Was King John really a bad king? Most people think that King John was a bad King for example he taxed people heavily, he lost wars, also he stole from people. People only believe this because in those times the monks where the only ones who could write but they were all biased to the Pope. John did do good things for people such as he fed paupers increased the size of the navy. In this paragraph I aim to prove that king John was a bad king.
The Opium War (1839-1842) was now in full effect. For the British, the war was seen as an upholding of free trade, and national honor (in the face of the backwards Chinese), while for the Chinese the war was viewed as a fight against opium and British authority. With the advancement of British troops in northern China, the Qing emperor became increasingly dissatisfied with Commissioner Lin, leading to his expulsion and exile. Although Lin was quickly replaced by a new governor general Ch’-i-shan, he too was dismissed when agreements made between the British forces and himself were deemed inadequate (i.e. the Ch’uan-Pi Convention).
However, China's revolution differed because the initial democratic establishment led to opposition from the Communist party while the formation of the U.S.S.R faced minimal opposition. In China, the Qing dynasty was ineffective, instead of trying to modernized as early as possible, it squandered what remained of its wealth and in doing so led to heavy losses in influence and power. Similarly, in Russia, The Tsars became ineffective, the decision to enter World War I had brought Russia to its knees socially, politically and economically. The Tsars also faced many scandals that would deface their influence in Russian cities. It was due to these reasons that both China and Russia were seeking to replace the government in power with new ones that would appeal to the population's demands.
Though this proposition is correct, I argue that the decentralization of the Chinese system of governance was an integral reason for its inability to cope with the challenges posed by modern nation-states. This decentralization is characterized by many factors including internal social unrest, lack of strong leadership, corruption, and traditional ideals. The already decentralized, corrupt state was thus easily exploited by modern imperialist powers due to their superior military technology and organization. Eventually, China’s decline and successive defeats led to the fall of the last Chinese empirical dynasty. To begin, it is necessary to have a strong understanding of China’s background as an empire and what led to its decline during this period.
Conflicting national interest caused relations between the two powers to deteriorate further, as shown in Russia’s decision to double its army along the Russian and Chinese border following the border disputes. Ideological differences however, were still a source of the conflict, as Mao was very critical of Khrushchev and his return to some capitalist ideas. This suggests that it is more likely that the Sino-Soviet split originate from a personal and mutual dislike between the two Communist leaders because of their difference in ideology. Therefore, although the Sino-Soviet split was not solely the result of ideological differences as national interests and the personalities of Mao and Khrushchev were also to blame, ideology was still a
The British people therefore began to question whether or not the war had all been worth it. Furthermore, the fact that pro-Boer meetings were highly attended, is evidence of the fact that Imperialism lost prestige because of the war. In other words, the British people found the war morally wrong. At the pro-Boer meeting in Birmingham in 1901, leaded by the Liberal Lloyd George, Lloyd George claimed that it was not worth spending a huge amount of money and soldiers to
The second outcome of the revolutions was that the countries were dramatically changed, two great powers were stopped and communist leaders eventually took over in the two countries. Russia and China both shared similar goals in that they both wanted a new form of government and leadership. Russia’s ruler was Tsar Nicholas II which ruled Russia for more than three centuries. China’s ruling dynasty was the Qing Dynasty. Tsar Nicholas II wasn’t much of a good ruler for Russia; he ignored the fact that Russia wasn’t doing so good and overlooked the industrialization and nationalism that was occurring throughout Russia.
Nicholas II was the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and his own arrogance and incompetence was a key factor in what led him to that title. His decision to maintain an autocratic government, fight in the Russo-Japanese war, and, ultimately, drag Russia into World War I, proved he was not fit to rule, and his actions led to the destruction of his dynasty. In these ways, Nicholas II, while faced with many problems, may have survived had he not ruled the way he did. Nicholas II was an implacable autocrat, and his fear of change alienated the Russian people from their leader. When Nicholas was young, he witnessed his grandfather, Alexander II, being assassinated by terrorists.
Similarly Source K exhibits the hatred Ulster Unionists felt towards Home Rule as they ‘would resort to force’ to ensure their prosperity was not compromised by a terrorists wishes to become independent. The media displayed negative views to Parnell also, Source R indicates how publications like The Times linked Parnell to Fenianism, ‘series of articles on ‘Parnelism and Crime’. Being associated with Parnell made Gladstone’s struggle for Home Rule harder, perhaps the reasons the 1886 Bill failed both houses but the 1893 Bill made it through Common’s as Parnell’s involvement in Home Rule had dramatically decreased in the years beforehand. The split in the Liberal party meant internally the party had opposition indicating that while divided amongst themselves there was no chance to defeat the conservative dominated House of Lords. Overall numerous factors contributed to the downfall of both Bills but the main reason inevitably was the immediate rejection to the Bill by the Conservatives as it opposed what they believed so neither Parnell or Gladstone could
How influential was Sun Yatsen in the fall of the Qing dynasty? The Qing dynasty was replaced by a Republic system in 1911 after the revolution was accidentally sparked by a premature bomb explosion in Wuchang. A key person in the revolution and downfall of the Qing was Sun Yatsen. His ideological ideas of how China should become a Western civilised country, where it would be more developed – socially and politically, inspired many people to look up to him as a leader, as he was initially the one who introduced ideas which China had never previously heard of. However, Sun Yatsen was not in the country at the time the revolution started, implying that the Qing would’ve fallen anyway.