1848

[nokhor]

in the year 1848, a lot of the sovereigns of western and central europe lost their thrones to revolution. it was apparantly a spontaneous and uncontrolled event that cascaded throughout most of europe. as far as i know, there was no one mastermind behind it all, nor some kind of political party or faction causing it. pretty much all the revolutions moved to the political left of the previous administration and some even tried to abolish their sovereigns and form republics. the shock and surprise of it caught everybody off guard until the monarchs were able to reorganize and take their thrones and capitals back. most of the revolutions, lasted from days, to at most months. so i was wondering, how did this happen, that there were simultaneous revolutionary movements throughout most of europe at the same time?

[Tran]

It was part of Napoleon's grand conspiracy

[InsaneApache]

It was part of Napoleon's grand conspiracy

Napoleon III? :inquisitive:

[Franconicus]

No, Tran is right. Blame it all on Napoleon Bonaparte!

The French revolution created nationalism in modern Europe, as well as the idea of Liberalism - which them ment that all people should have equal rights.

When Napoleon rushed through Europe, the absolute souvereign of Europe, esp. of Germany, were defeated together with their armies.

To regain their independence they had to form new armies with volunteers - Freikorps. The volunteers had several motivations: the nation as well as freedom. So, German nationalism and liberalism was born. The soldiers fought for the union of Germany and for equal rights.

Once they had defeated Napoleon and the Grand Army, the noblemen tried to restore order at Vienna. Metternich tried to reestablish the old order and everyone was kind to the French. The volunteer coprs were disolved and that was it.

However, the ideas of unity and liberty were set free and even censorship could not stop them. When the French made another revolution, the Germans joined. This time they wanted a united and liberal Germany.

I guess you know the rest of the story.

What would have been, if the revolution was successful? A big Germany, including Austria? A peaceful one, based on democratic ideas, gained by the people and not the army? Don`t know :cry:

[cegorach]

That explains only a part of Europe wide process.:yes:

Germany is one case, but you have Italy, Poland, Hungary ( with seperate Romanian, Croat and Serb movements used by the emperor to undermine the Huns) + many other. Virtually all had extensive contacts with each other - some cooperated for long years and even fought together earlier like in 1830.

About Germany. I recall the discussion at that time and I have huge doubts about the future of this movement - the concept of Greater Germany was born after all and despite declared cooperation, support and united front against monarchs in places such as Greater Poland ( at that time in Prussia as semi-autonomous Duchy of Poznan) we see new nationalistic conflicts starting.

The german movements were similar to Weimar liberal governments - non militarisitc, but very nationalistic and not willing to give up an inch of territory Prussia had before the revolutions.

There are many interesting cases of revolutionaries cooperating - just like during the Vienna uprisings supported by Hungarians and led by such people as Polish general Józef Bem - a real international action in a way - but later developments would rather result in conflicts between those movements i.e. in Poznan the uprising of 1848 was quelled and the autonomy of the region was abolished (the utterly ineffective and brutal germanisation was imposed during Bismarck rule some years later).

So overall - an international (to a degree) movement/s would result in some violate conflicts later - where and how would they start and end is another story.

Of course there are results which would not end in some bloodshed - for example the long Pol-Hun friendship was the legacy of this time, but as opposed to Russian-led and Czech & Slovak accepted panslavism movements so another area of a conflict...

[Didz]

@ Franconicus

I don't think you can blame it on Napoleon Bonaparte, after all he didn't start the French Revolution he only explioted it. However, I think the rest of your arguement is a pretty good summary of the changes wrought by the events in France and the political upheaval caused by the wars that followed.

The young recruits that fought at Waterloo would have been mature men by 1848 and would have passed on their attitudes to their children. There must also have been a feeling of 'what did we fight for?' amongst many veterans who saw no benefits from their sacrifice. All it then needed as a spark to relight the fires of nationalism.

[Franconicus]

I don't think you can blame it on Napoleon Bonaparte

I was not too serious about that, but in fact the armies of Napoleon spread the ideas of NATION and FREEDOM all over Europe.


About Germany. I recall the discussion at that time and I have huge doubts about the future of this movement - the concept of Greater Germany was born after all and despite declared cooperation, support and united front against monarchs in places such as Greater Poland ( at that time in Prussia as semi-autonomous Duchy of Poznan) we see new nationalistic conflicts starting.

Sad, but true. Most of the German Liberals (not all though), which demanded right of selfdetermination and national unity for Germany did not care about the rights of other people if it comes to the discussion of annex countries. I think the mixture of liberalism and nationalism was bad, absurd and dangerous.


The german movements were similar to Weimar liberal governments - non militarisitc, but very nationalistic and not willing to give up an inch of territory Prussia had before the revolutions.
I think there would have been some differences. The militarism then was quite week and only limited to Prussia. With the foundation of Germany by the people there would hardly have been something like that. And even in Weimar there was a strong military. In the end the Republic was lead by a bunch of generals.
I think Germany would have been less nationalistsic if the foundation of the state would have been by the people, not by the noblemen and military.
Plus, Germany would have had a kind of democratic tradition.

[King Kurt]

From the dim misty past of my O level history - wasn't there something similar in 1830? Not on the same scale as 1848 but similar - i.e. liberalism/ nationalism. Also the great reform act in Britian came just after - 1832.
Finaly wasn't the communist manifesto written by Marx in 1848? - quite a year!!

[KARTLOS]

havent you heard? it was the jews!

did you know that they also use the blood of christian babies in secret rituals....

[nokhor]

Finaly wasn't the communist manifesto written by Marx in 1848? - quite a year!!

if marx did write it during or after the revolutions, i can see how he might have thought such occurences were going to be more and more common until the communist revolution would sweep all away. he took a singular event and interpreted it to mean that there were going to be others like it in the future.

[Furious Mental]

His problem wasn't that he extrapolated the events of one year but that he didn't count on other socialists and reformist liberals making capitalist society tolerable to western workers. I wouldn't attribute that much importance to 1848 because he was already a radical by then and remained one long afterwards.