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
Even though the Jacobins were completely controlling the government after the arrest of the Girondins, they still feared that the Revolution would fail if they failed making them very unstable. They also feared spontaneous action. This led them to order arrests and trials of counter-revolutionaries and to impose government authority across the nation and to create the Committee of Public Safety, a
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 colonies debated England's power to tax them and did not wish to be taxed without representation. Consequently the American Revolution began, and the probability of the colonies winning was not bright, but the patriots were willing to fight to become a free, independent nation. The Patriots used several different strategies to defeat the “Lobster Backs.” During and after the war, people began thinking of extremely radical ideas that were exceptionally revolutionary of the time. There were numerous, significant people that contributed to military intelligence of the American Revolution. With the odds against the colonies, George Washington kept the revolution alive by staying one step ahead of the British.
He pursued a policy of what has been called ‘counter reform’. Counter-reform was partly a reaction to the murder of Alexander II, but Alexander III also believed that his fathers ‘Great Reforms’ had been a mistake, weakening Tsarism and leaving it vulnerable and insecure. He introduced political repression of opponents, counter-reform, increased central control, financial reform and the policy of Russification as the core stone of his reign. His policy was to undo the reforms as far as possible. In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had.
Robespierre: Hero or Villain? Maximilien Robespierre once said: “Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all”. He was the most influential member of the Committee of Public Safety in France and he was one of the great supporters of liberty and freedom of speech. Furthermore, he was very much inspired by pioneering philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu, two of the most radical enlightenment thinkers. Thus, one might believe that he was a very ethical man and a capable leader that could finally bring the French Revolution to an end.
This leads to the question, “Was The Reign of Terror Justified?” Justified meaning that the methods the government established were satisfactory to accomplish the goals set forth by the revolution. The Reign of Terror is not justified because the radical change of government brought about war, the internal threat was handed too violently, and the government's methods were too ruthless. The Reign of Terror was not justified because the government's methods were too ruthless. In Steven Otfinoski's Triumph and Terror: The French Revolution he spoke of the establishment of the Committee of Public safety by the National Convention which made sure no enemies of the revolution were a threat to public safety and by this having to send a system of spies and informers to stop the threats, it made everyone counterrevolutionary or not unsafe from being suspected as an enemy. (Doc.
Assess the changing roles and responsibilities of the Senate during the reign of Tiberius. INTRODUCTION Although characterised as the reign of terror in the Tacitean tradition, Tiberius was very effective in maintaining the dyarchy with the Senate established by Augustus. Due to his conservative Claudian background, Tiberius wished to see the Senate act as an autonomous body and even extended its role to incorporate judicial and legislative functions whilst consulting it on matters regarding foreign policy. Ancient historians are generally negative in regards to Tiberius’ relationship with the senate due to their inherent political bias led by the Tacitean view. Modern historians however provide a more balanced perspective attributing the loss of the Senates power largely to their subservience rather than the tyrannical nature of the principate.
He later became a sheriff and that is when he encouraged prison reform. He pushed for the Penitentiary Act of 1779 to be passed. He wanted standards for prisons to be set in place. Early prisons were very tough, and involved physical harm and/or death as forms of punishment. William Penn, the governor of Pennsylvania in the late 1600's, realized that these types of punishments were too severe and were not fit punishments for the crimes being committed.
The events mentioned were only a starting point, with many violent acts to come but they do provide the base of which the Nationalist feeling of unhappiness stems from. The events that lead to the immediate intervention by the British, being the riots of 1968, bloody Sunday and the Omagh bombings all helped to stem the conflict, illustrating that it was at the stage where external intervention was required, and tensions were present because of British imperialist action taken in the 17th century. Without the external intervention, the agreement which solidified the peace, the Belfast or Good Friday agreement, the peace process would have been significantly slower if present at all. Had Britain not have intervened in the Irish conflict for the final time with a true interest in ending the violence, we could well be seeing reports of terrorism on our nightly news broadcast today. To understand how actions in 1541 by the British fuelled the fire of conflict, the background of Irish history needs to be covered.