How accurate is it to say that the growth of reformist groups in the years from 1881 was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution? The 1905 Revolution was the start of political change in Russia, unlike other major European powers of the time, Russia was being ruled by an autocratic government and any effective reforms would have had to been by ‘change from above’. However, the Tsar Alexander III and his son, Nicholas II were firm conservatives and this ideal route would not have happened. Resentment to the lack of change created the growth of reformist governments and caused a Revolution which catalysed the much needed change in Russia. There were many factors that created a base for the reformist groups to flourish at that time in Russia which in turn created a Revolution.
Alexander III was the most successful in keeping to his aims, as he enforced this from the start of his reign to ensure there were no open criticisms of the regime. Nicholas and Alexander II on the other hand suffered growing discontent from the population. Alexander II had initially relaxed censorship and allowed the press to discuss government policy (1865), thereby encouraging criticism of the tsarist regime. This grew when censorship was tightened again, and may have been a contribution as to why so many concessions were made. Similarly, in Nicholas II’s reign, political parties were allowed their own newspapers e.g.
How far do you agree that the Bolsheviks won the civil war of 1918-1921 because they controlled more people and had access to more weapons? I believe that the Bolsheviks winning the civil war, was not totally to do with their access to more weapons and had more people on side. Of course this is quite a big factor to why they did win the war, but there also other factors such Trotsky’s leadership of the red army and the territory that they had control over and also similarly the great tactics they used to win their battles. The Bolsheviks did control much more people and did have bigger access to more weapons than the white army. This is a massive key factor to why the Bolsheviks had won the war because without the people that they controlled they would of not of been able to make all the weapons and the most essential things that they needed to win the war against the whites.
Henry also needed to control the nobility because if he didn’t, or only managed to control a minority, he could have a revolution, and Nobles, together, had a lot more money and power than the king himself. Firstly he gave the Earl of Surrey his lands back, bits at a time to ensure his loyalty, while having him as a key figurehead in the north to stop rebellions, since the north largely supported Richard and Henry needed to find a way of controlling them. Also Henry didn’t get rid of all the Yorkist nobles in the council, only those who thought against him. He did this so that he wouldn’t have a full scale Yorkist rebellion on his hands, but he couldn’t have people who wanted him dead and had fought against him on his council. As well as this, Henry needed to be effective at getting England onto a secure financial footing.
Despite the strong forces pushed upon the red army, the experience of the white leaders and position of Lenin, the communists still managed to achieve a victory in the Russian Civil War. Two main reasons that led to their success were because they had control over more people and because they had access to more weapons. However, there were many other contributing factors leading to the Bolshevik victory questioning the importance of these specific two. Bolshevik control over highly populated parts of Russia lead to communist success in the Civil War. The Bolsheviks had a huge strategic advantage due to their geographical position within Russia, in that they had control over major cities such as Moscow and Petrograd, which had many people within them.
In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had. He was referred to as a reactionary, unlike his father Alexander II who was known as a reformer. He managed to please the people with his Russian figure and attitude, he changed their attitude and he made tsarism look all the better, all in a short period of time. Despite their different policies, they had the same ambitions inside their head in the long run, and that was to strengthen autocracy in the Russian empire but Alexander III did this by reversing what his father had done as he felt he knew better ways of dealing with the situation and strengthening the Tsarist position. The first thing that Alexander III did when he came into power to contradict his fathers’ reforms was to recall the decision of creating the constitution.
‘How far do you agree that the Bolsheviks won the civil war because they controlled more people and had access to more weapons?’ Despite the diverse forces massed against the red army, the experience of the white leaders and the precarious position of Lenin, the communists still managed to gain victory in the Civil War of 1918-1921. The fact that the Bolsheviks had control of the heartland and therefore factories and supplies was an advantage to them. But on the other hand there were other factors such as good leadership, weak opposition and terror that helped just as much. I believe that the Bolsheviks controlling more people and having access to more weapons was a key factor in them winning the war. They controlled the industrial heart of Russia, which included Petrograd and Moscow, this also meant they had control of all the factories, and the railway lines.
This shows that Alexander III was not successful in reversing this reform made by his father. Another one of Alexander II was judicial reform, which is seen as one of the most successful reforms. During the reform a completely new court system and a completely new order of legal proceedings were established. The main results were the introduction of a unified court system instead of a cumbersome set of Estate-of-the-realm courts, and fundamental changes in criminal trials. The latter included establishment of the principle of equality of the parties
With the gift of hindsight, even the staunchest of revisionists can acknowledge that the reign of Augustus was a clear turning point in European History – whether or not this change was a steady evolutionary measure or a rapid revolutionary one is subject to much scrutiny. Certainly when looking at the Senate, the sheer tact of Augustus made the transition from oligarchy to autocracy seem almost seamless to his political contemporaries. [[2]] This was not to say that senators were none the wiser; the position of Augustus during the early principate developed much more organically than one could have expected. Consider the situation as thus: after the war against Antony came to a close, Augustus (or as he was known then, Octavian) was at the head of Rome’s empire: he had, at his disposal, over five hundred thousand legionaries [[3]] (many of whom defected from Antony to Octavian after Actium) as well as a recently seized Ptolemaic treasury – as Tacitus puts it, ‘Opposition did not exist’. [[4]] With this in mind, it seems strange that Octavian developed his power base
The states have more power within themselves, and can set some of their own laws, giving more power to the states. The ninth amendment is important because it gives American’s more rights than just what was stated. If the Bill of Rights were the only rights the citizens got, there would still be many more limitations on what Americans can and cannot do. This gives more power to the citizens and it takes it away from the government. Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check.