The word ‘revolution’ 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’[1].
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’[2]. 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’[3]. 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’.[4]
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.’[5]
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’[2]. 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’[3]. 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’.[4]
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.’[5]
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’[6]
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’[7], 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.’[8]
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’[9] 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’[10]. 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’[11] 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’[12], 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’[13].
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’[14], allowing for questioning on whether this change can genuinely be labelled a ‘revolution’.
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’[7], 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.’[8]
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’[9] 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’[10]. 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’[11] 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’[12], 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’[13].
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’[14], 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’[15].
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’[16]. 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’[17].
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’[15].
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’[16]. 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’[17].
Bibliography
Books:
T.
Baycroft, Nationalism in Europe,
(Cambridge University Press 1998), Page 17
R. Evans and H. Strandmann, The revolutions in
Europe 1848-1849 from reform to reaction, (Oxford University Press 2000),
page 4, 5
D.
Jacques, Europe between revolutions
1815-1848, (1967), page 252
L. Namier, 1848: The revolution of the
intellectuals, (Oxford University
Press, USA, 1992) page 3-4
N.
Pelling, Access to history: The Habsburg
Empire 1815-1918, (Hodder and Stoughton Educational, Great Britain, 1996),
page 44
J. Rink and J. Samson, Chopin Studies 2 (Cambridge University Press 1994) page 74
J. Rink and J. Samson, Chopin Studies 2 (Cambridge University Press 1994) page 74
P. Stearns, The Revolutions of 1848
(Great Britain 1974), page 12, 73, 77, 99
A.
Tocqueville, Recollections: The French
Revolution Of 1848, (Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, 1987) page xvi
Journals:
H. Rothfels, ‘1848: One Hundred Years After’, The Journal of Modern History, Volume XX Number 4, (December 1948), page 1 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1871060)
Websites:
Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books)
http://www.jstor.org accessed 30/10/12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_revolutions accessed 27/10/12
Definition of ‘Revolution’, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/revolution?q=revolution, accessed 26/10/12
Definition of ‘Nationalism’, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nationalism?q=nationalism, accessed 26/10/12
Journals:
H. Rothfels, ‘1848: One Hundred Years After’, The Journal of Modern History, Volume XX Number 4, (December 1948), page 1 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1871060)
Websites:
Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books)
http://www.jstor.org accessed 30/10/12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_revolutions accessed 27/10/12
Definition of ‘Revolution’, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/revolution?q=revolution, accessed 26/10/12
Definition of ‘Nationalism’, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nationalism?q=nationalism, accessed 26/10/12
[1]
Definition of ‘Revolution’, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/revolution?q=revolution,
accessed 26/10/12
[2]
Edited by R.J.W Evans and Hartmut
pagge von Strandmann, The revolutions in Europe 1848-1849 from reform to
reaction, (Oxford University Press 2000), page 4
[3]
Jacques Droz, Europe between revolutions
1815-1848, (1967), page 252
[4]
Peter N. Stearns, The Revolutions
of 1848 (Great Britain 1974), page 12
[5]
Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier, 1848:
The revolution of the intellectuals, (Oxford
University Press, USA, 1992)
page 3-4
[6]
Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections: The
French Revolution Of 1848, (Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, 1987) page
xvi
[7]
Definition of ‘Nationalism’, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nationalism?q=nationalism,
accessed 26/10/12
[8]
Edited by John Rink and Jim Samson, Chopin
Studies 2 (Cambridge University Press 1994) page 74
[9]
Timothy Baycroft, Nationalism in Europe,
(Cambridge University Press 1998), Page 17
[10]
(Ed) Evans and Strandmann, The
revolutions in Europe 1848-1849 from reform to reaction, page 5
[11]
Stearns, The Revolutions of 1848,
page 73
[12]
Stearns, The Revolutions of 1848,
page 77
[13]
Nick Pelling, Access to history: The
Habsburg Empire 1815-1918, (Hodder and Stoughton Educational, Great
Britain, 1996), page 44
[14]
Stearns, The Revolutions of 1848,
page 99
[15]
Hans Rothfels, ‘1848: One Hundred Years After’, The Journal of Modern History, Volume XX Number 4, (December 1948), page
1 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1871060)
[16]
Baycroft, Nationalism in Europe, Page
17
[17]
Mike Rapport, 1848 Year of Revolution
( Great Britain 2008), page 57
No comments:
Post a Comment