DOCSLIB.ORG

China, Britain and France: a Geopolitical Comparative Analysis of the East and West's Leading Imperial Powers 1644-1911

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
China, Britain and France: a Geopolitical Comparative Analysis of the East and West's Leading Imperial Powers 1644-1911 China, Britain and France: A geopolitical comparative analysis of the East and West's leading imperial powers 1644-1911 Painting of Qing Matchlock Banner soldiers battling against British Line Infantry, Battle of Chinkiang (Author unknown, Image sourced from Wikipedia) By Samuel Jardine 4 March 2020 Citation advice: Samuel Jardine, ‘China, Britain and France: A geopolitical comparative analysis of the East and West’s leading imperial powers 1644-1911’, Extreme Empire Project [Online], (Available at: https://www.samueljardine.co.uk/), 1-23 Based on an article I wrote in 2017 for the Helios History Magazine 1 Introduction: The following is a short academic article providing an introductory look at the differences and similarities between the Chinese (particularly Qing) and British and French empires through a geopolitical lens, this is where the geography of a state is considered the informant of how that state develops historically and why, affecting everything from its culture, politics and religion to how it wages war, why it does so and how its economy develops. In a world where the globe's centre of power is shifting back towards the Pacific, understanding China and its historical interactions with the 'West' is of ever-increasing importance to gauge what might inform the current trajectory of political relations and discern what states are really up to. For instance when Xi Jinping states that China is seeking to simply regain its former world status, or re-engage with China's 'traditional sphere of influence' (as opposed to undertaking a neo-imperialist power-grab in Africa and Asia as some commentators would argue) what does this mean exactly? On what is this idea based? I am writing of course from a western (and particularly British) perspective and the historical analysis here will alas reflect that through the sources i have used, though i have done my best to center the discussion on China. This article is by no means a comprehensive history of China's historical relationships with Western powers, there is a huge amount of scholarly work dedicated to exploring that. It will though provide a snapshot that will help, in lay-terms, create a better understanding of our shared global connections, entwined history and the baggage and advantages that comes with it. In particular, I hope to highlight the merits of an outward, active looking power versus one that turns in on itself which perhaps is I would hazard is politically relevant today, though with the West becoming the latter. The premise: This article will put forward the argument that the Chinese empire's underlying cultural ideology of Confucianism directed its social, cultural and political self-conception towards a 2 universal ruler exercising a 'Mandate of Heaven', which legitimized the ruler (and their court) as the only font of power with the right to rule over all of China. This promoted the centralization of power in their hands but also meant that China's ills were solely laid at the door of the Emperor and their court. It also meant that Confucianisms strict social hierarchy, with the Emperor at the pinnacle and different orders of society below, could easily be adapted and exploited by the court to ensure stability over the populace. The Chinese empire's large-scale and continuous geographic context was the key element in driving the Chinese state to support, promote and extend this ideology as it was one that would unite their extensive lands and peoples and point them towards obedience of a single ruler and their court. This resulted in the creation of an inward-looking Confucian state obsessed pragmatically and ideologically with the creation and maintenance of its own stability and unity above all else, lest the Emperor be toppled. Thus, China, while sharing similarities with imperial Britain and France, as will be discussed, was set apart because this underlying ideology created a system at odds with the two 'western' powers' own outward-looking and aggressive ideology of global economic-cultural enforcement through free trade and the so- called 'mission to civilize'. The more outward looking and aggressive political-cultural outlook of the European powers was informed by their shared geographical context which provided the forced competition and impetus necessary for them to seek resources, land and dominion globally as they attempted to out-compete one another. This is in stark contrast to the Chinese empire's geographic dominance and lack of equivalent external rivals which informed its turn to an inwards facing political-ideological stance to counter its main perceived threat, that being itself, in the form of the potential inner turmoil from revolts that may blight such a large, populous and geographically continuous entity whose rulers court centralized power, and thus blame for things that went wrong in China. Thus, governing what they had effectively, was always far more paramount for the Chinese court as opposed to the drive for global expansion that Britain and France's geographic contexts assured. This article will argue this through an analysis of cultural, economic and political differences through, and by showing how, cultural ideology and geographical context created and 3 sustained these differences. A lack of time and word-count alongside the source constraints of the Anglo-sphere will center the analysis on the Qing era (1644-1911) of China. This period has been singled out due to the Qing's increased interactivity with the world, particularly with Britain and France, which can thus more succinctly and openly highlight their differences and similarities. Britain and France in this time period too went through a transition of unprecedented globalization in their mimicking of Spain's earlier (and first) global maritime empire as they sought to 'cash in' on the rewards. Where does the tea come into play? These two systems would after decades of tension come directly into conflict with one another. The final catalyst would be Britain's love of tea, for which it was forking out precious bullion to China, gold and silver which it could ill-afford, particularly in the context that an empires global resources were supposed to be marshalled for the benefit of the motherland, to sure it up against its other European imperial rivals. So a solution was found, instead of trading precious metals for tea, the British would sell opium to China produced in their nearby Indian possessions, in return for said bullion and tea. China's government with its focus on internal stability noticed the widespread drug issues cropping up among its formally productive peasantry, with a noticeable economic downturn resulting and so outlawed (or at least regulated) the Opium trade. This frustrated British merchants like William Jardine, who had been turning a rather large profit from the arrangement, and so William Jardine and his partner James Matheson wrote to the British state, complaining about the closed, inward-looking nature of China and how it mistreated the 'proper' interests of global business. They quickly got the support of Lord Palmerston and the British government who were worried about losing the highly taxable revenues, and soon the Royal Navy and British army was packed off to 'Open China' to foreign trade (i.e. mainly opium). All for the love of a cup of tea (Well, the revenues from this at least). This historical story is vastly expanded upon by an article i wrote in 2019 as part of my MA Modern History at King's College London. I'll be sure to make it Open Access at some point in the near future so you can get the full story, with all its sordid details. 4 Toppling thrones, protecting rulers and making peasants Emperor- the role of geography and ideology Qing China was a vast continuous land-centric empire. Its early unification in the third century BCE and imposition of Han culture over China (Waites, 2009, p.123) created the ideological concept that it was a single geographic entity. Britain and France in contrast were global maritime empires, whose geographical background, despite the example of Rome was one of a patchwork of vying coexisting sovereign states in Europe. The competition of the area drove its main powers to actively, or re-actively seek access to resources beyond the continent to try and gain an upper-hand against their rivals, or to make sure the status-quo was upheld by mirroring the action of other states (Such as England copying the Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch in going out to establish an empire). Chinese imperial unity relied on the permanency of Confucianism within the state apparatus. Confucianism advocated a strict social hierarchy with responsibilities to both social superiors and inferiors (Weiming, 2016). Conquest Dynasties like the Qing (Who came from the steppe to overthrow and replace the Ming dynasty) assimilated Confucian doctrine and its perceptions of the 'Mandate of Heaven', instead of overturning local beliefs as the British and French tended to do in Africa and to a lesser extent in India. This was perhaps a pragmatic step given that Lord Macartney notes during his embassy to China in 1793 that the Qing rulers were still aware of their foreign origins, seen through their 'precautions' (Macartney, 1962, p.2) of favouring their own Manchu countrymen for higher offices, and so keeping control out of the hands of their Han Chinese subjects. While Macartney's revelations here were only an outsiders perspective of the empire as foreigners were carefully handled by the Qing and allowed only mere 'snapshots' of (Waites, 2009, p.129) China, Macartney as an ambassador experienced the emperor's court first- hand and so must have gleaned some of its practical workings and moods and thus can be seen as relatively reliable source of information in this regard at least.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Did Britain Become a Republic? > New Government
    Civil War > Why did Britain become a republic? > New government Why did Britain become a republic? Case study 2: New government Even today many people are not aware that Britain was ever a republic. After Charles I was put to death in 1649, a monarch no longer led the country. Instead people dreamed up ideas and made plans for a different form of government. Find out more from these documents about what happened next. Report on the An account of the Poem on the arrest of setting up of the new situation in Levellers, 1649 Commonwealth England, 1649 Portrait & symbols of Cromwell at the The setting up of Cromwell & the Battle of the Instrument Commonwealth Worcester, 1651 of Government http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 1 Civil War > Why did Britain become a republic? > New government Case study 2: New government - Source 1 A report on the arrest of some Levellers, 29 March 1649 (Catalogue ref: SP 25/62, pp.134-5) What is this source? This is a report from a committee of MPs to Parliament. It explains their actions against the leaders of the Levellers. One of the men they arrested was John Lilburne, a key figure in the Leveller movement. What’s the background to this source? Before the war of the 1640s it was difficult and dangerous to come up with new ideas and try to publish them. However, during the Civil War censorship was not strongly enforced. Many political groups emerged with new ideas at this time. One of the most radical (extreme) groups was the Levellers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Executive Power Clause
    ARTICLE THE EXECUTIVE POWER CLAUSE JULIAN DAVIS MORTENSON† Article II of the Constitution vests “the executive power” in the President. Advocates of presidential power have long claimed that this phrase was originally understood as a term of art for the full suite of powers held by a typical eighteenth- century monarch. In its strongest form, this view yields a powerful presumption of indefeasible presidential authority in the arenas of foreign affairs and national security. This so-called Vesting Clause Thesis is conventional wisdom among constitutional originalists. But it is also demonstrably wrong. Based on a comprehensive review of Founding-era archives—including records of drafting, legislative, and ratication debates, committee les, private and ocial correspondence, diaries, newspapers, pamphlets, poetry, and other publications—this Article not only refutes the Vesting Clause Thesis as a statement of the original understanding, but replaces it with a comprehensive armative account of the clause that is both historically and theoretically coherent. † James G. Phillipp Professor of law, University of Michigan. Thanks to Nick Bagley, Josh Chafetz, Reece Dameron, Jo Ann Davis, Brian Finucane, Louis Fisher, David Gerson, Jonathan Gienapp, Monica Hakimi, Jason Hart, Don Herzog, Kian Hudson, Daniel Hulsebosch, Rebecca Ingber, Andrew Kent, Gary Lawson, Marty Lederman, Tom McSweeney, Henry Monaghan, Bill Novak, David Pozen, Richard Primus, Daphna Renan, Jed Shugerman, Matt Steilen, Valentina Vadi, Matt Waxman, John Witt, Ilan Wurman, and Mariah Zeisberg, as well as participants in the Georgetown Law School Legal History Workshop, the Hofstra Law School Faculty Workshop, the Hugh & Hazel Darling Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference, the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Workshop, the Michigan Law School Governance Workshop, the University of Michigan Legal History Workshop, and the University of Michigan Atlantic History Seminar, for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Experimentations and Failures in Modern China and France Alexandre Cholet Introduction
    Cross-Cultural Agenda Constitutional Experimentations and Failures in Modern China and France Cross-Cultural Agenda Constitutional Experimentations and Failures in Modern China and France Alexandre Cholet Introduction “A constitution may be defined as an organization of offices in a state, by which the method of their distribution is fixed, the sovereign authority is determined, and the nature of the end to be pursued by the association and all its members is prescribed. Laws, as distinct from the frame of the constitution, are the rules by which the magistrates should exercise their powers and should watch and check transgressors.” Thus wrote by Aristotle in his book Politics. Here he is drawing a definition of what is a Constitution, furthermore, of what is Constitutional politics. This definition is very general; however, Aristotle was the first influential philosopher to provide us with such a definition and that is why we decided to pick it. If we want a more legal definition of a Constitution, we can refer to Thomas Paine, a famous American revolutionary and intellectual: “A Constitution is a thing antecedent to Government, and a Government is only the Creature of a Constitution. The Constitution of a Country is not the act of its Government, but of the People constituting a Government. It is the Body of Elements to which you can refer and quote article by article; and which contains the principles upon which the Government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organized, the powers it shall have, the Mode of Elections, the Duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such Bodies may be called; the powers which is the executive.”1In his thoughts about French Revolution, Thomas Paine is giving us a definition which is fitting our expectations because it draws the boundaries of our subject.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding by Eric Nelson
    2017-019 3 Mar. 2017 The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding by Eric Nelson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2014. Pp. 390. ISBN 978–0–674–73534–7. Review by Asaf Almog, The University of Virginia ([email protected]). The Federal Constitution of the United States gives significant powers to the executive branch, headed by the president. Since the 1950s, scholars have viewed the Constitution as “a new political science” 1 or “a revolution in favor of government,” 2 claiming that, before the 1780s, virtually all Patriots champi- oned the Whig theory of government and opposed the “executive privilege” that the Stuart monarchs had held in seventeenth-century England. Hence, the American Revolution constituted a Whig rebel- lion against the “wicked” monarchy up to the Declaration of Independence. The failures of the Articles of Confederation in the 1780s caused some Patriots to abandon the republican principles that the Rev- olutionaries had fought for, in favor of the Federalists’ argument in support of a strong executive branch. In The Royalist Revolution , political scientist Eric Nelson 3 (Harvard Univ.) challenges this interpre- tation. Many of the colonists who had overwhelmingly supported the Whig theory of government be- fore the mid-1760s abandoned it thereafter. Patriot leaders like Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson now stressed that the colonies had been established as dependencies of the Stuart monarchs. They attacked the Parliament and appealed to King George III to veto its acts. Historians have seen this as a purely tactical maneuver, but Nelson contends that “a great many of [the Patriots] self-consciously and momentously ceased to be Whigs” (7), seeing themselves as “the last Atlantic defenders of the Stuart monarchy” (31).
    [Show full text]
  • The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648
    The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Item Type Thesis or dissertation Authors Worton, Jonathan Citation Worton, J. (2015). The royalist and parliamentarian war effort in Shropshire during the first and second English civil wars, 1642-1648. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Chester, United Kingdom. Publisher University of Chester Download date 24/09/2021 00:57:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10034/612966 The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of The University of Chester For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Jonathan Worton June 2015 ABSTRACT The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Jonathan Worton Addressing the military organisation of both Royalists and Parliamentarians, the subject of this thesis is an examination of war effort during the mid-seventeenth century English Civil Wars by taking the example of Shropshire. The county was contested during the First Civil War of 1642-6 and also saw armed conflict on a smaller scale during the Second Civil War of 1648. This detailed study provides a comprehensive bipartisan analysis of military endeavour, in terms of organisation and of the engagements fought. Drawing on numerous primary sources, it explores: leadership and administration; recruitment and the armed forces; military finance; supply and logistics; and the nature and conduct of the fighting.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Moderation in the French Restoration: Chateaubriand's Political Thought, 1814-1820
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1984 Political Moderation in the French Restoration: Chateaubriand's Political Thought, 1814-1820 Daniel T. Keefe Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Keefe, Daniel T., "Political Moderation in the French Restoration: Chateaubriand's Political Thought, 1814-1820" (1984). Master's Theses. 3387. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/3387 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1984 Daniel T. Keefe POLITICAL MODERATION IN THE FRENCH RESTORATION: CHATEAUBRIAND'S POLITICAL THOUGHT, 1814-1820 by Daniel T. Keefe A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts December 1984 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the patience and guidance of his committee members, Professor Franklin A. Walke: Thesis Director, and Professor Walter D. Gray, Chairman, Department of History, Loyola University of Chicago. ii VITA The author, Daniel Thomas Keefe, is the son of Dr. Robert and Patricia (Monahan) Keefe. He was born June 8, 1958, in San Francisco, California. His elementary education was obtained in the private schools of San Francisco. His secondary education was completed in 1976 at the Junipero Serra High School, San Mateo, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Royal Household: Royalist Politics and the Commonwealth Recipe Book
    Restoring the Royal Household: Royalist Politics and the Commonwealth Recipe Book Madeline Bassnett Abstract: Food discourse was a polemical tool used by both royalists and republicans during the English civil war. In the 1650s, however, it was the royalists who revived and claimed the recipe book—an important genre of food writing—for themselves. While The Queens Closet Opened (1655) has been previously established as royalist, this paper suggests that Commonwealth recipe books as a whole aligned themselves with the longing for royal restoration. Not only were these books overwhelmingly connected to royalty or aristocracy, but they also consistently recalled royalist networks, court practices, and the cabinet discourse associated with The Kings Cabinet Opened and Charles I’s Eikon Basilike. Popular and affordable, recipe books helped to sustain royalist visibility under the Protectorate while linking good domestic management to the return of the Stuart monarchy to the head of the national household. During the civil war and Commonwealth periods, food discourse was an important political tool for both royalists and parliamentarians. Royalist allegiance was frequently coded through positive allusion to food, dining, and other traditional rituals, while the stereotypical focus of parliamentary puritans settled on fasting rather than feasting.1 Although food was a symbol of political identity for both parties, royalists successfully revived and claimed an important genre of food writing—the recipe, or receipt, book—for themselves. Previous
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Chains of Dependency: From
    .............................................. BREAKING THE CHAINS OF DEPENDENCY: FROM PATRONAGE TO CLASS POLITICS, TOULOUSE, FRANCE, 1830-1872 Ronald Aminzade University of Michigan September 1976 CRSO Working Paper /I142 Copies available through : Center for Research on Social Organization university of Michigan 330 Packard Street //214C Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Ronal'd Aminzade University of ~ich.i'gan Department of Sociolbgy' . Breaking the Chains of Dependency: 3.. - - -_-- .. From Patronage to Class Politics. * Toulouse, France, 1830-1872 *This research was sponsored by a dissertation research fellowship from the Social Science Research Council. The archivists at the municipal archives of Toulouse and at~thedepartmental archi-~es of the Haute Garonne helped to make this. research an enijoyable and fruitful experience. The author gratefully acknowledges the advice and inspiration provided by Charles Tilly and the insightful comments and criticisms of Bruce Fireman, Mary Jo Maynes, and Olivier Zunz. I would also like to thank the Center for Research on Social Organiza- tion of the University of Michigan for providing an exciting and stimulating research environment over the past five years. Working-Class Royalism in Toulouse . ' ~urin~the. 1830's .and early 18401s, there was. a strong and well-organized royalist movement in Toulouse, dedicated to the restoration of the "legitimate" Bourbon dynasty overthro.wh-by the Revolution ,of 1830. This legitimist movement had important roots amongworking-class Toulousains. Throughout..the 1830's and.early 18401s,Toulousain workers organized banquets to celebrate legitimist electoral victories and took:to . the. streets. to serenade royalist leaders. In ~e~temberof 1833, a group of working- . class .royalists gathered in the courtyard of the,Hatel de 'France to serenade the .
    [Show full text]
  • Background on Absolutism
    Hobbes Seminar March 27, 2013 Background on absolutism The status of an absolute sovereign 1. Pure or perfect a. Meaning: one of Aristotle’s three types of government: monarchy, aristoc- racy, or democracy. b. Contrast: “mixed” government, a monarch that shares power with an aristo- cratic or democratic body like Parliament (Daly, 236) (Sommerville, 351–52). 2. Not morally or legally accountable to any other human power, having no supe- rior (Sommerville, 350–51). What various absolutist theories have in common is attempts to “free rulers from accountability to their subjects”(Sommerville, 348). a. Contrasts: subordination to Papacy or some class within the state.In early usage, having an “absolute” sovereign was a way of boasting of the nation’s independence from the Pope (Daly, 231). b. Compatible with: accountability to God. “The idea that sovereigns are subject only to God was central to absolutist thought.” (Sommerville, 354) 3. Unlimited power. Contrast: sovereigns only have some powers but not others, with limits coming from people rather than God. (Sommerville, 355) 4. Not limited by laws. Comparison with God: make laws, above laws (Daly, 234). a. Early contrast: the king’s “ordinary” powers, regulated by the law; thought to be compatible with the king’s having “absolute” powers concerning policy (Daly, 232). b. Contrast: view that the sovereign must act within the law, limits to discre- tion. Hobbes Seminar Background on absolutism c. Note: some backsliding by Royalists after civil war. “Hobbes chided the king’s advisers for denying that the government was absolute … Certainly royalist writers were at pains to claim that the king’s power was legally limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Nepal – Monarchists – Maoists – Political Violence – Teachers – Schools
    Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: NPL31796 Country: Nepal Date: 4 June 2007 Keywords: Nepal – Monarchists – Maoists – Political violence – Teachers – Schools This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein. Questions 1. Please provide general information on current violent activities of Maoists against monarchists. 2. What is the role of Maoists in the current Government? 3. Is there any specific information regarding an attack on a school at Pataleswor Primary School (Kavre District) in July 2004? RESPONSE 1. Please provide general information on current violent activities of Maoists against monarchists. No information was found in the sources consulted regarding the recent use of violence by Maoists against monarchists generally. Recent incidences of violence have however, been reported against royalist political parties including the Rastriya Prajatantra Party and the Rastriya Janashakti Party. The majority of the reported attacks were allegedly undertaken by the Maoist student organisations and some have been linked to the Youth Communist League. Sources state that despite the current cease fire arrangements Maoists have continued to use threats and intimidation against oppositional political parties as well as engaging in general violent activity and human rights abuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Bourbon Restoration 1 Bourbon Restoration
    Bourbon Restoration 1 Bourbon Restoration Royaume de France Kingdom of France 1814–1815 ← 1815–1830 → Flag Royal Coat of arms Anthem Le Retour des Princes Français à Paris "The return of the French Princes in Paris" The Kingdom of France in 1815. Capital Not specified Language(s) French [1] Religion Roman Catholicism Government Constitutional Monarchy King - 1814–1824 Louis XVIII - 1824–1830 Charles X President of the Council - 1815 Charles de Talleyrand-Périgord (first) - 1829–1830 Jules de Polignac (last) Bourbon Restoration 2 Legislature Parliament - Upper house Chamber of Peers - Lower house Chamber of Deputies History - Louis XVIII restored 6 April 1814 - Hundred Days 1815 - Second Restoration 1815 - France invades Spain 1823 - July Revolution July 1830 - Louis-Philippe I declared the King of the French 9 August 1830 Currency French Franc The Bourbon Restoration is the name given to the period following the successive events of the French Revolution (1789–1799), the end of the First French Republic (1792–1804), and then the forcible end of the First French Empire under Napoleon (1804-1814/1815) — when a coalition of European powers restored by arms the monarchy to the heirs of the House of Bourbon who once again became possessors of the Kingdom of France. The Bourbon restoration existed from (about) April 6th, 1814 until the popular uprisings of the July Revolution of 1830, excepting the interval of the "Hundred Days"[2] less than a full year into the restoration when the Bourbon monarchy again had made themselves so unpopular with the general population of France that the family had to once more flee Paris and France to Ghent ahead of exploding civil disorders and collapsing civil authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolutionary Iranian Reactions to Anglo- Russian Imperialism (1890-1907)
    Sovereign, Subject, or Slave? Revolutionary Iranian Reactions to Anglo- Russian Imperialism (1890-1907) Adam Reza Mohebbi etween 1890 and 1907, reactionaries, revolutionaries, and B reformers ravaged the ruling Qajar dynasty of Iran. These advocates of drastic change were not simply inspired by domestic affairs, however. A combination of the incompetence of the Qajar Shahs and the blatant affronts to Iranian sovereignty by European Imperialist powers, not simply one or the other, led to such movements and their eventual legal victories. For nearly an entire century, following the fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the onset of the First World War in 1914, the British and Russian Empires dueled in Central Asia. Since neither of these “Great Powers” were strong enough to conquer their rival, they played a “Great Game.” Through puppet rulers, economic conflict, and the bare minimum of military involvement they struggled to protect their respective interests from the encroachments of their adversary. Britain had to defend its conquered “Crown Jewel,” India. Russia found the southern borders of its homeland under possible assault. Consequently an oppressive climate of mutual fear hung over the region like a rank fog and, in the middle of it all, sat Iran. For their part, the Powers viewed Iran in a relatively positive, if not ignorant, light. Percy Sykes, a British spy, diplomat, and all- around raconteur, recollected the peasant in Persia, and especially in the cold part parts of the country, is certainly better housed, better clad and better fed than people of the same class in the Panjab. The household comforts, too, are greater.
    [Show full text]