M2a2 Leading through and beyond Change Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

M2a2 Leading through and beyond Change - Essay Example Changes are constant in an organization, but most of the changes are gradual and unplanned (Burke, 2010, p.1). Change at times is necessary for organizations to adjust themselves in this dynamic business environment (Reader & eHow, n.d.). In the context of the study, changes will be mainly discussed from the viewpoint of Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM). According to John Kotter, change in general passes through 8 key stages. Also for an organization to implement changes in their system must follow all the steps and accomplish all the necessary tasks of each stage. 1. Increase urgency: - In this stage organizations feel the megacity for incorporating change. This is achieved through the evidences of other companies, about how they got success after implementing change. 7. Consolidating enhancement: - In this stage of the change process an organization must plan and evidently improve the performance through the change. Also recognition and rewarding employees who were indulged in the process, will further help to serve the purpose. Now after examining the study in accordance with the case study of JP Morgan, it has been found that due to change in the trading activities of the traders the bank suffered huge losses. The primary mistake was on the part of the bank’s operations. The bank could not formulate a sound strategy, by which trading activities would have generated less effect. In accordance with the Korter’s model and case study they must develop a strategy that ensures least effect from the traders. In general individuals within the organization do not like changes in the system; rather they fell that any carnage in the organization may hamper their present course of actions. However there is time when change becomes necessary in order to rectify the earlier mistakes. Changes also take place as the precautionary measure of future issues. In the context of

Leadership Journal Performance Appraisal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Leadership Journal Performance Appraisal - Essay Example In performance management, the most important part includes conducting performance appraisals of the employees by their supervisors. The current discourse hereby aims to reflect on performance appraisals in one’s work setting, including any participation in a 360-degree evaluation. Performance Appraisals Received In the capacity of a registered nurse with a Nursing and Rehabilitation Health Care Facility, one has definitely received performance appraisals from one’s supervisor. It was acknowledged that performance appraisals are meant to assess and evaluate the actual performance of individuals against the pre-determined targets. These processes also serve the function of aligning individuals’ goals with organizational objectives, and therefore provide a direction to individuals’ actions; performance appraisals help in setting the right expectations from individuals. As such, it was confirmed that the appraisal has been connected to the strategic plan of t he health care facility; as well as to the nursing unit. Connection to Strategic Plan The connection of the performance appraisal to the strategic plan of the facility; as well as to the objectives of the nursing unit is definitely advantageous both to the organization and to me, as a nurse. Performance appraisals provided the needed inputs by decision makers in the health care facility with regards to human resource requirements, salary adjustments, and the employees’ attitudes and abilities through feedback mechanisms integrated within the performance appraisal (PA) system. Advantage of Connection to Strategic Plan In terms of the benefits to nurses, these performance appraisals clearly show how efficient we are in fulfilling our responsibilities and in conforming to standards of health care. For instance, we have to ensure safety of the patients at all times; no medication errors; focus on customer satisfaction through high quality patient care. Through performance results , we are apprised on our abilities to achieve standards and objectives within a defined time frame and with minimum complaints or errors. These become the basis for promotions and salary increases. This PA model is very similar to many other behavior-based models that have been extremely successful in the healthcare organizations, as pointed out by Chandra and Frank (2004). Likewise, the current system is corroborated in a recent empirical study in Nigerian organization which indicated that such strategic management of performance by linking performance appraisal to career progression and employee participation will enhance the employee’s commitment towards the job and the organization (Abdulkadir, Isiaka & Adedoyin, 2012). Participation in 360-Degree Evaluation A very successful and famous PA method is the 360-degree feedback process which reportedly involves receiving feedback from various people working with the employee directly or indirectly. Accordingly, the process hel ps individuals to understand various perspectives which other stakeholders hold about themselves with respect to their peers, customers, clients, and shareholders (Weiss & Kolberg, 2004). As a nurse, one had been a participant in the 360-degree process through being informed of the results of one’s performance appraisal and by relaying personal comments and inputs on the assessment. One strongly believes that the inputs provided are instrumental for leaders and decision makers to

The Emancipation Of Serfs

The Emancipation Of Serfs From the mid-nineteenth century the pace of change in Russia rapidly accelerated. The decade following the Crimean warrior saw the most dramatic social and institutional upheaval that the empire had ever undergone. Central to the so-called Great Reforms of the period was the abolition of serfdom. The statute of 1861 set the 22 million serfs owned by private landlords free from personal bondage. The fundamental relationship upon which the economic, social and politic structure of the empire had been based was to be dismantled. In 1861 serfdom, the system, which tied the Russian peasants irrevocably to their landlords, was abolished at the Tsars imperial command. Four years later, slavery in the USA was similarly declared unlawful by presidential order. Tsar Alexander II (1855-81) shared with his father, Nicholas I, a conviction that American slavery was inhumane. This is not as hypocritical as it might first appear. The serfdom that had operated in Russia since the middle of the seventeenth century was technically not slavery. The landowner did not own the serf. This contrasted with the system in the USA where the Negro slaves were chattels; that is, they were regarded in law as the disposable property of their masters. In Russia the traditional relationship between lord and serf was based on land. It was because he lived on his land that the serf was bound to the lord. The Russian system dated back to 1649 and the introduction of a legal code, which had granted total authority to the landowner to control the life and work of the peasant serfs who lived on his land. Since this included the power to deny the serf the right to move elsewhere, the difference between slavery and serfdom in practice was so fine as to be indistinguishable. The purpose behind the granting of such powers to the Russian dvoriane (nobility of landowners) in 1649 had been to make the nobles dependent on, and therefore loyal to, the tsar. They were to express that loyalty in practical form by serving the tsar as military officers or public officials. In this way the Romanov emperors built up Russias civil bureaucracy and the armed services as bodies of public servants who had a vested interest in maintaining the tsarist state. The serfs made up just over a third of the population and formed half of the peasantry. They were most heavily concentrated in the central and western provinces of Russia. Reasons for The Emancipation Edict of 1861 In a number of respects serfdom was not dissimilar to the feudalism that had operated in many parts of pre-modern Europe. However, long before the 19th century, the feudal system had been abandoned in Western Europe as it moved into the commercial and industrial age. Imperial Russia underwent no such transition. It remained economically and socially backward. Nearly all Russians acknowledged this. Some, known as slavophiles, rejoiced, claiming that holy Russia was a unique God-inspired nation that had nothing to learn from the corrupt nations to the west. But many Russians, of all ranks and classes, had come to accept that reform of some kind was unavoidable if their nation was to progress. It became convenient to use serfdom to explain all Russias current weaknesses: it was responsible for military incompetence, food shortages, over population, civil disorder, and industrial backwardness. These were oversimplified explanations but theyre some truth in all of them: serfdom was symptomatic of the underlying difficulties that held Russia back from progress. It was, therefore, a particularly easy target for the intelligentsia, those intellectuals who in their writings argued for the liberalizing of Russian society, beginning with the emancipation of the exploited peasants. Nikolai Miliutin, who participated in bringing about the reform, believed that it was necessary to end serfdom to increase agricultural productivity and thereby increase the capital required for industrialization. His friend the legal historian and westernizer Constantine Kavelin, who had good connections with reform-minded relatives of the tsar, maintained that serfdom was the chief cause of poverty in Russia. Although historians have debated to what extent serfdom retarded economic development, what is crucial is that Alexander II and other important figures such as Samarin, Nikolai Miliutin, and Kavelin believed that ending serfdom would strengthen the Russian economy and thereby the country as a whole. As often happened in Russian history, it was war that forced the issue. The Russian state had entered the Crimean War in 1854 with high hopes of victory. Two years later it suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of the Allied armies of France, Britain and Turkey. The shock to Russia was profound. The nation had always prided itself on its martial strength. Now it had been humiliated. In 1856, the Slavophile Yuri Samarin wrote: We were defeated (in the Crimean war) not by external forces of the western alliance but by our own internal weaknessà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Now, when Europe welcomes peace and rest desired for so long we must deal with what we have neglectedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦At the head of the contemporary domestic questions which must be dealt with, the problem of serfdom stands as a threat to the future and an obstacle in the present to significant improvement in any way  [1]   Defeat in the Crimean war was a profound shock to Russians, and one, which compelled a complete reappraisal of the empire and of its place in the world. It revealed what many had long suspected, that profound disorder was undermining the empires capacity to sustain its role as a European great power. It demonstrated that the army, reputedly the strongest in Europe, could not defend a fortified base in its homeland against troops dispatched from thousands of miles away. It is said that Nicholas I on his deathbed acknowledged the tacit condemnation of his system, enjoying his son to take action to remedy the disorder in the command. The shortcomings of Russias military performance were due not least to the backward stare of her industry and communications and the precarious condition of her finances. She was unable either to manufacture new rifles to match those her adversaries possessed or to purchase them abroad. Much of what was available, including food and weapons, never reached the battlefield over the muddy tracks and dusty post-roads, which connected the southern extremity with the heartlands of the empire. The Emancipation Of Serfs Alexander II was the tsar liberator, the ruler who finally freed the serfs in 1861. He also instituted other important reforms, especially in local government, the judiciary, and the military. Mindful of Russian weakness displayed during the Crimean war and faced with serious economic problems, he hoped the reforms would strengthen Russia without weakening autocracy. Fulfilling such a combined goal however was an almost impossible task, even if Alexander II had been a stronger and more visionary leader than he was. Although the reforms helped modernize Russia, the climate that bred them also fostered discontentment and discord. Reactionaries, conservatives, liberals, radicals, and government officials battled against each other and among themselves. The keystone of the reforms was the emancipation of the serfs, which, by releasing roughly half the peasants from personal bondage while guaranteeing them land, cleared the way in principle for them to become small property owners and full citizens, able to participate without handicap in political life and in the market economy. In practice the emancipation edict stopped well short of doing that. We have seen that the provisions regarding land disappointed most peasants, leaving them with an abiding grievance. Furthermore, though no longer enserfed, they remained segregated in so-called village societies, usually the old village commune, which contained only peasants as members; priests, schoolteachers, medical orderlies and other people who happened to live in the village were excluded from membership. Peasants were bound to these village societies, which held their pass books, until they had paid in full for the land that they were allocated, in a redemption operation scheduled to take forty-nine years; during that time they could not mobilize their resources by selling their allotments or using them as a collateral to raise loans. They were subject to a legal system distinct from that introduced for the rest of the population, they were tried in segregated volost courts, and they were still liable to corporal punishment and to mutual responsibility. The volosti or cantons, the higher-level administrative unit encompassing several villages and perhaps a small town, likewise admitted peasants only to its assembly and its courts. Nikolai Miliutin, who participated in bringing about the reform, believed that it was necessary to end serfdom to increase agricultural productivity and thereby increase the capital required for industrialization. His friend the legal historian and westernizer Constantine Kavelin, who had good connections with reform-minded relatives of the tsar, maintained that serfdom was the chief cause of poverty in Russia. Although historians have debated to what extent serfdom retarded economic development, what is crucial is that Alexander II and other important figures such as Samarin, Nikolai Miliutin, and Kavelin believed that ending serfdom would strengthen the Russian economy and thereby the country as a whole. 2On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the legislation into law. The new law was a political compromise between the interests of the nobles and those of the peasants and their supporters, and the government was unsure of the response of either side. The nearly 400 pages of statutes and annexes that made up the new law were terribly complex, but the emancipation provisions can be summed up as follows: The right of bondage over serfs was abolished forever (except in some outlying areas of the empire such as the Caucasus, where separate emancipation legislation came later. New arrangements regarding gentry-peasant relations and landholding were to be worked out in stages during the next few decades. Peasants who had previously farmed gentry land, as opposed to household serfs, were eventually to receive land, the exact amount to be determined by combinations of negotiation, government maximum and minimum norms for each province and the use of mediators. Most of this new land was to go to peasant communes, not directly to individual peasants. Landowners were to be compensated for their loss of lands by a combination of government notes and peasant payments. Peasants, unless they chose a free and miniscule beggars allotment, were obliged to repay the government with annual redemption payments spread over a 49 year period. Significance of The Emancipation Edict of 1861 Emancipation proved the first in a series of measures that Alexander produced as a part of a programme that included legal and administrative reform and the extension of press and university freedoms. But behind all these reforms lay an ulterior motive. Alexander II was not being liberal for its own sake. According to official records kept by the Ministry of the Interior (equivalent to the Home Office in Britain) there had been 712 peasant uprisings in Russia between 1826 and 1854. By granting some of the measures that the intelligentsia had called for, while in fact tightening control over the peasants, Alexander intended to lessen the social and political threat to the established system that those figures frighteningly represented. Above all, he hoped that an emancipated peasantry, thankful for the gifts that a bountiful tsar had given them, would provide physically fitter and morally worthier recruits for Russias armies, the symbol and guarantee of Russias greatness as a nation. There is a sense in which the details of Emancipation were less significant than the fact of the reform itself. Whatever its shortcomings, emancipation was the prelude to the most sustained programme of reform that imperial Russia had yet experienced (see the Timeline). There is also the irony that such a sweeping move could not have been introduced except by a ruler with absolute powers; it could not have been done in a democracy. The only comparable social change of such magnitude was President Lincolns freeing of the Negro slaves in 1865. But, as a modern Russian historian (Alexander Chubarov, The Fragile Empire, New York, 1999, p.75) has provocatively pointed out: the [Russian] emancipation was carried out on an infinitely larger scale, and was achieved without civil war and without devastation or armed coercion. Yet when that achievement has been duly noted and credited, hindsight suggests that emancipation was essentially a failure. It raised expectations and dashed them. Russia gave promise of entering a new dawn but then retreated into darkness. This tends to suggest that Alexander II and his government deliberately set out to betray the peasants. This was certainly the argument used by radical critics of the regime. It is important to consider, however, that land reform always takes time to work. It can never be a quick fix. Alexanders prime motive in introducing emancipation was undoubtedly the desire to produce results that were beneficial to his regime. But this is not to suggest that he was insincere in his wish to elevate the condition of the peasants. Where he can be faulted is in his failure to push reform far enough. The fact is that Alexander II suffered from the besetting dilemma that afflicted all the reforming tsars from Peter the Great onwards how to achieve reform without damaging the interests of the privileged classes that made up imperial Russia. It was a question that was never satisfactorily answered because it was never properly faced. Whenever their plans did not work out or became difficult to achieve, the Romanovs abandoned reform and resorted to coercion and repression. Emancipation was intended to give Russia economic and social stability and thus prepare the way for its industrial and commercial growth. But it ended in failure. It both frightened the privileged classes and disappointed the progressives. It went too far for those slavophiles in the court who wanted Russia to cling to its old ways and avoid the corruption that came with western modernity. It did not go far enough for those progressives who believed that a major social transformation was needed in Russia. There is a larger historical perspective. It is suggested by many historians that, for at least a century before its collapse in the Revolution of 1917, imperial Russia had been in institutional crisis; the tsarist system had been unable to find workable solutions to the problems that faced it. If it was to modernize itself, that is to say if it was to develop its agriculture and industry to the point where it could sustain its growing population and compete on equal terms with its European and Asian neighbors and international competitors, it would need to modify its existing institutions. This it proved unable or unwilling to do. Therein lies the tragedy of Emancipation. It is an outstanding example of tsarist ineptitude. Its introduction held out the possibility that Russia could build on this fundamentally progressive measure and modify its agricultural economy in such a manner as to cater for its vast population, which doubled to 125 million during the second half of the 19th century. But the chance was lost. So reduced was the peasant as an agricultural worker by 1900 that only half of his meagre income came from farming. He had to sustain himself by laboring. So much for Alexander IIs claim that he viewed the task of improving the condition of the peasants as a sacred inheritance to which he was honor bound. Immediate impact of The Emancipation Edict of 1861 The immediate impact of the statute was much less dramatic than this longer-term picture might suggest, not least because of the economic terms and administrative arrangements under which the peasants were set free. These terms preserved, if in milder form, many of the obstacles to economic growth and social change characteristic of the pre-reform era. The principle of the statute was that the serfs would be emancipated with their household plots and an allotment of land, but that they should pay for this land. The amount of land made available to them to purchase should be approximately equivalent to the allotments they had been allowed to till for their own subsistence under serfdom. The government would compensate the nobility immediately and the peasantry would repay the government would compensate the nobility immediately and the peasantry would repay the government with redemption dues spread over a period of forty-nine years. In practice the peasantry allotments were significa ntly smaller than those they had used before emancipation; the cut offs withheld by landlords were particularly large in the fertile black-earth regions and were a source of intense and lasting bitterness. The price the peasants paid was artificially inflated to compensate the nobility for the dues in labor and cash, which they were losing. However unattractive the peasants found the terms of land redemption, they were compelled to transfer from the initial status of temporarily obligated tenants to outrights purchasers if their landlords insisted. On the other hand, where it suited the nobility to retain landownership, they could, until 1881, refuse to embark upon redemption at all. Negative Impacts on the serfs As was to be expected, the reaction to the emancipation manifesto was mixed. Many of the emancipated serfs were confused about the complex new statutes and disbelieving or disappointed when told they would have to make payments (for half a century) for land they received. Many peasants believed that the fault with evil officials and nobles who were frustrating the tsars real intentions. They thought that as soon as he overcame these troublemakers, new, more favorable, legislation would be forthcoming. Before the year was over, nobles reported more than 1000 disturbances, most of which required to quell. In the summer of 1861, alexander felt it necessary to admonish a delegation of peasants: There will be no emancipation expect the one I have granted you. Obey the law and statutes! Work and toil! Obey the authorities and noble landowners! The following selection is from the first edition of the Englishmans first-hand observations and reflections. 3It might be reasonably supposed that the serfs received with boundless gratitude and delight the manifestoà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in reality the manifesto created among the peasantry a feeling of disappointment rather than delight. To understand this strange fact we must endeavor to place ourselves at the peasants point of view. In the first place it must be remarked that all vague rhetorical phrases about free labor, human dignity, national progress, and the like, which may be readily produce among educated men a certain amount of temporary enthusiasm, fall on the ears of the Russian peasant like drops of rain on a granite mark. Collectively the former serfs received less land than their pre-emancipation allotments. More than one-fourth of them received allotments insufficient to maintain their households-former serfs of polish landowners, especially after polish rebellion of 1863, and imperial and state peasants came off better. Overall the noble serf owners kept roughly two-fifth of their lands, whereas the ex-serfs, greatly outnumbering them, received the rest. And the peasants eventually paid more for their land than it was worth and received land less suitable than that retained by the owners. The economic impact on the peasantry of the settlement and the powers entrusted to the post-emancipation commune is, as we shall see, a matter of fierce controversy. Clearly, the phasing out of traditional dues removed the spectre of increased production being creamed off by the landlord, while peasant security was increased by the opportunity to buy the land. Peasants on crown lands and state peasants, liberated by the statutes of 1863 and 1866 on broadly similar terms to those of private serfs, were able to buy rather more land on better terms. Yet the peasantry as a whole remained in a position of extreme economic and political weakness. Advantaged households might briefly establish a privileged position within their own commune and rent land from the nobility on their behalf. But the containing practice of periodic communal redistribution of land, the heavy impositions of state, the vulnerability of even the most successful household to the vagaries of the climate-all provided major obstacles to the emergence of study yeomen. Most significant was the process by which peasants continued to divide the land of large households to set up new families in their own homes and merged plots which old age and death had rendered unviable. The overwhelming majority of peasants remained middle peasants who, despite gradual integration into the market and a slow rise in literacy, remained in large measure set apart form and subordinate to the world outside. The other Great Reforms of 1860s, affecting the judicial system, the press, and the universities, had little effect on the peasantry. They did gain a minority voice on the new local government bodies (zemstva) set up in 1864, but they tended to view them as an additional burden rather that as a vehicle for pursuit of their own interests. For the most part, their political leverage was still restricted to local instances of illegal resistance and spectre of mass disturbances. Amidst the dislocation of Crimean war and the uncertainty, which followed it, rural unrest had made a significant impact on government policy. Peasant protest had reached a level, which led Soviet historians to identify the period as Russian first revolutionary situation. Acute disappointments at being made to pay for the land they considered their own sparked widespread-an in places violent- protest between March and May 1861. But swift and drastic actions by the government succeeded in crushing resistance. Although below the surface tension remained high in the countryside at once refle cted in and fed by repeated rumors of an imminent real Emancipation the number of disturbances trailed off. Yet in the midst of these economic and cultural changes, the peasants gained no new outlets for their political aspirations. Other hand the Zemstvos (which had limited functions and powers), they had no institutions through which they could express their grievances and seek solutions to them. Even as they were beginning from below to bridge the gap between themselves and the empires elites, there was no sign of a civic nation, which they could join. For such a system to work, however, the peasants would have needed a sufficient amount of land or unrestricted opportunities to make money in non-agricultural employment. Neither desideratum was attained. While maximum and minimum norms were established for different zones, they were not always realized or adequate in all cases even when they were realized. The peasants often lost land, particularly in black earth region- in sartov and Samara more than 40 per cent of what they had previously worked. In such provinces, they were often forced by economic circumstances if not by law to continue working for their masters (otrabotka replacing barshchina in technical terms). In less fertile regions near the center and in the north, it is true, they often gained land, but here the obrok form of payment had long been more profitable for the landlords than labor services, and therefore land was not as important to the erstwhile masters as cash. Alternative View on The Emancipation Edict of 1861 The following selection is from the memoirs of Prince Peter Kropotkin, a student in the corps of pages in 1861 when a statute abolishing serfdom was enacted. I was in Nikolskoye in August 1861, and again in the summer of 1862, and I was struck with the quiet, intelligent way in which the peasants had accepted the new conditions. They knew perfectly well how difficult it would be to pay the redemption tax for the land, which was in reality an indemnity to the nobles in lieu of the obligations of serfdom. But they so much valued the abolition of their personal enslavement that they accepted the ruinous charges not without murmuring, but as a hard necessity the moment that personal freedom was obtainedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ When I saw our Nikolskoye peasants, fifteen months after liberation, I could not but admire them. Their inborn good nature and softness remained with them, but all traces of servility had disappeared. They talked to their masters as equals talk to equals, as if they never had stood in different relations. Besides, such men came out from among them as could make a stand for their rights

My Interest in Law :: Law College Admissions Essays

My Interest in Law    My interest in reading law stems from an early exposure to the subject.   I sometimes accompanied my grandfather to courts and was quick to later on imitate the inquisitive, argumentative, critical as well as negotiating characters of lawyers.  Ã‚   Eventually, I decided I would become one.   My chosen subjects have always reflected this decision and in my years 10 and 11, I won the Best-in-History award, while being highly competitive in English Language and Literature, Government and Religious Studies.   At my A-Level stage, I thoroughly enjoy the research, analysis and writing that goes on in my chosen subjects of English Literature, Economics & Business Studies, Politics and Theology, most especially the latter two.    Securing a work experience placement with Withers Solicitors, London enabled me to interact with solicitors and gain an insight to various aspects of the legal profession such as will drafting and family law.   This increased my anxiety to study law.   During my last spring holiday (April 2001), I got a job working as a receptionist in Chalk Hill Heath Centre, Wembley, London.   Apart from the dignity of labour I gained from doing the work, the experience of working with a wide variety of patients including the obdurate has improved my communication skills.    My participation in the Model United Nations (MUN) conferences run by some schools in Europe and the USA has improved my debating skills, public speaking and helped me to cultivate the habit of researching as well as negotiating.   These qualities are essential in the study and practise of law.   In the Belfast 2001 MUN conference my delegation received the 'Commended Delegation' award due to our hardwork and team effort.      With my reputation as a morally upright student, I was appointed to the highly responsible post of Anglican Chapel Prefect of my school from May 1999 to June 2000 and my task included mobilising students to attend worship on Sundays, as well as assisting other school prefects to run the school. My good communication skills helped to elect me to the office of the Secretary-General of the Photography Club from September 1999 to June 2000, during which I was responsible for minuting meetings and organising club activities. I co-organised a successful Afro-Caribbean Night at my school last May by which we raised seven hundred pounds for Hope and Homes Charity Organisation.   At present I am a House Prefect.

Civil War Technology Essay

Many technological advancements were implemented during the Civil War. Some of these include the introduction of the ironclad to naval warfare. The use of the railroad to speed armies and supplies around the country, high speed communication via the telegraph, the use of rifles that would change tactical warfare forever and the introduction of new medical practices and ambulance corps. One of the major technological advancements brought on by the Civil War was the introduction of the Ironclad into battle. These new craft were mainly made by encasing wooden vessels with thick plates of steel. These new ships could repel enemy fire as well as ram inferior wooden ship into pieces. One such ship built by the confederates was the Virginia, â€Å"The Ironclad carried ten guns and an iron ram on her prow; she moved slowly and awkwardly, powered by the two old engines of the Merimack, and it took half an hour to turn her around. In the harbor of the Hampton Roads, the Virginia, on her first day at war, attacked five Union ships† (McFreely, 17) â€Å"Five Union ships containing 219 guns guarded the mouth of the James River at Hampton Roads but the fighting this day would make them obsolescent. What day-the worst in the eighty-six year history of the U.S. Navy. The Virginia sank two proud ships.† (McPherson, 375,376) The Confederates were not alone in the building of ironclad although not everyone shared in the enthusiasm of theses new ship† Secretary of navy Welles did not at first want to experiment with new fangled notions. But rumors of rebel activities caused Congress to force his hand with a law of August 3, 1861, directing the construction of three prototype ironclads.† (McPherson, 374) several designs were submitted but John Ericssons was the one the Navy department accepted. † Ericsson’s proposal incorporated several novel feature. A wooden hull sheathed with thin iron plate would be overlaid by a flat deck with perpendicular sides extending below the water line and protected by 4.5-inch armor plating. The propeller, anchor and all vital machinery would be protected by this shell. Sitting on the deck was Ericsson’s most important innovation: a revolving turret encased in eight inches of armor and containing two eleven-inch guns.† (McPherson, 374) This ship was named the Monitor, and while the Virginia reaped havoc at Hampton  Roads the Monitor was on her way to meet her. â€Å"On March 9, the Monitor arrived from Brooklyn, and the two strange ships blasted away at each other, the Monitor circling her opponent. The battle ended in a draw, but it changed naval warfare overnight by making wooden fleets obsolete.† (McFreely, 17) Other technologies that were heavily used during the war were the Railroad and telegraph. The railroads allowed for speed of troop movement and heavy artillery that could only be moved rail. The telegraph likewise sped communications between armies, field personnel, Washington, Richmond, ETC. In 1862 alone the US Patent Office issued over 240 military related patents. The monitor itself had 47 individual patents. Another innovative advancement in weaponry was the rifle. While these weapons were not new to the battle field recent advancements in bullet technology developed in the 1850s, by Claude E. Minie’ and improved upon by James H. Burton made the weapons more practical and cost effective. â€Å"At the beginning of the war both sides were armed chiefly with smoothbore muskets that had an effective range of about eighty yards and took about twenty five minutes to reload. But during 1862 Union soldiers were with new rifles that had spiral grooves cut in the barrels, and by 1863 nearly all infantrymen, Yankee and confederate carried these weapons. These rifles put a spin on the bullet, increasing its range and accuracy. These new rifles meant that assaulting infantrymen in close formation could be picked off with rifles at four hundred yards. The casualty cost for a frontal assault became tremendous.† (McFreely, 17) The impact of the rifle on the battlefield was huge. â€Å"One reason for the high casualties of the Civil War was the disparity between traditional tactics and modern weapons. The tactical legacy of the eighteenth-century and Napoleonic warfare had emphasized close order formations.† (McPherson, 473,474) Some other technological break through brought on by the war were the creation of The Sanitary Commission and improvements in army medical practices. â€Å"The Civil War marked a milestone in the transformation of  nursing from a menial service to a genuine profession. The war also produced important innovations in army medical practice. One such innovation was the creation of special ambulance corps for first aid treatment of the wounded and their evacuation to field hospitals. These non-combat medics risked their lives to reach the wounded in the midst of the battle and evacuate them as quickly as possible to surgeons’ stations and field hospitals. The ambulance corps became a model for European armies down to World War I.† (McPherson, 484,485) Sanitary conditions by our standard today were inhuman but at the time of the war they were a vast improvement from previous wars. â€Å"Diseases was a greater threat to the health of Civil War soldiers than enemy weapons. This had been true for every army in history. Civil war armies suffered comparatively less disease mortality then any previous army. While two soldiers died of disease for everyone killed in combat, the ratio for soldiers in the Napolonic and Crimean Wars had been Eight to one. Only by twentieth century standards was Civil War disease mortality high.† (McPherson, 487) In conclusion the Civil War saw the introduction of the ironclads which made all fighting vessels obsolete in a single afternoon of battle at Hampton Roads. The introduction of better medical practices and ambulance corps. The use of rifles which made the tactics of Napoleonic Warfare’s close order formation a suicide mission. This war also saw casualties on both sides in astronomical numbers due in no small part to the use of these new technologies. In the end the use of these new weaponry and technology would change how all wars there after would be fought. WORKS CITED McFreely, Mary Drake The Civil War Telecourse Study Guide. Virginia: EPM Publications, 1990. McPherson, James M.Battle Cry of Freedom New York,: Ballantine Books, 1989.

Lady Macbeth Character analysis Essay

Lady Macbeth Essay â€Å"A dynamic character is an individual that undergoes a drastic character change or revelation.†[1] Lady Macbeth is an ideal example of this kind of character. At the beginning of the play Macbeth, written by Shakespeare, Lady Macbeth can be perceived as a manipulative and deeply ambitious person, which implies an overall sinister-like quality. However, as the play progresses, Lady Macbeth’s character changes to one that seems deeply regretful for her actions. Through Lady Macbeth’s interactions and statements the reader views her transformation from a sinister being into a remorseful soul. In the opening of the play, Lady Macbeth is an extremely manipulative individual that essentially has the power to control her husband’s actions. This is evident through the plot and ultimately the death of King Duncan. Lady Macbeth insulted her husbands manhood stating: â€Å"What beast was’t then that made you break this enterprise to me? When you durst do it then you were a man; And to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (I, VII, 52-64). This statement reinforces her manipulative manner, which provides crucial and important information about Lady Macbeth’s character. In essence, this attack towards Macbeth introduces a pivotal theme of the play: the relationship between gender and violence. Lady Macbeth links masculinity to violence and thereby she has to resort to influential measures in order to achieve her goals. She claims that he is not manly enough because he is hesitant of performing the violent deed of murdering the King. Her mockery of her husband serves a dual purpose of developing her as well as Macbeth’s character. The sarcastic tone reveals the dominating personality of Lady Macbeth, which is significant in influencing Macbeth during later part of the play to succumb to darkness of treachery and bloodshed. Which also intensifies her fiendish attributes. Lady Macbeth has the ability to override all her husband’s hesitation and manipulate him into undertaking these murderous acts. Thro ugh persuasion and criticism she was able to manipulate her husband thereby suggesting elements of evil and sinister-like qualities in Lady Macbeth. There is a defined relationship between manipulation and ambition in this play. That is, Lady Macbeth’s ambition drives her to persuade her husband into the murdering of innocent people. The first example of her determination is apparent in her  soliloquy, which is started off with a tone of certainty and conviction. â€Å"Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; and shalt be what thou art promised.† (I, V, 14-29) Ironically, this tone does not alleviate the strength of her character but instead makes the reader wary of her. This draws the reader’s interest and creates a feeling of the oncoming evil that seems inevitable. Hence, the reader can indicate the instrumental role that Lady Macbeth is going to play in the build up of darkness later on. But the primary example of her ambitious behaviour is evident in the plot for her husband to become king. As claimed by the witches, Macbeth would be king, however the means of how this would become was never discussed until Lady M acbeth is introduced. When the reader is first introduced to her, she is asking for spirits to â€Å"unsex me†(I, V, 44). â€Å"The language suggests that her womanhood, represented by breasts and milk, which are usually symbols of a nurturer, prevents her from performing acts of violence and cruelty, which she associates with manliness.†[2] This also reinforces the link between gender and violence. This statement displays the immense ambition she has to become queen, demonstrating she will go to any lengths in order to accomplish her goal. The devised plan by Lady Macbeth further shows her great ambition to become Queen of Scotland. Lady Macbeth states to Macbeth: â€Å"O, never shall sun that morrow see!† (I, V, 67-68) referring to the murdering of King Duncan providing evidence of her great ambition. Lady Macbeth is so blinded by her ambitions that she neglects to ponder the potential consequences her actions may have on her and Macbeth himself. This intense and unwavering ambition of what might be to come forces her to place whatever values, morals and good judgment on hold, however it is also her blind ambition that leads to her fast approaching downfall. Aside from Lady Macbeth’s sinister tendencies, there is proof that suggests that there is a compassionate and guilty feeling individual buried inside. The first piece of evidence, which suggests of a remorsef ul Lady Macbeth, is apparent through her statement: â€Å"where out desire is got without content.†(III, II, 7). This passage refers to the lack of fulfillment the role of queen posses, and hints that all her actions were meaningless thereby implying remorseful feelings. Another crucial indication of her guilt is visible in Act Five, Scene 1 when Lady Macbeth is wondering around in a trance state appearing to be sleep walking. It is at this point in time where we indisputably learn of her deepest  regrets and guilt. This is evident when she is heard saying: â€Å"Out, damned spot† (V, I, 32) suggesting that she is unable to wash the blood off her hands. These actions play a central role in the reinforcement of another theme: appearance versus reality (Lady Macbeth appears to be wide-awake, however, she is in a state of near unconsciousness revealing the reality of her thoughts). These regretful feelings inherently lead to her downfall through her suicide. By dying by her own hand she is paying the greatest cost for the consequences of her actions. Here underlies the truth to her character, she inherits a change of heart resulting in indisputable evidence that Lady Macbeth is a dynamic character. In conclusion, through Lady Macbeth’s interactions and statements the reader gains tremendous insight into her true character. As the play progresses and character revelation occurs, we see her change from an individual that is deeply ambitious and persuasive to a regretful and remorseful s oul. This thereby provides as adequate proof that Lady Macbeth is a dynamic character. This change creates a sense of sympathy in the eyes of the reader; and consequently it is her actions that cause her own ultimate death. Sources: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth/ladymacbeth.html http://www.shmoop.com/macbeth/lady-macbeth.html [2] http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/macbeth/canalysis.html [1] Dynamic character defined by (www.dictionary.com)

The Battle of Germantown in the American Revolution

The Battle of Germantown in the American Revolution The Battle of Germantown took place during the 1777 Philadelphia Campaign of the American Revolution (1775-1783). Fought less than a month after the British victory at the Battle of the Brandywine (September 11), the Battle of Germantown took place on October 4, 1777, outside the city of Philadelphia. Armies Commanders Americans General George Washington11,000 men British General Sir William Howe9,000 men The Philadelphia Campaign In the spring of 1777, Major General John Burgoyne set forth a plan for defeating the Americans. Convinced that New England was the heart of the rebellion, he intended to cut the region off from the other colonies by advancing down the Lake Champlain-Hudson River corridor while a second force, led by Colonel Barry St. Leger, moved east from Lake Ontario and down the Mohawk River. Meeting at Albany, Burgoyne and St. Leger would press down the Hudson towards New York City. It was his hope that General Sir William Howe, the British commander-in-chief in North America, would move up the river to aid his advance. Though given approval by Colonial Secretary Lord George Germain, Howes role in the scheme was never clearly defined and issues of his seniority precluded Burgoyne from issuing him orders. While Germain had given his consent for Burgoynes operation, he had also approved a plan submitted by Howe which called for the capture of the American capital at Philadelphia. Giving his own operation preference, Howe commenced preparations for striking southwest.   Ruling out marching overland, he coordinated with the Royal Navy and made plans to move against Philadelphia by sea. Leaving a small force under Major General Henry Clinton at New York, he embarked 13,000 men on transports and sailed south. Entering the Chesapeake Bay, the fleet sailed north and the army came ashore at Head of Elk, MD on August 25, 1777. In position with 8,000 Continentals and 3,000 militia to defend the capital, American commander General George Washington dispatched units to track and harass Howes army. After initial skirmishing at Coochs Bridge near Newark, DE on September 3, Washington formed a defensive line behind the Brandywine River. Moving against the Americans, Howe opened the the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777. As the fighting progressed, he employed similar flanking tactics to those used at Long Island the previous year and was able to drive the Americans from the field. Following their victory at Brandywine, British forces under Howe captured the colonial capital of Philadelphia. Unable to prevent this, Washington moved the Continental Army to a position along Perkiomen Creek between Pennypackers Mills and Trappe, PA, approximately 30 miles northwest of the city. Concerned about the American army, Howe left a garrison of 3,000 men in Philadelphia and moved with 9,000 to Germantown. Five miles from the city, Germantown provided the British with a position to block the approaches to the city. Washingtons Plan Alerted to Howes movement, Washington saw an opportunity to strike a blow against the British while he had numerical superiority. Meeting with his officers, Washington developed a complicated attack plan which called for four columns to hit the British simultaneously. If the assault proceeded as planned, it would lead to the British being caught in a double envelopment. At Germantown, Howe formed his main defensive line along the Schoolhouse and Church Lanes with Hessian Lieutenant General Wilhelm von Knyphausen commanding the left and Major General James Grant leading the right. On the evening of October 3, Washingtons four columns moved out. The plan called for Major General Nathanael Greene to lead a strong column against the British right, while Washington led a force down the main Germantown Road. These attacks were to be supported by columns of militia which were to strike the British flanks. All of the American forces were to be in position â€Å"precisely at 5 o’clock with charged bayonets and without firing.† As at Trenton the previous December, it was Washingtons goal to take the British by surprise. Problems Arise Marching through the darkness, communications quickly broke down between the American columns and two were behind schedule. In the center, Washingtons men arrived as scheduled, but hesitated as there was no word from the other columns. This was largely due to the fact that Greenes men and the militia, led by General William Smallwood, had become lost in the darkness and heavy morning fog. Believing that Greene was in position, Washington ordered the attack to commence. Led by Major General John Sullivans division, Washingtons men moved to engage British pickets in the hamlet of Mount Airy. American Advance In heavy fighting, Sullivans men forced the British to retreat back towards Germantown. Falling back, six companies (120 men) of the 40th Foot, under Colonel Thomas Musgrave, fortified the stone home of Benjamin Chew, Cliveden, and prepared to make a stand. Fully deploying his men, with Sullivans division on the right and Brigadier General Anthony Waynes on the left, Washington bypassed Cliveden and pushed on through the fog towards Germantown. Around this time, the militia column assigned to attack the British left arrived and briefly engaged von Knyphausens men before withdrawing. Reaching the Cliveden with his staff, Washington was convinced by Brigadier General Henry Knox that such a strongpoint could not be left in their rear. As a result, Brigadier General William Maxwells reserve brigade was brought up to storm the house. Supported by Knoxs artillery, Maxwells men made several futile assaults against Musgraves position. At the front, Sullivan and Waynes men were exerting heavy pressure on the British center when Greenes men finally arrived on the field. The British Recover After pushing British pickets out of Lukens Mill, Greene advanced with Major General Adam Stephens division on the right, his own division in the center, and Brigadier General Alexander McDougalls brigade on the left. Moving through the fog, Greenes men began to roll up the British right. In the fog, and perhaps because he was intoxicated, Stephen and his men erred and veered right, encountering Waynes flank and rear. Confused in the fog, and thinking that they had found the British, Stephens men opened fire. Waynes men, who were in the midst of an attack, turned and returned fire. Having been attacked from the rear and hearing the sound of Maxwells assault on Cliveden, Waynes men began to fall back believing they were about to be cut off. With Waynes men retreating, Sullivan was forced to withdraw as well. Along with Greenes line of advance, his men were making good progress but soon became unsupported as McDougalls men wandered away to the left. This opened Greenes flank to attacks from the Queens Rangers. Despite this, the 9th Virginia managed to make it to Market Square in the center of Germantown. Hearing the cheers of the Virginians through the fog, the British quickly counterattacked and captured most of the regiment. This success, coupled with the arrival of reinforcements from Philadelphia led by Major General Lord Charles Cornwallis led to a general counterattack all along the line. Learning that Sullivan had retreated, Greene ordered his men to disengage retreat ending the battle. The Aftermath of the Battle The defeat at Germantown cost Washington 1,073 killed, wounded, and captured. British losses were lighter and numbered 521 killed and wounded. The loss ended American hopes of recapturing Philadelphia and forced Washington to fall back and regroup. In the wake of the Philadelphia Campaign, Washington and the army went into winter quarters at Valley Forge. Though beaten at Germantown, American fortunes changed later that month with the key victory at the Battle of Saratoga when Burgoynes thrust south was defeated and his army captured.