Question: What were the causes and consequences of the two Balkan Wars
FIRST BALKAN WAR:
The first Balkan War began to spark when the Balkan League was formed. The League contained the four Balkan Powers: Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Montenegro. This alliance scared Turkey and the other Great Powers, because the Balkan Powers were opposed to them. This meant the threat of war. Turkey send a note on August 14th to the Balkan League telling them to, "act cautiously." The Balkan Powers used the Macedonian riots as a way to spark war, and began to mobilize their troops on September 30th 1912. However, they did not officially declare war until October 18th. Turkey, at this time was already conveniently weakened from war with Italy and did not stand a chance at defending themselves. The outcome of the First Balkan War was threatening to all of the Great Powers, especially that of Austria-Hungary whom was extremely opposed to Serbia's expansion to a coastline. Russia and France although did support Serbia. On December 17th a peace conference was held to "end" the war. As a result Turkey was asked to give up Adrianople and Crete, but refused to do so. This conference allowed for very little progress due to the fact that on February 3rd Turkey declared war once again, and was quickly defeated. A truce was signed on April 16th and the Bulgarians claimed Adrianople. The official Treaty of London was signed May 30th once the negotiations had come to an end. As an outcome Greece overtook Crete, southern Macedonia was given to Salonika, Albania became independant, and Bulgaria claimed Thrace, while Serbia won much of Macedonia in the central and northern regions.
SECOND BULKAN WAR:
The main cause of the Second Bulkan War was due to the dissatisfaction of the negotiations in the Treaty of London. Serbia was looking to expand to the Adriatic Sea and was not able to. They also felt that their share of Macedonia was not enough. Bulgaria however, quite opposed this view, and felt that Macedonia was to be left "to arbitration by the Tsar." On June 1st 1913 Serbia and Greece formed an alliance in attempts to win back what they thought was unfair treatment and had been denied to them. Bulgaria also had the same intentions. On June 29th the war began. Serbia and Greece declared war on Bulgaria due to an attack. Romania and Turkey joeined with Serbia as a way to "choke" Bulgaria. Because of the Treaty of Bucharest, signed August 10th, Bulgaria was forced to give up much of their claimed land. This success caused Serbia to become power hungry and invade Albania on claims that they had attacked Western Serbia. Austria-Hungary intervened however, and demanded that the Serbians end the invasion. The consequences of these wars enabled the Balkan powers to make prestigious and territorial gains. They cut into the plans of Austria-Hungary and Russia, whom had planned for the domination of the Balkan Powers. This meant that there was an uneasy ground for the Great Powers as well as the Balkan Powers, and this tension may have contributed to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Colonialism and European Military Planning
Question:
The colonial wars impacted the military thinking and planning/strategics of the European powers prior to World War 1. The biggest target of the powers during the time was that of Africa. Because of their rich resources, strategic locations, and lucrative trade routes abundant with prosperous materials, many parts of Africa were taken and colonized by The Europeans. Although countries such as Great Britain and Germany had rich economies, the greed for more land and more power caused them to experiment with the means of expansion. Asia and the Caribbean were also targets of the Europeans due to the large amount of territory which was potentially obtainable. The race for land and power caused wars and "military conflicts" between the competing countries and the indigenous peoples of the native land. The Europeans easily had an advantage over the colonies in which they were overcoming, including many advancements in both weaponry and tactics. Inventions such as rifled guns and artillery allowed the Europeans to easily manipulate the outcome of various situations. Although the Europeans were not well adapted to the land, they knew better than to go on suicidal rampages and tried to maintain a balance of both strong offensive and defensive forces. The overcoming of a nation was two-fold. First any given European nation would invade the chosen territory, and then they followed up with a securing of the territory and the proclaiming of it as their own. This of course, without any say from the native peoples. Upon learning that said tactics and weaponry were more proficient they were able to use them in the entering of World War 1. Helpful military inventions allowed many strategies to be altered in attempts to comply with the advanced weaponry. For instance, before these inventions, wars were fought anywhere between 10 and 30 feet away from each other. Guerrilla tactics came into play quite rapidly and allowed for the great metamorphosis of tactics. The advantage of having aerial views of your opponent changed the way that war was looked at from both sides. While it was said that the European nations had a large advantage, the opponents were also extremely helpless when a plane or artillery from a large distance fired projectiles in their direction. However, on some unique accounts of war, the European armies occasionally faced defeat in the hands of the native forces. This was due to arrogance of the European nations and the underestimating of the indigenous forces of Africa, as they did not treat the battles with the same sense of caution as in previous wars. As a whole, the Colonial wars of the Europeans greatly altered the outlook upon military thinking and planning due to various reasons including the advancement of weapons and the difference of opponent; thus in turn changing the way the European powers went about fighting in World War 1.
The colonial wars impacted the military thinking and planning/strategics of the European powers prior to World War 1. The biggest target of the powers during the time was that of Africa. Because of their rich resources, strategic locations, and lucrative trade routes abundant with prosperous materials, many parts of Africa were taken and colonized by The Europeans. Although countries such as Great Britain and Germany had rich economies, the greed for more land and more power caused them to experiment with the means of expansion. Asia and the Caribbean were also targets of the Europeans due to the large amount of territory which was potentially obtainable. The race for land and power caused wars and "military conflicts" between the competing countries and the indigenous peoples of the native land. The Europeans easily had an advantage over the colonies in which they were overcoming, including many advancements in both weaponry and tactics. Inventions such as rifled guns and artillery allowed the Europeans to easily manipulate the outcome of various situations. Although the Europeans were not well adapted to the land, they knew better than to go on suicidal rampages and tried to maintain a balance of both strong offensive and defensive forces. The overcoming of a nation was two-fold. First any given European nation would invade the chosen territory, and then they followed up with a securing of the territory and the proclaiming of it as their own. This of course, without any say from the native peoples. Upon learning that said tactics and weaponry were more proficient they were able to use them in the entering of World War 1. Helpful military inventions allowed many strategies to be altered in attempts to comply with the advanced weaponry. For instance, before these inventions, wars were fought anywhere between 10 and 30 feet away from each other. Guerrilla tactics came into play quite rapidly and allowed for the great metamorphosis of tactics. The advantage of having aerial views of your opponent changed the way that war was looked at from both sides. While it was said that the European nations had a large advantage, the opponents were also extremely helpless when a plane or artillery from a large distance fired projectiles in their direction. However, on some unique accounts of war, the European armies occasionally faced defeat in the hands of the native forces. This was due to arrogance of the European nations and the underestimating of the indigenous forces of Africa, as they did not treat the battles with the same sense of caution as in previous wars. As a whole, the Colonial wars of the Europeans greatly altered the outlook upon military thinking and planning due to various reasons including the advancement of weapons and the difference of opponent; thus in turn changing the way the European powers went about fighting in World War 1.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
New Imperialism
Questions:
1. The European powers were greatly expanded due to their economic motives. They constantly found that neighboring countries and continents had very useful resources. In order to expand, it was necessary to take over these countries and take what they had. As Americans we called it ‘manifest destiny.’
2. The term “the scramble for Africa” meant that the European powers realized the value of Africa and went to take control of it and make use of it. Also, several claimed parts of it by making treaties with African chieftains. These however, were not really valid, seeing as parts were dually claimed and purchased by different European countries.
3. European imperial expansion should not be explained only in economic terms, or else the value of human nature and greed playing a part in it would be lost.
4. The major powers acquired new colonies between 1870 and 1890 to try and become more powerful than their rivalries. They grasped onto any country with raw materials and resources. This way they could expand their markets and economy.
5. “New Imperialism” was a nicer way to say that there was a major race for power and this meant taking over countries to use their resources.
6. The first theory states that the purpose for expansion was merely due to the race for power. The second however, states that the reason for the expansion was the overpopulation of these major powers.
7. After 1880 the “scramble for Africa” continued because it was “necessary” to civilize the Africans and conform them to a specific set of beliefs and customs in order to make the colonization complete.
1. The European powers were greatly expanded due to their economic motives. They constantly found that neighboring countries and continents had very useful resources. In order to expand, it was necessary to take over these countries and take what they had. As Americans we called it ‘manifest destiny.’
2. The term “the scramble for Africa” meant that the European powers realized the value of Africa and went to take control of it and make use of it. Also, several claimed parts of it by making treaties with African chieftains. These however, were not really valid, seeing as parts were dually claimed and purchased by different European countries.
3. European imperial expansion should not be explained only in economic terms, or else the value of human nature and greed playing a part in it would be lost.
4. The major powers acquired new colonies between 1870 and 1890 to try and become more powerful than their rivalries. They grasped onto any country with raw materials and resources. This way they could expand their markets and economy.
5. “New Imperialism” was a nicer way to say that there was a major race for power and this meant taking over countries to use their resources.
6. The first theory states that the purpose for expansion was merely due to the race for power. The second however, states that the reason for the expansion was the overpopulation of these major powers.
7. After 1880 the “scramble for Africa” continued because it was “necessary” to civilize the Africans and conform them to a specific set of beliefs and customs in order to make the colonization complete.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Nationalism in Nineteenth Century Germany
Questions:
1. Due to the rise in newspaper production, as well as the increase in literacy across Europe, military affairs were weighed in on severely by the public’s opinion. The idea of militarism caused all public issues to be put in to the hands of the government, which was intertwined with the peoples. Therefore, the public’s opinion had great influence on military affairs.
2. Industrialization during the time had a huge impact on the nature of warfare. It produced many technological developments in the areas of communication and arms which created a more organized and more affective army. It also caused places to become more, “urbanized” which led to the increase of literacy and more people reading about military affairs in the newspapers. This caused a fear of bad conduct in war to be published and scare or anger the general population. Therefore, the nature of warfare was more organized and more deadly, yet had a fear of being ashamed by the public.
1. Due to the rise in newspaper production, as well as the increase in literacy across Europe, military affairs were weighed in on severely by the public’s opinion. The idea of militarism caused all public issues to be put in to the hands of the government, which was intertwined with the peoples. Therefore, the public’s opinion had great influence on military affairs.
2. Industrialization during the time had a huge impact on the nature of warfare. It produced many technological developments in the areas of communication and arms which created a more organized and more affective army. It also caused places to become more, “urbanized” which led to the increase of literacy and more people reading about military affairs in the newspapers. This caused a fear of bad conduct in war to be published and scare or anger the general population. Therefore, the nature of warfare was more organized and more deadly, yet had a fear of being ashamed by the public.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Nationalism & Militarism
Questions:
1. Due to the rise in newspaper production, as well as the increase in literacy across Europe, military affairs were weighed in on severely by the public’s opinion. The idea of militarism caused all public issues to be put in to the hands of the government, which was intertwined with the peoples. Therefore, the public’s opinion had great influence on military affairs.
2. Industrialization during the time had a huge impact on the nature of warfare. It produced many technological developments in the areas of communication and arms which created a more organized and more affective army. It also caused places to become more, “urbanized” which led to the increase of literacy and more people reading about military affairs in the newspapers. This caused a fear of bad conduct in war to be published and scare or anger the general population. Therefore, the nature of warfare was more organized and more deadly, yet had a fear of being ashamed by the public.
1. Due to the rise in newspaper production, as well as the increase in literacy across Europe, military affairs were weighed in on severely by the public’s opinion. The idea of militarism caused all public issues to be put in to the hands of the government, which was intertwined with the peoples. Therefore, the public’s opinion had great influence on military affairs.
2. Industrialization during the time had a huge impact on the nature of warfare. It produced many technological developments in the areas of communication and arms which created a more organized and more affective army. It also caused places to become more, “urbanized” which led to the increase of literacy and more people reading about military affairs in the newspapers. This caused a fear of bad conduct in war to be published and scare or anger the general population. Therefore, the nature of warfare was more organized and more deadly, yet had a fear of being ashamed by the public.
Monday, October 1, 2007
War In The Industrial Age
*i attempted to sign on and when it didn't work repeatedly i wrote out the answers, i hope these are still acceptable
Questions:
1.Kings tried to return their armies to a more traditional role by making them "smaller professional armies, consisting of long-term troops and aristocratic officers." This meant that they were only allowing upper class members of society to fight. Therefore not everyone could serve to protect their country. As well as that if you were in the army you had to stay in it for a very long time.
2.Mass production along with improved technologies and "more effective communications" were major developments in military and non-military technology. The means of mass production meant that weapons could be made consistantly and at a more effective rate, while improved technologies meant that they were deadlier. As for communications, they aided in allowing troops to establish communication from the battlefield to the base.
3.The technologies which improved the rifle were:
*The percussion cap - a more efficent way of igniting the gun powder than the flint
*The minie bullet - a grooved bullet which had more accuracy and range due to it's build
*Breech-loading - a faster way of loading the gun by a break in the stock
4. The firepower of artillery was increased by the same methods of breech-loading which were used on the rifle. Because of this, artillery was made into rifled guns which were simplified versions of the regular artillery, but more effective.
5. Railroads aided in:
*moving troops from one place where needed to the next
*allowing constant supplies (weapons and ammunition)
*supplying more troops to battlefields
*less work for the troops instead of walking to their field and tiring out
*quick removal of the wounded and dead
6. The telegraph helped generals in battle by allowing instant sending of urgent messages to base. However, if one was to want to communicate with another set of troops, the use of a messanger or another way of communcation was necessary.
Questions:
1.Kings tried to return their armies to a more traditional role by making them "smaller professional armies, consisting of long-term troops and aristocratic officers." This meant that they were only allowing upper class members of society to fight. Therefore not everyone could serve to protect their country. As well as that if you were in the army you had to stay in it for a very long time.
2.Mass production along with improved technologies and "more effective communications" were major developments in military and non-military technology. The means of mass production meant that weapons could be made consistantly and at a more effective rate, while improved technologies meant that they were deadlier. As for communications, they aided in allowing troops to establish communication from the battlefield to the base.
3.The technologies which improved the rifle were:
*The percussion cap - a more efficent way of igniting the gun powder than the flint
*The minie bullet - a grooved bullet which had more accuracy and range due to it's build
*Breech-loading - a faster way of loading the gun by a break in the stock
4. The firepower of artillery was increased by the same methods of breech-loading which were used on the rifle. Because of this, artillery was made into rifled guns which were simplified versions of the regular artillery, but more effective.
5. Railroads aided in:
*moving troops from one place where needed to the next
*allowing constant supplies (weapons and ammunition)
*supplying more troops to battlefields
*less work for the troops instead of walking to their field and tiring out
*quick removal of the wounded and dead
6. The telegraph helped generals in battle by allowing instant sending of urgent messages to base. However, if one was to want to communicate with another set of troops, the use of a messanger or another way of communcation was necessary.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Social Changes
Questions:
1. Nineteenth century novels can, for the most part, be considered very reliable primary documents. Although they are not extremely specific they have an "atmosphere and accuracy of detail which make them historical records of the first importance."
2. Life for a middle class Russian Landowner was not bad. They lived in a calm, not poor, but not rich, society, alongside their families. Everything was pretty good and there was no extreme poverty for those who owned land.
3. The life-style for Consul Tienappel was very rich and has very high standards. He owned and sold alot of land and was able to invest in several joint-stock companies, therefore making him rather wealthy.
4. The French working class lived in very close quarters and had many duties pushed upon them. This caused very much stress upon the working class. Their houses were not in the greatest conditions but yet not as bad as others throughout Europe.
5. Saying furniture was a luxury in Ireland during the 19th century is an understatement because there were only "10 beds for nine thousand people."
6. The British peoples rapid spread across the country caused suburbs to spring up. They stayed away from major industrialization in cities. The suburbs were generally occupied by the wealthy and the merchants.
7. In the middle and upper class there were entirely different forms of diets. Neither was healthy but they were completely opposite. The poor and middle class could often not afford good foods and ate "black bread and cabbage," while the upper class ate as the French did. This consisted of several different meals throughout the day with several different courses in each.
8. The role of most European females in 1870 was a career position which was deemed appropriate for women. These consisted of nurses, teachers, and secretaries.
9. The decline in family sizes during the last half of the nineteenth century was largely due to the lack of family time. Females began to switch from house careers to actual jobs which caused more time away from the family. Men usually worked long hours every day and it largely limited the house life.
10. Social and economic changes improved women's lives by allowing them much more freedom in society. Instead of being labeled as house wives and mothers, they were then aloud to work in more professional settings and had access to more education.
11. Newspaper production was brought down by taxes, along with censoring that the government imposed. Therefore they were less accurate and less affordable.
12. The right of freedom of press aloud for the mass circulation of newspapers. Also the reduced newspaper prices made them more available to the general public.
13. The increased interest in spectator sports and other leisure activities was most likely brought about by a general comfort in the progression of the country. As urbanization and industrialization began to settle in, many felt more comfortable in their lifestyles and were better off.
1. Nineteenth century novels can, for the most part, be considered very reliable primary documents. Although they are not extremely specific they have an "atmosphere and accuracy of detail which make them historical records of the first importance."
2. Life for a middle class Russian Landowner was not bad. They lived in a calm, not poor, but not rich, society, alongside their families. Everything was pretty good and there was no extreme poverty for those who owned land.
3. The life-style for Consul Tienappel was very rich and has very high standards. He owned and sold alot of land and was able to invest in several joint-stock companies, therefore making him rather wealthy.
4. The French working class lived in very close quarters and had many duties pushed upon them. This caused very much stress upon the working class. Their houses were not in the greatest conditions but yet not as bad as others throughout Europe.
5. Saying furniture was a luxury in Ireland during the 19th century is an understatement because there were only "10 beds for nine thousand people."
6. The British peoples rapid spread across the country caused suburbs to spring up. They stayed away from major industrialization in cities. The suburbs were generally occupied by the wealthy and the merchants.
7. In the middle and upper class there were entirely different forms of diets. Neither was healthy but they were completely opposite. The poor and middle class could often not afford good foods and ate "black bread and cabbage," while the upper class ate as the French did. This consisted of several different meals throughout the day with several different courses in each.
8. The role of most European females in 1870 was a career position which was deemed appropriate for women. These consisted of nurses, teachers, and secretaries.
9. The decline in family sizes during the last half of the nineteenth century was largely due to the lack of family time. Females began to switch from house careers to actual jobs which caused more time away from the family. Men usually worked long hours every day and it largely limited the house life.
10. Social and economic changes improved women's lives by allowing them much more freedom in society. Instead of being labeled as house wives and mothers, they were then aloud to work in more professional settings and had access to more education.
11. Newspaper production was brought down by taxes, along with censoring that the government imposed. Therefore they were less accurate and less affordable.
12. The right of freedom of press aloud for the mass circulation of newspapers. Also the reduced newspaper prices made them more available to the general public.
13. The increased interest in spectator sports and other leisure activities was most likely brought about by a general comfort in the progression of the country. As urbanization and industrialization began to settle in, many felt more comfortable in their lifestyles and were better off.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Government Oversight Part II
Questions:
5. Religion certainly slowed down the process of creating public education throughout Europe. This was because "bitter controversies" sprung up over the placement of churches in education. "Since the Middle Ages almost all European education had been in the hands of the various churches." However, education began to lack in those hands and the demand for it became bigger and bigger. The churches argued whose hands education should be in, and those who opposed religion thought that it should be state run instead of religion-based.
6. It was in a country's best interest to ensure all of it's citizens' children free education because it helped pull children from the working class and move them up into a position where it was possible for them to become skilled craftsmen and higher class workers. This meant that they could get more money and be in a better social class.
7. What Lord Shaftesbury meant when he stated, "We ask but for a slight relaxation of toil, a time to live and a time to die," was that there was too much work being placed upon workers. Instead of spending every waking moment working tediously, to break from it, and "relax the toil." Life is too short to be spent under the constant stress of long hours of work.
8. As governments switched from a laissez-faire mentality to a more "democratic" way, they began to take control of public utilities. They began to realize it was time to step up and attempt a change to their cities and countries, which suffered from very poor conditions. It was, in fact, necessary for the government to due such because nothing was getting done without this occurring.
9. Compulsory insurance was definitely in a country's best interest because it was an easy way to please the "socialism of the working man." That way there was a good way to advance in the realm of welfare for the working class citizens. This also caused a large increase in civil services for the countries which used compulsory insurance.
10. a) Better factory and working conditions.
b) More involvement in citizens lives - civil services.
5. Religion certainly slowed down the process of creating public education throughout Europe. This was because "bitter controversies" sprung up over the placement of churches in education. "Since the Middle Ages almost all European education had been in the hands of the various churches." However, education began to lack in those hands and the demand for it became bigger and bigger. The churches argued whose hands education should be in, and those who opposed religion thought that it should be state run instead of religion-based.
6. It was in a country's best interest to ensure all of it's citizens' children free education because it helped pull children from the working class and move them up into a position where it was possible for them to become skilled craftsmen and higher class workers. This meant that they could get more money and be in a better social class.
7. What Lord Shaftesbury meant when he stated, "We ask but for a slight relaxation of toil, a time to live and a time to die," was that there was too much work being placed upon workers. Instead of spending every waking moment working tediously, to break from it, and "relax the toil." Life is too short to be spent under the constant stress of long hours of work.
8. As governments switched from a laissez-faire mentality to a more "democratic" way, they began to take control of public utilities. They began to realize it was time to step up and attempt a change to their cities and countries, which suffered from very poor conditions. It was, in fact, necessary for the government to due such because nothing was getting done without this occurring.
9. Compulsory insurance was definitely in a country's best interest because it was an easy way to please the "socialism of the working man." That way there was a good way to advance in the realm of welfare for the working class citizens. This also caused a large increase in civil services for the countries which used compulsory insurance.
10. a) Better factory and working conditions.
b) More involvement in citizens lives - civil services.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Government Oversight
Questions:
1. Lord Melbourne of Great Britain's view of government differed from Lois Blanc, a French author's, point of view. Melbourne looked at the "powers of the state and of the government within the state [as] very limited." He believed that as more laws were passed they would begin to interfere with the lives of the citizens in the state. Blanc however, thought much the opposite. He believed that the government should serve as the "supreme director of production" and should be regarded as such. Government in Louis Blanc's point of view was an all powerful structure under which every served, while Melbourne though of it as an interference.
2. Laissez-Faire - An economic belief which opposes government regulation of commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to it's own economic laws.*
3. Governments began to pull away from the ideology of laissez-faire due to "changing circumstances." Population and production growth as well as trade-union strength increasing caused more governmental and social problems. Therefore, many turned to the government to solve these problems, making Europe more and more democratic.
4. Medical science improved public health in extraordinary ways. It brought about a "much deeper understanding" of diseases and illnesses which plagued many. It also helped in the realization of unsanitization and pollution, which was the cause for much of the disease spreading among the poor.
*definition from www.dictionary.com
1. Lord Melbourne of Great Britain's view of government differed from Lois Blanc, a French author's, point of view. Melbourne looked at the "powers of the state and of the government within the state [as] very limited." He believed that as more laws were passed they would begin to interfere with the lives of the citizens in the state. Blanc however, thought much the opposite. He believed that the government should serve as the "supreme director of production" and should be regarded as such. Government in Louis Blanc's point of view was an all powerful structure under which every served, while Melbourne though of it as an interference.
2. Laissez-Faire - An economic belief which opposes government regulation of commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to it's own economic laws.*
3. Governments began to pull away from the ideology of laissez-faire due to "changing circumstances." Population and production growth as well as trade-union strength increasing caused more governmental and social problems. Therefore, many turned to the government to solve these problems, making Europe more and more democratic.
4. Medical science improved public health in extraordinary ways. It brought about a "much deeper understanding" of diseases and illnesses which plagued many. It also helped in the realization of unsanitization and pollution, which was the cause for much of the disease spreading among the poor.
*definition from www.dictionary.com
Sunday, September 16, 2007
European Working Conditions & Agriculture (cont.)
Questions:
7. Across Europe farming changed in many ways from the Middle Ages to around World War I. The methods in which farming was done changed dramatically over the years. Inventions and science helped spur an entirely new way of growing and harvesting crops. Also, much more was learned about the crop cycle and how certain plants grow better and more fruitfully. Also, in the Middle Ages, generally land was owned by the, "kings, noblemen, or the Church; " however, by the time of World War I the owners of the agricultural land were generally the poor and the peasants.
8. European governments had to face alternatives in order to deal with the foreign products being imported into their country. They could either, "do nothing" and let the foreign countries to, "swamp their home agriculture." This meant that food prices would be lowered and their population would rise in standard of living. Or, the second alternative was to protect their own crops by imposing food tariffs on imported products. Britain's choice to do nothing made it so that their agriculture, "once the most flourishing in Europe," suffered extremely from 1875 to 1900. They became utterly dependent on foreign supplies by 1914. France and Germany however, had a thriving agricultural sector in their countries which made it possible for, "more than a third of the labor force to be employed," due to their choice of imposing taxes on imports.
7. Across Europe farming changed in many ways from the Middle Ages to around World War I. The methods in which farming was done changed dramatically over the years. Inventions and science helped spur an entirely new way of growing and harvesting crops. Also, much more was learned about the crop cycle and how certain plants grow better and more fruitfully. Also, in the Middle Ages, generally land was owned by the, "kings, noblemen, or the Church; " however, by the time of World War I the owners of the agricultural land were generally the poor and the peasants.
8. European governments had to face alternatives in order to deal with the foreign products being imported into their country. They could either, "do nothing" and let the foreign countries to, "swamp their home agriculture." This meant that food prices would be lowered and their population would rise in standard of living. Or, the second alternative was to protect their own crops by imposing food tariffs on imported products. Britain's choice to do nothing made it so that their agriculture, "once the most flourishing in Europe," suffered extremely from 1875 to 1900. They became utterly dependent on foreign supplies by 1914. France and Germany however, had a thriving agricultural sector in their countries which made it possible for, "more than a third of the labor force to be employed," due to their choice of imposing taxes on imports.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
European Working Conditions and Agriculture
Questions 1-6
1. One reason in which the European population increased so much by 1914 was the falling death-rate. This was caused by famine and plague, two large killers, loosing much power. Another reason for the increased population was that at the same time as the falling death-rate the birth- rate rapidly increased.
2. Europe :1750 - about 157 million (including Russians)
1830 - about 230 million
1880 - about 320 million
1900 - about 420 million
1960 - about 630 million
Britain : from 16 million to 45 million
Germany : from 24 million to 65 million
Russia : from 37 million to 140 million
France : from 27 million to 39 million
U.S.A : from 5 million to 92 million
3. The two major social groups during the late 1800s were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie consisted of the "property-owning minority" which consisted of bankers, merchants, professional men, industrialists, and those who owned or invested in the new factories and industrial enterprises. The proletariat however were the low paid, hard working, factory workers who worked under the bourgeoisie.
4. Industrial workers had a strict set of rules to follow. One such was their 'necessary' working hours. "In the Lancashire cotton industry, a fourteen hour day, six days a week was commonplace.." In other places, hours were even longer. Another such rule dealt with how miners must greet the mining officials, or superiors. "Any infringement of these regulations, a contemporary reported, was punished by a fine and, on subsequent occasions by demotion to harder and worse-paid work. Mining boys received instead 4 to 16 lashes with a rope."
5. As mentioned above some of the worst working conditions facing factory workers were the tedious hours of work each day. However, a more immediate danger may be the accidental injuries that could occur due to poorly protected machinery. Many faced serious injury because of this carelessness.
6. The working class not only faced harsh conditions on their jobs, but also at home. The biggest issues were sanitation, inadequate water supply, and lack of cleaning. Many lived, crammed into tiny basements or one room houses with their entire families. They had to make due with what they had, which was, at the time, very little. Sickness often plagued the working class as well. The lack of sanitation in homes caused many to develop serious illnesses which they could not afford to find cures for. Therefore, many died on a regular basis at home.
1. One reason in which the European population increased so much by 1914 was the falling death-rate. This was caused by famine and plague, two large killers, loosing much power. Another reason for the increased population was that at the same time as the falling death-rate the birth- rate rapidly increased.
2. Europe :1750 - about 157 million (including Russians)
1830 - about 230 million
1880 - about 320 million
1900 - about 420 million
1960 - about 630 million
Britain : from 16 million to 45 million
Germany : from 24 million to 65 million
Russia : from 37 million to 140 million
France : from 27 million to 39 million
U.S.A : from 5 million to 92 million
3. The two major social groups during the late 1800s were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie consisted of the "property-owning minority" which consisted of bankers, merchants, professional men, industrialists, and those who owned or invested in the new factories and industrial enterprises. The proletariat however were the low paid, hard working, factory workers who worked under the bourgeoisie.
4. Industrial workers had a strict set of rules to follow. One such was their 'necessary' working hours. "In the Lancashire cotton industry, a fourteen hour day, six days a week was commonplace.." In other places, hours were even longer. Another such rule dealt with how miners must greet the mining officials, or superiors. "Any infringement of these regulations, a contemporary reported, was punished by a fine and, on subsequent occasions by demotion to harder and worse-paid work. Mining boys received instead 4 to 16 lashes with a rope."
5. As mentioned above some of the worst working conditions facing factory workers were the tedious hours of work each day. However, a more immediate danger may be the accidental injuries that could occur due to poorly protected machinery. Many faced serious injury because of this carelessness.
6. The working class not only faced harsh conditions on their jobs, but also at home. The biggest issues were sanitation, inadequate water supply, and lack of cleaning. Many lived, crammed into tiny basements or one room houses with their entire families. They had to make due with what they had, which was, at the time, very little. Sickness often plagued the working class as well. The lack of sanitation in homes caused many to develop serious illnesses which they could not afford to find cures for. Therefore, many died on a regular basis at home.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Public Health: Bad Housing
Housing:
During the mid-nineteenth century housing in England was near unbearable. Houses were made terribly, and people living in them were cramped and uncomfortable. Furnishings were bad and sanitation was definitely no better. Several accounts show this problem of sanitation. Bath Chronicle 17 June 1852 shows just how terrible things could get, "I swept maggots from under the bed with a broom, while with the handle of the broom I stirred up maggots from the bed itself." Such infestations were common during the time and had an obvious effect on the people which lived there. The same source states, "... on the bed was lying a little boy, naked except for a piece of cloth round its neck, thin and emaciated, evidently ill and apparently struggling for breath." Sickness plagued the poor which lived in such housing. In the Parliamentary Papers of 1842 there is a statement which says, "...the wife hungry - almost crying with hunger in rags."
The poor faced the worst of the housing situation. Some managed to escape from this fate, however. In Andrew Ure's The Philosophy of Manufactures, 1835, he talks about "Mr. T. Ashton's work people," whom he found to live, "... more richly furnished than any common workpeople's dwelling which i had ever seen before." These people were in small numbers though. "In Manchester, more than 57% die before they attain 5 years of age." (Source C) Many were cramped into very small spaces. Chadwick's Sanitary Report states "... each room is about three yards wide and four long. In one of these houses there are nine persons belonging to one family." This causes people to be, "four persons in one bed." Life in this sort of housing was very tough and peoples conditions were "borne down by the conditions of the house."
The thing that made housing so bad was the way they were built during the time. To avoid high costs many constructed so-called houses which were done fast and shabby. "In one place we saw a whole street following the course of a ditch, in order to have deeper cellars without the cost of excavations." Also many were, "built back to back without ventilation or drainage." Most were built of "rough stones and covered with ragged thatch," to make more affordable housing. However affordable it was, there was absolutely no safety involved. They were, "dilapidated" and badly done. Houses generally contained two rooms, which were a bedroom and a living room. Many lived in just one room and others lived in cellars. The style of housing during mid-nineteenth century England lead to sickness and death, due to the way in which they were built. Housing in general was quite intolerable for many of England's working class citizens.
During the mid-nineteenth century housing in England was near unbearable. Houses were made terribly, and people living in them were cramped and uncomfortable. Furnishings were bad and sanitation was definitely no better. Several accounts show this problem of sanitation. Bath Chronicle 17 June 1852 shows just how terrible things could get, "I swept maggots from under the bed with a broom, while with the handle of the broom I stirred up maggots from the bed itself." Such infestations were common during the time and had an obvious effect on the people which lived there. The same source states, "... on the bed was lying a little boy, naked except for a piece of cloth round its neck, thin and emaciated, evidently ill and apparently struggling for breath." Sickness plagued the poor which lived in such housing. In the Parliamentary Papers of 1842 there is a statement which says, "...the wife hungry - almost crying with hunger in rags."
The poor faced the worst of the housing situation. Some managed to escape from this fate, however. In Andrew Ure's The Philosophy of Manufactures, 1835, he talks about "Mr. T. Ashton's work people," whom he found to live, "... more richly furnished than any common workpeople's dwelling which i had ever seen before." These people were in small numbers though. "In Manchester, more than 57% die before they attain 5 years of age." (Source C) Many were cramped into very small spaces. Chadwick's Sanitary Report states "... each room is about three yards wide and four long. In one of these houses there are nine persons belonging to one family." This causes people to be, "four persons in one bed." Life in this sort of housing was very tough and peoples conditions were "borne down by the conditions of the house."
The thing that made housing so bad was the way they were built during the time. To avoid high costs many constructed so-called houses which were done fast and shabby. "In one place we saw a whole street following the course of a ditch, in order to have deeper cellars without the cost of excavations." Also many were, "built back to back without ventilation or drainage." Most were built of "rough stones and covered with ragged thatch," to make more affordable housing. However affordable it was, there was absolutely no safety involved. They were, "dilapidated" and badly done. Houses generally contained two rooms, which were a bedroom and a living room. Many lived in just one room and others lived in cellars. The style of housing during mid-nineteenth century England lead to sickness and death, due to the way in which they were built. Housing in general was quite intolerable for many of England's working class citizens.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)