Background questions and answers upon france

1 ) How far would Napoleon Bonaparte maintain the ideals of the France Revolution through the period 1799–1815?

The key issue is the marriage between Napoleon Bonaparte and the French Wave. ‘How far’ invites individuals to consider the magnitude and limits of the claim that he preserved revolutionary values. These beliefs can be summarised quickly since ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’. The Trend had desired greater equalisation between classes, the regulation of law and the end of luxurious and religious privilege. The focus should be around the period by 1799 to 1915 and there is no need for long narratives of the period by 1789 given that answers can easily put Napoleon into circumstance.

Napoleon taken care of that he was the son of the Revolution and his Code incorporated some measures that ensured the rule of law.

He encouraged advertising by merit rather than by simply birth. He confirmed the changes to real estate ownership that had taken place. On the other hand, the Code taken advantage of the middle classes more than the peasantry and the focus on authority inside the family delivered to pre-1789 values.

His secret was severe and the business of the Disposition was a conundrum of republican principles. Oppositions were prosecuted by an energetic police program, headed simply by Fouché. Authorities institutions are not independent and Napoleon surely could nominate these to excessive offices. Reduced officials, though elected, could be removed.

There is no need for very long narratives of foreign insurance plan but it will be relevant to explain how far it had been driven by personal, rather than revolutionary, motives. Answers well worth 22-25 will certainly consider both sides of his rule and come to clear conclusions. 19-21 answers will probably be mostly safeguarded but will miss some possible lines of discussion. 11-13 answers will show a basic knowledge of his rule but actually will be very narrative or descriptive, nevertheless sometimes unfinished. 14-15 could be awarded to fuller points. 16-18 answers will make a few salient parts of comment in otherwise generally descriptive accounts.

2 How far did Napoleon Bonaparte attain his aims in home policy?

The key issue can be Napoleon’s accomplishment in obtaining his is designed in domestic policy. The question is deliberately authored to banish discussion of international policy and this will be irrelevant unless referred to briefly within an introduction or perhaps conclusion. For example , a good stage would be that Napoleon obtained power generally by cure and was then was brought down by failure abroad, certainly not by inner opposition. But this does not signify victory and defeat in another country must be described in detail. Answers can be granted 11-13 signifies when they consist of relevant nevertheless basic information of household policy. These answers can give little consideration to Napoleon’s aims and will probably be incredibly uncritical.

Fuller descriptions but with a similar approach can be granted 14-15 represents. The 16-18 band will require some specific study of aims even though these may be treated generally; the explanation will be quite full. The discriminating component for the 19-21 band will be the focus on aims and the achievement even though the essays can contain a few gaps. For example , they might be extremely one-sided. Even more complete tests that consider alternatives can be awarded 22-25 marks.

Napoleon aimed at personal power and he anchored this by 1799, with all the Consulate, and then 1804, while using Empire, right up until 1814. Yet candidates should note his abdication prior to his defeated return. Credit will be provided when individuals consider how far he wanted to continue the reforms of the Revolution. This individual sought to maximise his support and presented promotion by simply merit. Nevertheless , political competitors were remedied harshly by the police program under Fouché. His endeavors to stabilise the economy could be examined as can his relationships with the Both roman Catholic Cathedral, which this individual stabilised. Candidates should consider the value of the Code Napoleon.

a few. The aims and strategies of Cavour were completely different coming from those of Mazzini. ‘ How far do you go along with this thinking?

The key concern is the a comparison of Cavour and Mazzini. Answers should be realistically balanced within their treatment of the 2 men. 70: 40 either way can are worthy of any mark band; 75: 30 will certainly normally lead to the award of a single band less than would in any other case be given. The 11-13 group will require a basic knowledge and understanding of a single man. Answers in the 22-25 band will be fully comparative. They will identify between aspires and strategies and support the debate by sound knowledge. Most candidates, possibly in this strap, can be expected to agree with the claim in the question but credit rating should be provided to candidates whom are aware of several common surface, e. g. both desired to make Italia an independent point out and found Austria while the major obstacle. 19-21 answers will show great qualities but will become less outstanding, perhaps simply by lacking a distinction among aims and methods or perhaps by chasing a more wrinkled comparison.

It will have some assessment in the 16-18 answers however the approach will be mostly descriptive or story. The emphasis on narrative is going to be characteristic of answers inside the 11-13 and 14-15 indicate bands. In their aims, Mazzini always searched for the concentration of all of the Italian peninsula. Cavour began by simply seeking to produce Piedmont an even more important and extended state in north Italy and was initially unwilling to take hold of the the southern area of states. Mazzini was a democratic republican. Cavour was a monarchist whose ideas of democracy were more limited. Mazzini wished Italians to gain freedom by themselves; Cavour aimed to get European support for his designs.

In methods, Mazzini embraced revolutionary methods, for example in the 1830s and in 1848. He tried to build an alliance of all classes though he did not do so. Cavour began by strengthening Piedmont. He compared with revolutions although manipulated plebiscites to give the appearance of well-liked support pertaining to his guidelines. Diplomacy, especially with Napoleon 3 of Italy, was a essential means of isolating Austria and supplementing the weak Piedmontese army. To the dismay of Mazzini and Garibaldi, Cavour was willing to surrender a few Italian areas to gain his wider ends (Nice and Savoy to France). While not an ally with the Roman Catholic Church, Cavour saw the value of not alienating the papacy, contrary to Mazzini.

4. How far was Napoleon Bonaparte an oppressive ruler in the domestic guidelines from 1799 to 1815? The key issue is the evaluation of Napoleon’s domestic policies. Foreign coverage will be unimportant unless described briefly in an introduction or perhaps conclusion. To get the highest signifies, 21 – 25, Examiners will anticipate answers to consider the situation for and against the declare that he was oppressive, coming to a conclusion. Pertaining to 11-13 signifies, answers should be expected to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the key elements of home-based policies. A few policies could be seen simply by some since oppressive through others since liberating. 1799 marks the appointment of Napoleon because First Consul after the fall season of the Listing. Especially throughout the Consulate, this individual implemented many reforms like the Code Napoleon and the Concordat (1801).

The former helped to revive administrative order to France and guaranteed selected rights it also strengthened Napoleon’s authority. The latter was a reconciliation between Italy and the Papacy/Roman Catholic Church. This satisfied many France people who stored their faith based views but it afforded Napoleon a considerable way of measuring control over the Church. The Empire (1804) saw Napoleon achieve even more power and he was major over every aspect of French life. Candidates can explain management measures that cemented the authority or oppression from the Emperor. Officials were nominated rather than readily elected. The most successful prospects should be able to notice and measure the reasons for the continuing competitors to Napoleon within England which was controlled to some extent with a harsh law enforcement system.

Answers worth 11-13 marks should display basically acceptable understanding but you will have little considered assessment. 14-15 marks could be awarded to answers which might be relevant and even more detailed but nevertheless more determined by narrative and description than assessment and comparison. 16-17 marks could possibly be awarded to answers which contain more research and examination but in which the assessment could possibly be largely implicit. 18- twenty marks will be appropriate for answers that concentrate on the key concern but in which in turn there is evident imbalance and unevenness. The discriminating element in the 21-25 mark answers might well end up being their success in offering convincing assessments.

5. ‘From 1789 to 1799, whom posed the more dangerous hazards to the French Revolution: its internal or perhaps its exterior enemies? The key issue is a threats or dangers for the French Revolution. Candidates will need to note that the question ends in 1799 with the percussion d’état of Brumaire, the end of the Listing, and Napoleon’s accession for the Consulate. Zero particular ceilings are recommended for incomplete answers nevertheless answers that end in 1794-95 with the land of the Jacobins might be worth at least one band lower than might otherwise always be awarded. Candidates should consider both internal and external risks. Answers that discuss just one aspect and completely ignore the other simply cannot expect greater than a mark within a middle strap.

However , examiners will not search for an even harmony in however, best works; a reasonable equilibrium but one that is weighted to one area can rating very highly. The quality of the argument will probably be of previous importance. Inner enemies included the King and the courtroom to Louis’ execution in 1793. His recognition in the Revolution, plus the concessions that he decided, were half-hearted. Royalists inside France and people who still left the country (émigrés) continued to agitate. The influential House of worship was inhospitable. Conservative parts of France, especially the more rural areas, were hostile for the changes, such as the Vendée. From 1795, the Directory attempted to draw back through the alleged excesses of prior years but was unsuccessful in controlling disorder until the creation of Napoleon.

Portugal had to confront foreign adversaries from the inception of the Innovation and available war broke out in 1792 against Austria and Prussia. The danger of overwhelming eliminate and the land of the Trend seemed incredibly real. International enemies afterwards included Britain, Holland and Spain. Though unsuccessful at home, the Listing had even more success abroad, especially through the victories of Napoleon in Italy. Poor answers will probably be vague about the risks and might always be confined to incredibly general accounts of the Trend. Answers at the center bands might focus on risks but cope with them in a extremely descriptive manner, lacking evaluation and evaluation. The most effective answers can be expected to be deductive, focused on evaluation and supported by appropriate truthful knowledge

So why did John XVI’s procedures from 1789 fail to prevent his setup in 1793? 
The essential issue is the assessment of Louis XVI’s policies as a reason for his execution. Problem asks ‘Why…? ‘ and examiners can award the highest marks to answers that are analytical, providing a series of factors behind the delivery of John XVI. Yet , excellent answers can be organized chronologically because the period from 1789 to 1793 observed many improvements that can be evaluated sequentially. Prospects might analyze his reluctance to accept the comparatively average changes that have been demanded by the Third Property in 1789. He on the sides with the First and Second Estates till he was forced to concede.

He was forced to recognize the Statement of Privileges and the City Constitution in the clergy. Some doubts that he wanted to overturn the concessions, probably with foreign assistance, were strong when he fled to Varennes. Answers in Band I will also consider the impact of elements that resulted in the King’s execution. These included a worsening economic situation and the climb of personal radicalism, leading eventually towards the (brief) succeed of Robespierre and the Jacobins, who were immediately responsible for Louis XVI’s execution. War and counter-revolution in the provinces insecure the gains from the Revolution together an impact around the King’s condition. The Grand Peur, the Terror and the influence of Paris plus the sans-culottes could possibly be seen as evidence of the strong influence of the urban decrease classes. A lot of candidates may well consider the reputation of the Queen, Marie Antoinette, and the royalist proponents.

7. ‘The divisions among the list of revolutionaries were the most important reasons why Austria surely could suppress the revolutions in Italy and Germany in 1848–49. ‘ How far do you agree with this claim? 
 The key issue is the reason for the failure of the revolutions of 1848–49 in Italy and Germany. Examiners will anticipate a reasonable harmony in the discussion of the two areas for markings in Artists 1 and 2 (18–20; 21–25). 70: 40 no matter what will be appropriate. An understanding of the revolutions in one region will be required for Band 5 (11–13). Candidates may argue that elements were more important than sections among the revolutionaries, for example Austrian military power, but the mentioned factor should certainly normally be provided with some interest for Strap 5. In Italy, the revolutionaries had different aims.

For some, regional grievances were most important. For instance , Sicily resented rule by simply Naples. Mazzini and Garibaldi aimed at wider issues after they established the Roman Republic. Piedmont’s frontrunners had a diverse agenda. In Germany, Liberals demanded constitutional reform nevertheless disagreements came out, for example in the role of Prussia. There was clearly no dexterity between the moves. Religious divisions between Catholics and Protestants were important. Candidates may possibly explain the failure in the Frankfurt Parliament. On the other hand, Austria’s army was stronger than any push that the revolutionaries could muster. Their generals were even more capable; answers might point out Radetsky in Italy.

almost 8. How far would Napoleon Bonaparte ensure freedom and equality in his home government of France? 
The key concern is the nature of Napoleon’s government of France. Problem clearly refers to domestic concerns; discussions of foreign policy or the impact of Napoleon’s rule in other countries will not be relevant unless they are really a brief a part of introductions or conclusions. You are likely to expect answers in Artists 1 (21–25) and two (18–20) to consider quarrels for and against Napoleon’s support pertaining to liberty and equality. However , examiners should not require the same balance. The balance will reveal the disagreement. For example , it could reject ‘liberal’ measures by minor importance.

Answers in other Bands might plump for an argument that accepts or rejects ‘liberty and equality; ‘ without considering the alternative at all. It will be relevant to discuss the Code Napoleon (1804), an effort to unify the different laws of France. It is confirmation of equality ahead of the law and the end of privilege, and religious toleration would point towards Napoleon’s liberalism. Professions were ready to accept talent. Yet , associations of workers had been banned and females were given fewer rights than men. Napoleon kept a tight hold on electrical power through his autocratic guideline. Officials were nominated plus the Empire ascertained Napoleon’s personal rule. Resistance was suppressed and guide might be designed to the work of Fouché because Minister of Police. Equal rights was limited by the restriction of promotion to Napoleon’s supporters.

9. Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to become Emperor of France? 
The key issue is the creation of the Disposition by Napoleon Bonaparte. Problem asks ‘Why’ and examiners will be trying to find analysis the moment awarding the 2 highest Bands. It will be strongly related explain the backdrop to Napoleon’s rise to demonstrate his appeal after the instability of the past decade. Yet , surveys need to be linked to the Empire to get a high reward. Napoleon offered armed forces success inside the revolutionary battles especially against Austria; the failure in the Egyptian advertising campaign was counter by propaganda. He also gained support because of his ability to undervalue insurrection and disorder within just France.

He managed to out manoeuvre acquaintances in the Consulate and captured the imagination of France by building the Disposition, promising to protect the ideals of the Innovation and maintain buy. He had attacked populist guidelines, for example in the Codes and through the Convention. War had not been a heavy expense for french people yet made Napoleon’s reputation. However, Egyptian journey did not indicate badly upon him. Additionally necessary, and probably irrelevant, to narrate the advancements of overseas relations and campaigns but candidates may point out the resulting recognition within France. Although the Empire contradicted the republicanism that was at the heart of the French Wave from 1792, it guaranteed to maintain the ideals of the Revolution whilst, at the same time, guaranteeing order and efficiency. A lot of, such as extreme royalists and Jacobins, were not reconciled nevertheless Napoleon’s autocracy and the establishment of the Disposition were not seriously threatened by other people or alternative suggestions.

10 How far was Portugal a law enforcement officials state beneath Napoleon Bonaparte from 1799 to 1814? 
The essential issue is in the phrase ‘police state’. The question asks ‘How far..? ‘ and candidates should analyze both the extent and limits of the claim. However , examiners will not anticipate balanced answers. The French were completely free underneath Napoleon several candidates may well judge that France was indeed a police express and therefore spend most of all their time to this argument. A great uncritical acknowledgement of this watch might be worth up to Band 2 (and Band you might be attained by excellent discussions) but normally answers inside the highest strap might be anticipated to consider both equally sides. Napoleon grabbed power in 1799, reduced the various other Consuls to impotence and then declared himself Emperor in 1804.

Though these changes were given the green light by plebiscites, and were truly supported by the majority of French persons, they showed authoritarian regulation and the results of the plebiscites were rigged to produce even larger majorities in favor. Fouché went the Ministry of Police. Letters of arrest nearly the same as the Bourbons’ lettres de cachet had been used. Opponents were detained. The press was greatly censored and the state alone engaged in wide-spread propaganda.

Napoleon’s governments underneath the Consulate and Empire provided him extensive power more than central and native administration. The Codes could have guaranteed some freedoms but they were also a device to bring purchase and behavior to Italy. The Concordat with the Papacy (1801) accepted the need to conciliate the Roman Catholic Chapel and it also allowed some toleration to Protestants but its reason to Napoleon was political rather than moral. On the other hand, it can be argued that police actions was not indiscriminate. Many People from france people identified conditions bettering. There is no need to compare Napoleon’s rule to revolutionary routines (or different police states) but quick comparisons could be given credit.

11Why was Louis XVI executed in 1793? 
The key concern is the causes of Louis XVI’s execution. Problem asks ‘Why? ‘ and candidates should certainly provide a number of reasons. The majority of candidates should be expected to begin in 1789. Will probably be difficult to make material prior to 1789 relevant. Some might take a narrower approach with all the rise from the Jacobins. Just about any, the main requirements in evaluation will be the top quality of the argument. The question could be tackled chronologically. It is easy to take too lightly the support for John XVI in 1789. The decision to assemble the Locations General was popular. The quantity of republicans was negligible.

Even so, his reputation continued to decline till his setup at a time once few monarchists in England dared to protest. Louis’ personality may be examined. Having been well-meaning yet lacked politics skills. He had a strong impression of responsibility and monarchical obligation. He believed in work right. Collectively, these made him reluctant to accept the (comparatively moderate) reforms that had been demanded, such as the issue of voting inside the Estates Standard, the August Decrees and Declaration of Rights, until he was required into snack bars, which therefore made him less, no more, popular. His defence of privileged classes was a key factor. He kept out up against the Civil Cosmetic.

There were suspicions, not totally unfounded, that he was fishing for overseas intervention to regain electric power. The King was viewed as sympathetic towards the émigrés. No matter the truth about Marie Antoinette’s attitudes and actions, the lady was broadly hated. The ill-fated flight to Varennes can be examined. It will be very relevant to show how extremists hijacked the Revolution. The dangers from conflict, internal unrest as in the Vendée, and economic stresses led to the victory of extremists such as Robespierre plus the defeat of moderate ground-breaking forces. Louis’ execution was important in the own proper but it was also a expression of rivalries between several groups of radicals.

12 Who of Cavour, Garibaldi and Mazzini contributed most towards the unification of Italy by simply 1871? 
The key issue is the comparative contributions of three market leaders of German unification. Strap 5 (11–13) will need a understanding of the work of one man. However , even the best answers do not need to show an even equilibrium between the 3. Candidates can easily spend the majority of time issues preferred choice but answers in the two highest bands will need a sound knowledge and understanding of all three. There is also a comparative aspect in the question (‘contributed…most’) and answers in Music group 1 (21–25) will be clear when supplying their reasons. Answers in lower rings might be relevant, well informed and clearly asserted but they will most likely not rationalize their decision.

A problem could be when candidates interpret problem as an invitation to write down about merely one leader – the most important. These types of answers might show the prospects to be able of producing well nevertheless they will be imperfect. Such answers might be restricted to a limit in Strap 3 (16–17) although, as always, the overriding factor is definitely the quality of the argument. Cavour laid a strong foundation pertaining to unification simply by re-organising Piedmont. He was an excellent politician who also managed Piedmont with a mix of skill and bribery. Having been a realist and made certain that he obtained foreign assistance, especially from Napoleon III’s Italy, before facing Austria.

This individual preferred to extend Piedmont’s influence by plebiscites, apparently democratic but basically carefully managed. It might be argued that concentration went beyond he intended but his acceptance of Garibaldi’s gains in the south confirmed his pragmatism and he was mindful not to are up against the Papacy. By the time of his death (1861), Italy was unified with the exclusions of Venetia and Rome. Garibaldi built his name in Italy and out of doors by his contribution towards the failed cycles of 1848–49. He did as much as any person to popularise the cause of German unification.

The 1860 intrusion of the south was successful militarily and had knock-on results by pushing Cavour to recognise the impetus of pressure for a larger Italy. Although his afterwards career was less good, his particular claims would be to push to get the concentration of the peninsula as a whole and to win the support in the lower orders. Mazzini led the cause in the 1830s and 1840s, one example is through the Carbonari and the 1848–49 revolutions. It would be claimed that his tips were unrealistic: a seglar democracy achieved by Italians only. However , even though he was to get less good in practical terms than either Cavour or Garibaldi, his claims to have been the most important contributor is dependent largely along the way in which started the struggle. Except for the monarchy, the final shape of Italia closely was similar to his program.

2 Was Robespierre even more a success or possibly a failure than a revolutionary head?

Robespierre soon gained a reputation in the Estates General of 1789 as a attorney who looked after the hobbies of the poor. He became a leader of the Jacobins and was main to require the organization of a republic and the setup of California king Louis XVI after the Air travel to Varennes (1791). This individual opposed the war in 1792 as they feared which it would make rise of your dictator. Robespierre and the Jacobins (or Montagnards/Mountain Men) defeated the Girondins and completely outclassed the new Panel of Open public Safety (1793-95). While within a dominant placement, he would not merely seek out power to get himself and was assumed not to end up being corrupted by simply power or perhaps wealth. Having been the ‘Incorruptible’. He assumed the problems facing the republic (including exterior war, inner counter-revolutionary teams and inflation) could just be solved by making use of terror.

The terror acted against true and supposed enemies from the revolution and extended in to every nook of France. Victims had been mostly the aristocracy, bourgeoisie and members of the local clergy but also included members of other classes. In all, probably 40, 000 people were carried out. Robespierre recommended a Republic of Advantage. He required the anti-clerical policies in the revolution further more by inaugurating the conspiracy of the Substantial Being, based upon Reason. This individual also required severe steps to solve the dual challenges of inflation and foodstuff shortages.

Assignats and selling price fixing were introduced nevertheless both were unsuccessful. Robespierre took aboard Carnot’s proposals for mass conscription to fight the war against counter-revolutionary kingdoms. By 1794, the opposition was able to collect sufficient support to bring him down and he was executed. Answers in the higher bands will consider both successes and failures although answers need not end up being evenly well balanced because arguments can pressure either. Was he more a success when compared to a failure? Successes might be seen in the wipe out of counter-revolution from within and out of doors France. The establishment with the republic was a short-term achievement. Robespierre’s command of battle was important. Failures may include the simple period of his rule. Adversaries were paralysed briefly. His socio-religious and economic policies did not operate.

14 ‘Italian unification was more a victory to get Piedmont’s electricity than pertaining to nationalism. ‘ How far do you agree with this claim? Following 1815, Piedmont emerged since the major German state to oppose Austria’s power in Italy. Nevertheless , its management was not accepted universally and was unpopular in some quarters. Other places using their leaders acquired claims, electronic. g. Ancient rome and Venice. Charles Albert of Piedmont played a controversial part in 1848, seeming to lead the resistance from Austria but in the narrower interests of Piedmont and being happy to exploit the problems of risings elsewhere. Following 1848 and under Victor Emmanuel, Piedmont became the more obvious applicant for leadership of Italia.

It was impartial of Austrian influence, having a constitution such as Statuto, was your wealthiest condition in Italy and possessed an army which usually, although not comparable to that of Luxembourg, was more robust than regarding other Italian language states. Reactions might build on this to examine the particular part of Cavour. He aimed to modernise Piedmont and then win allies to assist to deteriorate Austria. Simply by his loss of life in 1861 his policies were successful in increasing Piedmont’s part in the north and in the Duchies. Garibaldi’s success in the south led him to go further than he probably desired. But by 1861 Venetia and Rome were even now outside the new kingdom of Italy through which Piedmont was the most powerful condition.

Italian nationalism was diverse in its aspires. Mazzini targeted at the concentration of the whole peninsula nevertheless he was foiled in the 1830s and in 1848-49. Other frontrunners such as Manin in Venice and, in brief, the P�re in 1848-49 had limited success. Not one of these received universal support from inside or outside Italia and crucially lacked army power. Yet , the function of nationalists, especially Garibaldi, should not be undervalued. Garibaldi played a crucial role in Cavour’s later years and he ongoing to aim at the use of Ancient rome. Candidates may possibly point out the final phases of concentration (Venetia in 1866 and Rome in 1870) owed small to either Piedmont in order to other German nationalists. To offer the highest rings answers need not be equally balanced between Piedmont and nationalism although should be audio on each.

You can even be interested in this: essay on france, the tiny key inquiries and answers

you