I offer you to to respond to one of the two questions posed below:
1. The Revolutions of 1848-1849 shook Europe, leaving, however, but few marks of change in their wake. No new state had emerged and of the new regimes brought to power as a result of revolutionary turmoil only that in France merits mention. So, how shall one then evaluate 1848? Could one judge it as success from the perspective of the revolutionary participants, or was it, on the contrary, a triumph for the forces of order? Then again, perhaps the categories of failure and success do not capture the event and its spirit? Be that as it may, I would like to hear your opinion on that subject.
2. Both the unification of Italy and the creation of Germany passed within a short period of time and with a relative ease (especially the Italian unification). That might compel one to reflect over the question of why, given that ease, neither of the processes had taken place before. Did both the Italians and the Germans simply ripen for the national sovereignty? Were the geopolitical conditions auspicious for the execution of such designs? Or is one mistaken appraising the said events as swift and easy, being as they were far from accomplished?
1. The Revolutions of 1848-1849 shook Europe, leaving, however, but few marks of change in their wake. No new state had emerged and of the new regimes brought to power as a result of revolutionary turmoil only that in France merits mention. So, how shall one then evaluate 1848? Could one judge it as success from the perspective of the revolutionary participants, or was it, on the contrary, a triumph for the forces of order? Then again, perhaps the categories of failure and success do not capture the event and its spirit? Be that as it may, I would like to hear your opinion on that subject.2. Both the unification of Italy and the creation of Germany passed within a short period of time and with a relative ease (especially the Italian unification). That might compel one to reflect over the question of why, given that ease, neither of the processes had taken place before. Did both the Italians and the Germans simply ripen for the national sovereignty? Were the geopolitical conditions auspicious for the execution of such designs? Or is one mistaken appraising the said events as swift and easy, being as they were far from accomplished?
After Napoleon`s defeat the rapid development of capital production, parlamentarism and social thought in Europe lead to understanding that priority interests of nation is above monarchist orders. By the middle of the XIX century, European nations had a strong wish to create a states of nation, which actively resisted the already established empires. Also, the industrialization that produced quick economic growth and intensified the conflict of interests of the bourgeoisie with the feudal structure of society.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, these countries that were divided to many states long time ago just meant to be united again. Traditional methods of state`s contol were not working in a proper way. I think every nation in Europe was ripen for the national sovereignty, of course the conditions were fortunated, but I regard it would happen in anyway.
In my opinion any revolution sooner or later bears fruit and the same for the revolution 1848-1849. Any revolution is a sharp jump in the development and for this case, people's consciousness. And it seems here the result is not important in the sense that the revolution has done its job. The Revolution made people in Europe think about the important concepts of ideology, morality and law.
ReplyDeleteIf we will discuss about background unity of Germany and Italy i can say that Germany had enough some reasons. Firstly in the 1830s, Germany began the industrialization that produce rapid economic growth and intensifies the conflict of interests of the bourgeoisie with the feudal structure of society, whose relations have been strained, and so due to the fact that the bourgeoisie understood that they needed sales markets, which them prevented to make them lords. Also In 1834 formed Zollverein and closer to 1848 in Europe created multiple revolutionary movements that did not escape Germany.
But i cannot say the same things about Italy because for me this was a spontaneous and inspired by the desire to time. Imagine in 1848 Italy was a backward country, was fragmented into small states and had some different culture. Still, in the unification of Italy played an important role ideological and religious interests which in my opinion it were in some kind of "fashion" of the time and the Italians simply tempted by this fashion (especially the need to distinguish nationalism)
Finally, the revolutions of 1848-1849 was defeated by the forces of order. But, in my opinion, if we look to the next historical events in Europe, we cannot say that revolutions was defeated totally. Aftermath of the revolutions existed! One of the purposes of these events was to cut off totally feudal relationships, absolutism, which are stopped essentially the growth of capitalism. Even if they lose, they(oppressed peoples) got some opportunities. First of all, they got very big experience of revolution and forced the ruling classes to make some reforms(Prussia especially). The revolutions accelerate progressive development of society. Therefore, the range between ruling classes and lower classes is decreased. Growth of class consciousness and organization of the proletariat was achieved, so that government will take decisions carefully, because they know the new knowledge of proletariat. And the last the revolutions of 1848 forced the historical events like unification of Italy and Germany. People felt the power of nationality also. That's why i think that we cannot say that the revolutions was defeated totally.
ReplyDelete1. The Revolutions of 1848-1849 did not bring new forces to the power, so maybe it can be called a failure from that perspective. On the other hand, in a long term, these events inspired future more successful uprisings. Most certainly, it was a launch pad for new ideas, such as nationalism, anarchism, communism and etc., so without a doubt it was a success of Man’s intelligence, because finally ideas, that where products of combining several ‘classic’ worldviews together, where ‘tested in the field’ and from that moment began to gain certain popularity among thinkers and ordinary citizens.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that unification of these states might be a product of revolutions of 1848, on background of which the idea of nationalism gained certain popularity. It was much easier to unify a state, basing on citizens’ culture, language and other attributes that form a ‘nation’. Nation’s idea became more common with people after 1848, so it was almost ideal moment for those merges to happen.
After the revolutions of 1848-1849 it became clear that a nation-state can be forged only by the hand of external agency. All the attempts to establish national political bodies within most of the Continental states were brought to naught before long. This might be due to the fact that, even though the national impulse of a common citizen was brewing gradually from the very time of the French Revolution, it was frivolous in and of itself and inconsistent when added with those of others'. Populous revolutionary aspirations are glorious but prone to slip away shortly after some auspicious change in the political domain occurs. Thus the French political pendulum was destined to swing successively either towards a somewhat democratic regime or back to the reactionary conservative politics of the monarchy. However, the French uprisings had managed to put down the anchor against the Bourbon ever-recurring dominion in France, and it lies beyond doubt that the tumultuous decade of 1840s had laid the groundwork for the subsequent unifications of Germany and Italy.
ReplyDeleteSo one can be justified attaching high credit to the revolutionary events of that time, for they had displayed in an unequivocal fashion that the process of gaining national independence by a state as well as the unification of several ones can proceed only under the patronage of a more powerful state whose mission, according to Bismarck's „Blood and Iron“, is to coalesce and concentrate its power up to the moment when there comes the opportunity to seize upon its military force in bringing the nation together. And this kind of scenario was indeed the case, since it was the Piedmont along with the military aid of France which caused the unification on the Apennine Peninsula, and Prussia which through wars established Germany. As I've already pointed out, to bring about the unification, the nationalism must be coming from the top down, namely, from the national leaders as opposed to popular nationalism which proved useless in 1848.
In view of all the aforementioned facts, I am making my ultimate argument, that, as the unification is defined uniquely up to the leading military agency and national leaders thereof, the unification takes place only at the time when such a state and leaders come along and make their difference.