Thus, this fierce complaint of maladministration and misgovernment by the medium of a rebellion could have led to the disintegration of Henry VIII’s system of government, creating fragmented security. Moreover the Cornish rebelled as they were funding resistance for a war that offered little threat to them. This threatened Henry VII’s security
However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution did not bring about change, because the rights, class structure and government remained the status quo in the colonies. For the most part, the rights of the colonists did undergo a transformation because of the Revolutionary War. It is a widely held belief that the war was declared in defense of the natural rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the war did little in protecting these rights. After the war, there was still no liberty for blacks; in fact, the colonists disliked the idea of granting freedom to Blacks that they refused their offer to fight on the side of the patriots.
The parliament would have been able to muster volunteers, but there was no money to equip them with weapons, and the only way that the Parliament would have been able to make money, would be by introducing taxes. However, the Parliament simply couldn’t just create money from taxes as everyone refused to pay the taxes. The payment of taxes could have been enforced, but there was no army to do the enforcement. There were no consequences to the people of the German Empire if they disobeyed the decisions of the Frankfurt Parliament, so decisions were not followed by the people. This was not surprising, as there was no previous history of a democracy in Germany before the Frankfurt Parliament, therefore there was not much support from the ordinary people for the new concept.
Despite the fact there was mutinies like on the battleship Potemkin there was not enough of them to have a serious effect. The army were questionable for their attacks on Bloody Sunday which was the catalyst for the start of the revolution(showing that the revolution was spontaneous and basically unplanned). However it could prove how they are prepared to protect the Tsar no matter what. If the Tsar is not at the location like on Bloody Sunday with the winter palace, the army will still be ruthless and take action. Nicholas II could trust his army and as a result used them for defence and to deal with opposition.
Why did the 1905 revolution fail? The 1905 revolution failed for a variety of reasons many of which are to do with the revolutionaries themselves such as a lack of leadership and that they were divided in their aims. One of the reasons that the 1905 revolution failed is that the revolutionaries had no leadership; this meant that they were unorganized and therefore attacks and industrial action were randomly taking place according to other strikes. Therefore the threat from each individual strike was much less of a threat to the Tsarist regime than they would have been had the industrial action been coordinated so that they happened at the same time; this allowed the Tsar and the army to be able to eliminate the individual threats much easier than had there been widespread attacks. Therefore the Russian revolution of 1905 failed because the revolutionaries were to easy to defend against as their attack were not in synchronization meaning the army only had to stop one group at a time meaning the revolutionaries suffered heavier casualties than they would have done.
Before they were following the orders of British officers, therefore when they revolted they had no common leaders to organize them. This meant they were not united and could not act efficiently, therefore it was easy for the British to defeat them and end the rebellion. This reinforces the view it was not a significant threat as they did not have the same organization as the British making it impossible for them defeat the British. The significance of the mutiny could also be seen in
Since the colonies were part of the British empire, you can classify it as a civil war because part of a nation was succeeding from the empire. The colonists were in support of a different governmental structure. In the Declaration of Independence, it says That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government. The colonists believed that the British government was destructive towards the colonies because it was implementing taxes the colonists believed to be unnecessary with out colonial representation in parliament. Since the colonies were a part of the British empire they believed it was necessary for them to have direct representation in parliament.
Richard shows a dangerous capacity for poor judgment and fascination with luxury, which deviate from the expectations of royalty. The servile followers that Richard is surrounded by also play an integral role in his incompetence. Moreover, there is mirrored imagery when Shakespeare discusses Bolingbroke’s determination to depose Richard with the Earl of Essex’s rebellion to overthrow Queen Elizabeth. However, the Earl of Essex’s rebellion was unsuccessful, as his supporters had deserted him before arriving at London whereas Bolingbroke’s uprising was successful due to the support of the nobles. Bolingbroke strives to preserve his family honour and retrieve his rightful land, thus his ambitions prove him to be a competent co-ordinator.
This is conveyed on lines 45-50 where the witches say “All hail Macbeth who shall be king hereafter”. The term “shall” suggests that that this event is certain to occur and the use of the word “hereafter” indicates that Macbeth will become king inevitably. Naturally, this prophecy would have worried Macbeth considering that he did not have any intentions of becoming king, let alone even considering the possibility. But, it also would have intrigued Macbeth because he would have wondered whether their predictions would become reality. However, Macbeth is not only scared of being king, there is also an additional consequence that Macbeth becoming King entails something, most likely to be bad, happening to King Duncan, a very loyal friend to Macbeth.