Archive for 2017

The Emancipation Edict of 1861 to some degree was successful in improving the lives of Russian peasants by 1881 as the serfs were freed by the ‘Tsar Liberator’, Alexander II. However, it could be argued that there were other reforms which Alexander II implemented which improved the lives of the Russian peasants far greater than the Emancipation Edict did.

The Emancipation Edict was to some extent successful in improving the lives of the Russian peasants by 1881 as it publically announced the implementation of the emancipation after a bank crisis in order to maintain public order. Not only this but Alexander also wanted to alleviate the suffering of his people and thereby sought to secure the freedom of the Russian peasants by abolishing serfdom, giving them greater independence than they’ve ever received. The Emancipation Edict allowed them to choose whom they wanted to marry, to own property and even set up businesses and from this, it is inferred that the edict had improved the lives of the Russian peasants as they had greater freedoms and were no longer servants to the nobility. However, in reality, it made conditions and circumstances much more difficult for the peasants as ex-serfs were still bounded by redemption dues to compensate for the lack of labour. Redemption dues were a long-term debt which spanned over 49 years with an interest rate of 6% and from this it is clear that it did not improve the lives of the Russia peasants by 1881 as debts even passed onto children if they couldn’t pay it off. Not only that but many historians and critics of Alexander II’s reign stated that the edict did not equally free the serfs and thereby did not entirely succeed in improving the lives of the Russian peasants. This was seen where a new group of peasants emerged known as the kulaks who were lucky enough to have been former state-serfs and thus gained better quality land. They were also able to hire labour and make big profits which implies that only a small group of Russian peasants’ lives were truly improved. This is seen to be less successful as there were 647 peasant riots in four months after the edict and thus the Emancipation Edict was nothing more than an illusion which did not completely free the ex-serfs nor did it entirely improve the lives of the Russian peasants as a whole.

On the other hand, it could be said that Alexander II’s educational reforms played a huge part in improving the lives of Russian peasants as initially, 95% of peasants were illiterate and with education being made accessible to all classes, this percentage decreased to 74%, demonstrating an increase in literacy and thereby the improvement of living of the Russian peasants. Women were also allowed to attend university and by 1881, statistics had shown that there were approximately 2,000 women attending university. Sunday schools were set up by volunteers who were willing to educate the illiterate, signifying the improvement of living in which the ex-serfs did not have access to under Tsarist Russia’s predecessor, Nicholas I. However, there were some limitations with the education reforms as secondary education was still fee-paying and was limited to those that were better off, indicating that not all Russian peasants’ lives had improved. Additionally, the Minister of Education wasn’t very keen on promoting education among the peasants and this thereby indicates that the educational reforms had improved the lives of Russian peasants, but only to a small extent.

Military reforms were also introduced as Alexander II had realised after the humiliating defeat of the Crimean War, that reforms had to be made. Reforms included reducing the service duration from 25 years to 15, the implementation of training, the abolishment of corporal punishment and the means of increasing morale such as universal conscription (all classes subject to service). This meant that both the peasants and nobles felt less pressured into fighting a war and less opted out. The success of the military reforms was seen in the Russo-Turkish War where they had 750,000 reserves ready to fight. These reforms meant that the Russian peasants could also rise up in ranks based on merits which to some extent improved the lives of some Russian peasants and thereby signifies that the military reforms had provided some benefits to the lives of Russian peasants.

Lastly, political and judicial reforms meant that there would be an increase in legal rights and say for the peasants, ultimately improving the lives of Russian peasants. The introduction of a local government known as the Zemstva, had enabled people to be more democratic whereby they were elected in positions of the administration and also debated issues. Not only this but judicial forms meant that all classes were judged equally before the law, were open to the public and reporters and judges’ training and pay were improved to prevent corruption. This meant that a fairer and less corrupt system was created and that if Russian peasants were tried by court, they would not be discriminated based on their class, signifying that to some extent political and judicial reforms had improved the lives of Russian peasants.

In conclusion, the Emancipation Edict of 1861 did little to fully improve the lives of Russian peasants as a whole. While the edict was successful in giving the ex-serfs greater freedoms in terms of setting up businesses, and marrying whom they wanted, they were still bound by redemption dues and ultimately not every Russian peasant had the same outcome as some peasants had benefited greatly from this, as seen from the emerging middle classed Kulaks. The educational reforms improved the standards of literacy and numeracy but secondary education remained free-paying, limiting it to those that were wealthy enough to fund it. Additionally, although military, political and judicial reforms to some extent benefited Russian peasants, it would be argued that neither the edict nor other reforms was fully successful in improving the lives of the Russian peasants by 1881.

The Great Rebellion of 1173-1174 was arguably triggered by King Henry II’s treatment of his son, Young Henry. However, there were other factors which contributed to and/or caused the rebellion such as the discontent with baronial policy, Eleanor’s jealous and anger, Louis VII of France who wished to diminish Henry II’s authority as well as other rebels and key individuals who had a common goal, to seize land.

Henry II’s treatment of his sons had to some extent triggered the onset of the Great Rebellion as Young Henry, the next heir to succeed the throne had little to no power or land. This viewpoint is supported by Historian Jones who argues that Young Henry had rebelled for being ‘denied the real fruits of Kingship’. It is clear that Henry II didn’t treat his sons fairly as in 1169, the sons had been given land but no true authority or income. It is most notable that Young Henry was treated unfairly in contrast to his brothers as Richard was given Aquitaine, Geoffrey was given Brittany and John was given 3 important castles (Chinon, Loudun and Mirabeau) which Young Henry felt that they were rightfully his as well as the fact that Young Henry was given no territory for himself or his wife, generating anger and jealousy of his brothers as he had no true power. As a result of this, in March 1173, Young Henry fled to Paris and Louis VII, King of France sided with him as there was an opportunity to diminish Henry II’s control. However, it would be false to state that the rebellion of 1173-1174 occurred entirely due to Henry II’s treatment of his sons as Richard and Geoffrey were persuaded by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine to revolt against their father alongside Young Henry and her previous husband, Louis VII. Although this was probably done easily as Richard and Geoffrey had titles but no real authority, explicitly seen with Richard where Henry II had given Richard formal authority in Aquitaine yet still held a large amount of control over the southern duchy and thus signifies that the cause of the Great Rebellion had occurred due to Henry II’s treatment of his sons. Additionally, John was far too young to be involved and disputes the statement to some extent that the rebellion was caused by King Henry II’s treatment of his sons. Had Henry given land to Young Henry to govern, like how his father Geoffrey of Anjou had given him Normandy at the age of 17, then it would not have given Young Henry a reason to rebel against his father and ultimately a rebellion may not have occurred, supporting the statement to some degree.

Eleanor of Aquitaine had a key role in ensuring the rebellion went forward as there were two main reasons to why she had support Young Henry: firstly, that it was reported she was immensely jealous of Rosamund Clifford, who was rumoured to have an affair with Henry II and secondly, she was angry at the fact that Henry II had given away Gascony without consulting her. Many critics argue that Eleanor was motivated by jealous of Henry II’s many affairs and most famously with Rosamund, however, it would be argued that Eleanor’s concern laid with Gascony because her independent control of her duchy was slowly being eroded. Henry II had taken matters into his own hands, giving parts of Aquitaine away, most notably Gascony as it was given as a dowry for his daughter Eleanor’s marriage to King of Castile but had also made Raymond, Count of Toulouse do homage to Young Henry. As a result of this, she decided to side with her former husband, bringing Richard and Geoffrey. Whilst it could be said that Eleanor had contributed to the Great Rebellion, her influence on her sons were more effective and to some extent indicates that the rebellion was caused by Henry II’s treatment of his sons as surely if Henry II had treated Richard and Geoffrey well, they would not have found a reason to rebel against him.

Louis VII, King of France also played a key part and it could be argued that as father-in-law to Young Henry, he was in a perfect position to encourage, sanction and direct the rebellion. Louis VII encouraged Young Henry to demand greater control over his inheritance and this could arguably suggest that it was Louis VII instead who had caused the rebellion as he had influenced Young Henry. However, Louis’s main aim was to divide the Angevin dynasty so that it was be less threatening, considering the King of England had far more land in France than the King of France himself. Whilst it may be the case that Louis influenced Young Henry and thus caused the rebellion, it would be argued that if it wasn’t for Henry II’s treatment of his sons, then Young Henry wouldn’t have sought Louis for help in Paris and thereby wouldn’t have been able to get French barons which also despised Henry II to rebel alongside Young Henry.

Another factor which could be viewed to be what triggered the rebellion is the common goal of the rebels (or supporters of the Great Rebellion). Baronial policy certainly played a key role in acting as an incentive for people to join in with the rebellion as many barons had a long-term hatred for policies such as the 1166 Cartae Baronum, the Assizes of Clarendon 1166 and the Inquest of Sheriffs 1170 which all ensured Henry II’s authority over individuals and localities. This thereby acted as an incentive for barons like Robert, Earl of Leicester, Hugh, Earl of Chester and William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, all of which wanted to deteriorate Henry II’s authority and regain their confiscated lands back. William the Lion, King of Scotland also saw an opportunity to regain the lands David had, which he had lost to Henry II and thereby joined in with the rebellion. From this, it is inferred that both the barons and other rebels which joined in had only joined in with the rebellion as there was an incentive to regain lands, seize more control and to deteriorate Henry II’s royal authority. This however, wasn’t a reason to what triggered the Great Rebellion of 1173-1774 but rather another incentive which increased the amount of rebels.

In conclusion, what led to the Great Rebellion was mainly the jealousy of Young Henry which was backed by Eleanor of Aquitaine, persuading Richard and Geoffrey to rebel against Henry II, seeking Louis VII to diminish Henry II’s royal authority. Rebel barons (who had a long-term hatred for baronial policy), William the Lion of Scotland (who wanted to regain lands lost from David’s reign) and Louis VII wished to establish power and joined together as they had a common goal and thus got involved in the rebellion. However, Henry II’s treatment of his sons had significantly triggered the onset of the Great Rebellion of 1173-1174 as if they were all given land and independence to rule over their dominions, there would not be a motive for the rebellion to go forward.

John’s character and personal failings had definitely played a big part in the loss of Angevin France by the end of 1204, however it would be inaccurate to blame it entirely on his character and personal failings as Philip II was politically and strategically a better king and there were factors out of John’s control which contributed to the loss of Angevin France by the end of 1204.

John’s character and personal failings certainly contributed to the loss of Angevin France between the years 1199 to 1204 as he demonstrated his notoriously treacherous and untrustworthy characteristics which led to a series of events, resulting in the loss of Angevin France. A key incident involving John’s character and personal failings was with William des Roches. John had managed to gain a valuable ally due to having the support of Emperor Otto IV and Pope Innocent III as well as the convenience of Philip and des Roches falling out. The most powerful baron in France who had came from Philip’s side to support John’s cause and had brought his two allies: Arthur of Brittany and his mother Constance. However, surely if John had learnt to deal with his nephew Arthur and his mother more effectively in terms of trust and negotiations, he could’ve held Brittany and extended his royal authority in France. Failing to use this opportunity to his advantage, both Arthur and Constance had fled to Philip’s court the same day that had formalised the official submission. Furthermore, later when John had decided to siege Mirebeau, having made a deal with des Roches regarding Arthur’s treatment once he was captured – he had failed to keep his word and this had proved to be a big mistake. Losing the trust and support of the most powerful baron in France due to his untrustworthiness, had contributed to the loss of Angevin France as it allowed two enemies to side together against John. Both des Roches and Aimery de Thouars had raided Anjou which fell into their hands in 1203, revealing that the loss of Angevin France was most certainly a consequence of John’s character and personal failings.

Another view on what contributed to the loss of Angevin France would be John’s opponent, Philip II of France, a king who had 20 more years of experience in ruling and was also seen as far more capable than John, politically and strategically. Unlike Henry II or Richard I who did homage to be recognised as the successor, John had to agree to numerous terms laid out in the Treaty of Le Goulet in May 1200. John who had little skill in negotiating, John had signed away his rights to the castles for which ‘the whole war had been fought’ as suggested by French writer, Andreas of Marchiennes. The peace terms were heavily skewed towards France and John who had agreed to the terms had little knowledge of the long term impacts. As a result, John had lost the Norman Vexin which was seen to be a strategically important as it had four castles that bordered Normandy and the French royal demesnes. John also granted away Evreux, Issoudun, Graçay and Bourges, demonstrating that rather than John’s character or his personal failings, it was solely due to his incompetent political and negotiating ability and therefore was no match for Philip and thus this factor contributed to the loss of Angevin France. Not only this, but Philip II was able to force John to renounce his alliances with Flanders and Boulogne which he earlier renewed in 1199, this meant that he had fewer alliances to side with him when required. It is clear from the Treaty of Le Goulet that John had easily granted away the lands and castles which his brother, father and grandfather had taken almost 100 years to establish as by agreeing to the peace terms, the French were able to hammer the border fortresses of Normandy and this was made easier as the Vexin was now in Philip’s hands. From this it suggests that rather than the loss of Angevin France being a consequence of John’s character and personal failings, it was more the fact that Philip II was a better king, who had 20 more years of experience in ruling and was far more cunning and competent in terms of negotiating.

Additionally, there were factors outside of John’s control which resulted in further losses of Angevin France. Rather than the loss of Angevin France being a consequence of John’s character and personal failings, there were numerous events which happened to not be of John’s fault. The timings weren’t so convenient as the majority of John’s allies (Counts of Flanders, Blois and Perche and Marquis of Montferrat) had left to fight in the 4^th Crusade. Furthermore, Baldwin of Flanders had insulted John by negotiating peace with Philip which removed John’s ability to fight in two fronts in Normandy. If John had more allies by his side, this would enable him to advance into Normandy, Brittany and other French lands to assert his authority however it wouldn’t be ideal as he wouldn’t be able to raise funds as Richard had deprived England via financial exactions. As a result of that, it left John no choice but to negotiate peace terms with Philip and hence led to the loss of Angevin France. However, John had also been hit with bad luck as he attempted to defend Château Gaillard but the boats couldn’t keep up with it and hence lost it to those support Philip’s cause. By 1203, the Normans began to lose morale as they didn’t believe in John and therefore allowed Philip to siege Conches and Vaudreuil. This exemplifies that although this was a factor that was out of John’s control; it could have been to some extent due to John’s character and personal failings as he had supposedly murdered Arthur and Philip declared for John to ‘produce Arthur’ or else there would be ‘no peace’. Moreover, it didn’t help that John’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine had also passed away in 1204 allowing Philip to advance into Aquitaine. All these factors enabled Philip II to advance into Angevin France, seizing the lands and castles with ease and hence the loss of Angevin France could not have been solely due to the consequence of John’s character and personal failings.

Thus to conclude, John’s character and personal failings resulted in a loss of support of important and valuable allies such as William des Roches, Arthur of Brittany and Constance and to some extent was a reason to why Angevin France had weakened. The factors outside of John’s control had equally contributed to the loss of Angevin France as did Philip’s peace terms of the Treaty of Le Goulet, as if we were to compare the impact of how far Angevin France had declined between Philip’s peace terms and factors outside of John’s control against John’s character and personal failings – it is evidently shown that the loss of Angevin France by the end of 1204 was mainly due to John’s unluckiness as demonstrated by the attempted defence of Château Gaillard, factors outside of his control such as Eleanor’s death and Philip’s aptitude as a king who managed to regain the French lands.

John’s actions and character had contributed to the failure of the Bouvines campaign of 1214 as his treatment of barons had resulted in long term hatred, proving to be harmful in the long run when they refused to support him when required. However, it would be false to state that the failure of the Bouvines campaign of 1214 was a consequence of John’s actions and character as there were factors which were beyond his control, and rather the faults of other allies which had thus resulted in the failure of the Bouvines campaign of 1214.

John’s actions and character had to some degree contributed to the failure of the Bouvines campaign as the lack of baronial support demonstrates John’s incompetence to secure and maintain vital allies. Surely, if John had managed to maintain the support of William des Roches, he would’ve have been more successful in marching against Philip. Although, over the years John had improved relations with barons as seen by the Lusignans as he previously had an ordeal with them but by making an alliance he was able to successfully secure the vital port of Nantes and captured Robert of Dreux which demonstrates that John’s actions were wiser and gives more of a reason that the failure of the Bouvines campaign wasn’t solely due to John’s actions and character. It would also be false to state that it was entirely due to John’s incompetence as the Poitevin barons, notoriously known to be disloyal and tyrants, deserted him and refused to fight. This thereby crippled John’s efforts to regain further lands, but also meant that Philip did not have to fight a front and thus enabled him to prepare further defences. However, arguably at this event, it could be suggested that it was to some extent a consequence of John’s actions and character as John had requested help from the English barons but due to the long-term hatred and bad relations with them very little could be done and forced John to withdraw as his army wasn’t large enough to advance onto the castle of Roche-au-Moine. A key group of English barons known as ‘northerners’ had refused to pay scutage in lieu or contribute military forces which emphasises the lack of baronial support and John’s bad relations with barons. This therefore implies that the failure of the Bouvines campaign of 1214 was a consequence of John’s action and characters, as if John had maintained good relations with important barons such as William des Roches, he would’ve been in a stronger position as would not be required to rely upon Poitevin barons.

On the other hand, rather than the failure of the Bouvines campaign being a fault of John’s actions and character, John’s allies had contributed much more to the defeat of the 3-hour battle. Whilst John’s initial plan was to invade Paris from both the north east, this was prevented by John’s allies, German emperor, Otto IV, Count Ferrand of Flanders and Count Renaud of Boulogne, who were heavily delayed in assembling which allowed Philip II to continue to build up his defences and to prepare for the upcoming battle. Although John made a good strategic plan to simultaneously attack Philip from the north and south, the failure of the Bouvines campaign of 1214 was less to do with the consequences of John’s actions and character but rather the ineptness of the allies as it wasn’t until the third week of July that Otto IV and the coalition forces were prepared to march on Paris. This therefore reveals that rather than the consequence of John’s action and character it was the fault of John’s allies which impacted the outcome of the Bouvines campaign and ultimately led to a truce with Philip II, as if the Poitevin barons did not bail out from the previous battle and if Otto IV, Ferrand of Flanders and Renaud of Boulogne had been less tardy, the campaign may have succeeded.

Thus, to conclude the failure of the Bouvines campaign of 1214 was mainly due to the ineptness of John’s allies as they had delayed in assembling, making John’s plan go to waste and such crucial time had enabled Philip to easily build up forces and defences. Although John’s actions and character may have contributed slightly as surely if he had better relations with the barons this would mean that John would not have to rely on Poitevin barons, nor would he have bailed on the march on the castle of Roche-au-Moine due to the lack of baronial support. Therefore, ultimately Otto IV and the coalition forces had contributed to the failure of the Bouvines campaign more significantly.

About Me

A student who has kindly shared her A level notes created from blood, sweat and tears! (kidding)

Many thanks to my teachers: Mr J Waite, Mr A Cook, Mr P Johnson and Ms S Speedie.

Disclaimer
Whilst I have written these notes, I am not claiming that the research found is mine. During lessons, I have taken notes from a variety of books (which I should give credit to, but I don't know/remember the names of) and therefore everyone should be weary when writing notes as it could go against academic misconduct i.e. plagiarism.

Pages

History and English Literature A-Level Notes

About Me

Blog Archive