This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
The troops would have felt let down as well, so therefore wanted reform and supported Mussolinis violence tactic. This also links in with the north south divide as the troops would be in the south and it hadnt industrialised as much as the north causeing a huge divide socially and economically. This demobalisation of the troops would have threated the higer classes as the troops could easily over power them for the land. Obviously the 5 million troops would have supported Mussolini and therefore caused a growth in his support. Another reason for Mussolinis success was the weakness of the political system.
Romanov essay Romanov family had ruled Russia since 1613 and under a autocratic government, during the time between 1904-1918 Nicholas the 2nd had ruled taking all the responsibilities of the major collapse of the tsarist regime. There were many contributing factors that lead to the eventual collapse of the Romanov regime. The major events that affected Romanov rule included the many social, economic and political problems. Particular events which also acted as a catalyst for the collapse of the dynasty included the 1905 revolution/Bloody Sunday, the Russo – Japanese war, the October Manifesto, Industrialisation strikes and unrest and ultimately resulting in the outbreak of World War 1. As a result of these combination of factors, WWI was the ‘straw that broke the camels back’ and resulted in the downfall of the tsarist regime in 1917.
Some people have the view that British generals like Haig were incompetent leaders. How far do your sources support or contradict this interpretation? During the First World War, many Generals have been praised for the work they did, however many other people have criticised the same Generals. One famous plus well known example is General Haig. Douglas Haig was a commander in chief in 1916.
Why did the opposition grow between August 1914 and December 1916? “The events that took place on the Eastern Front...would have a profound impact upon world history for the remainder of the century.” This reference shows that the facts and historic value of the tsars ruling had a profound effect on history that century. In August 1914 Russia was facing hardship. June 28th Franz Ferdinand was assassinated which later started a war between Germany and Russia. The opposition against the Tsar grew due to the loss of war and other factors such as; the Tsar controlling the army, the refusal to co-operate with the Dumas and Rasputin being an advisor.
To what extent was the reign of Tiberius successful? An evaluation of Tiberius’ success or otherwise is difficult. Ancient sources are quick to point to his failings, right from his accession to the ‘princeps’, which Suetonius claims only came about by default, “for want of any better choice”. Tacitus may not be as theatrical in his treatise on Tiberius, but he too was often critical of the emperor, highlighting how Tiberius was cruel and arrogant, and how Tiberius’ murder of his potential rival, Agrippa Postumus, was callous. Such subjectivity clouds much of the ancient appraisals of Tiberius.
In the late summer of 1914, the ancient monarchies of Austria, Russia and Germany plunged their countries into a world war which engulfed Europe in one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. The Eastern Front of that great war had a profound impact on the remainder of the 20th century, even though the Western Front with its British, French and American combatants achieved somewhat greater fame. The statistics for the Eastern war are grim. More than three-million men died in the fighting, more than nine-million men were wounded, and every major country which participated lost its form of government. One of them, Russia, collapsed so completely and catastrophically that the ensuing consequences still resonate in today's world.
Many of his decisions led to uproar, but one in the end set the ground for the United States as we know it today. James McPherson tries to get many points across in “As Commander-in-Chief I Have a Right to Take Any Measure Which May Best Subdue the Enemy.” It seems at times that he will go as far as calling Lincoln a man who is unconstitutional and even goes against his own morals. As his article progresses you see more of the main point that McPherson is trying to make. Early in his document, McPherson says when referring to Lincoln declaring war, “The
This challenges the impression given of the Charge of the Light Brigade given in source 3 as it juxtaposes the scene given to the readers. The image of source 1 shows a positive view of the charge. It shows an army of soldiers on horses behind the leader Lord Cardigan who is positioned in a stance of high status and courage. However, as source 1 is a cartoon
Why did the Reds win the Russian Civil War? When the Bolsheviks (known as the Reds) came to power in November 1917, they started to set out new policies and make new rules such as closing the Constituent Assembly. These new ways of running Russia, were disliked by many and by the summer of 1918 Russia was in the state of the Civil War. The Reds managed to win the civil war in the end. The main reasons for why the Reds won the Civil War the geographical factors affecting the war, support for the Bolsheviks and the Red Army and crucially were the leadership of Trotsky.