Because of Napoleon’s selfishness when conquering other countries he is considered a tyrant. Even though Napoleon was a tyrant, he still had many accomplishments to help benefit France. Napoleon ended the French revolution, therefore ending many of the country’s problems. Before Napoleon, there was constant violence, acts for revolution, and economic instability. Napoleon overthrew the Directory in a coup d’etat in 1799 and was the beginning of the Napoleonic Era.
Secondly, another two key repressive policies of William Pitt were the ‘Two Acts’, the Seditious Meetings Act and Treasonable Act, both of 1795. The Treasonable Act appeared to be a vicious attack on personal liberties. Similarly to the suspension of Habeas Corpus, it was put it in by Pitt to install fear into radicals by extending the definition of the word ‘treason’ to both speaking and writing. However, this was arguably more effective than the abolition of Habeas Corpus as it lowered the amount of people writing about the cause to gain support, as people such as Paine and Hardy were effectively spreading the radical message
To what extent was Pitts repressive policies the main reason for his success in defeating the radical challenge in 1801? Outside of parliament and of the rich and powerful there were many people who wanted change; the French revolution had a profound and ongoing effect on political, social, and religious life and on the government in Britain. Many people wanted to see the changes that were occurring in France to happen in Britain, as many of the working class people were not happy with there role in society and they wanted reform. Pitt acted quickly against the threat posed by the radicals, the new societies and the publications they produced, this was known as Pitts ‘reign on terror’. Fresh legislation restricting freedom of speech, writing and assembly was passed from 1792 to 1801, to reinforce these new laws the yeomanry were called in to reinforce these new laws.
I personally think that Henry failed in his foreign policy because he didn’t end up gaining a full grasp on France, this was the main precedence. The initial aim was to capture more land, gaining more land meaning capturing France and knowing Henry’s ambitious mindset, he most probably had his whole mind set on creating an empire and France was a good place to start. Had Henry been what he said he was ‘a warrior king’ he wouldn’t have been used as a toy twice throughout this unsuccessful foreign policy. Charles took advantage of Henry. At the Battle of Pavia, the French were defeated and Francis along with his strongest supporters were held captive.
At the time the United States was hoping to use their alliance with France to gain an advantage over the British, but did not want to lose their much needed trade with the British. At the beginning of the revolution, the Americans were enthusiastic and hoped that the revolution would strengthen their alliance with the French against the British. It was the violent nature of the conflict that divided the United States’ views. The changes in France caused the already present political divisions in the United States to grow. Because Jefferson believed the French had supported the United States during their revolution against the British, the pro-French Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson should in return support the ideals of the French
The political impact of France was the main factor that spread ideas. Soldiers who fought in America bought some of the ideas back across to France. Even though victory restored some prestige to the monarchy, the financial impact of the war was to make this restoration of prestige short lived. The American war was an important cause because it affected France in a lot of ways. France got affected economically which made the people of France lose hope on monarch.
Henry’s unusual toleration of the Huguenots caused trouble for the native Catholics in France and angered Pope Clement but this toleration would somewhat prevail in the Edict of Nantes because of what the nation and the two factions suffered prior to its creation. The Edict of Nantes not only granted successions to both sides but they were far fairer to the Huguenots including the granting of their civil rights, the rights that they lost in the Edict of Boulogne. The Edict of Boulogne was a slap in the face for the Huguenots as it segregated them from modern society, permitting them to only preach in the towns of La Rochelle, Mountauban and Nimes and even with that, only in their own homes. No
Question: “In Louis XIV’s view, what were the qualities of an effective monarch? In his opinion, what were the main obstacles to absolute rule? Louis XIV’s view of an “effective” monarch is absolutism in power and direct control over his subjects by giving them no more and no less to “carefully guard against their excess (Document D) as well as external glory in foreign affairs. Louis wasn’t fond of nobilities during his absolute rule as monarch in France, because of the past rebellion of the Fronde, however in Louis XIV’s view he wasn’t to be effective if he had dissolved the nobles rather he would work through them instead. With the Fronde in the back of Louis’s mind, he was to make an effective choice of picking members for his council, which would rule his political, military, administrative, and economical affairs.
The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was the people trying to fight for their freedom, which at the time meant political justice and insubordination to King George III. This was also a way for them to justify the American Revolutionary War. The list of complaints against King George were many. Some of these complaints were that he kept a domestic army stationed in the colonies even though there was no war being fought at the time and these armies were deemed superior to any civil power there in the colonies. King George III controlled the judiciary powers and did so by pardoning his soldiers who committed murder by protecting them with mock trials.
This allowed the far right to exploit the Germans hate of the treaty of Versailles and connect the treaty to democracy, so the people wouldn’t blame the loss of ww1 on the army but the democratic politician’s. This led to an increase in public support for a more authoritarian dictatorial system the strengthening the far-right. The other main reason the loss