This lead to Venice’s downfall as the policies made were not suitable for the country’s needs. Over-dependence on Mercenaries (Point) A political challenge that Venice faced is the over-dependence on mercenaries. (Example) An example of the over-dependence on mercenaries was that the paid mercenaries were not loyal to venice and as the mercenaries often switched sides depending on the state that paid them the most money. French Mercenaries also plotted to kill the council of ten in 1619 and made Venice doubt their mercenaries. (Explanation) When war broke out mercenaries had left
Stalin was more popular because of Trotsky’s “political paralysis” he couldn’t be a good public speaker. This links to my next point because they both result in Stalin’s getting more power. Stalin made an alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev to form the triumvirate. The triumvirate’s main aim was to defeat Trotsky. Trotsky advocated a permanent revolution with Stalin didn’t want.
The election for the coalition results in 76% supporting pro-Weimar parties, showing that the opposition and threats to the government had settled. People in Germany were no longer looking for extremist parties which was proved by the failure of the right-wing coalition. In theory the coalitions should have worked well with the cooperation from all parties. However, the SPD were reluctant to work with other parties subsequently weakening the democracy. This proves the political instability of Germany in this period as they were the largest party in the Reichstag but still refused to cooperate.
Was the League of Nations a failure? The League of Nations is thought to be a failure by many, because of hard irony and limitation on military might. The League accomplished very little in stopping wars and conflicts while having very little power. Often they just shook fists at ruthless, evil dictators such as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his conquests, without intervening. Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States.
While his reforms were beneficial for society, people as a whole did not accept his changes, thus causing him to leave the state. Solon was born in 638 BC in Athens; belonging to the Eupatrids clan he was of very high importance. Solon was an Athenian statesmen and poet before he became archon. His poems were what got him his first appearance in the field of politics. During their conflict between Megara, Athens confidence in their troops was quickly deteriorating, when Solon - doing what he did best - cleverly tricked them into action through the use of his poems.
Both Lysander and King Pausanias actions demonstrated their incapability to lead Sparta which consequently resulted in the ineffective leadership of Sparta as hegemon of Greece. Lysander was the dominant figure in Spartan politics presiding the fall of the Athenian Empire in 404 BC, and his and Sparta’s aim was a far as possible to secure Greek hegemony allowing for Spartan Imperial expansion. The ‘anomaly’ of Lysander’s dominance within Sparta’s military and political enterprises, traditionally governed by the Kingships, saw him exploit his foreign policy across the populas of the Aegean much to their discontent “The Spartans reckoned that they themselves, having defeated the Athenians, would now securely dominate the whole of Greece” (Thucydides 8.2.4). Lysander installed a brutal pro-Spartan oligarchy (known as ‘The Thirty Tyrants’) on Athens, reciprocating this system of government in other Greek states in order to suppress prevailing democracies. Installed to govern were pro-Spartan Harmosts, all supported by a garrison of troops who served under the orders of Lysander.
These great empires’ falls were similar in many ways, and also different in numerous ways. The Roman Empire and Han China were similar in their falls because they both crumbled from internal problems, such as their corrupt governments; however, their falls were different in that the Roman Empire fell from outside invasions while the Han Dynasty fell from an internal revolt of the Yellow Turbans. Both the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire suffered from political issues in their declines. Both Empires had corrupt bureaucracies that led to their deteriorations. The Roman Empire’s major reason in why it failed politically is that the Empire was never able to find an effective way to pick the proceeding emperor resulting in the empire having crazy, profligate emperors.
There was no control over the king’s power which, in turn, led to an abundance of misgovernment. Louis XVI had to deal with the many problems left behind by his father, Louis XV, who was a poor leader and lead to the loss of the throne’s prestige unlike his father before him, Louis XIV. Louis XVI was unable to cope with State affairs, was indecisive and lacked in self-confidence. His wife and the courtiers of Versailles influenced him greatly due to his lack of firmness and self-belief. The gap between the rich and the poor widened.
I do not regard this as a fair treaty. A ‘fair and just’ peace settlement is when both opposing sides have a say in what should be the next steps. Unfortunately, this was not the case in the Treaty of Versailles. Firstly, it was an unsuccessful treaty because it was not able to bring sustainable peace in the region. The Treaty of Versailles was unjust and unfair because it excluded Germany from the negotiations of the treaty, asked for unfair reparations, limited its army to anemic levels and stole all of it’s colonies.
He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”. Moreover, the Forced Loan only happened as a result of Charles dismissing the 1626 Parliament, forfeiting his opportunity of obtaining further grants for his wartime expenditure. Parliament had already been antagonised by Charles’ decision to dismiss them and now that Charles was forcing taxation on others in order to fund his wartime expenditure, due to disastrous foreign policy which Parliament largely disagreed with, it is clear that the Forced Loan had worsened relations greatly. In addition to this, the financing of foreign policy also affected the relationship between Crown and Parliament. As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies.