The word ‘revo
lution’ can be defined as ‘a forcible
overthrow of a government or social order for a new system’ or ‘a dramatic and
wide-reaching change in conditions, attitudes or operation’
.
This essay will explore the causes of the 1848 revolutions and discuss whether
or not they can all be labelled ‘revolutions’ as not enough changed as a result
of them. The 1848 revolutions were caused by a cumulative effect of various key
factors, which reached boiling point first in France, and then in some other
European countries. This essay also addresses another issue: based on the definition
of a revolution, whether or not there
were
in fact ‘so many’ revolutions as stated in the question, or whether these were
just an introduction of new ideas and political movements.
R.J.W Evans would argue that there are ‘5 key concepts’ in assessing why the
revolutions took place, these were; ‘Widespread dissatisfaction with the
political leadership; demand for more participation and democracy; demands of
working class; upsurge of nationalism
and regrouping of reactionary forces based in royalty, aristocracy, army
and peasants’
.
On the other hand, Droz would argue that two key factors were the ‘Triangular
class struggle between 2 sections of middle class’ (the grande and petite
bourgeoisie) and ‘absence of liberty’
.
This view is upheld by Stearns who reaffirms ‘There was something of a crisis
of the middle classes during the 1840’s, and without it the revolutions probably
could not have occurred’.
One view of why there were revolts during the years 1848-1849 is that they were
due to revolution being a tradition from 1789 and 1730, and upon a theme of
discontent people felt obliged to turn to uprising. Furthermore, the failure of
previous revolutions could have been the inspiration for European citizens to
attempt to achieve their aims again. Other important factors include the
increasing literacy rates within the middle class, as this meant that they
drove political change; in contrast to the revolutions of 1789 which were
driven by the Sans-Culottes. This is supported by Lewis Namier’s view that the
1848 revolutions were that of ‘the intellectuals’, he presents the idea that:
‘The European Continent
responded to the impulses and trends of the revolution with a remarkable
uniformity despite the differences of language and race, and in the political,
social and economic level of the countries concerned: but then the common denominator
was ideological, and even literary, and there was a basic unity and cohesion in
the intellectual world of the European Continent, such as usually asserts
itself in the peak periods of its spiritual development.’
Some people, such
as Tocqueville, argue that the economic crisis was a reason for the revolutios
and was ‘unleashed in 1846, becoming violent in 1847, which shook the country
to its foundations’
because previous revolutions had emerged from the same issues. However, we must
note that the causes of the revolution cannot have been purely economic because
the crises were in 1845 and 1847 so revolution would have occurred sooner than
it did. Therefore, it must be a conjunction of economic crisis alongside
political discontent.
Instead, one would argue that it is difficult to point in the direction of a
sole factor when considering the causation of the revolutions, and they can
only be explained as an accumulation of popular discontent, revolutionary
tradition and an increased awareness of political freedom.
This leads onto the importance of Nationalism, defined as patriotic feeling,
principles or efforts’
,
acting as a driving force behind the 1848 revolutions. Karol Berger argues that
‘Nationalism is a peculiarly modern way of legitimising political power as
exercised in the name of a nation which, in East - central Europe at least, was
usually defined in terms of its culture. Since culture is the intellectuals’
domain, Nationalism confers on this group the enviable role of the legitimising
priesthoods which legitimised the god-derived powers of pre-modern rulers.’
Furthermore, it has been argued that ‘The primary significance of the 1848
revolutions was to assert strongly the principle of nationality as a powerful
force in Europe’
and displayed the authority of the common people to the rulers, encouraging
them to implement reforms in following years.
A main area of change, which appeared to be the catalyst for the rest of
the European revolutions was France, supported
by Strandmann’s idea that ‘It was the signal from Paris in February which
triggered the publicly voiced demands for reforms which found mass support in
the Habsburg lands, in Italy and in Germany’
. France, who was influenced by the rise of
liberalism, believed that people should rule themselves. It was also
apparent that people hated the policies of Guizot and
‘all insisted on Guizot’s resignation’
after his suppression of the ‘champagne des banquets’ which were meetings
driven by nationalist and republican ideas. The French wanted universal
suffrage amongst men, and the abolishment of the privilege of only being able
to vote if you paid high taxes. The disturbances in France have been named ‘The
French second republic’ and on the fall
of Louis Phillipe it has been said that ‘never in France’s history had a
monarchy fallen so easily or with so little regret’
, showing the significance of the revolt in
influencing others. Overall the French Revolution of 1848 was a success, perhaps
because it occurred due to long term grievances that were at the heart of daily
life within French society. Furthermore, this particular revolution had won the
first goals it had set out to achieve.
There were also revolts in Italy, a
place where
there had been previous issues and demonstrations
over the Bourbon monarchy. This was marked by outbreak in Sicily in 1848 which
produced an independent state, but despite this achievement of a democratic and
liberal system, it only lasted a short time of sixteen months.
In the Germanic states, revolution consisted of some action being taken through
assemblies and demonstrations in the South and West, which were led by educated
students and intellectuals
and who presented a set of demands for national unity; freedom of press
and freedom of assembly. However, the uprisings were poorly organised and there
was a class divide amongst the Germans (middle and working split) and this
ultimately led to their downfall and defeat by the conservative aristocracy.
Another focal point during the years
1848-1849 was The Habsburg Empire, which was influenced by pressure from other
countries it manifested itself in petitions and demonstrations due to
people being discontented with the censorship and police supervision.
Furthermore, the desire to overthrow Metternich was apparent ‘They informed the
Emperor of the crowd’s feelings and demands, in particular of the intensity of
the popular hatred for Metternich’ and ‘Ferdinand could hear the chants of the
crowd. From this he could tell that
above all they wanted the dismissal of Metternich’
.
Stearns argues that middle class liberals in Vienna ‘sincerely sought the
classic liberal demands: freedom of press and speech, abolition of arbitrary
imprisonment, and so on’ but ‘they were vague about how to secure their goals
and were decidedly unrevolutionary’
,
allowing for questioning on whether this change can genuinely be labelled a
‘revolution’.
Whilst popular discontent swept
across much of Europe, it is possible to argue that there were not so many
‘revolutions’ as is interpreted, as we must acknowledge that they failed to
reach Britain, Russian Empire, The Ottoman Empire, and Switzerland.
Furthermore, Sweden and Norway were little affected. The fact that four of the
great imperial powers did not become involved in the 1848 revolutions could
show that they were not as powerful as is often interpreted.
Also, some would say that the movements did not fully achieve the aims they set
out to, and ‘one may say that all the revolutions which a century ago swept the
European continent in a spectacular kind of "chain reaction" proved
abortive. All of them were cut short in one way or another. No dynasty
disappeared except the one which had been a "bourgeois" dynasty (une
utilite) anyway. No major frontier was altered, and few castles were destroyed’
.
This leads me to conclude: The only lasting accomplishment from the revolutions
was the abolition of serfdom in the Austo-Hungarian Empire, and ‘The dreams of
social and political change anticipated were as optimistic as the new order was
short lived… by the summer of 1849 all former rulers were back in place’
. There were far
more countries within Europe which failed to achieve their aims in the
revolutions of 1848 than those who succeeded, and if nothing significantly
changed within Europe as a result of the changes of 1848, they cannot be considered
widespread revolutions, and are merely an introduction of new ideas. Whilst it
is possible to question whether these movements were revolutionary, the 1848
revolutions certainly had an impact as they showed the middle classes driving
political change, and the spread of Nationalism gripping nations, and to summarise,
it is apparent that there is no single factor in causing the 1848 revolutions,
but instead they occurred due to an accumulation of popular discontent,
revolutionary tradition, the rise of intellectuals and an increased awareness
of political freedom from the rise of Nationalism. It is clear to see that the
revolutions were sparked off by those in France during 1848, which was the
definitive catalyst for revolt in other countries. Without the growth of Paris
and influence of France on other countries, the revolutions across Europe may
never have occurred. The strength of the French Revolution of 1848 has been
emphasised in the powerful quote by Rapport: ‘Word of the February days in
Paris spread like a dynamic pulse and Electrified Europe’
.
