Although finance played a significant role in the deterioration of the relationship between Crown and Parliament, it was not the lone reason, due to the fact that there were other more important factors including foreign policy and Buckingham which caused the collapse in the relationship between Crown and Parliament. Firstly, finance was a critical factor in the breakdown in the relationship. For example, the Forced Loan caused a great amount of tension between Crown and Parliament and therefore, worsened relations. It worsened relations because Charles enforced illegal taxations on his subjects without any form of consent from Parliament. 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”.
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
There were many factors that created a base for the reformist groups to flourish at that time in Russia which in turn created a Revolution. Alexander III was determined to upkeep Russia’s image as a major European power, unlike his father; however he was a conservative, believing that his father’s reforms were a mistake and took to reverse them as much as he could. The counter-reforms initially may have looked like a success due to the period of stability during Alexander III’s reign; however with the Revolution a few years later it seems to be that the counter-reforms were not as successful as they may have seemed. The political oppression resultant of these counter-reforms meant Russia politically was behind its major European counterparts, whilst England and France by now had a form of democracy, Russia was still being ruled by total autocracy, and this increased the resentment against the government and added to the growth of reformist groups. Because of the political structure in place in Russia at the time, without a revolution the only way change was possible was from the Tsar being willing to change things, the Tsar was not willing and he clearly demonstrated this through the counter-reforms, leaving an angry population
These were the main problems that Britain was dealing with in the chartist movement. During the movement, there was a number of uprisings, protests and riots, which would always follow with the same result – mass arrests and deportations. Ultimately, the chartists did not achieve any of its objectives in their time, however, while the Chartist’s were unable to make their six points a reality themselves, they allowed future organisations to build from their successes. The result of the chartist movement in the long term was that all of the aims of the people’s charter was brought into the British political system today. Ultimately, the Chartists did not achieve any of their six aims whilst they were still an active organisation.
They were also in a country plagued by a financial crisis with the majority of the population automatically having hatred for the government. The treaty of Versailles also posed a serious threat to the government with the country left embarrassed by its ruling and the war guilt that Germany faced. The extreme right in particular were a threat to the republic. The actions of the Spartacists in particular concerned the leaders of the SPD as they knew that they could not rely on the support of the army in the face of a revolt. Thus a deal was done with the right wing (the pre 1918 military, judiciary and civil service).
“It is more accurate to talk of a potential revolution which ran away into the sand than the genuine article” Before we can assess whether a ‘genuine’ revolution took place in 1918, or if held many promises and yet failed to deliver, we must look at the term ‘Revolution’. This often refers to a substantial change in power/structure that takes place within a short time span. Germany was in a vulnerable position, susceptible to change as the defeat in the war had shaken people’s faith in the government. There was undoubtedly political changes undergone in Germany but whether they fundamentally shook the German foundations of society can be seriously questioned. It can be argued that the ’Weimar Republic’ , the outcome of the revolution was a facade of the old authoritarian regime, carrying out change under false pretences of a democratic institution, with the Right Wing Conservatives still in control.
This tug of war would inevitably lead to problems. The problems caused by this constant battle were most apparent in Britain. During the Industrial Revolution the British people endured a wildly uneven distribution of political representation, a lack of public education, and absurdly high tariffs. The only solutions for these new set of problems were new and innovative laws, acts, and movements. It was evident by the unequal distribution of political power in Britain, that there was a blatant flaw in the manner in which the government represented its citizens.
The Victorian period, up until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, was therefore a time of religious confusion, but also, as we will see, of great charity, as well as of birth of new beliefs. What role did religion play in the lives of citizens of this period and their society? The Victorian era was marked by the immense influence of the Church of England in religion, of course, but also in politics- being linked to the government meant it had its hand in certain social decisions, such as the oppression of dissenters. This naturally caused friction amongst people of other faith, especially the Catholics who had previously been stripped of many of their civil rights, which were only returned to them in 1827 by Parliament. They had a long wait until 1840 to see the tax-supported status of the Anglican Church be removed, making them equal once again.
She was a Catholic, so naturally Parliament were concerned that England was going to return to Catholicism. Charles was to blame because of power. He let his friends help him with important decisions and Power. People did not approve of some of the choices they made such as raising taxes. Although, Charles was not entirely to blame.
His reform included different aspect; such as political, social and economic. He also appointed Peter Stolypin as the prime minister to stabilize the country. Nicholas II had tried his best to regain people’s support and stop the revolution tide through the reforms however resentment of his wife and her involvement with the mystical Rasputin was widespread and did little to regain the peoples trust. Also the state of the country during World War One left a lot to be desired and created a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the Russian people. The personality of Nicholas II contributed to his downfall in 1917.