Essay History

Essay History

Essay history is similar to research paper. I would say that writing a history essay you should follow the same structure as for research paper. However, you can avoid some sections such as methodology and analysis of research.  History essay should be supported with reliable evidence supporting your statements. The following sample essay history is written with the hope to assist you with your writing. If you are in need of individual writing help, if you seek assistance of professional essay writers, if you want to impress your teacher with depth of research, do not hesitate to try our custom essay writing services. We write essays on all possible topics. We hire only educated and experienced writers.  We provide free plagiarism report and we are responsive to your needs. In addition, every single custom written essay is original and fully referenced. Do not hesitate to buy custom research paper writing services at our site!

Essay History Sample

Talleyrand was certainly used to treading labyrinths. In his career as Minister of Foreign Affairs he had not forgotten his own interests and his fortune was mostly built up in the years after the peace of Lun?ville, when the German princes scrambled after secularizations of Church property, and used to come to Paris to obtain -- or to buy -- the necessary authorization. But does he therefore deserve to be accused of basing his actions after 1814 solely on personal motives? No better treatment can be expected from a writer whose mind is hermetically sealed against the idea of a distinction being made between Napoleon and France. But is this idea so foolish? We have already encountered it a number of times, as entertained by men of some account. It was not surprising if, in 1814, all of a sudden, it became a matter of practical politics.

Houssaye does not discuss the matter. Yet in order to persuade the well-informed reader, he ought first to have disposed of the theory, which is on the face of it only too acceptable, that Napoleon's mad lust for power, his overweening pride, had led to this catastrophe. He ought to have refuted the thesis -- denied, as we saw, by Prince Napoleon 1 -- that Napoleon could still have obtained peace in the summer of 1813 at Prague on reasonable terms, but had thrown away that chance; that even in the spring of 1814, as long as he saw the ghost of a chance that the fortunes of war might yet turn, he went on putting difficulties in the way of the eleventh hour negotiations undertaken by the unfortunate Caulaincourt, his Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that he had thus brought upon himself the suspicion of the allies. Must France meekly suffer his moods, and pay the price in the end? If Talleyrand thought otherwise, and saw a chance to come to an agreement with the allies, without Napoleon, if necessary against Napoleon, that was surely not a policy to be set aside as treacherous, cowardly, interested or false. Talleyrand's policy has its own relative justification and at least deserves serious consideration. When we go more deeply into the problem of Napoleon's foreign policy in the next section, the problem of Talleyrand will inevitably crop up again. He had his own well-thought-out system to which he tenaciously adhered, even though his actions were not always in conformity with it. But generally French historians are little inclined to praise Talleyrand, least of all Houssaye, who in this connection, too, fails to see beyond the year 1814.