Who Was Responsible For The St. Bartholomew 's Day Massacre

The Reign of Terror was not justified because it created internal threats.‘‘The levee en masse was a military draft imposed by the Revolutionary Government’’ On one occasion, a crucifix was even taken from

Studying history can be an active, often arduous process, dependent on making assumptions with the evidence available and proving those assumptions to be correct or otherwise. But it can also be an easy task if done incorrectly, one of cutting corners and assuming falsehoods to be true for the sake of convenience. This is the way that many historians, amateur or professional, approach history. Not only does this approach exclude any possibility for well-constructed conclusions to be made, it can also leave the populace ignorant of the truth. In “The Strange Death of Silas Deane”, James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle argue that history is not merely the act of collecting data-rather of making assumptions about the data-through the use of countless rhetorical questions, paragraph organization, and a sardonic tone.

The Bloody Sunday massacre unfolded on the 22nd January 1905. An unarmed, peaceful march in St. Petersburg, Russia to the Winter Palace was organized by Father Gapon. Approximately 200,000 workers gathered with pictures of their ‘Little Father’ the Tsar, singing the anthem God Save the Tsar all the way along. The problem that it was illegal to hold any demonstration against the Tsar’s authority had threatened the government to believe that it would became a riot and thus, ordered the Imperial Guard to stop and dismiss the protesters. As there were too many protesters that the limited soldiers could not control over, some started gunning down the demonstrators even if no physical threat was shown. Whether the soldiers was given an order to fire

On March 5, 1770...The Boston Massacre, known as the Incident on King Street by the British, was an incident on March 5, 1770, in which British Army soldiers shot and killed people while under attack by a lot of colonists. There was not a  massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because. According to the sources B,C and D say that the colonists had weapons and they were also attacking in the massacre. The evidence that supports my claims is that in documents B,C,D the colonists are clearly seen with weapons according to the documents with the gazette, it said that the colonists had weapons and were involved in the fight. This supports my own opinion because in document b the colonists are seen with some type of sword or golf club. My second reason

You may know this affair as ¨The Bloody Massacre¨, The Boston Massacre, ¨the incident on King street¨, but do you know the true story. In this tractate youĺl find why this event even happened, the scene itself, how Paul revere's engraving was actually a propaganda, and the aftermath of all this!

This period of fighting saw massacres of Huguenots (French Protestants) by the Catholic monarchs of France, most prominently during the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572 (where almost 30,000 French Protestants were killed across France in targeted assassinations and mob beatings). Eventually the wars would culminate with the Edict of Nantes in 1598, a treaty issued and signed by King Henry IV of France, who had converted from Protestantism to Catholicism and called for general tolerance.

The Boston Massacre is one of the most controversial events in American history that occurred in Boston before the American Revolution. Certainly, it has a fundamental role in the development of America as a nation, which led it to have a huge motivation for revolution. A heavy British military presence and having very high taxes in the country were some of the main reasons that made Boston citizens very irritated. Thus, there were already many disagreements and tensions between inhabitants and the British that could have led to the Massacre. In this essay, I will carefully analyze three primary sources, and compare these to the interpretation given by HBO’s John Adams. In my view, these sources can be

(Doc F) As all hell broke loose within France it was the cause of the Reign of Terror which overall, was not justified.

In Jean Froissart’s “Chronicles” we are immersed in a version of historical events in France that involve French peasants in a current revolt against the nobility and knights that control the lands. With this sample, the audience is unaware of the reasoning of why and what particularly bewildered peasants to amass thus leading to a huge scaled revolt against the higher “gentleman” class. To recap the main details of the story, the combined French peasants numbered in the thousands manage to destroy the villages of (Beavoism, Corbie, Amiens and Montididier), wherein their path included raping of woman, burning of towns, and brutally torturing captured knights, (Froissart, Chronicles.1.181). As time passes with groups of nobility able to escape their terrorized lands, the tide turns when the combined forces of the allied knights converge on the formidable force of peasants numbered in the thousands at the town of Meaux. With the expected outcome, the knights readily equipped with horses, full scale of armor, and fine weaponry defeat and drive away all opposition with no mercy. Able to demolish the conglomerate of peasants the knights and squires would burn the town of Meaux massacring all peasants left insight making sure that all Jacques would never again consider revolting against their lords and masters. In this work where even though the author may have lived during this period of such events, I believe it seems unlikely that he was either a participant or eyewitness of

The 17th century French aristocrat Michel de Montaigne lived in a tumultuous world. With the spark of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, the fire spread rapidly to France. The nation divided against itself. The rebellious protestant Huguenots and the traditional staunch Catholics both viewed the other group as idolatrous heretics in time when that crime could justify execution. Consequently, Catholic monarchs throughout Europe felt the impending threat to their reigns, too, because if they supposedly ruled through divine right, what would change concerning the support of their subjects? After the peace-making Edict of Nantes, rehashing the religious conflicts of the century was forbidden, but seeing his country—and even his own family—torn apart, how could one refrain from comment? So in his writings, Montaigne has to write around his actual subjects. This isn’t to say, however, that he conveyed none of his ideas directly. Montaigne criticizes the cultural belief in a correct way of life, opposing the idea with a more relativistic viewpoint, though the way in which he presents it, as mere musings in personal correspondence, fails to effectively convince his readers.

such a large role in shaping not only European history, but world history through the oppression of Catholics and a new holiday. Yet, few Americans know the story behind the plot. Acknowledging the impacts of the plot by educating the public will reveal its significance

France was experience a great amount of change in the summer of 1793, when the Jacobins succeeded the moderates in the National Convention. With the radical Jacobins in power, the country was in tumult, and a Reign of Terror ensued due to a law of suspects that legalized local revolutionary committees. Because of this, thousands of people were killed by guillotine or other methods. Throughout the summer of 1793, the radical Jacobins’ control of the Committee of Public Safety instituted the Terror which was advantageous in it’s intended purpose, yet it was disadvantageous because of the enemies it created.

When Catherine de Medicis sons were younger she had control over what happened in France however as they became older they could speak their mind and make their own decisions. However, having listened to their mother their entire life their decisions were usually persuaded by their mother’s opinions quietly and forcefully. According to Williamson and Josephs book “Catherine de Medici” Charles IX was inclined to insane murderous anger and attempted to exorcise murderous fantasies. According to Knechts book “The French wars of religion 1559-1598” the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre can be interpreted as the “cumulation of popular disturbances in Paris.” On August 22nd Admiral Coligny was shot and wounded, Huguenots rushed to his side in worry and fear. In fear that the Huguenots would retaliate the assassination of the Huguenots was ordered. On the night of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre Charles was overwhelmed and lashing out. Charles felt betrayed and his mother was attempting to control his decisions. In the midst of his panic he exclaimed “Kill the admiral if you wish; but you must also kill all of the Huguenots so that not one is left to reproach me Kill them all!” (Williamson and Joseph, “Catherine de Medici”) Catherine would have been satisfied with killing only the main leaders of the Huguenots, however she was overjoyed with her son’s

This essay will discuss the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 when a group of catholic noblemen plotted to blow up the English House of Parliament; the target of the plot was King James VI of Scotland and I of England. This essay will focus on how the event impacted Catholics and their treatment in society and law after the event. Primary sources including letters, Parliamentary documents and their insight into how the event impacted Catholics in the years after the event will be used to provide evidence and Secondary sources to provide different historians views on the treatment of Catholics.

Accordingly, Memoirs of the Fourth Crusade has been reviewed vigorously over the past century and central among these reviews is a genuine acceptance of Villehardouin s authenticity and accountability with respect to his