In 1785 France faced various political and economic difficult conditions leading it to the revolution which lasted from 1789 to 1799. These got great changes in the society and government of France. The revolution began with a government financial crisis but quickly became a movement of reform and violent change mostly concerning the equality of taxation. Legal divisions among social groups created much discontent. According to law, French society consisted of three groups called estates which opened
How far do sources 1,2 and 3 suggest that the main obstacle to solving the Irish national problem was religion? Source 1 is from the Fenians who were extreme nationalists and Catholics meaning the source is going to be bias from the Catholic point of view. It was issued in 1867 the same year Gladstone came to power. The source begins with a quote ‘An alien aristocracy seized our lands and all material wealth and trampled on our rights and liberties’
How far do the sources indicate an oppressive Raj? All the sources in one form or another indicate an oppressive regime under the British in the early twentieth century, most particularly the anonymous pamphlet of 1907 which describes the British as nothing more than thieves. The anonymous pamphlet which was circulated during then Bengali riots of 1907 within its very title reflects an oppressive regime, the fact that it was ‘anonymous’ shows that its author to some extent felt that he/she was
How far do you agree that the main reason why the Bolsheviks stayed in power Oct 1917 to 1921 was their victory in the civil war? I believe that Bolsheviks victory in the civil war was one of the reasons why they stayed in power. But the main reason was the leadership of Lenin. Lenin leaded the Bolsheviks to power and without him I believe this would have not happened. Finally, after two revolutions in 1917, one in March and one in October, the Bolshevik party took control of Russia, with Lenin
Study source W, X and Y How far do the sources X and Y challenge source W about the effective supplying of the army? The sources discuss the effective supplying of an army. Source W shows that the supplying was good to the army and that there didn’t seem to be any problems. However sources X and Y are opposite and suggest that the supplying of the army was poor and had a dramatic impact of the soldiers. They are all primary sources and source X and Y are more reliable based on the people who have
the British had to adapt quickly to counter it, in this essay I will be looking at how the British dealt with this problem and deducing whether their methods can be considered brutal or not. Source P suggests that the British ‘laid waste whatever remained’, and that woman were taken away and ‘grossly ill-treated’. This certainly sounds like bad treatment, but I don’t think I would consider it brutal. Also the source is from a Boer Artilleryman so it could be biased, as the Boer fighter is most likely
How far do the sources suggest Lord Curzon was a Successful viceroy? Looking at the sources they do seem to suggest that Lord Curzon, the Viceroy in India between 1898 and 1905, was a good viceroy. Although there is some evidence that disagrees with this and implies Curzon was actually not a widely accepted Viceroy, On the whole the evidence in the sources leans towards the idea that he was successful. As the sources shows Curzon was a better Viceroy than any other under the Raj. Therefore I believe
The sources do suggest that Scotland was a threat towards Henry VIII’s ambitions in France , however only to some extent. Sources 1 and 3 refer to Scotland’s potential to destroy Henrys campaigns in France through invasion and stop him achieving his aim in taking back the regions of Terrain and Thoraine. Source 2 on the otherhand shows us that Henrys troops were strong enough to prevent a Scottish invasion even in his absence, and that he had the support of his first wife Catherine of Aragon
How far do sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Scotland was, and remained a threat to Henry VIII’s ambitions in France? When examining the sources on face value, source 1 and 3 suggest that Scotland was a threat, whilst source 2 suggests that Scotland was not in fact a threat to Henry’s ambitions in France. Source 1 speaks about the Privy Council choosing to spare the inhabitants of Yorkshire and County Durham from their tax ‘because they did not want the King to be called harsh when he was striving
While all of the sources offer evidence suggesting that Scotland was a threat to Henry’s campaigns in France, sources 1 and 2 especially support this. However, these sources, and also source 3 demonstrate more a potential threat rather than an actual one, which Scotland posed towards Henry’s ambitions in France. Introduce both sources- similar or different reasons? Identify provenance of source, and how this would affect source. Then identify how source evidences statement, perhaps quote or refer