Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Achievement of the 1848 revolutions
The revolutions of 1848 in simple words
The revolutions of 1848 in simple words
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Revolutions of 1848
The Revolutions of 1848 have been described as the “greatest revolution of the century”1. From its mild beginnings in Palermo, Sicily in January 1848, it did not take long to spread across the rest of Europe (Britain and Russia were the only countries not to experience such revolutions). “In 1848 more states on the European continent were overcome by revolution than ever before and ever since”2. The Revolutions became more radical but after June 1848 these revolutionary events began to overlap with those of counterrevolutionary actions, thus enabling the old regimes to return to power. 1848 was described as “a sunny spring of the peoples abruptly interrupted by the winter of the princes”3.
“It has often been said…that in 1848…European history reached its turning point and failed to turn”4. There are a variety of reasons that can be given for the failure of the Revolutions, these include the divisions amongst revolutionaries, the continuing social and economic problems of the countries involved, the difficulty in replacing the old regimes and the problem of the new inexperienced electorates. There does not appear to be one clear, defining reason which led to the old regimes regaining power after the 1848 Revolutions. All the factors seem to be equally important and to some extent, connected.
Across Europe, the revolutionaries of 1848 came from a variety of different social backgrounds and they all held different political beliefs. They could be liberals, republicans, nationalists or socialists and therefore they all wanted different things out of the Revolutions. Each group was also internally divided, with a radical faction and a more moderate one. Initially they all joined forces to overthrow the existing regimes with which they were discontent. However once power was in their hands, they found that ‘Revolutionary Consensus’ was virtually impossible. Their initial victory was “followed by ensuing struggle to implement change”5. The people had taken to the streets not knowing what they would do if they did manage to take power. Now that they had, because of their different individual aims, they found it hard to compromise. This eventually led to a growing split between moderates and radicals, as well as between social classes, particularly in France. The moderates did not want a government based on universal male...
... middle of paper ...
... voted into the new republic. “France was a republic, but one now in the hands of an assembly dominated by conservatives, many of whom were monarchists”7.
As you can see all these factors enabled the reactionary regimes to return to power after the 1848 Revolutions. I do not think that one was more influential than another but that they are all connected. Perhaps without one, another may not have had such an effect. For example, the existence of social and economic difficulties increased the divisions between the revolutionaries. They found it increasingly difficult to agree with one another on how to combat them, let alone be able to compromise on a new form of government. Also if the new widened franchise had not been so inexperienced the revolutionaries would have had an easier time replacing the old regimes, which had in fact not been that strong to start with. The reactionary regimes regained power so quickly because of all of these reasons and although the 1848 Revolutions had emphasised the “ineptitude and impotence”8 of the old sovereigns and governments, they brought with them too many resentments, grudges and radical changes, for which Europe was not yet ready.
Revolutions have occurred throughout history. The evolution of revolutions might be comparable to the different stages of an illness. Similar to a sickness, revolutions can be studied in stages. The different stages of an illness included the inoculation, symptomatic, crisis, and convalescence stages. In each of the stages, events occurred that may lead to the next stage in the development of the disease. Resembling an illness, revolutions also happened in stages. The revolutions stages are comparative to the stages of an illness like the flu. The fever model could be used to show the progression of the Haitian and the Gran Colombian Revolutions.
Between 1815 and 1851, there was an increase in conservative demands and ideals across Europe. Three nations fit into this mold exceptionally well, one of them being Prussia. The other nation that best shows how conservative ideals achieved their goals is France and how it changed after the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy. The third nation being, Austria and how the rulers handled the discontent of the different minority groups within it’s borders.
While both the Mexican and Russian revolutions had similar end goals and the process in which they conducted their uprisings which started the peasant revolutions; the major differences lie in who started the revolutions and what political systems they adopted after their revolutions were over.
Wolf, John B. France 1814-1919 The Rise of a Liberal Democratic Society. New York: Harper and Row: 1963.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels see the French revolution as a great achievement in human history. However they also discuss serious criticisms of it. Marx and Engels discussed the struggle between two distinct social groups during the French Revolution which are the city poor and the privileged classes and what happens when power fell into the hands of the revolutionary “petty bourgeoisie” and the paris workers creating a class struggle and it impact on political issues . This essay will explain how Marx and Engels view the French revolution and their analysis of the revolution’s achievements and shortcomings.This essay will also apply their analysis of the French
By 1791 their had been a constitutional monarchy with the revolutions mission complete, now major changes would have to be made to ensure that the country benefited from this change, but this would be hard, the church had already been abolished and its funds taken to resolve the spiralling debt problems. A lot of groups had been set up to fight the revolutionary committee including the Monarchiens and the Noirs. The main opposition came from ...
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
What is a revolution? By definition it means the overthrow of a government by those who are governed. That is exactly what the French and the Mexican revolutions were all about. The living conditions and overall treatment of the poor, pheasants, lower class, last man on the totem pole or what ever you want to call them, was a large factor in the coming of these revolutions. "Those who are governed" are exactly what the lower class people were. Also, liberty was one of the people's major concerns. They were ruled by men whose only desire was power and greed which is what led them into revolt.
Throughout history, countless uprisings have occurred. Historians classify any forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system as a revolution. The success or failure of a revolution is directly related to the revolution’s causes and consequences. The French Revolution was more successful than the Nicaraguan Revolution, because the Nicaraguan Revolution left the country in social and financial ruin, foreign powers had much greater interference, and it precipitated a period of political unrest with multiple leadership changes. One cause of both revolutions was that people from all social classes were discontented.
Once Enlightenment philosophies created new views on individual’s natural rights and their place in society, resistance to oppressive government was inevitable. The core beliefs of freedom and equality above all served as a catalyst for the revolutions in America, France, and Haiti. Because of these shared ideals each revolution is interconnected with the revolution before it. However, the waves of this revolutionary movement that swept through the Atlantic World became increasingly radical with each new country it entered. By looking at the citizen involvement and causes of the American, French, and Haitian revolutions, the growing radicality of these insurrections can be better understood.
Within the Historical sphere, there is no unanimity regarding the impact of the French revolution on the status quo of western Europe. The argument lies that the revolution was insurgent and promoted ideas contrary to conventional belief, thus leaving an enduring impact stemming from nationalism and liberalism, on France and western Europe. In contrast, many individuals affirm the position that the changes yielded from the revolution was reversed by reactionary responses consequently discrediting the revolution's significance to Europe. As a result, I will be evaluating both arguments and will arrive at a measured conclusion, whether the French Revolution (1789) threatened the status quo (state of affairs) in Western Europe and if so how.
“Europe cannot conceive of life without Kings and nobles; and we cannot conceive of it with them. Europe is lavishing her blood to preserve her chains, whereas we are lavishing ours to destroy them”(Maximilien Robespierre). For centuries upon centuries, the monarchal system had dominated European life. The very nature of this method of rule incited rebellious feelings, as a definite imbalance of power was present. Understandably, people under this system had risen against authority. The glorious nation of France was no exception. The eighteenth century brought about a great deal of economic and social turmoil. By the end of this one hundred year period, rebellion had been talked about by many citizens for quite some time. However, no definitive action was taken until one man stepped to the forefront; Maximilien Robespierre. Born in Arras, France about thirty years prior to the French Revolution, Robespierre was an immensely intelligent man as is seen from his ability to read and write fluently from the age of eight (the Force of 10). Robespierre rose from fairly humble origins to become a provincial lawyer, advancing further to become a representative in the Estates General, and eventually ascending to the leader of the French Revolution itself. For its sake he sent thousands to the guillotine, overthrew a monarchy, declared a new national religion, and invigorated the will of a nation. “No individual of the French Revolutionary era, with the exception of Napolean Bonaparte, has excited more passion in his time than the…dedicated provincial lawyer, Maximilien Robespierre”(Maximilien 1). During this era, Robespierre led France’s world inspiring cry for the liberation of mankind and petrified the world with its relentle...
Social Revolutions in the Modern World is a compilation of essays, which updates and expands arguments Skocpol posed years earlier regarding social revolutions in her previous book, States and Social Revolutions. The updated arguments seek to explain how we can better understand recent revolutionary upheavals in countries across the globe and why social revolutions have happened in some countries, but not in others. Throughout the book, Skocpol illustrates how ideas about states and societies can aid in identifying the particular types of regimes that are susceptible to the growth of revolutionary movements as well as those that are vulnerable to seizure of state power by revolutionary aggressors. Skocpol argu...
Ed. John Merriman and Jay Winter. "Velvet Revolution." Europe Since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2006. 2623-2626. World History in Context. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
University students demanding reforms were joined by peasants and workers, and as demonstrations spread across Europe, these rebellions became known as the Revolutions of 1848. These political upheavals set the stage for the series of republican revolts against European monarchies that ensued. The first occurrences began in Italy and quickly spread to other nations including France where the attention of the international community was gained. Although the corruption of government and economic structures which resulted in poor living conditions provoked some of the uprisings, there were many factors contributing to the dissatisfaction of European monarchy’s subjects. In addition to governmental and economic issues, the Revolutions of 1848