Value Of Primary Sources As Historical Sources

In order to investigate the claim that ‘Napoleon betrayed the revolution’, it has to be determined what is the French revolution? And what are the revolutionary ideals that Napoleon allegedly betrayed? If Napoleon betrayed the Revolution then he betrayed the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. However if Napoleon did not betray the revolution, he consolidated the revolutionary ideals. The only way of determining whether Napoleon consolidated or betrayed the revolution is to explore his actions such as his military success, Dictatorship and social reforms. The difficulty of this analysis is that Napoleons motives for his actions determine whether he consolidated or betrayed the Revolution.

Primary source: Primary sources can be used to bring history and culture to life and are defined of brining direct evidence to time. A primary source can be anything from documents, objects, eyewitnesses and participants to an event.

Identifying the types of sources suited to historical inquiry and discussing why suitable sources might be different for other subjects (ACHASSI074)

Within the realm of history, a source of evidence is essential in order to differentiate the fact from fiction. This is why a primary source is so vital! Because, a primary source provides the reader with direct evidence of an event or a speech; giving them a better understanding of the material. The only problem is: these sources do not provide the full facts, leaving the readers with a plethora of questions. Don’t get me wrong though, the readers should be asking a lot of questions! Because, with all of those questions, the reader can be engaged with the content in order to find some concrete evidence.

Originating in the 19th century, political cartoons are created and drawn as a means to deliver a message. Whether it be about politics, events or social concerns, the artist is able to express themselves creatively. The cartoons are not only meant to express the view of the creator, but are also open to interpretation. Most political cartoons have a biased point of view and uses rhetoric to persuade its audience.

Huber, Thomas M. "The Rise of Napoleon" (paper presented at the Command and General Staff College, Fort Lee, Virginia, February 6-7, 2014).

Political cartoons are an illustrative technique that political cartoonist use to display a message to the viewers about government, world affairs, and politics. In 1754, publishers of the Pennsylvania Gazette published the first political cartoon illustrated by Benjamin Franklin (West, par. 1). Benjamin Franklin used his first political cartoon, titled Join or Die, to gain support from the colonies for the Crown’s war against the French (West, par. 1). Since the 1700s, illustrators use political cartoons as a medium to display political messages to its viewers (West, par. 1). On March 10, 2015, publishers of the Columbia Daily Tribune published a political cartoon, illustrated by John Darkow, titled Hillary Has A Primary Opponent (Darkow,

Cartoons have been a prominent and interesting apparatus for politics throughout the ages. Political movements, parties, and groups using propaganda to further their beliefs dates back to the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Though America faces an austere history, lighthearted propaganda colors its decades and gives them life. Political cartoons are so widely used in America that they have become a significant piece of pop culture. Moreover, because of their ability to capture the reader’s attention, propaganda is exploited throughout politics.The cartoons are wonders of the human imagination; illustrators create comical images and intertwine profound political opinions to influence their viewer’s mind. For example, one movement that abundantly grew from propaganda was the women’s rights movement. The artists of the seemingly despised cause drew controversial cartoons that set a fire in the hearts of women all over the world. Consequently, the same cartoons ignited a passionate war between women who wanted freedom, and those who believed that women could not handle that freedom. Through the use of colorful concepts and daring expressions, political cartoons display the influence of the women’s rights movement throughout history, while the cartoons of Anti-Feminists demonstrates the world’s reaction to the movement.

How have historians tried to evaluate the ultimate goal of Napoleon I, Emperor of the French? With such a variety of perspectives, there is no single theory that can fully answer the breadth of the question. Instead, kaleidoscopes of opinions that span centuries from Napoleon’s reign to contemporary research give us the best analysis of his ambitions. No matter the era, historian’s opinions of Napoleon shift between admiring his achievements, in varying contexts of establishing order or reorganizing governmental systems, to criticizing his personal lust for power. This essay will discuss the varying opinions by which historians view Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, and his fundamental objective as ruler.

This document speaks to how in many ways they put Napoleon on a pedestal and how he took this view in order to gain more power. The purpose of this document is to show Napoleon as a more godly figure and to move him into the view of an absolute ruler. This helps to show how Napoleon betrayed the legacy of the French revolution by taking on an absolute

Few humans have ever come as close to ruling over the entirety of Europe as Napoleon Bonaparte did. As the end of the French Revolution drew near, Napoleon Bonaparte did not hesitate long to create policies that kept him in power. With such power, it was certain that Napoleon would use it to influence to people all over Europe. Napoleon’s impact on the people of France and Europe, who he affected through propaganda, his ideas of nationalism and patriotism, and a codification of laws, was a very long-standing and resilient ideology that was mostly prevalent during the French Revolution.

Napoleon Bonaparte is seen by historians in a variety of lights. Some judge him for his lack of mercy for those in his warpath along with his unmatched air of confidence. Others choose to see him for the leadership abilities and keen mind that fueled his remarkable triumphs as a general, commander, First Consul of France, and even emperor. Owen Connelly uses his work, The Epoch of Napoleon, to bridge the gap that other historians and authors have skimmed over, giving the reader an inside look at not only Napoleon’s military life, but also his political and personal life. Furthermore, Connelly achieves this by showing both the ruthless and heroic sides of Napoleon, including non-military details from the life of Napoleon, and lastly, including quotes from Napoleon and those that interacted with him.

These historians have done a phenomenal job of keeping the topics portrayed in their theses as well as about a comparatively unbiased view on Napoleon and bring about a deeper and hidden meaning behind why Napoleon is considered a hero or a villain. Paul Stock brings about the idea that there was a “romantic appropriation” of Napoleon, especially by the British in the early nineteenth century.

With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country France from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people 's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people 's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.

When studying history, the way to obtain knowledge from it is to use primary and secondary sources, because we can only use sources from the events of past, and we cannot actually perceive the events. By the reason of that, I believe that history is an area of knowledge that is mostly made up of stories, and what we call history is the modern interpretation of those stories. This is because when I was studying about the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I found out that primary sources such as newspaper articles from America had bias in them. They