Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
American, French, and Russian revolutions
Revolutions around the world
History of revolutions essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his book, The Anatomy of Revolution, Crane Brinton describes four historically significant revolutions in modern states, the English Revolution of the 1640s, the American Revolution of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789, and the Russian Revolution of 1917, and compares uniform trends and commonalities within those revolutions. Brinton hypothesizes that those revolutions have specific similarities in their inception, manifestation, conduct, and conclusion. Brinton posits that revolutions are born in during times of unusual economic unrest and political upheaval. Such societies which produce revolutions aren’t those where there are “no expressions of discontent with the government or with existing institutions, in which no laws are ever …show more content…
While most of Europe had develop strong central governments and weakened the power of the nobles, Russia had lagged behind the times and still had serfs as late as 1861. The economic development that followed the emancipation of peasants in the rest of Europe created strong industrial and tax bases in those nations. Russian monarchs had attempted some level of reforms to address this inequality for almost a century before, and were indeed on their way to “economic maturity” (32) on par with the rest of Europe. But they overextended themselves and the crushing defeats of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the First World War in 1917 lost them the necessary support from their subjects and created “high prices and scarcity” which were by far “the most obvious factors in the general tension” …show more content…
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
In chapter eleven, The Age of Democratic Revolutions: The North Atlantic World “Turn Upside Down”, Wells discusses the American and French Revolutions. Both of these revolutions shook the world and turn the world around. After the Enlightenment, there were many revolutions across Europe; however, the American and French Revolution had more power in them to change the world. Because of the books, pamphlets, and sermons, the idea of rationalism moved from philosophes to many of other people. With these new ideas, the people started to believe in change which led to stress and upheaval. In America, the revolution was not like other revolutions. There was no reigns of terror, no mass deportations, or forced labor camps. However, the American
Through these decrees we see how Russian social class is very stratified and there are more high official roles but more people in poverty. Russia still had to serfs until 1861. Also the state of the Russian economy was probably very limited to do the fact that there was no manufacturing company to provide for the empire. The Russian economy was very isolated and they go to areas where they can trade. With Russia’s subsistence economy, they were not able to specialize in other areas.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.
When one explains his or her ingenious yet, enterprising interpretation, one views the nature of history from a single standpoint: motivation. In The American Revolution: A History, Gordon Wood, the author, explains the complexities and motivations of the people who partook in the American Revolution, and he shows the significance of numerous themes, that emerge during the American Revolution, such as democracy, discontent, tyranny, and independence. Wood’s interpretation, throughout his literary work, shows that the true nature of the American Revolution leads to the development of United State’s current government: a federal republic. Wood, the author, views the treatment of the American Revolution in the early twentieth century as scholastic yet, innovative and views the American Revolution’s true nature as
Gordon Wood’s Radicalism of the American Revolution is a book that extensively covers the origin and ideas preceding the American Revolution. Wood’s account of the Revolution goes beyond the history and timeline of the war and offers a new encompassing look inside the social ideology and economic forces of the war. Wood explains in his book that America went through a two-stage progression to break away from the Monarchical rule of the English. He believes the pioneering revolutionaries were rooted in the belief of an American Republic. However, it was the radical acceptance of democracy that was the final step toward independence. The transformation between becoming a Republic, to ultimately becoming a democracy, is where Wood’s evaluation of the revolution differs from other historians. He contributes such a transformation to the social and economic factors that faced the colonists. While Gordon Wood creates a persuasive argument in his book, he does however neglect to consider other contributing factors of the revolution. It is these neglected factors that provide opportunity for criticism of his book.
Gottschalk describes the several factors that tend to be contributors and antecedents to every revolution. The first is “provocation- if it results in dissatisfaction sufficiently general to create not merely a certain slough of subjective despair but an epidemic desire for action” (Gottschalk, p. 5) He argues that this was achieved when Great Britain began to impose their taxes, tariffs and Intolerable Acts. Gottschalk states that the second factor for a revolution is the “demand for change” (Gottschalk, p. 5) A revolution cannot happen unless there is a “solidified public opinion” (Gottschalk, p. 4) and support for change. Gottschalk also states that in addition to hopefulness by citizens, a revolution needs leaders. Intellectuals need to be aware of the desire for change and provide programs to generate general awareness through leadership. (Gottschalk, p. 6) The third, and arguably the most important, factor contributing to a revolution is “the weakness of the conservative forces”. (Gottschalk, p. 7) Gottschalk states that if Great Britain had not been already in several wars, the likelihood of success for the colonies would have dropped dramatically and probably have been
Wood’s work to be illuminating, it is not free from shortcoming, Firstly, while he does place focus on certain political and economic factors, some issues and groups need could have been given more attention. With just two paragraphs focusing on slavery and no significant research regarding the lower class, both of which being essential ingredients of the American Revolution. Consequently, he chose to place his crosshairs on the elites and nobles, overlooking the role of the silent and forgotten majority. Secondly, he avoids talking about the reason and circumstances American Revolution end and opts to instead illustrate the extent of effect and benefits the radicalness of the revolution has had on modern American society. Nevertheless, these criticisms hardly touch the great perspectives laid out in this book. Dr. Wood presents American Revolution and more so the concept radicalism from a historical perspective which is as comprehensive as it is insightfully
The primary issues that fueled the Civil War in 1642-1649, the Commonwealth in 1649-1660, the Stuart Restoration 1660-1688 ...
Many revolutions have taken place throughout history, ranging from the unremarkable to the truly memorable, such as the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution and the American Revolution. Through an examination of the social, cultural, economic and political causes of the American Revolution, an exploration of key arguments both for and against the American Revolution, and an analysis of the social, cultural, economic and political changes brought about by the American Revolution it can be demonstrated unequivocally that the American Revolution was indeed truly revolutionary.
The Age of Revolutions was a period of time in which many global revolutions took place, especially within America and Europe. A revolution is an overthrow of government or social order in favour of political change. There were many revolutions that took place between 1760 and 1840, most notable being the American Revolution from 1775 to 1783, and the French Revolution beginning in 1789 and ending in 1799. These, along with the Napoleonic Empire, which carried on from the French Revolution and lasted until 1815; all greatly transformed the Atlantic world. This occurred through these global revolutions, which inspired another revolution within the slave island of Haiti. The focus of this essay will be on the aforementioned revolutions,
Revolutions have always been linked to social injustice brought on by classism and the imbalance economic responsibility. Despotism was present throughout Europe for decades before the people filled the streets fighting for reformation in policy, particularly those that have a direct effect on everyday living conditions. Anger and disdain was at the center of both the French and Russian Revolutions. In the years leading up to these events, the bulk of the population in the region of Europe were overworked peasants. The people were earning wages that allowed families to remain a step away from starvation. People were weary of harsh leadership and impoverished living conditions. As we will see, the Russian and French Revolutions were the result of oppression through classism and class conflict.
On Revolution, a book Hannah Arendt published in 1963, after Eichmann’s trial. The book didn’t gain a lot of popularity at first due to the remarkable Eichmann in Jerusalem notability. On Revolution is a work of dichotomies. Arendt compared and differentiated between the French and the American Revolution. How one was successful and how the other was less successful according to her perspectives. To begin with, Arendt defines revolution as a new beginning, a novelty, an irresistible force, something that is unprecedented that cannot be controlled. She also stressed further more on this point that a revolution should have the ability to create something new that would result in more space of freedom. Arendt does not favor the liberal view of freedom, as it is the case in the American model: “pursuit of happiness”. Freedom, according to Arendt, is the freedom of participating in the political life, being an active member in politics instead of being partially active during the elections only. Arendt observed these revolutions and wanted to know what they signify. On Revolution is a narrative of the French and the American revolutions. The book received criticism and Arendt’s historical account came under-attack by historians and experts from the both side. The fact that she referred to the American Revolution as a revolution instead of calling it the war of independence stunned many. Hence not only her views and claims were problematic to some but also the title. In this paper, I’m going to argue and point out the differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution in line with Arendt’s theory of revolution.
It is said that revolutions are the manifestations of an anarchic mentality that is fostered through widespread oppression on a variety of scales. This anarchic mentality is most evident in the infamous French Revolution of 1789. During the late 16th century, a schism began to grow between the aristocracy and the commoners in France. The common people of France wanted a government that better represented them than the monarchy, which was the ruling power. During this time, France had instituted a practice of dividing sections of their societies into what they called “three estates”. The “three estates” set specific boundaries on what people’s statuses were in the French Society, and established the competitive nature of class in France. Because of the competitive class structure in France, poor French citizens such as peasants and farmers decided that they wanted to do something about their status, so they took matters into their own hands; they initiated what how has come to be known as the French Revolution. By 1792...
The Romanov dynasty was an absolute monarchy in Russia starting from 1613 to 1917, and the Tsars continued to take political power away from the nobles.4 In order to centralize authority in Russia, the Tsars either simply took power away from the nobility or compensated their decrease of political power with increased power over their lands. Because of this, the Tsarist regime had an almost autocratic rule over the nobility which they had gained through serfdom.5 By the long nineteenth century, these relationships were under attack. In the 1825 Decembrist Revolution, military officers tried to push for constitutional monarchy but to no avail.4 Although Alexander II abolished serfdom, the condition of the peasantry remained almost the same.5
The term “revolution” describes a series of events in which change is enacted. But, what exactly is and is not a revolution beyond this broad definition is a controversial topic amongst historians. Jack Goldstone believes that a revolution is defined, “in terms of both observed mass mobilization and institutional change, and a driving ideology carrying a vision of social justice” and that they “arise only… when elites begin to attack the government”. However, upon inspection of commonly accepted “revolutions” it becomes evident that Goldstone’s definition is not accurate. The French Revolution, for example, occurred with little aid from the “elites” and was fostered and carried through mostly by the people of the Third Estate. One important