Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded? This was the main question in our discussion on the revolutions throughout Europe in 1830 & 1848. They were all sparked by the French Revolution, and as Klemens von Metternich once said, "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold" These revolutions are referred to as Decembrist, 1830 France, 1848 France, Frankfurt, and Hungary. The class broke into groups and we each analyzed the revolution that was given to us. After reading several primary sources and then creating a survey from the information, one group gave all the others a sheet with the information on it while they answered the survey. After all the groups had presented, we ranked each revolution on a scale from total failure to total success.
My group was given the revolution of 1848 France. The main events were during the months of February and June, when most of the action took place. The people were united against Louis Philippe's corrupt rule, and they desired to instate a French Republic. During the first fighting in February, thousands of citizens who had lost their jobs rose up in the streets and demanded a republic. There was not lots of conflict, however, as Alphonse de Lamartine described, "The people
were not numerous in the streets; they seemed to allow the invisible spirit of revolution to fight for them" (History of the Revolution of 1848 in France) Louis Philippe eventually stepped down from the throne, and the Second Republic was established. It was run mostly by the liberal, upper class of France. They also took away many jobs, and thus the working class revolted. There were many barricades built and lots of fighting this time, as said by Victor Hugo in Les Miserables, "Of what was the barricade made? Of the ruins of three six-story houses, torn down for the purpose, said some." However, this time the government crushed the revolt, and killed 1,500 people, and the Constitution for the Second Republic was written. The plan was for a legislature and a president, and Louis Napoleon was elected, as well as giving 9 million people the right to vote. In time, Louis Napoleon would get 90% of France to vote him as Empower, declaring himself Napoleon III. This led back to a monarchy, which was what the revolution was trying to get away from. Therefore, the revolution was technically a failure, but not completely.
Our survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VZLZM27
Contradictory to what many historians say, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not all complete failures. For example, in 1830 France, they instated a new king that they wanted and suffrage was extended, albeit many people could still not vote. Also, in 1848 France, they essentially ended up back where they started, with a king even though they didn't want one. In Hungary, the rebels demanded an independent government and an end to serfdom. Many other areas of the Austrian Empire made similar demands as well. Originally, these demands were met, however Austrian forces soon defeated the rebels and took away their gains. None of these revolutions were successes, but they were neither the total failures that historians make them out to be.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Thursday, December 4, 2014
The Congress of Vienna.
What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In class we tried to answer this question as we discussed the event that came during Napoleons conquest: The Congress of Vienna. This was held on September 1, 1814 as a meeting of representatives from all of the major powers of Europe. It was located in Vienna, Austria, and lasted until June 8, 1815. The leaders came to Vienna to discuss how to deal with Napoleon and how to fix Europe after he was gone. In class, we watched a video of actors playing Klemens von Metternich, Austria's Foreign Minister, while he goes to Napoleon who is asking for peace, while Metternich's demands are for Napoleon to give up his conquest and restore the old boundaries of Europe, or they will declare war. We then read an article about the Congress and the representatives that were present. They were all there because their power was threatened by Napoleon, who could potentially conquer them all.
When the major powers of Europe felt that their power was in danger, and that there was a risk of them all being conquered, they came up with a solution. Not just one, nut several, all applying to different problems that Napoleon had caused. One of these presented solutions was the Holy Alliance. This idea was initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, and was a principle that stated that all monarchs of the major powers in Europe had divine right, or that their power as ruler came directly from God. This also meant that any revolution against the monarch was not only treason, but heresy for defying God's choice of ruler, leading to a more severe punishment. All of the major powers agreed with this, except for Britain who did not take part. This concept was used to lessen threats against their rule because nobody would rise up against the monarch, or they are technically rising up against God.
It is difficult to state whether the people at the Congress of Vienna made the correct choice when dealing with the many issues presented. However, with the situation of Napoleon conquering a large portion of Europe, these leaders made the correct choices that would protect their power. They even gave themselves more territory and authority, making it harder for them to lose their power to others. Their idea was to preserve the traditional monarchies of Europe, and to divide Europe into large, major countries that could withstand another invasion. Also, Napoleon was viewed as the enemy, and not France, so there was no severe punishment for the country or its people. There may have been a better solution, such as not combining smaller, minor countries into new ones or giving more rights to the people, but the only ones that had a say at the time were the powerful representatives of the nations. However, the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power for the benefit of all, but the lower classes did not have say and therefore could not argue for equality.
When the major powers of Europe felt that their power was in danger, and that there was a risk of them all being conquered, they came up with a solution. Not just one, nut several, all applying to different problems that Napoleon had caused. One of these presented solutions was the Holy Alliance. This idea was initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, and was a principle that stated that all monarchs of the major powers in Europe had divine right, or that their power as ruler came directly from God. This also meant that any revolution against the monarch was not only treason, but heresy for defying God's choice of ruler, leading to a more severe punishment. All of the major powers agreed with this, except for Britain who did not take part. This concept was used to lessen threats against their rule because nobody would rise up against the monarch, or they are technically rising up against God.
It is difficult to state whether the people at the Congress of Vienna made the correct choice when dealing with the many issues presented. However, with the situation of Napoleon conquering a large portion of Europe, these leaders made the correct choices that would protect their power. They even gave themselves more territory and authority, making it harder for them to lose their power to others. Their idea was to preserve the traditional monarchies of Europe, and to divide Europe into large, major countries that could withstand another invasion. Also, Napoleon was viewed as the enemy, and not France, so there was no severe punishment for the country or its people. There may have been a better solution, such as not combining smaller, minor countries into new ones or giving more rights to the people, but the only ones that had a say at the time were the powerful representatives of the nations. However, the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power for the benefit of all, but the lower classes did not have say and therefore could not argue for equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)