All right in my cultures class I have to collect data on these topics during the industrial revolution...

I thought this thread would be a nice help for those who are looking for the same kinda stuff....but right now I need these answered ASAP (please).

---------------------------------------------------
Aight heres what I need:
Austro-Prussian War --->(I just need a bit more info on this)
Suez Canal
Franco-Prussian War
William II
Austrian Empire
Dual Monarchy
New Imperialism
Menelik II
Taiping Rebellion --->(I need a bit more info on this)
Boxer Rebellion
Sun Yixian
Meiji Restoration

Heres What I got and correct me if I am wrong
William I
As a result of the war King William I of Prussia was proclaimed German emperor, French prestige declined, and a period of 40 years of unstable peace between the major powers of Europe ensued.
Schleswig & Holstein
Two years earlier (1864), Austria and Prussia together had made war on Denmark and taken from it the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein
Second Reich
In 1870 the aggressive French emperor Napoleon III unwisely pressed William I to promise that a Hohenzollern would never take the vacant Spanish throne. Bismarck distorted William's account of the incident to make it seem as if the French had been insulted and then published the account. The outraged French declared war. Stirred by national loyalty, the south German states joined forces behind Prussia, whose seasoned armies conquered the disorganized French at Sedan and, after a long siege, took Paris in 1871. With these events Bismarck convinced the south German states that Prussian hegemony was inevitable. At Versailles in 1871 he persuaded a reluctant William to take a new title as head of the German Empire, the Second Reich.
---------------------------------------------------

If you can answer as much of these as humanly possible that would be great and as I find info I will add to this. By the way I have taken extensive notes and I just need to verify them because a huge portion of my grade depends upon this test

Austrian Empire
Dual Monarchy
That's a very intricate topic that cannot be summarized in a short post. I
suggest that you pick up this book:

The Long Fuse: An Interpretation of the Origins of World War I (Paperback)
by Laurence Lafore

In an introduction, Lafore explains as concise as possible the political,
social and economic conditions of the Habsburg Monarchy before WW1. I
wouldn't settle for a shorter summary, as your knowlegde would be
fragmentary. Plus, the book is gripping as hell...

Schleswig & Holstein

Two years earlier (1864), Austria and Prussia together had made war on Denmark and taken from it the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein

It's not as easy as that: Schleswig and Holstein had been part of the German
Empire before.

Holstein (north of Hamburg): the Danish king ruled Holstein, however not as
king of Denmark, but as a German souvereign who happened to be Danish
king, too. Holstein always had an entirely German population.

Schleswig (north of Holstein, south of Denmark): Schleswig was a Danish fief,
but Holstein and Schleswig were closely connected as territories. A
medieval "law" stated that they had to be ruled by one souvereign, the Duke of
Schleswig-Holstein. In contrast to Holstein, Schleswig was not part of the German
empire - but not part of Denmark itself either! :crazyeye:
Schleswig was divided into a northern part with a Danish majority and a
southern part with a German population. In a first war from 1848 to 1850 the
Danes had suppressed a rebellion (freedom movement, depending on your
point of view ;)) of the German Population to join the German
Confederation. But when the Danish government ratified a new constitution
in 1863 and wanted to enfore it in Schleswig, too, this violated the status of
Schleswig as some kind of "neutral" territory. Bismarck used this incident to
declare a "German" war (as opposed to a Prussian war) against Denmark,
which Germany won. Holstein and the largest part of Schleswig came to
Germany (not Prussia, althoug a large part of both territories was
administrated by Prussia), some smaller parts of it came to Denmark.

Because I'm nice, here's a short piece on Menelik II. Just introductory, really.

The monasteries also acted – and continue to act – as one of the major links between the Egyptian and the Ethiopian churches. Indeed, the Ethiopian church certainly had its ups and downs in the twentieth century. As we saw in chapter 13, a strong king, Yohannes IV, brought order and unity to the country and to the church at the end of the nineteenth century; he was aided in this by Menelik of Shewa, who succeeded him as Menelik II in 1889. This emperor was a strong leader who founded a new capital, Addis Ababa, and kept up vigorous military campaigns to extend Ethiopian power in the south while building diplomatic and trade relations with Europe and the United States. He also, in an age of colonialism, struck a major blow for African independence when in 1896 he defeated an invading Italian army at Adwa. The Italians had established a colony at neighbouring Eritrea, on the coast, and had ambitions to extend their power into what they regarded as its natural hinterland. Indeed, there was considerable cultural crossover between the two regions. The Eritreans of the highlands, who were mostly Christian, regarded themselves as Ethiopian. And many Eritreans, fed up with Italian colonial policy, moved to Ethiopia in the early decades of the twentieth century. In the coastal lowlands, however, most people were Muslim and felt little sympathy for Ethiopia.

Menelik was also keen to extend the influence of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church throughout the country, and he ordered his priests to evangelise the pagan areas of Ethiopia – often encouraging quick baptisms with relatively little preparation. The policy was, however, quite successful, and Ethiopia saw a gradual increase in monasticism and many new churches being built. Indeed, many Muslims converted to Christianity too: the most dramatic conversion was that of Sheikh Zakaryas of Begemdir, who in the 1890s had a series of visions of Jesus which led him to try to reform Islam in a Christian direction. Eventually, in 1910, he and 3,000 of his followers were baptised, creating a culturally distinct minority within the Ethiopian church.

Ethiopia was plunged into crisis when, after a long illness, Menelik fell into an intermittent coma in 1909. The great emperor’s end was protracted and undignified: as he lay sick and incapacitated, his wife and his nobles squabbled over the succession. When he finally died in 1913, his grandson, Lij Iyasu, took power, but he alienated the nobles and in 1916 he was deposed and replaced by Zewditu, daughter of Menelik and the first empress to rule in her own right since the Queen of Sheba. However, the power behind the throne was an ambitious and extremely able noble named Tafari Makonnen, ras (or duke) of Shewa. In 1930, after already having ruled the country with a strong hand for a decade, Ras Tafari became Emperor Haile Selassie (his baptismal name, meaning “Power of the Trinity”).

My understanding of the Second Reich and the Schleswig-Holstein affair is somewhat different. The telegram which Bismarck had forged to make it sound as if the French were insulted was actually hyped up by the French media and so forth, and Napoleon III was forced by popular opinion to declare war against Prussia. Napoleon III was not so much aggressive, and there would have been no war had the media not forced one. This whole affair would be better under "Franco-Prussian War", since what you said mentions almost nothing the Second Reich.

The Second Reich itself was the German Empire. Following the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon created the Confederation of the Rhine. The member states of the confederation "mediatised" neighbouring states. Following the defeat of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna in 1814 decided to maintain the status quo in Germany. Austria and Prussia dominated affairs in Germany. In the Austro-Prussian War, Prussia managed to get most of the German states to support it. Austria was defeated. But sentiment in southern Germany (namely Baden, Württemberg and Bavaria) was very anti-Prussian, so the North German Confederation was created in 1866 (?) of all the German states in the north under Prussian hegemony. Around the Franco-Prussian War, the German Confederation was created, comprising of the southern states as well. The German Empire was soon declared. All the states were still sovereign, although the Prussian Kings were above them. Prussia then began efforts to create a colonial empire. The wars which created the Second Reich caused an uneasy truce across Europe as the European states scrambled for the remaining uncolonised areas of the globe. When World War One broke out, Germany (as in Prussia and the rest of the states) lost, and the Weimar Republic replaced it, absorbing all the states of the German Empire.

In Schleswig-Holstein, there was more to it than that. The Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein had been united since 1474 when a line of the comital House of Schaumburg (which had inherited Schleswig prior) and the House of Holstein were united. Schleswig has always largely been Danish, and Holstein largely German. The Danish kings eventually inherited Schleswig-Holstein in entirety. Following the French revolution, German nationalism awoke in Schleswig-Holstein. The Danes in S-H grew concerned, and begged for a change in the S-H-ian consitution to ensure their rights, which the Danes did. Bismarck seized on the chance since it was technically illegal to change the S-H-ian constitution in such a manner, and convinced the powers of Europe that the Danes were the bad guys. Prussia allied with Austria, invaded, easily defeated Denmark and conquered S-H for themselves.

I tried to keep it short. But for a lot of this, it is hard not to go back and say why the status quo was like it was.

William II
Uh, where to start...

Just let me say this: Don't trust anyone who says that William II. was either
completely evil/mad/dumb as hell/solely responsible for WW1 - or -
progressive/a puppet of the military/peacable (yes, there is historical
evidence for this, too).

The (German) literature about W.II can fill a whole library room. My personal,
ultra-short summary of him would be:

He was blundering, but not inept; he was aggressive, but not suicidal; he
was a ruler, but no souvereign (German Parliament!); he was responsible for
WW1, but not solely; he was politically conservative, but not orthodox; he was
socially modern, but not revolutionary; and he was eager - very eager.

I don't know if this helps... :mischief:

My understanding of the Second Reich and the Schleswig-Holstein affair is somewhat different. The telegram which Bismarck had forged to make it sound as if the French were insulted was actually hyped up by the French media and so forth, and Napoleon III was forced by popular opinion to declare war against Prussia. Napoleon III was not so much aggressive, and there would have been no war had the media not forced one. This whole affair would be better under "Franco-Prussian War", since what you said mentions almost nothing the Second Reich.The telegramm was about a German succession to the throne of Spain, not
about Schleswig-Holstein.

Aight guys thanx for all your help I needed it!

Why do people say William II? Wilhelm sounds way cooler, and outside of most school textbooks, Wilhelm is used, not William.

The telegramm was about a German succession to the throne of Spain, not about Schleswig-Holstein.

I never said it was. It is my fault though for not putting it into separate paragraphs.

If you need quick information, use google and wikipedia. Because it doesn't make sense to ask people around here for that. However, if you want details, it does make much more sense... ;)

m