exposed to the pull of the factions but a new aristocratic approach to the government strengthened the conservative faction however with the arrest of Duke of Norfolk (1547) and the dismissal of Gardiner from the Privy Chamber the reformists gained the much needed advantage . This shows that there was a threat to the stability of the government as Henrys most trusted councillors seemed to become more radically involved in the faction rivalry during the last 8 years of Henrys reign. This may have added pressure on Henry and his deteriorating health thus he may have not been able
The Metternich system (conservatives) gave the power back to the Nobility and the Clergy, leaving nothing for the bourgeoisie. After the congress of Vienna, the power was given back to the Nobility and the Clergy, therefore, extinguishing the idea of freedom-bringing change to Europe. Answer for Question #2: I think that these revolutions in 1830 and 1848 broke out in France partially because the French people are short-tempered and everything during these times happens in France first, but mainly because at those two times, the people of France didn’t like what their rulers were doing so they revolted. At the time of the 1830 revolution, the radical Charles X was in charge. He had complete power and with that power he forced Catholicism and raised taxes on the bourgeoisie to give money to the nobility and the clergy.
The monarchy treated its states people terribly and they were fed up, this is how the revolutionaries came to be, in general the revolutionaries were to an extent successful because they overthrew the monarchies however they were then beaten by the Austrian reinforcements that the monarchy asked help from. Mazzini was born in 1805 in Genoa; he became a nationalist after witnessing the Piedmontese refugee revolutionaries. I will be arguing whether or not Mazzini’s limited appeal was the main reason for the slow progress of national unity or whether it was down to the weak armies, little communication or with Metternia’s army. Mazzini believed that every man was equal which is why he was very unpopular with the middle, upper and aristocratic members of society as they did not wish to lose their power, influence and money. This made it difficult for Mazzini to obtain national unification as a majority of powerful and influential people in Italy were against his ideologies, this meant that the progress of national unification was very slow as a large amount of people opposed his views.
Question: “In Louis XIV’s view, what were the qualities of an effective monarch? In his opinion, what were the main obstacles to absolute rule? Louis XIV’s view of an “effective” monarch is absolutism in power and direct control over his subjects by giving them no more and no less to “carefully guard against their excess (Document D) as well as external glory in foreign affairs. Louis wasn’t fond of nobilities during his absolute rule as monarch in France, because of the past rebellion of the Fronde, however in Louis XIV’s view he wasn’t to be effective if he had dissolved the nobles rather he would work through them instead. With the Fronde in the back of Louis’s mind, he was to make an effective choice of picking members for his council, which would rule his political, military, administrative, and economical affairs.
Weltpolitik or “world policy” was the Kaisers attempt at dominating the political scene worldwide, a policy which is often cited as one of the reasons behind WWI. Despite the obvious flaws in the policy, the Reichstag approved it, indicating that the Kaiser held the ultimate power, making Germany an autocratic state. The second example of the Kaisers domination is his control over Domestic policy. Sammlungspolitik was the Kaisers answer to the threat of socialist uprisings. This policy built up an alliance of conservative interests including the Junkers, élites, industrialists, conservatives and liberals.
The whole point of America becoming its own sovereign country was Britain’s overbearing control on the colonies. Many early Americans had concerns and feared a government in which, by design, could become too strong. Consequentially, the Democratic – Republican party (later known to historians simply as the Republican Party) was formed with ideas of smaller government and thusly, less control. A semblance of the rivalry between the parties in the United States could be seen in the French Revolution. The Republicans supported the popular forces in the French Revolt and wanted America to assist.