THE BATTLE OF THE FATHER & THE SON:
Which method of ruling was the most effective in keeping the Romanov dynasty alive?
Over 300 years, the Tsars of Russia imposed two extreme regimes on their population: a more liberal rule, with the steady introduction of reforms, to a rule aimed to severely repress society. These contrasting approaches can be seen clearly when comparing the rules of two Tsars, Tsar Alexander II, who chose the former, and his son, Tsar Alexander III, who employed the latter. In order to compare their governing methods to ultimately infer which system of leadership was more effective and which may have catalysed the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is important to look at their impact on Russian society at the time from an economic and political standpoint.
Tsar Alexander II (1855-1881) led a very historically significant reign in Russian history due to the impactful reforms that he steadily rolled out throughout his tenure. Having been able to perceive the frustration of the population under the iron grip of his father, Tsar Nicholas I, Alexander II took a different approach. In order to try and quell revolutionary activity, he imposed less restrictive rules on the population, and under him unfurled the much-anticipated Russian “Industrial Revolution”. He initiated the removal of archaic institutions such as serfdompeasants lived on their landowners’ property in return for obrok (money) or barschina (labour), essentially they were slaves - and loosened societal restrictions on education and religion.
Tsar Alexander III (1881-1894), his son, took a very contrasting approach to his father’s rule, one with an iron grip, an oppression which was exacerbated following the assassination of his father in March of 1881. Unlike his father, he believed that a successful monarchy would rule with “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality”, taken from his grandfather, Tsar Nicholas I,’s manifesto. He introduced a period of total repression, the key, he believed, to muzzling revolutionary activity. Economically, he monitored the growing development of the Russian industry leading on from his father’s changes, while politically, he centralised the power of the monarchy, essential to keeping the population in check.
Economic developments under each ruler
Ending serfdom was perhaps Tsar Alexander II’s most pivotal reform, introduced by The Great Emancipation Statute in February 1861. Before this time, especially evident under the rule of his father, Tsar Nicholas I, Russia lacked a suitable industrial sector. Wealthier Russians who travelled to the West saw the extent to which Russia was falling behind on the global stage, and wished to introduce Western industrial policies in Russia. The West’s industry was flourishing under more democratic governance whilst Russia’s had remained stagnant under a monarchy. Consequently, Nicholas I prevented the issuing of passports to stop the spread of ideas that jeopardised his position. Tsar Alexander II, however, reversed his father’s extreme reforms, and adopted more populist policies: he initialised industrialization by freeing a huge sector of the population, in chains by an archaic institution: serfdom. When he ascended the throne in 1855, serfs made up 50 million of the 60 million living in Russia at the time. Emancipating them from their landlords drove a huge proportion of the population to relocate to urban areas, and a surge in industrialisation followed. According to Robert Service, in Russia - From Tsars to Commissars, by 1913, the working class comprised about 11 million people, and Russia became the world’s fourth largest economy, once more climbing up the ranks of the geopolitical stage.
Under Tsar Alexander III, economic reforms were limited compared to those of his father. Alexander III’s regime was more focussed on centralising the power of the monarchy and reinforcing it across Russia rather than catalysing economic growth. Instead, he reaped the benefits of his father’s changes, occasionally introducing reforms such as The Peasant’s Bank (1882), which provided loans to peasants to help them purchase their own land after the abolition of serfdom. As well, his Minister of Finance, Sergei Witte, in 1892 increased foreign investment from the likes of France and Belgium to help pay for Russia’s steady industrialisation. However, the imposition of several taxes during his reign frequently put peasants under economic stress, and, combined with unpredictable weather conditions, the 1891 famine followed. This devastated the country and exacerbated the anger towards the Romanov dynasty.
Political climate under each ruler:
Tsar Alexander II introduced several other reforms, some notable politically-oriented ones being those regarding the nationalistic values of the country. For instance, he allowed other languages, not just Russian, to be spoken, and a range of different religions to be practised across the empire. Jews had been severely persecuted under his father, and had been constrained to the Pale of Settlement in the Ukraine; Alexander II relaxed regulations on Jews, allowing them to work in governmental or educational positions. In Finland, he allowed the introduction of a separate currency, and parliament, called a Diet. Similarly, in Poland, he relaxed central
the West, students could now study abroad, and conservative professors were replaced with more liberal ones. This openness paved the way for serious discussion regarding the future of the country. These discussions often manifested themselves in literature, in which censorship had been relaxed too, although publishers still had some guidelines to follow. A notable error in publishing at the time was Turgenev’s 1862 book, Fathers and Sons, which introduced the novel idea of nihilism. He described a nihilist as “a man who does not bow before any authorities, who does not accept a single principle of trust”. These sorts of beliefs undermined the very basis on which the Russian monarchy was built on: the endorsement of the population.
The political reforms introduced under Alexander II had several benefits to citizens,
control, although the reform backfired as a group of rebels, fighting against any form of Russian rule in their country, led a rebellion soon after. Alexander II’s reforms continued into the educational sector. Whilst under his father, most of the population was barred from being able to travel to allowing freer pursuit of religion and language, as well as the public expression of personal opinions. However, due to all of these different reforms, society was fighting for changes that threatened the position of the Romanov dynasty in society. A recurring complaint was the idea of a constitution which, in short, would restrict the power of the monarchy in Russia, a method adopted in the West. Similarly, as students were freer now to voice their ideas, they distributed pamphlets advocating radical ideas and were especially influenced by nihilistic doctrines. The spread of revolutionary activity led to the assassination of the Tsar himself in 1881 by The People’s Will, a terrorist group.
Unlike his father, Tsar Alexander III’s political approach was iron-fisted oppression, with no room for society to breathe. He was deeply affected by the assassination of his father, and saw the only manner of quelling revolution to be to repress it to the furthest extent, determined to reinstate his grandfather’s manifesto of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality”. Alexander III would tolerate no reduction in his God-ordained power, as might have been advocated by his father, who considered having talks on some form of a constitution before his assassination. Instead, he intensified the monitoring of the population, appointing “land owners” to surveil the peasant communes, strengthening his personal control over all classes in society.
One of his main political policies was narodnost, or the Russification program: the uniting of the country under one religion, nationality, and
language. He believed that his father’s policies regarding nationalism, freedom of speech and travel had caused the onslaught of “infectious” Western ideas that society was rallying to adopt, weakening Russia’s position in Eastern Europe. He imposed the Russian language and education on ethnic minorities as well as placing the importance of Orthodoxy over any other religion practised. This great repression of the population did indeed cause frustration, particularly when contrasted to the openness under his father, and led to the building of underground revolutionary frameworks that would be used in the lead up to the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917. However, it must be said that this method of suppressing revolution was much more effective than that of his father. The issue with permitting liberal political reforms in a population that had been festering in frustration for many years, was that calls for more drastic changes increased. The pent up anger found in increasing numbers of citizens spilled over into public view, including to people not yet disillusioned by the regime. Under Alexander III, economic policies took a back seat, whilst he reversed the politically oriented ones instituted by his father. The result was a significant decrease in revolutionary activity as he suffocated dissenters across the country. Therefore, Tsar Alexander III’s iron fist was probably a more effective means of preserving the 300 year old Romanov dynasty than that of his father.
BY SIENNA BLATT, YEAR 11
BLACKBERRY’S FALL: From One of the Greats to
a Forgotten and Failed Business
The BlackBerry, credited by many as the first smartphone, once dominated the smartphone industry, selling more than 50 million units a year at its peak. Its iconic keyboard and design was prominent around the world, particularly among business professionals. In 2011, there were 85 million BlackBerry users worldwide. Despite this, just one year later, in 2012, Research In Motion, BlackBerry’s developer, held a market share of less than 5%, a huge decrease from 20.7% in 2009. But what contributed to the downfall of BlackBerry, taking it from one of the greats to an unknown and forgotten business?
Messenger apps, physical QWERTY keyboards, and push emails are all features synonymous with our day to day lives. These creations, which revolutionised and dramatically changed the way in which we communicate, were all features popularised or invented by BlackBerry during the 2000s. In a time where technological inventions were quickly evolving, BlackBerry was able to experience huge profits from this, while also helping to shape the future of communications and smartphones.
In 2002, the BlackBerry 5810 was released. The popularity of the model was quickly recognised, with the device becoming standard in many offices across the USA. The device allowed for huge increases in productivity and communication, and therefore set it apart from other competitors, including Nokia. Beloved features like BlackBerry Messenger, essentially the messages app we all use today, became incredibly popular because of the instant connection to the world and others which it offered. Moreover, the ability to use this messaging service, or to ‘BBM’, was seen as an elite opportunity as it was only available to BlackBerry users. These features didn’t only interest executives and business people; countless celebrities were also intrigued. BlackBerry devices quickly formed the backbone of not only the corporate world, but also the smartphone industry. In 2008, after he was elected as president, Obama famously said that staff would have to ‘pry [his blackberry] out of [his] hands’. He also appeared on The Tonight Show where he discussed and explained his BlackBerry. In fact, as a result of its addictive qualities, the phones were nicknamed ‘Crackberry’, a term
However, this success did not last forever and the fall of the company was just as dramatic. With the rise of Apple and the iPhone, as well as Google phones, BlackBerry quickly lost its competitive edge and market share. While the first iPhone, released in 2007, did not directly threaten BlackBerry because of poor qualities like the touchscreen keyboard and a lack of secure encryption, Apple rapidly improved their product. Consequently, iPhone sales rose dramatically over the next few years. At the same time, BlackBerry sales plummeted. The event showed consumers the inability of the company to respond to competition, also contributing to a worsening brand image among consumers and the media. The complacency of the company was also reflected in an increase in smugness among employees, with many managers believing Apple products wouldn’t work or be able to compete with BlackBerry ones. As history shows us,
they were completely wrong. BlackBerry’s inability to respond to Apple was not the only factor leading to its downfall. The narrowness of Its customer base, which had been loyal and central to their previous success, began to cause the company issues. By focusing on the specific demographic of industry and government professions, they missed out on billions of potential customers.
No BlackBerry phones have been manufactured since 2016, with their stock price plummeting to
just $3 in 2024. The company has virtually vanished from the industry and news, with their fall recognised as one of the most dramatic downfalls of modern times. Their story continues to serve as an important and cautionary lesson to CEOs, reminding them of the importance of staying ahead of market and technological trends
The legacy of the firm is often seen as one of a ‘company that couldn’t see the writing on the wall’, said Matt Johnson. It emphasises the everchanging nature of trends and public tastes, as well as the importance of constant innovation and product development within firms. The company who experienced such great success due to the novelty and unique qualities of their product was the same company who faced a huge downfall because of their inability to maintain this reputation.
P.S. if you want to find out more about BlackBerry or are generally interest in the topic there is a book called ‘Losing the Signal: The Untold Story Behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of Blackberry’ and a film called ‘BlackBerry’ based on the story in more detail as well!
BY EMILY COURTNEY, UPPER SIXTH
NO MORE CAKE FOR QUEEN MARIE: The
Rise and Fall of Marie Antoinette
We’ve all heard of the famous French queen, Marie Antoinette, and without knowing much about her, most likely associate her with the popular slogan, “let them eat cake.” Despite her influential and stylish reign, she was disliked by her people and caused a lot of controversy. She was known for her huge and extravagant white wigs, elegant gowns, and for having many children, several of whom she adopted. But most importantly, many believe she was the cause for France's enormous financial crisis which drove many French citizens into poverty and consequently contributed to revolution in 1789.
Before I knew much about Marie, I thought she was iconic. Her appearance, whether it was the gowns and clothes she wore, or her supposed obsession with cake, both rendered admiration and timelessness. Unfortunately, for those who believe that the slogan “let them eat cake” is derived from Marie Antoinette, I must inform you that it is a myth. Allegedly, the phrase was born in response to someone talking about how the people of France couldn’t afford bread, and as a joke, the other unknown person said, “let them eat cake.” Most likely, this was pinned on Marie because of her love for luxury and her heavy spending on food and clothes.
Marie was born in Vienna, Austria as the youngest daughter to Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor. She later married King Louis XVI in replacement of her late sister and was forced to move to the French Palace of Versailles at 14. Due to the rivalry and hostility between Austria and France at the time, many of her decisions appeared to favour Austria, which caused a lot of political turmoil in France. Not only was she subtly betraying her reigning country, but her family was also investing an obscene amount of money in an abundance of personal items, such as clothes, food, and accessories. The queen was also framed for the infamous diamond necklace affair. This led to a nationwide controversy and caused riots against the monarchy, further destroying Marie’s reputation. It seemed to her people that Marie and Louis were lounging in their palace in Versailles, with plentiful food, fancy clothes, and luxury items while the rest of the country was suffering from poverty.
Because the citizens felt as though the monarchs weren’t making any efforts to help them, they took matters into their own hands. They stormed the palace and forced the king and queen to go to Paris to save the state of the people. The pressure put on Marie and Louis eventually became too much, and they attempted to flee the country. In doing so, they were caught and taken to separate prisons to await trial. After being held captive for a few months, and after her husband had already been executed, Marie was tried and sentenced to death by guillotine. Thus ends her tragic story in which she rose as an icon for women and fashion but fell with the nickname “Madame Deficit” for her indulgent and frivolous spending that sent France into revolution.
BY OLIVIA WEBER, LOWER SIXTH
MOVIE NIGHTS AND BLOCKBUSTER:
The Rise and Fall of Blockbuster
It's Friday night. The year is 1988. The location is Dallas, Texas. You are desperately hungry for a good slice of pizza. Friday night is date night, and this Friday is most definitely a night in. So naturally, there is only one solution…Blockbuster!
You get in your car, radio blasting, windows down, and pull up to order a slice of pizza. Next stop, the place of dreams, plot twists, and rental fees. You enter the doors of Blockbuster and realise you are in the place where it all began, 3 years before on October 19th. That is the date the exact store you are standing in was created.
At one point, this was the reality of a Friday or Saturday night for many Americans. Blockbuster provided a haven of thousands of movie options, as well as memories for thousands of Americans today. It was a video rental
store. If you wanted to rent a VHS movie, Blockbuster was the location to go. The appeal of it, evident from the huge success of the first store opened in Dallas, Texas in 1985, arguably came from the wide variety of movies they provided. Previously, video rental stores didn't have much more than 100 titles available. Blockbuster, on the other hand, had come up with an innovative barcode system which meant they could track 10,000 VHS movies per store.
Their founder David Cook was ready to make Blockbuster big. Following the store's initial success, he built a $6 million distribution centre which housed vast amounts of inventory. At this point, stores could easily be built, and the collection of movies at different stores could be tailored to the demographic of the area.
However, after giving one of his investors voting control in the company, disagreements ensued. Cook left his company, and control was assumed by Wayne Huizenga. Under Huizenga, Blockbuster peaked. Huizenga embarked upon an aggressive path of expansion, buying up other video rental franchises whilst creating new Blockbuster stores at a rate of around 1 store per day. By 1988, Blockbuster had secured its position as the number one video rental store in America. And then 1994 hit; the year that
Huizenga sold the company to Viacom. Only 2 years under Viacom and Blockbuster had lost half of its value. But this was only the beginning.
Blockbuster was now under the control of John Antioco. Meanwhile, Reed Hasting was busy creating Netflix. Officially founded in 1997, Netflix started off as a DVD mail rental service. Blockbuster's first serious competition had emerged, and the question was, could they rise to the occasion? Blockbuster was given the opportunity to buy Netflix for $50 million. An opportunity they passed up on, something they would most definitely regret in the years to come.
Netflix was innovative, creative, and more technologically advanced. All you had to do was make a list o
those movies would be sent toyourhousewithinaround one working day. Once you had watched a movie, you could mail it back and get another movie on your list in exchange. All of this was $20 a month with no late fee. On the other hand, the fee for returning a DVD late at Blockbuster was a muchresented aspect of the store.IttookBlockbuster
years to follow Netflix's example and create their own mail delivered DVD service. But they were too late to the game; by that point Netflix had alreadyacquiredmillionsofsubscribers.
2009 earnings make it clear that Blockbuster was being left in the dust as an old and outdated way of renting videos. Netflix had earnings of $116 million, while Blockbuster was facing a debt of $518 million. And from here it only went downhill; in 2010 Blockbuster was delisted from the New York StockExchange.
Blockbuster was one of the greats. It was the place for movie rentals, and was a core part of the lives of many Americans. However, its failure to innovate and adapt to new technological advancements meant that its fall was inevitable. And that was the end of another great. So, the next time you are watching Netflix at home, on a Friday pizza night, just remember howandwhytheywereabletogettothestatustheyhavetoday.Andthink oftheOGgreatthathadtobedefeated.
BY HELEN GWENDOLYN, LOWER SIXTH
POWER AND PARANOIA: The Reign of Emperor Nero
Emperor Nero's rise to power and eventual fall is one of the most infamous episodes in the Roman Empire's history. His increasingly catastrophic reign lasted from AD 54 to 68, and it was ridden with volatile, political, and personal situations, aggravated by his deeply dysfunctional relationship with his mother, Agrippina the younger.
Agrippina was a determined woman with imperial ties, who, in AD 37, gave birth to Nero. Hungry to secure her son a future of power, she married her uncle Claudius (the Emperor of Rome), and orchestrated Nero's adoption by Claudius in AD 50. Claudius mysteriously died soon after in AD 54, widely believed to have been caused by Agrippina poisoning him so that Nero could rise to the throne at 16.
In the early days of his reign, Nero was popular with the Romans. The arts flourished under his touch and Rome experienced a period of peace and prosperity. Nero was tutored by Seneca, who guided Nero towards decisions which portrayed him as kind and approachable. However, during this period Nero was becoming increasingly influenced by his Agrippina, and, as his power and age grew, he became tired of his mother’s control. Agrippina’s ambitions for power caused her to manipulate Nero and use him as her political puppet, envisioning herself as ruling through him. Their relationship became toxic and hostile. Nero resented her dominance over his political position and even more so found himself infuriated with her disapproval of his romantic interests. His affair with Poppaea Sabina deepened the rift between them, and in AD 55 he finally ordered for her to be forcefully removed from the imperial palace. When Agrippina realised, she became close with Nero’s brother, Brittanicus, thereby shifting her focus towards him becoming a serious threat to Nero's power. Not unlike the way Claudius died, Brittanicus was suspectedly poisoned at one of Nero’s dinner parties. This was an unsurprising removal of that threat which drove Nero into a state of paranoia. Such was the level of his disturbance that he made a number of attempts to kill his mother, the first of which involved a complicated ploy to construe her death as a tragic boat accident. He went to great lengths, inviting her to a festival with an amicable facade, then attempting to use the specially crafted boat he sent her back on to collapse, sink, an
therefore kill her. The mechanism broke and Agrippina managed to stay alive. However, she now held great suspicion of Nero, and wanted to expose him. In his next futile and desperate attempt, Nero arranged for her ceiling to collapse at night; this also failed for unknown reasons. Perhaps someone had warned Agrippina.
Finally, riddled with anxiety and fear, Nero hired an accomplice who successfully murdered Agrippina. Simultaneously, Nero crafted a story of her suicide after her assassination attempt of Nero was revealed. The Romans suspiciously accepted this story, and moved on, whilst Nero married the popular Roman, Octavia. Nero’s never-ending dissatisfaction led to Octavia’s exile, with his selfish lies of her infidelity to him justifying his cruelty and mistreatment toward her.
Swiftly moving on with no remorse, Nero's hedonism led him to promote Poppaea’s husband, sending him far away to govern Portugal. He then proceeded to marry Poppaea, having set his sights on her early after (or even during) his marriage to Octavia. Nero's steady psychological degradation allowed for an increasing number of violent and disturbing events to be discovered, including his abuse of Papea, killing both herself and his heir.
The accumulation of Nero's personal catastrophes resulted in many casualties, however arguably the most devastating was the Great fire of Rome, on the 18th of July 64 AD. It lasted for 6 days and destroyed everything in its path. Rumours circulated of Nero himself starting it, such as by Tacitus, a Roman historian, though of these we cannot be sure which- if any- are truthful. Escaping blame, Nero claimed the fire was of divine punishment to the Christians (an emerging religion in Rome), and he ordered a bloody persecution which greatly tarnished his reputation.
During this tragic time the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred on the Vatican hill. Nero’s misrule and greed led to widespread dissatisfaction, including raising taxes in order to fund the construction of his architectural vision, an opulent private palace (The Domus Aurea). His love for Greek culture served as an area of discomfort for the Romans, yet an oblivious Nero took part in the AD 67 Olympic Games. He added to his personal and political agenda with a plethora of falsely won titles in
chariot racing (his personal favourite), and new events like singing, poetry, and plays, which he himself added.
By AD 65 his luxurious life had bankrupted Rome, and the people’s hostility had grown towards their selfish emperor. Roman senator Gaius Calpurnius Piso (along with Nero’s ex-tutor Seneca) was the first to attempt a conspiracy against Nero. However, after being discovered, they were ordered to commit suicide. AD 68 brought two more governors rising up in revolt, both of whom were met with Nero's army. By this point, Rome had fallen into chaos, people were abandoning the empire, and the senate had declared Nero a public enemy. Fleeing from Rome in disguise, Nero committed a panicked suicide on the 9th of June AD 68, and so marked the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. His former palace was redeveloped into what is now the colosseum!
The once ‘great’ Nero’s rule started with promise, yet his inability to manage power, his paranoia, and his brutal methods of retaining control led to his downfall. Nero’s story has been mirrored throughout history, through characters such as Macbeth, demonstrating a warning of unchecked ambition, manipulation, and the corrosive power of personal conflict.
BY HERMIONE BANKS ECCLESTON, YEAR 11
GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD: The
pardon of Richard Nixon and Watergate
Resignation: a leader’s admission of failure. In the UK, it has become common practice for disgraced politicians to resign the seat of Prime Minister, most recently with a cabbage outliving Liz Truss’s tenure. However, in the US, there has only ever been one President to resign: Richard Nixon.
Nixon’s resignation arose amidst his impeachment over the Watergate scandal. This was a scandal that arose from the discovery that 5 people linked to the Nixon administration had broken into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters to plant illegal bugs. Following the release of the ‘Smoking Gun’ tape, a tape from the Oval Office in which Nixon clearly incriminated himself as having awareness of the Watergate burglary, Nixon found that his impeachment foretold consequences far worse if he held onto the presidency. However, even upon his resignation, he
could still be subject to serious criminal and legal charges such as obstruction of justice. His resignation meant Vice President Gerald Ford automatically became President, and soon after, pardoned Nixon for all of his crimes. This pardon was heavily contentious considering the precedent it could set for Presidents being free to act unlawfully without fear of prosecution, and the ultimate power this would grant them. So why did Ford pardon and was he right to?
Ford’s motivation for the pardon consisted of 3 primary reasons: sympathy, moving forward, and a desire for Nixon to admit fault.
Ford’s decision was certainly influenced by his friendship with the Nixons, however not to the extent that the general public assumed at the time. Ford has expressed frequently since that while he did consider the cruelty of a man sick with phlebitis, a disease that would be fatal
without surgery. He referred to the fate of the Nixon family as an ‘American tragedy’ in the speech where he granted the pardon. However, while many believed that Nixon’s resignation was contingent on Ford granting him a pardon, Ford directly denies this in his autobiography. He instead asserts that this was a possibility raised to him by Nixon’s Chief of Staff, but it was one Ford refused to entertain.
Ford also believed that in accepting the pardon, Nixon was admitting guilt. For years after he left the White House, Ford carried a segment of Burdick v United States, a Supreme Court ruling that states a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt. While Nixon did reject a statement of contrition, Ford believed that his acceptance of the pardon demonstrated his regret.
Watergate had dominated news cycles for 2 years by this point, a fact which formed the primary reason why Ford decided to pardon. Confidence in the US government had become incredibly low due to the shock caused by the scandal. This was so extreme that a nationwide poll found that 57% of the general public believed Watergate was the worst scandal in American history. The disillusionment ofthegeneralpublicwasharmfulinmanyways,butmostparticularlydue to what it meant for market sentiment. As Nixon had delinked the dollar fromgoldduringhispresidency,thedollarwasincrediblyvulnerable.The lossofconfidenceledtoseveredepreciationofthedollar,which,coupled withthequestionableeconomicdecisionsoftheNixonadministration,left the Ford administration with the task of remedying the dire economic legacylefttothem.Fordconcludedthatatrialforaformerpresidentin declininghealthwouldonlykeepthememoryofWatergatealive,andthus both markets and voters would remain negative. In this sense, a pardon wasthefastestwaytoconcludethischapterinAmericanhistorywithout furtherdamagetoboththeeconomyandFord’sre-electioncampaign.As Fordremarked,thescandal“couldgoonandonandon,orsomeonemust writetheendtoit.IhaveconcludedthatonlyIcandothat,andifIcan,I must."
At the time, Ford’s pardon was received as a corrupt deal between 2 friends,andthuswaswidelydisavowed.Followingthepardon,hisapproval ratingdroppedfrom71%to50%,andthepardonwasseentobethe
reason for the failure of his re-election campaign. It is only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that we can see the sense in the decision. The continuation of Nixon’s prosecution would have kept the scandal alive for much longer, to the point of devastating effects upon trust in the government and the economy. It was common knowledge that the decision would be unpopular, and it was likely assumed that Ford’s presidency would not recover from the public’s perception. However, Ford knew the only way out was to forgive, a patriotic act that he was later awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for.
BY RANIA SINGH, UPPER SIXTH
THE INFLUENCE OF THE MEDICI: How one family shaped the Renaissance
“The Medicis” is probably a name you have heard mentioned in conversations regarding the Arts and the flourishing of the Renaissance movement in Europe, largely due to the family’s support of architects,
later continued by Lorenzo de’ Medici, who was known for his love of the arts and humanism. His major support of Renaissance artists allowed them to create some of their most important works, such as Michelangelo’s ‘David’ and Botticelli’s ‘The Birth of Venus’. The Medicis also improved people’s education on the Arts and humanities: in the early 1460s, Cosimo il Vecchio founded Florence’s Platonic Academy. This allowed the literary and artistic culture of Florence to be experienced by more of its citizens, as well as increasing the influence of science, religion and art throughout Europe. The popular tourist attraction of the Uffizi Gallery was also commissioned by Cosimo I de’ Medici (who came after Cosimo il Vecchio), and is nowadays one of the most painters, and musicians alike. However, the family also made a significant contribution to the growth of the economy, not only in Italy but in Europe as well. The Medici Family rose to power in the early 14th century. They helped to transform Florence into a cultural and financial hub throughout the development of the Renaissance period. Though their legacy lasted a long time, the family’s influence in Florence began wavering in the late 15th century, and their dynasty eventually came to an end in 1737.
Often described as the “patrons of the Arts”, the Medicis’ role in shaping the course of Renaissance history was significant. Throughout his life, Cosimo de’ Medici, also known as Cosimo il Vecchio (who first established the Medici Family as effective rulers of Florence), funded numerous works. These included many of Donatello’s marble and bronze sculptures, as well as Fillippo Brunelleschi’s famous dome in the Florence Cathedral. This was
important museums in all of Italy. It holds a myriad of masterpieces layed out in chronological order from the 13th to 18th centuries, and represents the heart of the Italian Renaissance.
The Medicis not only transformed Florence culturally, but also economically. The progress they made in banking and the driving of economic growth established Florence as a leading financial centre in Europe. The Medici family’s rise to power can be partially explained by the creation of the Medici Bank in 1397, founded by Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici. Through this bank, the Medicis introduced new banking methods
which revolutionised financial accounting, such as double-entry bookkeeping. This is a system where each financial transaction is recorded and tracked in a minimum of two accounts. This improvement added security to financial transactions and allowed the Medici Bank to expand across Europe, reaching major cities like London and Bruges. The bank rapidly became one of Europe’s most successful. The Medici Bank further helped the family to improve their power and political influence in Florencesincetheyusedittomake profitableallianceswithmembersoftheCatholicChurch,forinstanceby providing loans to Popes and European monarchs. Through the use of funding, the Medici family was able to advance large-scale public work projectsinFlorence,generatingjobsandencouragingeconomicgrowth.As aresult,thefamily’swealthandinfluencewasvitalinturningFlorenceinto acentreofinnovation,cultureandfinancialprosperity.
Although the Medici’s control and authority was felt most powerfully in Florence,theirimpactreachedfurtherintoEuropebytheendofthe14th century.ThroughtheuseoftheMediciBank,ideasgeneratedbythefamily spread to other countries, helping them to modernise and improve their own economies and banking networks. The Medici Family gained an increasinglyamountofglobalinfluenceastheycontinuedtoformalliances withpowerfulEuropeanfamilies.Thiswasthroughmarriagesandfinancial contracts. It eventually helped to spread the Renaissance movement to placessuchasFranceandEngland,therebychangingthewaythatpeople thought about art and literature, not only economics. When two Medicis became Popes (Pope Leo X and Pope Clement VII), they continued to support the Arts. This extended the family’s influence to other parts of Italy, for example in Rome, where works like Raphael’s ‘Frescoes’ and St. Peter’s‘Basilica’weresooncommissioned.
Mid-15th century Florence was under the control of Lorenzo de’ Medici; hispowerwassecureandtheMedicifamily’sinfluencewasstrongerthan
ever. Unfortunately, with Lorenzo’s death in 1492, the Medici family began to fall. Lorenzo’s son, Piero de’ Medici, attempted to take his father’s place, but was not as skilled as him in politics. He failed to maintain power when, in 1494, he was forced to flee Florence after a French invasion of Italy. Though the Medicis returned from exile in 1512 with the help of the Catholic Church, the family still struggled to maintain control due to political instability and the growing power of other European countries. Cosimo I de’ Medici became Duke of Florence in 1537, but the Medici rule became more authoritarian and no longer as effective. The Medici leadership was weakening. Gian Gastone de’ Medici, the last male heir of the family, died in 1737, marking the end of the Medici dynasty and their control over Florence. Their decline and fall were partially caused by some economic struggles during the 17th century, as well as their absence from Florence between the years 1494-1512, where other people grappled for the power they had left behind due to their exile. Though their reign ended long ago, the Medici family’s influence on economics, art, and history is still undeniable today.
BY VITTORIA DI RIENZO, YEAR 11
'TOO BIG TO FAIL': The Collapse of Lehman Brothers
In 1844, a man boarded a boat from Germany which was bound for the USA, specifically Montgomery, Alabama. He had hopes and dreams of a more prosperous future, soon opening a general store. This man was Henry Lehman. And so began one of the most powerful global financial firms in history. But let’s skip forward to September 15 in 2008, more than 100 years later: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy. So how did this dominant and formidable company fall from the global financial stage, and why so dramatically?
Let’s begin by looking at the history. After Henry Lehman set up his store in 1844, he was joined by his brothers, Mayer and Emanuel, 6 years later. During the 1850s, the brothers changed to the cotton market, a leading industry at the time. They connected cotton growers in the south with textile mill owners in the north, charging a small fee for this service. However, in 1855, Henry Lehman died aged only 33 from yellow fever, leaving Mayer and Emanuel to take control of the company. Soon after, in 1858, the brothers moved to New York, the home of cotton and commodity trading. Lehman Brothers continued to grow and develop, moving with the times to different markets and services. In 1906, they gained partnerships
with Goldman Sachs and began unwriting- taking on financial risk for a fee- for large companies such as F.W Woolworths and Macy’s. They continued this rapid growth until the 1990s, when the GlassSteagall Act was repealed. This was a law forbidding companies to be involved with both commercial and investment banking services. Without this law, Lehman Brothers was able to provide both services, rapidly increasing their funds. They continued to grow at an extremely high rate until their eventual downfall in 2008.
So why did Lehman Brothers growth rate suddenly drop and cause them to lose such large sums of money, eventually leading to the company filing for bankruptcy? While there are many reasons, the most important is their involvement in MBS, especially subprime mortgages, excessive leverage, over-reliance on short-term funding/ liquidity, and lack of government bailout.
MBS stands for mortgage-backed securities and is defined as a bundle of
loans which investors purchase so that they can make money on the interest of the loan. When someone buys a home, you get a loan (a mortgage). Banks package many of these loans together to make mortgagebacked securities and an investment firm can purchase different levels of these MBSs, from high risk to low risk. A subprime mortgage is a high-risk MBS as they are loans for people with poor credit. They are risky as the person with the loan may not pay back, and so it will default. However, the returns you could get are very high as the interest rates on these mortgages are high. In 2007, the housing market collapsed, causing many buyers to default on their mortgages because their houses now cost less than the mortgage. Usually this isn’t a problem as banks can cover these losses by selling the houses. However, due to the collapse of the housing markets, these houses now cost significantly less than before, therefore meaning banks were unable to cover the losses. Lehman Brothers invested heavily in subprime mortgages, meaning that, when the housing market collapsed, they lost huge sums of money.
Another significant reason leading to the downfall of Lehman Brothers was excessive leverage. The definition of ‘leverage’ is the amount of borrowed capital a company has. Lehman Brothers had excessive leverage, meaning that they owned very little in comparison to their borrowed money. The firm had a leverage of 30:1, meaning that, for every $1 they own, they would have borrowed $30. Having as high of a leverage as this is very risky but can have numerous benefits if it goes well. The more you put into an investment, the more money you get out of it. Therefore, Lehman Brothers borrowed lots of money so they could get a high return on it, and this capital could cover the cost of the borrowing. However, if assets drop by only a little, they could lose all their potential gains. For example, Lehman leverage of 30:1 would mean that if assets drop as little as 3.33%, they would lose all their equity (because 3.33% of $30 is $1). In addition, the company would still owe all the money they borrowed. This issue arose when Lehman’s MBS lost value, and so they began owing much more money and were left vulnerable.
Lehman’s issues with liquidity also contributed to the issue of excessive leverage. Lehman Brothers relied mainly on short term loans over long term. A short-term loan is a loan that needs to be paid back within days or weeks. Lehman Brothers often used these to fund long-term investments (MBS) and due to this, Lehman often needed to renew or roll-over the short-term loans so they could pay later. This worked as long as lenders
were willing to lend money. However, when the financial crisis hit, Lehman’s investments started to fall and were worth less, leading lenders to be nervous about whether Lehman could repay the loan. Lenders lost confidence and didn’t lend the money, leading to a liquidity crisis (where companies don’t have enough immediate capital to pay back the loans). Essentially, Lehman Brothers ran out of cash, even though they had plenty of assets.
The final significant reason the Lehman Brothers had to eventually file for bankruptcy was the lack of government bailout. When large financial firms like Lehman Brothers are close to declaring bankruptcy, governments can help the firm and provide capital to keep the financial situation under control. However, the government decided not to help Lehman Brothers for 2 main reasons: moral concerns and the financial system surviving. The government
had many moral concerns as they worried that if they bailed out a failing company, other companies would also take on excessive risk, believing they would be also saved. The US government believed this would send the wrong idea and encourage irresponsible behaviour. Secondly, the government believed that the financial system could withstand the collapse of Lehman Brothers. However, they severely underestimated how interconnected Lehman was with other companies, meaning that because Lehman collapsed, other companies were deeply impacted. So, because the government did not support Lehman Brothers, they collapsed.
On the 15th of September 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. Their catastrophic collapse was a contributing factor to the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, and they disappeared from the financial world. We can learn many things from this collapse, but most importantly, how dangerous poor risk management can be. It was Lehman’s poor risk management that caused the collapse- they took on too much risk in MBS and their leverage and, in addition, they failed to diversify their investments adequately. This meant that, when they failed, all parts of the company collapsed. So, if Lehman Brothers had assessed the risk properly, and acted sooner, this great economic giant would still exist and thrive in the financial world today.
BY OLIVIA TYLER, YEAR 11
THE FRENCH MONARCHY: From Domination to Decapitation
The story of the French monarchy is one to remember. For centuries, kings of France enjoyed wealth, privilege, and a seemingly untouchable status. However, in just a few years, they went from being in charge of an empire to being put to death by guillotine.
For hundreds of years, the French monarchy was the ultimate symbol of power and luxury. Kings ruled by the divine right, a doctrine stating that Kings derived their authority from God himself, rather than from the people, and they made sure everyone knew it. The peak figure for this royal domination was Louis XIV, known as the “Sun King”, who lived a lavish lifestyle in the Palace of Versailles. Louis XIV embodied the height of royal power, famously declaring “I am the state.” And for a while, it was believed to be so.
Louis XIV’s successors, Louis XV and eventually Louis XVI, inherited all his grandeur. However, this all came with a large sum of inherited debt (over 2 billion livres). While the parties and palaces continued, cracks in the system began to manifest. France’s involvement in expensive wars, like the American Revolution, drained royal savings. Common people began to wonder why they were paying so much while the bourgeoisie ate cake.
By the time Louis XVI took to the throne, matters had escalated beyond control.Theeconomywasinshambles, food was scarce, and the people were furious about their lack of representation in the government. As anattempttomendthesituation,Louis XVIcalledanEstates-Generalin1789,a gathering of representatives from all three social classes. Unfortunately for him, this didn't go as planned. Instead of coming together in collaboration to save the monarchy, the Third Estate, representingthecommonpeople,could no longer tolerate the way in which they were being treated. They broke away, forming the National Assembly anddeclaringthatpowershouldbelong to the people, not just a guy in a wig wearingacrown.TheRevolutionhad now begun and the king, once seen as an untouchable figure, quickly became more of a figurehead than a ruler.
In an unexpected turn of events, the people who had once revered their
king began calling for his head. Louis XVI, who had never truly figured out how to navigate the revolutionary chaos, tried to flee with his family in 1791. This idea backfired as the attempt was viewed as treason, only escalating matters further.
In 1792, the monarchy was officially abolished, and in December 1792, Louis XVI was placed on trial for treason. The verdict being his ultimate demise. The king, who once commanded the most powerful country in Europe, was, in January 1793, marched to the guillotine and executed in front of a crowd of cheering revolutionaries. His wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, met the same fate not long after. The once great monarchy, which had dominated for centuries, had fallen.
The French monarchy’s growth and downfall is a classic example of too much power and too little awareness. Whilst Louis XIV’s reign may have appeared impressive, by the time Louis XVI ascended to the throne, the monarchy had become increasingly disconnectedfromtheharshrealitiesfacingtheirnation.Whiletheroyal familywaslivinginluxury,theirpeoplewerestrugglingtosurvive,going toextremestopreservetheirrightsanddignity.Therevolutionaries wantedmorethanreforms;theywantedthemonarchygoneand,inthe end,theygottheirwish.TheFrenchRevolutionshowedtheworldthat eventhegreatestcanfall.Themonarchy,onceasymbolofuntouchable power,wastorndownbytheverypeopleithadruledoverforsolong.The riseandfalloftheFrenchmonarchyisn'tjustalessoninhistory,buta reminderthatpower,nomatterhowgrand,isneverpermanent.Especially whenyouignoretheangrymobatyourgates.
BY LIA MOSKOV, YEAR 11
HOW ECONOMIC STAGNATION BROUGHT DOWN THE SOVIET UNION: The Collapse
of a Superpower
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 arose due to a number of factors, ultimately leading to the Soviet Union’s demise. While many factors played a role in this dissolution, the most significant was the economic stagnation, which became a primary catalyst to the destruction of the Soviet Union. The combination of an inefficient centralised economy alongside the external pressures placed upon the Soviet Union, which was trying to create its own internal reforms, rendered the system unsustainable and eventually led to its collapse.
The economic model of the Soviet Union was designed to enforce a centralised economy via central planning. This meant the state could dictate the industry, production, supply, and consumption of products made. While the aim of this system was to eliminate any inequalities rooted within a capitalist economy, this method of centralised planning often led to corruption and major inefficiencies. It also led to a lack of innovation, due to the limited incentives and a movement of innovative businessmen to other countries, where capitalist systems would allow them to profit off of the success of their goods. By the 1970s, the limitations of the USSR’s economic system became more apparent. The emphasis on heavy industry and the military left production of consumer goods lacking. This reduced citizens’ quality of life as everyday goods became scarce, further declining the people’s belief in their government and fostering discontent.
However, economic stagnation became more striking in the 1980s, with massive declines in growth rates to almost zero by the end of the decade. Furthermore, the industrial infrastructure in the Soviet Union was becoming dated and it was increasingly apparent that the USSR was not equipped to compete with the West in terms of technological
advancement. While the period of economic stagnation worsened, the government's attempt to mitigate the situation by increasing the level of central control may have even worsened the rate of economic decline.
As the economic situation continued to worsen, and the living conditions in the Soviet Union continued to deteriorate, the public’s disillusionment grew proportionally with it. There were demands for better living conditions, more political freedom, and surges of nationalism through the Baltic states and other areas. Cries for independence were just starting to be heard. This provided a pivotal weakening force from within the Soviet Union and, as these internal pressures continued to grow, external pressures started to play a significant role. The arms race during the Cold War placed extreme strain upon the USSR, diverting further resources from the people and the economy, and therefore worsening the level of economic stagnation.
In the end, by 1991, the effects of the failed reforms, economic stagnation, and rising content began to accumulate. It culminated into a major crisis which the Soviet government was not equipped to deal with. Within months, the Baltic States began to declare independence and eventually led to the Soviet Union officially dissolving in December 1991.
While many factors played a role in the fall of the Soviet Union, economic stagnation is the key factor which drove the problems that undermined the very foundation of the state. The inflexibility of the state’s economy, along with its inability to properly reform or withstand external pressures, created the perfect conditions for the collapse of one of the greatest superpowers in history.
BY MAGALI PASHIGIAN, LOWER SIXTH
AMBITION: A Gift Or A Curse For Napoleon Bonaparte?
People are often drawn to dramatic stories of tragedy and defeat, rather than of uninterrupted success. There is a part of us that finds the stellar accomplishments of celebrities both surreal and boring, while it is inherently captivating to hear stories of ruin, ascent, and descent of powerful people. Napoleon Bonaparte is the epitome of this dynamic duality. He was the leader of an empire, rising like a phoenix from the ashes of post-revolutionary France. He provided stability for a country stripped of its dignity by the Reign of Terror. He was both a visionary, a tyrant, a genius, and a dictator. Yet, like Icarus, he seemed to eventually ‘fly too close to the sun’, leading to his spectacular downfall.
To dissect Napoleon’s downfall, it is first essential to understand what makes a good, no, great leader in the first place. Is it rooted in money, birthright, nobility? Or intellect, likeability, charisma? Or perhaps pure ambition and presence set leaders apart? Consider the case of Alexander the Great one of history’s most influential and ambitious leaders. Though he lacked wealth and political power early on, his immense charisma, vision, and relentless ambition enabled him to forge one of the largest empires in the ancient world. So, an unlikely rise to power has been seen before. Napoleon Bonaparte shared most of Alexander’s qualities, most importantly the intense ambition. To understand Napoleon’s journey, we must explore the reason for both his greatness and his ruin: ambition.
ACT I: SETTING THE SCENE
Napoleon Bonaparte came from a noble family in Corsica. When his father earned him a place at the Collège d’Autun, it was the first time this young boy set foot in Paris. Relatively quickly, the small boy with large dreams grew into Napoleon Bonaparte.
He excelled in the military academy of Brienne, yet, before the Revolution, he went generally unnoticed. Although Bonaparte took no part in the Revolution itself, he voiced his support. Fighting counter-revolutionaries significantly helped his career. It was only during the Reign of Terror, which began in 1793, that he rose through the ranks, determined to make a name for himself and gain connections. One such connection,
Robespierre’s brother, Augustin, almost caused his assassination by association when the Directory became the leading power in France.
Note: To call Napoleon’s successes luck would be a complete understatement, yet there was always an element of chance in each of Bonaparte’s schemes. His early victories were seldom the sole work of his command, but the image that he drew around himself made him appear godly. In reality, he merely took advantage of advantageous situations.
The First Italian Campaign was where he truly stood out from the crowd. Here was an inexperienced boy, a child green in the acts of war, pushing back the Austrians. Records of malnourished and under equipped soldiers rallying to a common cause under Napoleon created an image of invincibility around him. His popularity grew and, some victories later, the Directory came to see a threat in him. The risks he took inspired his ranks, although decisions were almost catastrophic, including his ignorance of weather, which almost completely lost him his Egyptian and Syrian Campaigns. But Napoleon’s self-advertising was powerful, leading to his misgivings being forgotten, for the time being.
When Napoleon gained enough power and support to rise to Emperor, the turbulence of the Directory gave the French people an easy decision to make. Would they rally behind a crumbling government or appeal to the great military power that was Napoleon Bonaparte? To the people of France, there was no real choice. Charisma would prevail. After the Coup of Brumaire, the Consulate was created, with the First Consul, the one and only Bonaparte, as ruler.
Napoleon became the head of an empire at 30 years old due to the public need for a steady, nationalistic leader. This shows how ambition will drive you anywhere; Napoleon went from an inexperienced soldier to master of France, driven by the want to prove himself. But would being the head of the Napoleonic Empire be the foundation for further success or the key to losing more than he bargained for?
ACT 2: THE TURNING POINT
It took Napoleon 7 years to make his first costly mistake since rising to power in 1799. These were 7 years of reform for France, 7 years of being one of the most powerful nations. At this time, Napoleon was engaging in warfare with almost all of Europe in order to “reaffirm his supremacy” over European nations.
In 1806, he introduced the Continental System. This was a blockade designed to keep England from trading with mainland Europe under French control (think of it as an imposed, old-fashioned Brexit). Although it was meant to make the French Empire be self-sufficient, it instead gave the British Navy the chance to block supplies to European countries. This left the French economy vulnerable. This is one of the first examples of Napoleon’s blinding faith in himself, against better judgement.
By 1812, Napoleon had become brash and reckless with his strategies, disregarding his common sense. He decided to attack Russia.Theaimofthis attack was to weaken trade between England andothercountries,as well as regain Poland fromRussianinfluence. Thisinvasion,whichwas supposed to be quick and easy, became a prolongednightmarefor the French troops. It seemsridiculoustoeven thinkthatattackingsuchalargenationwhenalreadyspreadsothinlyover Europewouldbeagoodidea.Anylessambitiousleaderwouldseethe lossestocomeasdetrimentaltotheirarmynumbers,yetalas,thiswas Napoleon.
TheRussianmilitaryshouldnothavebeenunderestimated.Theirscorched earthpolicy,coupledwiththewinteryconditionsandcovertguerilla tacticsmadetheFrenchturnback.TheyarrivedbackfromRussiaasolemn 10,000outof600,000.Thisfailureandreturnemptyhandedreinstated thelossofmoralefortheFrenchpeople,whowerealreadybeginningto form rebellions under Napoleon’s loose governance and instability. CoupledwithNapoleon’sitchtoconquerasmuchofEuropeaspossible, thisbroughtaboutthefinalnailinhiscoffin.Theinabilitytomakestable political alliances helped coalitions to grow against this great ruler, culminatingintheBattleofWaterloowhichwasallbutlostbeforeithad evenstarted.
Napoleon’s ambition could be called a double-edged sword; it was incredibly helpful on the road to control, but once he got there, he found it hard to be measured and decisive.
In the end, Napoleon will always be remembered as a great leader, with his military tactics and strategies renowned for generations after his death. His downfall is commonly referenced nowadays, his attack on Russia (seen as silly and blatantly absurd) may be more famous than his wins. But was his fame not also mere fortune? One of Napoleon’s greatest hidden strengths was his ability to capitalise on his winnings and make the most of every situation, big or small. The propaganda surrounding Napoleon was integral to his campaign and allowed him to maintain an effective image of himself. However, as time passed, Bonaparte made the dreadful mistake of believing his own fabrications, thinking his ambition was the only thing necessary to defeat an unworthy cause, believing wholeheartedly in his invincibility.
Many modern historians believe that Napoleon is still regarded as a leader to learn from, since (as the Spanish philosopher George Santayana wisely put) “those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it”.
BY DIANA EVSEEV, YEAR 11
THE EBAY, AMAZON AND PAYPAL OF LATIN AMERICA:
“There
really isn’t a company that has the degree of reach and entrenchment in the retail ecosystem” - Sean
Dunlop
Founded in 1999, Mercado Libre is now the largest ecommerce and payments ecosystem in the whole of South America. Its central business model revolves around connecting buyers and sellers and in turn charging commissions to registered vendors which vary between 8 and 20%. MercadoLibre has democratised commerce in Latin America by providing continent-wide access to a huge market place. This has encouraged smaller businesses and individuals to join, promote and sell their products alongside larger companies.
Initially, many were sceptical about the feasibility of the concept due to the lack of trust in ecommerce in Latin America during this period as there was a slow legal framework to protect buyers from scams. This scepticism was furthered by the generally volatile political environment in South America and its limited transport infrastructure. However, by developing its logistics infrastructure, through warehouses anddistributioncentres,thefirmwasabletoefficientlybypasstransport limitations to make for a uniform, centralised delivery service and eventually offer free shipping. The company was also able to gain credibilityandtrustfrompeoplebyassuringusersrefundsiftheywere defrauded.
Over time, MercadoLibre has developed into an innovative and multifaceted firm by successfully integrating payments, shipping and commerce.Withinthepaymentsarmitprovidesavarietyoffinancial services:whetheritbethroughitsownpaymentsystem,MercadoPagoor evenitsownshippingservice,MercadoEnvios.Assuch,MercadoPago (equivalenttoApplePay)worksasavirtualwalletallowinguserstoeasily transferpaymentsthroughmediumssuchasQRcodesandlinksoremail. Thispaymentsystemalsoofferstheabilityformerchants,consumersand usersingeneraltoaccesscredit,providingthenecessarycapitalforthem to prosper. Furthermore as inflation reached a staggering 211% in Argentinabytheendof2023,thisserviceactedasahedgeagainstalossin consumerpurchasingpowerbyprovidingthemwiththeoptiontoinvestin safecentralbankinstruments-minimisingthelossofvalueofdepositsin Argentinepesos.
These fintech extensions of MercadoLibre are one of the tools that have allowed it to diversify itself and fend off other rival companies both in and outside Latin America such as Amazon and Submarino. In addition, the company has also adjusted and specialised for local delivery systems to provide a more granular and efficient transport service than other ecommerce platforms. To achieve this, MercadoLibres has spent huge sums of money in constructing a network of warehouses containing state of the art machines to sort packages coupled with a range of vehicles to complete deliveries. For example, in the city of Buenos Aires the company offers ‘Mercadoenvíos Flex’ in which independent people use their own vehicles including motorcycles or bicycles to distribute packages in under two hours. On the other hand, Amazon suffers from a greater dependence on more large-scale and traditional delivery systems and so struggles to achieve same day deliveries.
In the future, MercadoLibres hopes to extend its fintech services to be a universal financial solution such as offering the ability to purchase bonds, equity and life insurance. Furthermore, Javier Milei’s, a self-declared anarcho-capitalist, victory in this year's presidential elections yields a hopeful future for the company as his libertarian policies will offer greater freedom and flexibility for firms.
MercadoLibre has effectively overcome the hurdles of creating an e-commerce platform in South America and thus rightfully claimed its title as one of the most influential and prevalent online marketplaces in the region. By using its enormous volumes of sales and traffic, the firm has built upon its financial services and continues to find ancillary niches to furtheritsexpansionandtriumphovertheLatinAmericaneconomy.
BY LOTTIE GALPERIN, UPPER SIXTH
A SISYPHEAN TASK:
The Trials of the Greek Royal Family
The trials of the Greek royal family
When people think of Greece, often images of philosophers, the Parthenon and democratic ideals come to mind, but few realise that Greece once had a royal family that permeated the heart of its modern history. Fewer recognise that the late Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was born on a dining table in a palace in Corfu, as a prince of both Greece and Denmark. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, Greece was a constitutional monarchy, shaped by a dynasty that was influenced by foreign powers. This article delves into the lesser known story of the Greek monarchy, highlighting the critical events and factors that led to its ultimate downfall.
The Greek War of Independence (1821-1830)
After 400 years of gruelling Ottoman rule, the Greek war of independence began in 1821. Inspired by the Age of Enlightenment and nationalist
movements sweeping through Europe, it was supported by Philhellines (distinguished Greeksandforeignersalikewho provided political support and funds)andhadcrucialeconomic and military assistance from European powers such as Britain, France, and Russia. The war secured Greece’s independence and position as a state with full sovereign rights by1830.
The postwar period and foreign influence
Although Greece had achieved long awaited independence, it was left reeling from Ottoman rule. The early years of the new state were marked by political instability, with the provisional government grasping at power that was also being contested by revolutionary leaders, warlords, and political figures alike. Greece was plunged further into chaos after its first governor, Ioannis Kapodistrias, was assassinated in 1831.
Kapodistrias had formed strained diplomatic relations with many countries that wanted to establish their dominance over the Mediterranean Sea. In addition, Britain had encouraged internal confrontations because they believed that Greece was a Russian ally. Foreign powers feared that Kapodistrias was going to redistribute the rights of the reclaimed Greek land by giving it to the peasants, which was viewed as collateral due to their financial support during the revolution. However, it remains unclear if the assassination was imposed through foreign influence, or provoked by Kapodistrias’ imprisonment of Petrompei Mavromihalis, who had started a mutiny in Mani.
The establishment of the Monarchy
The London Protocol of 1832 was a climactic agreement signed by Britain, France, and Russia. It officially established Greece as an independent kingdom and laid out conditions for its governance. This included the definition of Greece’s northern borders, as well as the creation of loans that Greece had to take out in order to stabilise its economy. The powers agreed to provide financial support as long as there was an appointment of a foreign monarch. For this, the powers chose the young and neutral Prince Otto of Bavaria to prevent internal Greek factions from gaining dominance. Otto’s government was expected to repay the loans, leading Greece into a period of debt dependence on foreign powers.
Otto’s early reign was marred by discontent. He ruled as an absolute monarch, relying on his foreign advisors, and he did not consult the country’s political elite. This tension was further exacerbated by the fact that Otto had little understanding of Greek culture, politics, or language. Another point of contention was his Catholic faith in a predominantly Orthodox Christian country. This made it harder for the majority of the Greek people to accept him as their ruler, as religion was central to Greek identity, particularly after centuries of the Christian religion being repressed by Ottoman rule. Finally, the King’s failure to produce an heir created uncertainty about the future of the monarchy, as there was no clear line of succession. The lack of continuity meant Otto struggled to maintain the support of the Greek people.
The reign of King George I (1863-1913)
King Otto was deposed in 1862, and, once again, the great powers selected Denmark became King George I of Greece in
1863, ushering in a new Greek dynasty. George’s reign of almost 50 years (the longest in modern Greek history) was marked by territorial gains. His diplomatic skills and Greece’s strategic alliances with Britain, France, and Russia helped Greece to reacquire the Ionian Islands peacefully.
However, Greece was not always successful in its territorial ambitions; it was defeated in the Greco-Turkish war of 1897. The war lasted just 30 days due to the poor preparation and disorganisation of the Greek army, who were no match to the better equipped Turkish army. The Greek public, initially enthusiastic about the war (as Greece was to reacquire Crete, which had a significant Greek population), turned against the monarchy and government, feeling humiliated and directly responsible for the defeat, many Greeks blamed the monarchy for the lack of preparation in the Greek army. They began to be suspicious of
King George’s close relations with foreign powers, doubting his intentions.
However, King George and the Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos (the leader of the Greek national liberation movement) were united in their belief that Greece required a strong army after the humiliating defeat. Consequently, Greece ordered new ships for their navy. The military was also retrained and equipped with French and British help. Furthermore, Crown Prince Constantine was reinstated as General-Inspector of the army, and later Commander-in-Chief. These developments led to Greece joining the First Balkan War (October 1912- May 1913), which had radically different results: Greece’s well trained forces emerged victorious, and the war led to the capture of Thessaloniki.
These victories led to national jubilation but were disrupted by the shock of George’s assassination in March 1913, in the newly liberated Thessaloniki. He was shot in close range by Alexandros Schinas, who was said to “belong to a socialist organisation.” When arrested, he said he “had killed the king because he refused to give him money.” The Greek government vehemently denied any political motive for the assassination, stating Schinas was an alcoholic. The assassination left the public deeply shocked and plunged the country into national mourning, ending almost 50 years of relative stability.
Constantine I and the National Schism (1913-1922)
Contrasting to the half century before, King Constantine I’s rule was marked by one of the most turbulent periods of modern Greek history.Constantine I’s marriage to the German princess Sofia (Kaiser Wilhelm II’s sister) meant he favoured neutrality during the first world war, while Prime Minister Venizelos backed the allied cause. In 1917, under pressure from the allied powers who saw his attitude as pro-German, Constantine was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Alexander I, letting Venizelos lead the country into war on the side of the allies.
Following Alexander’s untimely death and Venizelos’s fall from power, Constantine was recalled to the throne following a plebiscite. Nevertheless, his reign did not last for long as Constantine pursued Venizelos’s anti-Turkish policies, leading to a catastrophic defeat in the Second Greco-Turkish war, known as the Asia Minor Catastrophe. This defeat led to significant territorial losses, refugee crises, and a decrease in the popularity of the monarchy. A military revolt lost him his throne once again, and he abdicated in 1922 in favour of his son, who became King George II.1922 was the death of the “Great Idea” (Megali Idea), which included dreams of reclaiming Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) and any other areas occupied by ethnic Greeks.
The
Greek Republic and the Abolition of the Monarchy
Due to the culmination of military defeats and political instability, the Greek monarchy was blamed for Greece’s losses.The military and political elites increasingly leaned towards republicanism, and a republican military 35
coup forced George II into exile. In 1924, the Second Hellenic Republic was proclaimed after a referendum, and the Greek monarchy was abolished, with George exiled in Romania. This left Greece to transition into a republican system of governance, struggling with political instability and factionalism.
The restoration of the Monarchy in 1935
The 1930s were plagued by conflicts between monarchists and republicans.Amidst the chaos, republican leaders including Venizelos were weakened. The political situation declined to the point that the military and political establishment began to see the restoration of the monarchy as the only solution to providing stability. In October 1935, a military coup led by the former republican General Georgios Kondylis, overthrew the
Second Hellenic Republic. A plebiscite organised by Kondylis in November 1935 showed that 97 percent of the Greek population wanted the King's return, although the figures were most likely manipulated by army officers.
King George II returned to Greece, and the monarchy was officially restored, but his governance was limited. Furthermore, Greece came under the rule of Ioannis Metaxas, who established a dictatorship known as the Fourth of August Regime. Although the monarchy had been restored, Metaxas ruled as an authoritarian leader with the backing of King George, and in doing so, he suppressed political freedom and aligned Greece with fascist regimes in Europe. Metaxas is famous for refusing the surrender of Greece to the italians, which is called “The Great No” (To Megalo Oxi).
The abolition of the Monarchy (1946)
During the second world war, King George II fled once more after Greece was occupied by the Nazis, establishing a government-in-exile in Cairo. He left behind a country dealing with brutal occupation, destruction, and resistance movements (particularly from left wing movements aided by the British army). In Athens alone, 40,000 civilians died from starvation, and the country’s Jewish population was almost completely exterminated.
Following the Nazi withdrawal in 1944, a civil war erupted between communist partisans and royalist and anti-communist forces backed by Britain and later the United States of America. The war lasted from 19461949, with each side targeting the power vacuum left in the wake of the occupation. In 1946, another plebiscite was held to decide whether the
monarchy should be restored, this time supported by the British. Amid the backdrop of a violent civil war, the monarchy was restored once again, with George returning to Greece that same year. Despite this, King George died just one year after his return, succeeded by his brother King Paul.
King Paul I and Queen Frederica (1947-1964)
Paul ruled Greece through much of the Cold War period, navigating the postwar reconstruction of a country whose economy and infrastructure had been destroyed. Greece received substantial U.S. aid under the Marshall Plan, and economic development progressed, meaning that King Paul and Queen Frederica enjoyed greater popularity than their predecessors. However, Queen Frederica was viewed by some as highly political, and her involvement in state affairs was frowned upon.
The Military Junta and the Abolition of the Monarchy in 1973 Constantine II ascended to the throne in 1964, and immediately he was faced with political instability. Tensions between Constantine II and the Prime Minister George Papandreou caused the latter to resign in 1965, and was the catalyst for a period of political chaos known as the Apostasia.
Following this, the Military Junta began in 1967, following a coup d'état staged by a group of military of
they used to establish a military dictatorship known as the Regime of the Colonels. Although Greece had been under the protectorate of the British due to the Yalta conference of 1945, the removal of the pro-british royal family by the CIA backed Junta led to Greece permanently moving under the protectorate of the U.S.
The coup was shocking for the Greek population, as Greece had a democratic government under Prime Minister Panagiotis Kanellopoulos. King Constantine II hesitantly cooperated at first, hoping to keep a degree of influence and protect the monarchy. This cooperation however quickly broke down as Constantine realised the Junta had no intention of allowing him to have a role in governance, and his disillusionment grew as the Junta engaged in widespread human rights abuses, including imprisonment and torture. Constantine’s disillusionment culminated in his countercoup (December 1967), as he believed it was his duty to restore democracy and overthrow the regime. He planned to rally the support of the military in northern Greece, whom he believed were still loyal to the monarchy. However, the plan was poorly executed, as
many units did not support him, and the coup collapsed within hours.
In 1973, the Junta formally abolished the monarchy, declaring Greece a republic. After the fall of the Junta just a year later, a democratic referendum echoed the abolition of the monarchy, marking the official end of the monarchy in Greece. Greece became a part of the Eurozone, with European banks and institutions still supporting the country.
To conclude, the Greek monarchy tried to graft itself into Greek society, but military defeats, foreign interference, and persistent political instability meant that the hopes of achieving the “Grand Idea” and the respect of the Greek people were lost time and time again. Greece has no need anymore to align itself with the west through a royal family, instead affirming its pro-western alignment by belonging to the European Union.
BY PHAEDRA MAZARAKI, YEAR 11
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS:
Thank you so much for reading! We have really loved reading everyone’s submissions and creating this edition. The variety in articles has been fantastic to see, and we are very grateful to all those who contributed.
-Rania, Emily, Lottie S, and Lottie G.
THANK YOU TO:
Helen Gwendolyn, Vittoria Di Rienzo, Magali Pashigian, Diana Evseev, Hermoine Banks Eccleston, Sienna Blatt, Olivia Weber, Olivia Tyler, Lia Moskov, Phaedra Mazaraki, Mrs Koutsiouki, Mr Storey, Mr Thorn and Ms Armstrong.