One of the greatest inhibiting factors on the development of warfare in the eighteenth century was the limitations of purpose: mercantilism and a lack of ideological and religious purpose meant that dynastic rulers were typically limited in their ambitions, resulting in a reduced rate of development in other areas of warfare. Although the French Revolutionary Wars represented a dramatic change in the purpose of warfare, this area was revolutionised further during the Napoleonic Wars. Whilst the French Revolutionary leaders were primarily concerned with defending French borders and reinforcing the changes made by the revolution, Napoleon wanted to expand French influence and achieve total domination over Europe. The evidence of this can be clearly seen in his campaigns across Europe and into Egypt in 1798 and Russia in 1812, as well as in his Continental System, which was intended to cut off British trade links and ensure French superiority over European trade. The repercussions of this ambition were, of course, immense, both within France and on
France thought the war would not only help by stopping Germany’s increase in power. It would also help Napoleon III to regain his popularity after some of his failures after the commencement of his dictatorship, such as the Mexican adventure of 1867. I will now go onto the short term reasons. Firstly, Spain needed a king and Bismarck saw his chance to send Prince Leopold to become king there. France protested because they thought that having German influence on both sides would be too much if conflict would have occured.
• It is true that he implemented some revolutionary institutions, but one should not overlook the fact that he also had every one of them only to satisfy his own desire. • If nothing else, Napoleon suspended the status quo for a brief moment of time, giving all Europeans a temporary glimpse at the future direction of European society and the forces that would eventually shape it. • It’s only after his military defeat and banishment that the European aristocratic restoration began in earnest. A restoration which it self relied upon force of arms to squash the spirit of independence which had
Napoleon Bonaparte was forced to choose between following the principles of the 1789 revolution, or to part from these principles and revert to a political system similar to that of the old Bourbon monarchy. The task that he faced was considerable and Napoleon was very successful in following the revolution's principles for the first part of his career while also ascending to immense power himself. As Napoleon's power in France and then Europe increased, Napoleon began to depart from revolutionary ideals and created institutions similar to those the revolutionaries had attempted to destroy. As an opportunist, Napoleon changed his ideals from 'revolutionary to reformist to reactionary depending upon what suited him at the time.' The Directory lasted four years, the longest of any post-revolution governments, but by 1799 it was seen as a temporary solution and out of date.
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 determined to upkeep Russia’s image as a major European power, unlike his father; however he was a conservative, believing that his father’s reforms were a mistake and took to reverse them as much as he could. The counter-reforms initially may have looked like a success due to the period of stability during Alexander III’s reign; however with the Revolution a few years later it seems to be that the counter-reforms were not as successful as they may have seemed. The political oppression resultant of these counter-reforms meant Russia politically was behind its major European counterparts, whilst England and France by now had a form of democracy, Russia was still being ruled by total autocracy, and this increased the resentment against the government and added to the growth of reformist groups. Because of the political structure in place in Russia at the time, without a revolution the only way change was possible was from the Tsar being willing to change things, the Tsar was not willing and he clearly demonstrated this through the counter-reforms, leaving an angry population
Of course, that Louis XIV and Marie-Antoinette understood that the people of France didn’t like them but they didn’t want to believe in it. That is one of the reasons why they both didn’t try to do anything. One small step could have changed the whole course of the French Revolution. If only, they would have gone and asked the people of France what they need and what they want them to do. The way that they could have done this is by giving fair taxes and giving people the freedom of opinion and speech.
* Relevant to this essay, France was one of the countries that colonized Southeast Asia, later naming the modern day countries, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, into Indochina. * The political reasons behind this imperialism were motivated by a competition between Great Britain and the race for colonizing was a way of trying to beat them. * France colonized in this area because they felt it was necessary to try and civilize the native people. * They called this "mission civilisatrice" or the civilized mission.. * Having failed to resist the French the Vietnamese emperor was seen to have lost the mandate of he__, which gave him his authority * However, the colonialists underestimated the dedication, determination and tactical ability of the Vietminh * Due to hostilities created via the imperialism, the Vietminh were motivated to be an independent and socialist state * Political management of Indochina was left to a series of governors, appointed by Paris. More than 20 governors were sent to Indochina between 1900 and 1945; each had different attitudes and approaches | Economic | * French colonialists exploited people and resources (French reaped the natural resources, allowing only the people
‘The success of the Coup of Brumaire was mainly because of Napoleon’s personal qualities.’ Do you agree? The event of the Coup of Brumaire in 1799 brought around political change in France as desired by the aims of the French Revolution, but most importantly allowed Napoleon Bonaparte to establish power politically and join this with his military power he achieved following the successful Italian and Egyptian campaigns years earlier. Although Napoleon is known as one of France’s greatest leaders and to some extent even a dictator, the qualities of a leader were rarely seen during this event, meaning his personal qualities should not be seen as the main reason for the coup’s success when taking other factors into consideration. A pivotal factor in the success of the Coup of Brumaire was the state of public opinion within France. French political thinker Alex de Tocqueville is quoted as saying “The state of mind of the public was the prime reason for the success at Brumaire”.
Western Civ Sara G Essay: Catalyzed by the Enlightenment, the French Revolution signifies an epoch in which dissimilar socioeconomic classes sought a more democratic state, even though each estate’s motive differed. Given the initial ambition of the revolution, it was ultimately unsuccessful because of the people’s failures through the constitution of 1791, the establishment of the Committee of Safety, and the appointment of Napoleon as emperor. The Constitution of 1791, though nearly efficacious, failed because of Louis XVI’s inability to reign as a constitutional monarch. The National Assembly wrote the Constitution, exploiting enlightenment values as inspiration for the composition. The Constitution of 1791 incorporated ideas such as voting rights for white men who passed a test of wealth, having only one house legislature would be responsible for lawmaking, and pronouncing that the king does not have an absolute veto.
The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty. Montesquieu was a political philosopher of France and regarded as the chief architect of the principles of Separation of powers. He argued that ‘all would be lost if the same man or the same ruling body… were to exercise these three powers’. Montesquieu based his ideas of the British Constitution in the 18th Century, as he saw it. His ideas were, however, idealized and not entirely accurate, since he did not appear to understand the exact roles of the various participants in the British constitutional set up.