This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
The first two interpretations wouldn’t have directly effected Liverpool’s government; however, the final interpretation stating it may have had political as well as economic aims, leads people to think this may have been a serious radical challenge to Liverpool’s government. Liverpool’s Government certainly thought so and made machine-breaking a capital offence and posted over 12,000 troops to the Luddite areas. Following the end of Luddism, the period between 1812- 1815 witnessed relatively little in the way of popular protest, however, post 1815 saw the revival of radical activity and was described by historian E.P. Thompson as ‘the heroic age of popular radicalism’.
How successful was Edward VI in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470? Edward IV enjoyed successes and also failures in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470. Edward had some successes in dealing with over mighty subjects, for example, his marriage to Elisabeth Woodville shows that he was not controlled by an over powering Warwick. This was important as it showed both Warwick and the rest of the country that he was not controlled by Warwick and could make his own decisions. Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor.
How stable was the Weimar Republic 1924-29 The real increase in prosperity experienced by many, and the cultural vitality of the period, gave support to the view that these years were indeed the ‘golden years’. However, historians have generally tended to question this stability because it was in fact limited in scope therefore these years could be seen as ‘deceptive stability’ also. Any disruption to the world’s trade or finance markets was bound to have a particularly damaging effect on the uncertain German economy. In reality, the middle years of the Weimar Republic were stable only in comparison with the other periods before and after. Weimar’s condition suggests that the fundamental problems inherited from war and the crisis has not been resolved.
The three sources also mostly agree with the view that the dissolution of larger monasteries was largely driven by financial motives. Sources 8 and 9 almost wholly agree with the statement above, although 8 more than 9, as nine also suggests that the surrender of the greater monasteries was a device used to “[search] out evidence of those involved in the rebellion”, the rebellion in this case being The Pilgrimage of Grace that took place the previous year. Source 7 echoes this, saying that some monasteries were dissolved for “taking part in the rebellion in the North”. However the source disagrees with the statement above, suggesting that the dissolution aimed to put a stop to the “corruption and extravagance” of the Church. Sources 8 and 9 both agree with the view that the dissolution of the greater monasteries was largely driven by financial motives,
S7 also highlights the importance of the conscription crisis, which can be argued to be a result of British ignorance, or the manipulation and stirring up by the revolutionary party Sinn Fein which also had a key role in the conflict. Finally it can also be argued that other factors were involved, which allowed the Irish conflict to be triggered, such as the failure of Home Rule and the breakdown of the IPP particularly during the Ulster Crisis, and after the Easter Rebellion of 1914. To an extent, it can be argued that the main cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict of 1919-21 was nationalist extremism. Hepburn asses that 'their [extremists] first opportunity' arose during the Ulster Crisis, in events such as the Larne gun-running incident April 1914, which ultimately resulted a race between extreme nationalists and Ulster Unionists to become armed . The source describes how the extremists then spiralled
There have been many remarkable characters in history that have chosen to place more importance in individual conscious and moral duty than the duty owed to governmental law. One very important person in history that chose to honor his conscious instead of government law was Gandhi. Gandhi opposed British rule in India after the Amritsar Massacre, where British soldiers gunned down non-violent Indian protestors. After this incident, he realized that India was in need for self-rule. Gandhi then organized large-scale non-violent campaigns for easing poverty, broadening women’s rights, religious harmony, and most importantly, self-rule.
How far was the leadership of the CCP responsible for survival of the party between 1927 and 1937? After the united front ended, the CCP were seriously close to extinction, so it was much of a surprise that by 1935 Mao Zedong would become the leader of the party and they would control all of China by 1949. This was mainly down to exceptionally strong leadership shown by Mao during the Nanjing decade. However, there were other reasons for the survival of the CCP: there were other leaders involved in the CCP like Zhu De and challenges from Wang Ming and Bo Gu; the failure of the GMD was also influential to the continuity of the CCP. It is evident that Mao Zedong's abilities to control the party and to know how to improve its stranglehold on China, was the main reason for the CCP's survival.
Do you agree that Indian desires for Independence from Britain were caused mainly by the impact of the First World War Indian desires for independence originate from a variety occurrences from the same period, both Pre and Post World War One, however it can be argued that no event had the same impact on both the British ability to rule India, and the Indian desires for independence from the British Raj. The Sources that agree with the impact of the world war caused the desires for independence are 2 and source 3, both referencing to the Indian war effort during the Great War, hoe their contribution would bring great benefits. In source 2, Gandhi said that fighting for the British was the right thing to do as they were fighting for civilisation, and that all those who live in the Empire are British, if they fought for Britain, then they would be accepted as true citizens. Source 3, is explaining that the British did not reward the Indians enough for their extreme courage during the war, and that the gradual process of ‘Indianisation’ was not good enough for the Indians, they wanted a faster system, and even Gandhi has decided that the British had to go. An agreement to the question is found in source 2, in a speech from early 1915, Gandhi expresses the opinion that everyone is a member of the British Empire, meaning that if they could prove their resourcefulness and ability to support the Empire, the Indians would be rewarded with something like independence or a faster system of Indianisation.
Shortly after he took over WW1 ended. The war had strengthened the unionists as the British leaders resented the South for staying neutral. In 1949 when the South left the British the British brought in the Ireland Act which guaranteed that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK as long as the majority of people in the North wanted it. Brookebrough seemed to only worry about upholding Unionist control of Northern Ireland. He was not one bit concerned about the Catholics especially in areas of work “wherever possible to the ploy good Protestant lads and lassies”.