How far do you agree that the failure of Italian revolutionaries in the years 1820–49 was primarily due to a lack of popular support? I agree that the revolutions that occurred in the years 1820-49 were due to a lack of popular support. Other factors could be the strength of the Austria army, how there was no leader, a lack of unity and no foreign support. The revolutions failed due to the lack of popular/mass support. The revolutions in Modena, Parma and the Papal States had all been unsuccessful as The peasants that made up the majority of the population were generally not interested in unification.
Therefore the Russian revolution of 1905 failed because the revolutionaries were to easy to defend against as their attack were not in synchronization meaning the army only had to stop one group at a time meaning the revolutionaries suffered heavier casualties than they would have done. In addition the lack of leadership meant that the different revolutionaries had different aims meaning that they were not always on the same side and would often have fights as the social revolutionaries wanted land to be owned by the peasants and to share power with the Tsar where as the social democrats wanted to remove the Tsar completely. This meant the revolutionaries were a threat to themselves as well as the government. Therefore the 1905 revolution failed because of the different wants of the people meaning that they did not unite to one cause. Also the revolutionaries were split by the October manifesto which introduced a new more democratic government (a Duma), this pleased the social revolutionaries as they wanted to share power with the Tsar; however the social democrats wanted to
It could be argued that Mazzini’s ideas were the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815-48. A key point to this reason is that Mazzini’s ideas held no interest to the majority of the Italian population. One of Mazzini’s beliefs was that ‘every man is equal’ and is a reason why he was very unpopular with the middle, upper and aristocratic members of society as they did not wish to lose their power influence or 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. He also wanted a strong central government and believed this could be achieved through a series of revolutions.
Why did the early revolutions fail to unite Italy? From 1820- 1831 there were a series of revolutions which all tried to change Italy in some way. However all these revolutions failed to unite Italy for multiple reasons, many of which interlink with one and other however during these years there was no necessity to unify Italy as a whole, this coupled with the fact that there was not enough support, no strong leader and no real plan did not bode well for the unification of Italy. Primarily, it is important to identify that each state of Italy did not actually have any intention of uniting Italy as a whole therefore it is not a surprise that the early revolutions failed to unite Italy. One of the most important reasons as to why the early revolutions did not prove successful when uniting Italy was because each revolutionaries in the different states had different aims.
Was the Tsar’s personal inadequacy that led to the revolution of Feb/March 1917? Essentially, Tsar Nicholas II was a lacking ruler, he was unwilling to get rid of autocracy which then resulted to no reforms in government which was often corrupt mainly due to the fact that it was an autocracy. This led to the demands of the people being ignored causing there to be universal discontent all over the land of Russia, logically Nicholas’s inadequacy as a Tsar would be a reasonable consideration for what led to the 1917 revolution, however there were other reason not just Nicholas lacking strength in leadership which resulted to the revolution. For example, there had been lingering discontent growing especially with the industrial workers and peasants beforehand concerning their conditions of work. This led to an increase in strikes.
The Italians did not get what they felt had been promised at the Treaty of London and that caused resentment especially at the losses Italy had endured fighting for the Allies. The government came over as weak and lacking pride in Italy. In the years that led up to World War One, Italy had sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance. In theory, Italy should have joined in the sides of these two nations when war broke out in August 1914. She did not.
His teaching could not be as effective because he neglected the influence the white members would have on the movement, by resenting them as a race, therefore handicapping his popularity and likelihood of success within the various white communities. MLk’s method prevailed here because he was trying to change the people as well as the law, Malcolm sought to fight but failed to realize that it is impossible to fight a war when the government and all other forces are behind you
Hamilton was an ardent believer that the states were incapable of uniting the people politically and economically. He feared the interests of the states would lead to chaos due to “an excess of the spirit of liberty, which has made the particular states show a jealousy of all power not in their own hands” (Morse, 1890). Hamilton was leery of state power because of how ineffective the Articles of Confederation were in promoting a national identity capable of defending the homeland and creating the basic foundation for economic development. Unlike many of his colleagues, Hamilton did not grow up a child of privilege and carried with him the stigma of being a bastard because his mother was previously married and his biological father abandoned the family. He grew up on the small Caribbean island of Nevis that “generated more wealth for Britain than all of her North American colonies combined” (Chernow, 2004).
The war had affected the trigger of the revolution by the weak army with a large lack of ammunition for their weapons, therefore they were unable to fight and fend for themselves, therefore Russia had to depend on the Allies such as Great Britain and France had to help them, also the tactics the Russians had used were very old fashioned therefore it had seemed they weren’t ready for war at all. This was seen as embarrassing for the Russian people and a hint for the people they needed change in Russia, if they were going to survive in the modern world. The war was a rather large mistake for the Tsar, although Russia had obtained slight success at the beginning they were facing harsh Germany and had badly equipped Generals, who were unsuccessful and not well trained this showed more signs of not being at all ready for the war. Furthermore, the Tsar had left Petrograd the capital of Russia to become the Commander of Russia’s army, this was a huge mistake for the Tsar as he had no military experience whatsoever and from then on, the Tsar was blamed for
Before they were following the orders of British officers, therefore when they revolted they had no common leaders to organize them. This meant they were not united and could not act efficiently, therefore it was easy for the British to defeat them and end the rebellion. This reinforces the view it was not a significant threat as they did not have the same organization as the British making it impossible for them defeat the British. The significance of the mutiny could also be seen in