The revolutions led by him eventually led to the fall of the Qing Dynasty in China. The outcome that was different was how they ran their economy, China relied more on agriculture and Russia relied on industrialization. This difference is mainly due to the fact that China never industrialized and Russia slowly
Jesse Osborne Block 4; World Studies Louis XIV vs. Peter the Great Peter the Great and Louis XIV had very different approaches to power during their reigns. Louis XIV wanted to please nobles and higher power people, and focused on war and peace, religion, and economic oversight. Meanwhile, Peter I took a drive to modernize the nation of Russia, taking initiative to tame the nobles and reduce their power, achieve secular control of the church, reorganize internal administration, develop an economy and make it powerful. Peter the Great laid the foundations of a modern Russia. He ruthlessly decreased the power on the boyars and demanded they serve his state.
“If the battle of Poltava in 1709 turned Russia into a European power, then Stalingrad set the Soviet Union on the road to being a World power”. Discuss “The battle of Stalingrad was the most serious defeat for Germany in its history, and was Russia’s greatest victory” The perceived opportunity afforded by the ascension of Charles XII in 1697, to regain territories lost to, or in Russia’s case to expand westward into, the Swedish empire led Denmark, Poland-Saxony and Russia to invade Sweden in 1700, resulting in the “Great Northern War”. Although the war would not end until 1721, Poltava was a pivotal point in the fortunes of both the Russian and the Swedish empires. In November 1700, having already defeated the Danes, 18-year-old Charles had defeated the Russian army at Narva and then turned to Poland where he led a successful campaign until 1705. Having dealt with Denmark and Poland-Saxony, Charles turned his attention back to Russia.
Spain’s conquest of the New World was strictly by force. Spain’s chief opponents in their conquest of America were natives with much less advanced technology who had never seen a modern army. Because of this, Spain could easily trounce the Aztecs and Incas with small expeditions. This was very different from Russia’s expansion because Russia had to defeat nations with modern, well equipped armies. Also, Russia expanded directly from its center to the area surrounding it, allowing its conquering armies to be well supplied and manned, because they were close to home Contrary, Spain was forced to send all its supplies and men in ships on long journeys across the Atlantic, significantly reducing the amount of soldiers Spain had in the New World.
Gareth Parker How important was the Bolshevik threat to Tsardom in the reign of Nicholas II? The threat to Tsardom is complex and needs to be understood from different viewpoints. Initial examination of the Bolsheviks is vital from formation to the growing strength of revolutionaries such as Lenin and Trotsky and their influence on the downfall of Tsarism. Nicholas II was key to his own demise, not only his poor leadership but also his alienation from his own people and the average Russians way of life. There can be no ignoring the effect that World War I had on Russia, with the crippling affects of a major war and the resulting breakdown of infrastructure within the Russian Empire.
The Successes and Failures of Tsar Nicholas II between 1894 and 1917 – NOTES Nicholas II was the last Tsar of Russia, and perhaps the most incompetent of them. Most of this incompetance stemmed from his failiure to adapt to the rapidly changing and hostile conditions in Russia. Like his father he was tutored by Konstantin pobedonostev (a firm believer in autocracy), whose teachings developed in Nicholas a strong autocratic mentality, one of the reasons for his downfall. Although Nicholas did come up with a few limited reforms, they were mostly superficial in nature. Therefore it is safe to say that Nicholas ll had greater number of failures than successes during his reign.
These rights included; the chance to own land, marry, trade, were given a quarter of old land free and the option to build their own businesses. Previous to this manifesto serfs had little to no freedom as they were legally owned by land owners. This would have been seen as normal and necessary for Russian society. The step of emancipating serfdom would have been seen as radical and going against the Slavophile ways of life. This shows that Alexander was ready to liberate Russia because even though it was risky, it helped to start the liberalisation process because it enabled ex-serfs to work in factories which would help boost the economy, let the gentry to earn their own money and would help advances in industry which in turn help Russia to compete with the western world.
The parliament would have been able to muster volunteers, but there was no money to equip them with weapons, and the only way that the Parliament would have been able to make money, would be by introducing taxes. However, the Parliament simply couldn’t just create money from taxes as everyone refused to pay the taxes. The payment of taxes could have been enforced, but there was no army to do the enforcement. There were no consequences to the people of the German Empire if they disobeyed the decisions of the Frankfurt Parliament, so decisions were not followed by the people. This was not surprising, as there was no previous history of a democracy in Germany before the Frankfurt Parliament, therefore there was not much support from the ordinary people for the new concept.
Russia was severely behind the rest of Europe when it came to industrialisation, partly because the agricultural techniques used in the mid nineteenth century had not changed since the medieval period. The Russian social system being based on serfs did not assist the change that was needed to industrialise Russia because the serfs were effectively slaves and made up about 85% of the peasant population. Almost every other country in Europe had freed their serfs because they were hindering industrialisation; however Russia had not and could not hope to improve their industry if they continued to use the serfs. The Russians also believed that once the serfs were emancipated, they would create a pool of flexible labour and that they would be more willing to work if they were viewed as free people and were paid for their labour. Alexander had to emancipate the serfs in 1861 because he saw that they were delaying progress and change.
He was not one bit concerned about the Catholics especially in areas of work “wherever possible to the ploy good Protestant lads and lassies”. He did nothing to help with the tension between the two sides in my opinion he just made it worse. Between 1945 and 1951 there were major health reforms introduced by the British Labour Government along with education and social welfare which were proposed in the Beveredge Report in 1942. However the North could not afford to pay for these so Brookeborouge made an agreement with the London Government that Britain would subsidise them. This meant that taxation in the North would be kept at the same level as in Britain and the Northern Budget would be submitted to the British for approval.