EUROPE (1848-1871)

1.Summary: When revolutions erupted throughout Europe in 1848, radicals from Prague to Paris, Naples to Berlin were interested in overthrowing the conservative establishment that had ruled Europe since the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815. Revolution was in the name of change, but every revolt failed. By the end of the year, a strong president was in charge of France, taking dictatorial powers within three years. In Austria, the Austrian army suppressed each and every urban revolt, reassertingthe power and rule of the conservative monarchy.

However, where radical revolution failed, nationalism took hold and succeeded. Italian unification, after centuries of disunity, was finally realized in 1861, with the proclamation of Italy under the Sardinian king. By 1870, with the annexation of Rome and its surrounding provinces from France and the Pope, the entire boot of Italy became one united nation-state. Just to the north, the wily political animal that was Otto von Bismarck used everything from war to harsh diplomacy to finallyunite the German provinces under the Prussian crown in 1871. Central Europe, previously divided by more powerful interests to the west and east, was finally consolidated into viable and strong states (Germany).

Meanwhile, Great Britain continued its pattern of gradual reform and experienced firsthand an active debate over government intervention in the economy and society. Russia, the most backward of all the European powers, frightened by her defeat in the Crimean War, finally moved to some reforms in society and government; however, these reforms were halfhearted and did not effect lasting change. The period between 1848 and 1871, therefore, can be considered a transition period when most nations focused on domestic matter and where those leaders who understood the interconnection between domestic and foreign affairs succeeded beyond their expectations.

2.The Leap into Modernity: Europe, 1848-1871: Students tend to minimize the historical importance of the twenty-three years that begin the second half of the nineteenth century. Industrialization had already taken hold in Britain, Germany, and, to a lesser extent, France; few alive in Europe at the time, furthermore, could remember what life was like under Napoleon Bonaparte. In many ways, this millisecond in the grand scope of recorded history is a bridge--from x to y. Historians have named many varying notions as x and y; in this SparkNote, we hope to provoke thought on each and, hopefully, inspire you to come to your own answer to the following question: What, if anything, changed in Europe from 1848 to 1871?

Let's say, as some historians do, that x equals the "early modern" period and yequals the "modern" period. Now, this makes it necessary for us to define two things: "modern," and "modern" in terms of what? Do we mean politics, technology, industry, society, culture, and so on? Let us try to define these terms.

Traditionally, "early modern" European history is seen in a much broader scope--namely, the period immediately after the Renaissance, the true bridge from pre-modern, or Medieval, to modern history. Within "modern history," traditionally defined, we can make two subdivisions: the "early" stage of modern history, ending within years of 1815, and the "late" stage of modern history, beginning within years of 1871. Simply put, therefore, the period between 1848- 1871, is an essential plank in the bridge that connects modern history.

Consider these "before and after" contrasts: Before, the "concert of Europe" maintained peace; after,Europe was on the road to World War I. Before, the Russian army dominated the continent; after, Russia was humiliated and weakened by European and Asian enemies. Before, central Europe was a

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

disjointed region of independent principalities; after, the newly unified nation-states of Germany and Italy upset the balance of power in Europe forever. Before, national interests were, without question, bound up with the interests of the ruling aristocracy; after, the notion of workers' rights and social democracy dragged European politics forever leftward. Before, Europe occupied only a small percentage of the world's land; after, the imperial centers of Europe commanded nearly all theworld outside the Western Hemisphere. All this is to say that before 1815, Europe was vastly different than after 1871. We will focus on the second part of the bridge within modernity from 1815-1871, spanning Europe from 1848 to 1871.

3.Important Terms, People, and Events:

TermsClassical liberalism - The economic and political philosophy that opposed state intervention in economic affairs, supported free trade, competition, and individual initiative as the key to success; this philosophy was, above all, an attack on privilege, on the aristocrats, on the Anglican Church; liberals believed that talent alone should dictate a man's advancement in the world; supported in England by William Gladstone.

Conservatism - A political and economic philosophy that supported state intervention in the economy on behalf of the disadvantaged; supported the maintenance of traditional institutions of privilege in the name of preservation of tradition and custom that worked in the past; supported in England by Benjamin Disraeli.

Frankfurt Assembly - May 1848-June 1849. German national parliament that tried and failed to create a united German state during the 1848 revolutions. First meeting in May 1848, the convention was populated by middle class civil servants, lawyers, and intellectuals dedicated to liberal reform. However, after drawing the boundaries for a German state and offering the crown to Friedrich Wilhelm, the Kaiser refused in March 1849, dooming hopes for a united, liberal Germany,and the Frankfurt assembly dissolved soon after.

Peace of Paris - 1856; ended the Crimean War; Russia relinquished its claim as the protector of Christianity in the Ottoman Empire and the Black Sea was neutralized among all powers; solidified a complete defeat for Russia.

Plebiscites - Popular votes on one question or issue on the ballot; Camillo di Cavour used these to legitimize Sardinia's role as the central nation in unification as he arranged these votes in every province to be annexed by Sardinia into the Italian state.

Realpolitik - The notion that politics must be conducted in terms of the realistic assessment of power and the self-interest of individual nation-states, and the pursuit of those interests by any means, often ruthless and violent ones; used skillfully by Camillo di Cavour and Otto von Bismarckin their policies toward national unification.

Risorgimento - Literally, "resurgence"; the name given to the movement for Italian unification because the movement hoped to bring Italy back to its former ancient glory through unification into one political entity; succeeded with proclamation of Italian state in 1861, finally completed with annexation of Rome in 1870.

Serfdom - An institution in Russia and many eastern European states in which peasants were legally tied to the land that they farmed and could not leave that land without expressed permission from the baron or landowner; created an immobile peasantry and a form of slavery; ended with the Emancipation of 1861.

People

Alexander II - Russian Tsar 1855-1881; known as a reformer for his Great Reforms program that included changes in education, judicial matters, military readiness, and expression freedom; issued the Emancipation edict of 1861 to free the serfs; but his record only shows him to be a half-hearted reformer, never really interested in compromising any element of his power; assassinated in 1881 by a radical because of his lackluster performance as a reformer.

Otto von Bismarck - 1815-1898; German chancellor and architect of German unification under thePrussian crown; ruthlessly used realpolitik in his endeavors; instigated fabricated conflicts with Denmark, Austria, and France to acquire the land he believed should be part of the German Empire.

Camillo di Cavour - 1810-1861; Sardinian prime minister and architect of Italian unification underSardinia's crown; skillfully used realpolitik and his understanding of international relations to enhance Sardinia's stature as a European power and use the French-Austrian conflict to his advantage.

Charles Darwin - 1809-1882; scientist, biologist. Sparked by a visit to the Galapagos Islands on the HMS Beagle, Darwin published On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection in 1859. Darwin's ideas dramatically affected societal self-conception, challenging the uniqueness of man and the relation of man to God, spurring the development of the scientific field of evolution and less scientific ideas such as Social Darwinism.

Benjamin Disraeli - 1804-1881; leader of the Conservative Party, dedicated to government intervention and the maintenance of traditional institutions of privilege for tradition and stability purposes; his government passed the Factory Act of 1875, setting a maximum of a fifty-six hour work-week; the Public Health Act, establishing a sanitary code; the Artisans Dwelling Act, defining minimum housing standards; and the Trade Union Act, permitting picketing and other peaceful labor tactics.

Giuseppe Garibaldi - Italian patriot, democrat, and freedom fighter; once Italian unification seemed possible, after the defeat of Austria, he led a legion of Italian fighters through the Kingdom of Naples, liberated province after province to create a unified Italian state; forced to relinquish his territory to Camillo di Cavour's Sardinian lands in the name of unification.

William Gladstone - 1809-1898; leader of the Liberal Party in Great Britain, though he began his career as a Tory; main advocate of the liberal approach to government--no tariffs, free trade, no government intervention; his government abolished tariffs, cut defense spending, lowered taxes, kept budgets balanced, reformed the civil service into a merit-based promotion system, and made elementary education available to and mandatory for everyone.

Georges Haussmann - 1809-1891; chief architect of the redesigned Paris under Napoleon III; known for his utter disregard for established neighborhoods when he redesigned Paris as a home forthe upper and middle class bourgeoisie of France; Haussman's redesigned Paris, known for its wide boulevards, straight roads, museums, and pristine arrangement, thus served as the model for countless other cities throughout the world.

Abraham Lincoln - American president, elected 1860; led Union during the American Civil War and dedicated himself to the forcible reunification of the United States. See the SparkNote on Abraham Lincoln.

Karl Marx - 1818-1883; German political philosopher and founder of scientific socialism; published the Communist Manifesto in 1848 and Das Kapital in 1867.

Giuseppe Mazzini - Italian patriot and democrat committed to the unification of Italy under a liberal democratic government; leader of the Young Italy organization, a group of mostly Italian youths and democrats who pledged to work toward a united democratic Italy.

Napoleon III - 1808-1873; formerly Louis Napoleon and nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte; won in the presidential election in France in December 1848, but took dictatorial powers on December 2, 1851 and took the monarchical title; can be considered the first modern politician due to his mastery

of communication and appearances to maintain the grandeur of France; known for his economic prosperity, rejuvenation of Paris, and support of Italian unification; defeated in Franco-Prussian War.

EventsAmerican Civil War - 1861-1865; conflict between the North and the Confederate South over states' rights, federalism, economic rights, and, to some extent, slavery. The Civil War was an example of the forcible unification of a union using realpolitik.

Crimean War - 1853-1856; war that pitted Russia against the alliance of Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia; Russia wanted warm water ports on Black Sea and thus hoped to take advantage of weakening Ottoman Empire; France and Britain feared an upset to the balance of power in Europe; emerged as an absolute military defeat for Russia.

Emancipation of the serfs - 1861; by the Emancipation Edict offered by Alexander II; ended the institution of serfdom in Russia after centuries of its use; most probably done because the government needed an effective pool of men from which it could conscript thousands into the army;after the defeat in the Crimean War, this was one of the efforts taken to strengthen the weak Russianmilitary.

Franco-Prussian War - July-September 1870; conflict between France and Prussia over a fabricated insult allegedly made by the French ambassador to the Prussia king; Prussia defeated France and her own territory and took Alsace-Lorraine from France and laid siege to Paris until the country gave in; overthrew the government and set up a parliamentary system in Paris.

Great Reforms - Tsar Alexander II's changes that he directed from above; changes in education, thejudiciary, the military, expression rights, etcetera all seemed to follow an enlightened, liberal perspective; however, upon careful review of these reforms, it is obvious that these were grudging reforms with little real change.

Sevastopol - 1854-1855; Russia's heavily fortified chief naval base in the Black Sea, lying on the Crimean peninsula; after just under one year of constant battle and being under siege by French an British, the Russian abandoned the fortress, blowing up their fortifications and sinking their own ships; one example of the harsh battles of the campaign.

Seven Weeks' War - 1866; war between Prussia and Austria, named for its very short duration; wasa fabricated conflict over administration of Holstein; complete victory for Prussia; Prussia gained Holstein and put an end to all Austrian involvement in German affairs, clearing a major obstacle to German unification.

4.Timeline: 1846 Beginning of Europe's last major food crisis and famine throughout the Continent.

1848 Karl Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto .

February 24, 1848 Revolution in France; overthrow of the monarchy of King Louis-Philippe; proclamation of the creation of the French Second Republic.

March 1848 Uprisings in some German states; granting of constitutional reforms in Prussia.

March 1848-June 1849 Revolutions in Italy.

April 1848 Revolutions in Vienna, Budapest, and Prague.

May 1848 Frankfurt Assembly meets and proposes a plan for the unification of Germany; Prussian king refuses to take the crown.

December 1848 Louis Napoleon wins presidential election in France.

1853-1856 Crimean War.

1859 Austria declares war on the Kingdom of Sardinia, allied with France.

1859 Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection .

1860 Sardinia annexes provinces in central Italy after plebiscites; France receives Savoy and Nice.

March 3, 1861 Emancipation of Russian serfs.

March 14, 1861 Kingdom of Italy proclaimed with King Victor Immanuel II as king.

1861-1865 American Civil War.

1863 Maximilian crowned emperor of Mexico; Prussia and Austria at war with Denmark over Schleiswig and Holstein.

1866 Seven Weeks' War between Prussia and Austria; Italy acquires Venetia.

1867 Karl Marx publishes Das Kapital .

July-September 1870 Franco-Prussian War ends with capitulation of French Second Empire.

September 20, 1870 Italy annexes Rome.

January 18, 1871 German Empire proclaimed.

5.The Revolutions of 1848 (1848):

SummaryBeginning shortly after the New Year in 1848, Europe exploded into revolution. From Paris to Frankfurt to Budapest to Naples, liberal protesters rose up against the conservative establishment. To those living through the cataclysmic year, it seemed rather sudden; however, hindsight offers valuable warning signs.

The year 1846 witnessed a severe famine--Europe's last serious food crisis. Lack of grain drove up food and other prices while wages remained stagnant, thus reducing consumer demand. With consumers buying less and less, profits plummeted, forcing thousands of industrial workers out of their jobs. High unemployment combined with high prices sparked the liberal revolt. The subsequent events in February 1848 in France made Austria's Prince Clemens von Metternich's saying seem true: "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold."

Moderate liberals--lawyers, doctors, merchants, bourgeoisie--began pushing actively for extension of suffrage through their "banquet campaign," named thus because its leaders attempted to raise money by giving rousing speeches at subscribed dinners in France's major urban areas. When on February 22, 1848, Paris officials canceled the scheduled banquet, fearing organized protest by the middle and working classes, Parisian citizens demonstrated against the repression. Skilled workers, factory laborers, and middle class liberals poured into the streets. The National Guard, a citizen militia of bourgeois Parisians, defected from King Louis-Philippe, and the army garrison stationed in Paris joined the revolutionary protesters as well. Louis-Philippe attempted reform, but the workers rejected the halfhearted changes. The king fled and the demonstrators proclaimed the Second Republic on February 24th.

The overthrow of the monarchy set off a wave of protest throughout east and central Europe, led by radical liberals and workers who demanded constitutional reform or complete government change. In March, protests in the German provinces brought swift reform from local princes while Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia yielded to revolts in Berlin by promising to create a Prussian assembly. The collapse of autocracy in Prussia encouraged liberals in the divided Germany

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

provinces to join together at the Frankfurt Assembly to frame a constitution and unite the German nation. Meeting in May 1848, the convention was populated by middle class civil servants, lawyers,and intellectuals dedicated to liberal reform. However, after drawing the boundaries for a German state and offering the crown to Friedrich Wilhelm, the Kaiser refused in March 1849, dooming hopes for a united, liberal Germany.

In Austria, students, workers, and middle class liberals revolted in Vienna, setting up a constituent assembly. In Budapest, the Magyars led a movement of national autonomy, led by patriot Lajos Kossuth. Similarly, in Prague, the Czechs revolted in the name of self-government. In Italy, new constitutions were declared in Tuscany and Piedmont, with the goal of overthrowing their Austrian masters. Here, middle class liberals pushed the concept of Italian unification alongside the defeat of the Austrians with the help of the Young Italy movement, founded in 1831 by nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian patriot who favored a democratic revolution to unify the country. In February 1849, Mazzini led a democratic revolt against the Pope in Rome, becoming head of the Republic of Rome later that month. By attacking the Pope, the democrats went too far. The self-proclaimed protectors of the Pope, the French, moved in and defeated Mazzini's Roman legion. The Pope was restored and a democratic Italy collapsed, for now.

Meanwhile, from August 1848, the Austrian army soundly defeated every revolt in its empire. In Vienna, in Budapest, in Prague, the Austrians legions crushed the liberal and democratic movements, returning the empire to the conservative establishment that ruled at the beginning of 1848. Nothing had come of the revolutions of 1848.

CommentaryThe revolutions of 1848 were a "turning point in modern history that modern history failed to turn." Every one was an utter failure; though minor reforms emerged in the Germany provinces and in Prussia, the conservative regimes that canvassed Europe remained in power.

Though utter failures themselves, the 1848 revolutions inspire much more discussion. Consider the following four points:

PARGRAPH The year 1848 marked the end of the so-called "concert of Europe" that had been defined after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 as a way to maintain the European balance of power byhaving the continent's major powers meet to resolve their differences and prevent aggression. After 1848, the European powers seemed incapable of united action to maintain the status quo, probably because the revolutions of 1848 weakened the regimes in the eyes of their people. Secondly, the revolutions failed to bring about any significant change. In France, the December 1848 presidential election brought Louis Napoleon, nephew of the former emperor, into office; it took him less than three years to consolidate absolute power. In Austria, a new emperor, Franz Josef I, continued Austrian dominance over all the minorities of eastern Europe. In Prussia, the promised assembly had little power and was constituted by the aristocratic elite.

The final two points emerge from here: 1) Why did the revolutions fail? and 2) why was it so easy for conservative forces to return? The revolutions probably failed due to lack of organization. In Austria, for example, the revolts in Prague, Vienna, and Budapest maintained no communication among them, allowing the Austrian army to attend to each in isolation, without a united front. Finally, the return of conservative and reactionary forces was probably due to the middle class. Another reason why the revolutions failed was because moderate liberals of the middle class feared the radicalism of the workers, preventing any type of lasting alliance. Therefore, when radicals tookcontrol of the revolutions in Paris and in eastern Europe, the middle class liberals turned their backs,preferring absolute rule and law and order, to the uncertainty of radical revolution.

5.The Crimean War (1854-1855):

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

SummaryFor centuries, one central goal of Russian foreign policy was to obtain a warm water port in the south--namely, at the Bosporus Straits and the Strait of the Dardanelles, the small waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. In 1854, the decaying Ottoman Empire controlled that essential waterway and Russia sought increased power in this region.

In 1853, St. Petersburg demanded that the Ottoman Empire recognize Russia's right to protect Eastern Orthodox believers in Turkey. When Turkey refused, Russia sent troops into Ottoman territory. Fearing increased Russian power and an upset to the balance of power on the Continent, Great Britain and France declared war on Russia on March 28, 1854. Russia fared well against its weaker neighbor to the south, destroying the Turkish fleet off the coast of Sinope, a port city in north-central Asia Minor. However, in September 1854, the British and French laid siege to Sevastopol, Russia's heavily fortified chief naval base in the Black Sea, lying on the Crimean peninsula. After just under one year of constant battle, the Russian abandoned the fortress, blowing up their fortifications and sinking their own ships. Meanwhile, at nearby Balaklava, British troops charged down a narrow valley that was flanked by Russian guns on both sides. Nearly every British soldier fell dead in what came to be called the Valley of Death. The name of the British group was the Light Brigade, giving rise to the famous Alfred, Lord Tennyson poem, "The Charge of the Light Brigade."

Russia's new tsar, Alexander II, sued for peace in 1856. In the resulting Peace of Paris, Russia relinquished its claim as Christian protector in Turkey, the Black Sea was neutralized, and the balance of power was maintained.

CommentaryThe Crimean War had the highest casualty rate of any conflict in Europe between 1815 and 1914, the century-long peace maintained by the balance of power. Disease killed many, but poor leadership killed thousands more. It was the final war in which the Ottoman Empire had any victorious role, though even in the Crimea, Russia fared quite well against the Turks. The greater importance of the Crimean War is embodied in one international and one national element.

In terms of European international relations, the Crimean War marked the end of the veritable charade of Russian military dominance on the Continent. Granted, the Russian army was the largestforce due to its sheer numbers; however, it was soundly defeated by smaller British and French forces, and its navy proved utterly useless and backward by the middle of the nineteenth century. It was Russia who guaranteed to maintain order and balance after the defeat of the Napoleon--it did sowith Austria, Prussia, and France since then. Now, that power was effectively eliminated; therefore, the demise of the balance of power could not be far behind.

On the national scale, the Crimean War, some historians have argued, marked the beginning of the road to the Russian Revolution of 1917.

6.Italian Unification (1848-1870):

SummaryThe movement to unite Italy into one cultural and political entity was known as the Risorgimento (literally, "resurgence"). Giuseppe Mazzini and his leading pupil, Giuseppe Garibaldi, failed in theirattempt to create an Italy united by democracy. Garibaldi, supported by his legion of Red Shirts-- mostly young Italian democrats who used the 1848 revolutions as a opportunity for democratic uprising--failed in the face of the resurgence of conservative power in Europe. However, it was the aristocratic politician named Camillo di Cavour who finally, using the tools of realpolitik, united Italy under the crown of Sardinia.

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

"Realpolitik" is the notion that politics must be conducted in terms of the realistic assessment of power and the self-interest of individual nation-states (and the pursuit of those interests by any means, often ruthless and violent ones) and Cavour used it superbly. In 1855, as prime minister of Sardinia, he involved the kingdom on the British and French side of the Crimean War, using the peace conference to give international publicity to the cause of Italian unification. In 1858, he formed an alliance with France, one that included a pledge of military support if necessary, against Austria, Italy's major obstacle to unification. After a planned provocation of Vienna, Austria declared war against Sardinia in 1859 and was easily defeated by the French army. The peace, signed in November 1959 in Zurich, Switzerland, joined Lombardy, a formerly Austrian province, with Sardinia. In return, France received Savoy and Nice from Italy--a small price to pay for pavingthe way to unification.

Inspired by Cavour's success against Austria, revolutionary assemblies in the central Italian provinces of Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and Romagna voted in favor of unification with Sardinia in the summer of 1859. In the spring of 1860, Garibaldi came out of his self-imposed exile to lead a latter day Red Shirt army, known as the Thousand, in southern Italy. By the end of the year, Garibaldi had liberated Sicily and Naples, which together made up the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.Cavour, however, worried that Garibaldi, a democrat, was replacing Sardinia, a constitutional monarchy, as the unifier of Italy. To put an end to Garibaldi's offensive, Cavour ordered Sardinian troops into the Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples. After securing important victories in these regions, Cavour organized plebiscites, or popular votes, to annex Naples to Sardinia. Garibaldi, outmaneuvered by the experienced realist Cavour, yielded his territories to Cavour in the name of Italian unification. In 1861, Italy was declared a united nation-state under the Sardinian king Victor Immanuel II.

Reapolitik continued to work for the new Italian nation. When Prussia defeated Austria in a war in 1866, Italy struck a deal with Berlin, forcing Vienna to turn over Venetia. In addition, when France lost a war to Prussia in 1870, Victor Immanuel II took over Rome when French troops left. The entire boot of Italy was united under one crown.

CommentaryWhy did Cavour succeed and Garibaldi fail? Was it really only a matter of speed? If Garibaldi had started his crusade earlier and had time to conquer the Papal State before Cavour sent his troops to do so, would Cavour have been forced to give up his territory in the name of a united Italy? Doubtful. But is speed really the only issue? That, too, is doubtful. It seems that of the two, Cavour alone understood the relationship between national and international events, and was thus able to manipulate foreign policy for his own ends. Garibaldi, a democrat, a warrior, and an anti-Catholic, was without question on the road to conflict with the monarchies of Europe. Cavour, with the addedcredibility of representing a monarch, blended perfectly with the political situation in Europe at the time.

Cavour was a realist who practice realistic politics. He allied with France when necessary and with France's key enemy, Prussia, was necessary. By keeping the goal in mind, Cavour used internationalpower to achieve his domestic goals. Garibaldi was forced to use his own grassroots strength, empowered by young Italian democrats interested in an idealistic future for their nation. In that manner, it is quite doubtful that Garibaldi would have ever been able to gain the upper hand in Italy,relative to Cavour.

Another important element of unification, especially in Italy's case, was how to deal with various cultural differences. Cavour, despite his leadership in introducing constitutional and liberal reforms in Sardinia, had no patience for such regionalism when his goal was Italian unification. He crushed regional and cultural differences with moderately conservative policies on social and political matters. In doing so, he began to alienate southern peasants and nobles, creating a regional gulf that would come back to haunt Italy in future years.

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

7.German Unification (1850-1871):

SummaryWhereas Camillo di Cavour directed Italian unification, a Junker (the Prussian name for an aristocratic landowner from old Prussia in the east) named Otto von Bismarck pushed German unification through "blood and iron" and skillful understanding of realpolitik. As the map of central Europe stood in 1850, Prussia competed with Austria for dominance over a series of small principalities fiercely keen on maintaining their independence and distinctive characteristics. Prussia proper stretched from modern-day Lithuania to central Germany. Prussia also controlled the German lands around the Rhine River in the west. In between, from Denmark to Switzerland, lay small provinces that Bismarck needed to incorporate under the Prussian crown to create a viable German Empire.

In 1862, Bismarck reorganized the Prussian army and improved training in preparation for war. In 1864, he constructed an alliance with Austria to fight Denmark over Denmark's southern provinces of Schleiswig and Holstein. Prussia received Schleiswig while Austria administered Holstein. That situation, however, could not stand for long, as Austrian Holstein was now surrounded by Prussian lands. Bismarck provoked a conflict with Austria over an unrelated border dispute and in the subsequent Seven Weeks' War--named for its brevity--Prussia crushed the collapsing Austrian army.The peace settlement transferred Holstein to Prussia and forced Austria to officially remove itself from all German affairs.

With Austria out of Bismarck's way, his next obstacle was the skepticism of the southern provinces. Overwhelmingly Catholic and anti-militaristic, the southern provinces doubted Prussia's commitment to a united Germany of all provinces. Prussia's Protestantism and historic militarism made the gulf between north and south quite serious. Therefore, Bismarck turned to realpolitik to unite the Germanic provinces by constructing a war against a common enemy. In 1870, Bismarck forged a note from the French ambassador, implying that the ambassador had insulted the Prussian king. After he leaked this letter to both populations, the people of France and Prussia, roused by nationalist sentiment, rose up in favor of war. As Bismarck hoped, the southern provinces rallied to Prussia's side without any hesitation. In July 1870, France declared war on Prussia. Within a matter of weeks of fighting in Alsace-Lorraine, France lost this Franco-Prussian War. Alsace-Lorraine was transferred to Germany in the peace settlement, allowing Prussia to declare the German Empire, or Second Reich, on January 21, 1871.

CommentaryLike Italy, Germany had quite a few serious issues to resolve once unification took place. Regional differences, developing since the first settlement of the Germanic tribes during the Roman Empire, were distinct, and local princes refused to give up substantial power to the central government. The Berlin assembly, therefore, was kept weak. Germany, like the United States under theArticles of the Confederation, seemed merely a loose of confederation of autonomous states. In Germany's case, one state, Prussia, was absolutely dominant due to its size, power, and military strength. This, combined with Bismarck's skillful conduct in international and national affairs as chancellor, kept the empire together until 1914.

However, the creation of a unified Germany in central Europe marked one of the greatest revolutions in the history of international relations. Since the establishment of nation-states in Europe, France, under the Valois-Bourbon royal line, dedicated its foreign policy to the weakening of Habsburg (Austrian and Spanish royal families) and the continued disunity of the Germanic provinces. Now that central Europe was united into two major powers--Germany and Italy--Europe was quite a different place. What would now become of the traditional balance of power in place

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

since the defeat of Napoleon? The whole point had been that no one nation should gain excessive power and strength on the Continent. With the unification of Germany in central Europe--an essential economic and strategic region--was the balance of power doomed?

6.The Second Empire in France (1852-1870):

SummaryIn December 1848, Louis Napoleon, nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, was elected president of the Second Republic. Most political leaders in Paris at the time considered him a lightweight--easily manipulated, not terribly bright or competent. Louis surprise the entire nation when, on December 2, 1851, he seized power in a coup d'etat and became dictator of France. Exactly one year later, he declared himself Napoleon III and set out to bring France back to its former glory on the Continent in the Second Empire.

On the surface, France under Napoleon III glittered; in terms of specifics, France was the symbol ofsuccess in many areas. During Napoleon III's reign, the French economy flourished due to high demand for French goods, a new banking system put France's financial house in order, and a massive program of public works turned Paris into the envy of the entire world. The city was completely redesigned and improved by Baron Georges Haussmann. Haussmann ripped into poor neighborhoods, replacing them with museums, apartments for the bourgeoisie, brownstones, architectural wonders, wide and straight boulevards, etcetera. Paris, previously the most radical and most volatile of European capitals, took a decidedly more conservative bend--policing was easier, the bourgeoisie pushed the workers into the surrounding suburbs, and the rich came in droves to the center.

In foreign policy, Napoleon III had some success and some horrible failures. As a victor in the Crimean War and a key supporter of Italian unification, Napoleon III made French foreign policy dominant (for a time) on the Continent. With Savoy and Nice back under the French fold, NapoleonIII could boast an end to the encirclement imposed upon France after the defeat of his uncle. However, his involvement in Mexico was a fiasco. In 1861, Napoleon III sent a military force to that nation to pacify the Mexican countryside, setting up Austrian archduke Maximilian as emperor of Mexico. France, as Mexico's largest creditor, had the support of Mexico's conservative elite who opposed the liberal policies of the previous president in Mexico City. However, Maximilian suffered from a serious lack of popular support in Mexico; once Napoleon III withdrew his troops tofight in Europe, Maximilian fell to popular uprising and was executed in the summer of 1867. French prestige was damaged and public criticism threatened to bring down Napoleon III's regime.

The proximate cause of the demise of the Second Empire was France's defeat at the hands of Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War. After Prussia occupied Paris, Napoleon III fled, and Prussia set up an unstable republican government based on universal manhood suffrage and multiparty parliamentarianism.

CommentaryTo explain the success of the Second Empire, we must see Napoleon III as one of the first modern politicians, keenly aware of the role of public opinion and skillful in the management of informationand outward appearances. Napoleon III began his public works project not simply to make Paris a livable place (a reasonable goal, considering how dirty and crime-ridden Paris had been beforehand), but also to show his public and the world how successful and wealthy France had become. He wanted Paris to be the center of world culture and politics not only because he was fiercely patriotic, but also because the effect such international prestige would have on his voting public would be necessary to the maintenance of his regime. Napoleon III mastered the art of the

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

public appearance and the modern-day "photo-op" before such modern politics actually took hold inother places (such as the United States).

The rest of France's success, based primarily on the economic boom in Europe at the time, was not Napoleon III's doing, but we can attribute some credit to him for maintaining it in France. Years of stable, dictatorial rule in Paris brought international investment back into France, resulting in a period of sustained economic growth and a stable period of wages increasing faster than prices. Therich did get richer, but abject poverty in the cities diminished, as well. Granted, poverty remained (despite Napoleon III's original promise in the presidential election of 1848; however, no one could argue against the fact that the economy was improving and France was doing pretty well.

So, why did France fall so easily? It is too easy to point to the cause usually cited in textbooks--that Napoleon III's France was a hollow shell. That might have been true, but so was Austria, so was Russia, so was the Ottoman Empire, and they took much longer to fall from grace. It is possible thatFrance fell first because of Prussia's absolute advantage in strength on the Continent; it was in the wrong place at the wrong time in the face of such a strong enemy.

7.Victorian England:

SummaryPolitics in Great Britain at this time can be summed up as a grand--and unresolved--debate between classical liberalism, represented by William Gladstone, and interventionist conservatism, represented by Benjamin Disraeli. (Note: These political terms have essentially no resemblance to their modern usage, so as we trace the story of England at this time, try to forget the modern definitions of "liberal" and "conservative".)

Though Gladstone began his career as a Tory (the nickname for members of the Conservative Party), he became the leader of the Liberal Party and a champion of classical liberalism, the economic and political philosophy that opposed state intervention in economic affairs, supported free trade, competition, and individual initiative as the key to success. This philosophy was, above all, an attack on privilege--on the aristocrats, on the Anglican Church. Liberals believed that talent alone should dictate a man's advancement in the world. Under Gladstone, Britain abolished tariffs, cut defense spending, lowered taxes, kept budgets balanced, reformed the civil service into a merit-based promotion system, and made elementary education available to and mandatory for everyone.

While Gladstone advanced a liberal version of England's future, Disraeli advocated a different view,known as conservatism. Supported by an odd coalition of great privilege and the agrarian poor, the Conservative Party pushed for state intervention in the economy on behalf of both the disadvantaged and the landed elite. Both supported tariffs because they helped British agriculture and British domestic industries. While Disraeli was prime minister, the government passed through the following changes:

1. Factory Act of 1875, setting a maximum of a fifty-six hour workweek. 2. Public Health Act, establishing a sanitary code. 3. Artisans Dwelling Act, defining minimum housing standards. 4. Trade Union Act, permitting picketing and other peaceful labor tactics.

As power in parliament switched back and forth, depending upon who was able to craft the more effective voter coalition, England remained insulated from the revolutions and popular uprisings that plagued Europe from 1830-1848, and took considerable pride in that fact. Victorian England was on the road to great strength, maintained by its unparalleled peace at home.

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

CommentaryThe question remains, however: Why was there no revolutionary uprising in Great Britain? After all, Britain was ruled by an aristocratic or bourgeois elite that excluded democrats, radicals, and workers; further, the government was not fully representative, since in 1832, only 20 percent of the population could fulfill the property qualifications to vote. As explained by historian Mark Kishlansky, England experienced no revolution because its ruling elite, of common background andeducation, was able to change and adapt to the shifting needs and opinions of modern society.

The Liberals represented the economic and political wishes of the British bourgeoisie--industrial (tosome extent), merchant, and professional--and the Conservatives represented the conservative elements of society. Granted, everyone else in society was excluded from voting and, thus, direct representation; however, in many cases, both parties responded to the needs of workers and the poor, most notably the Conservatives. The essential difference between the ruling elites in Britain and those on the Continent was their common background and common philosophy. In Prussia and France, nobles were dedicated to the preservation of their privilege by birthright alone; in England, nobles were dedicated to the preservation of the rights of Englishmen. Granted, to them, "Englishmen" meant fellow nobles and the wealthy; however, the different perspective in terms of rights rather than privilege was more conducive to allowing the English aristocrats to understand liberal demands in the 1840s and respond to them with political and gradual change.

The peace that prevailed in Europe throughout most of the nineteenth century has often been called the "Pax Britannia," like the "Pax Romana" that prevailed during the golden age of Rome. Now, Britain did not use her armies to actively enforce peace throughout Europe and the globe; however, her role as a key victor over Napoleon and unquestioned mistress of the seas kept overt aggression in check until the German army and navy could compete effectively at the beginning of the twentieth century. Besides Britain's foreign policy, domestic policy that ensured peace at home also strengthened London's image as an enforcer of fair peace in the world. Professor Kishlansky sums up the great success of Britain in this era by referring to its great compromise: the reconciliation of industrialists' commitment to unimpeded growth and workers' needs for protection from the state. Only Great Britain succeeded in doing this prior to the great explosion of the welfare state and modern, regulated capitalism.

8."Reform" in Russia (1855-1881):

SummaryThe Russian defeat in the Crimean War was a wake-up call to the autocracy. While St. Petersburg could boast that it commanded the largest army in Europe (in numbers), poor roads, antiquated weapons, and low morale prohibited the effective use of that awesome potential power. The defeat proved to the autocracy in charge that Russia had fallen dangerously behind its Western neighbors, making it vulnerable to future attack and invasion.

Why had Russia lost? Looking to Western models and contrasting Russian society to, say, French orPrussian society, one element remained outstanding: the continued existence in Russia of serfdom. Whether out of genuine progressive beliefs or merely a need for an effective conscript army when the next war developed, Alexander II initiated a period of reform in Russia with the February 19, 1861 Emancipation of the serfs.

This "emancipation", however, was barely related to what the peasants themselves were expecting. While the 360-page statute did give them "the status of free rural inhabitants," peasants were still subject to considerable taxes and a passport system to restrict movement throughout the country. In addition, the land settlement was equally as unfulfilling. Not only did freedom from land obligations only come up for termination in 1863, but also those so-called "temporary obligations"

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

could continue until both the peasants and their local landlords came to a mutually agreeable settlement. When and if that moment ever came, the peasants would receive a small portion of the land through government- financed redemption payments to the landlord--a sum the former serfs would have to repay over a forty-nine year period.

Nevertheless, for autocratic Russia under the Romanov dynasty, this was unprecedented reform. Even more striking were the additional reforms that continued until Alexander's death--the so-calledGreat Reforms. They can be divided into the following categories:

1. Local government reform: Since vast numbers of new citizens, i.e. former serfs, now populated the countryside, a system of elected local governments, or zemstvos, arose to replace the old institutions of landlord rule. These assemblies, with separate seats for peasants, townspeople, and private landowners, were responsible for maintaining the local infrastructure and industrial development. Through taxation of all classes, the zemstvo built bridges, roads, hospitals, and prisons and provided essential services such as healthcare and poverty relief. 2. Education reform: At the call of the Elementary School Statute of 1864, a litany of elementary schools sprang up across the country, though funding was remanded to the local government, to overcome the massive illiteracy that plagued the former serfs. The 1863 University Statute reorganized colleges and universities into effective self-governing corporations, with considerable freedom for both faculty and students. 3. Judicial reform: The Judiciary Statute of 1864 overhauled the Russian court system based on these liberal principles--equality of all before the law, an independent judiciary, jury trial by propertied peers, public legal proceedings, and the establishmentof an educated legal profession.

4. Military reform: The Universal Military Training Act of 1874 established all-class conscription and called for technological improvement, elite reorganization, and new military schools. 5. Expression reform: Alexander's Temporary Regulations of 1865 abandoned pre- censorship, or censorship of journals or groups before publication, in favor of punitive measures after the fact.

Teased by these halfhearted reforms from above, dissatisfied peasants, intellectuals, professionals, and even some liberal gentry sought greater freedom through recourse to violent revolutionary movements to overthrow the Tsarist government. Widely labeled as populist movements whose aims focused on giving all Russian land back to the peasants, these groups used clandestine terrorism in the late 1870s to kill Alexander II, finally succeeding on March 1, 1881. An era of modest reform in Russia was over.

CommentaryRegardless of Alexander II's true feelings, he set out to reform Russian society along moderately liberal (for Russia) lines. Still the most conservative country in Europe, Europe at the end of Alexander's reign was slightly different than before, if we only point to the emancipation of the serfs. However, even a cursory examination of these reforms makes it apparent that these changes were too little, too late. Worse yet, the reforms stimulated liberal reformers--mostly professionals, intellectuals, and students--who urged greater reforms and faster reforms, something the regime refused to give. Ironically, by introducing some reforms, the very limited nature of them ignited radical opposition within the Russian population that would boil over into outright revolution at the beginning of the twentieth century. It is with this argument that some historians point to the Crimean War as the beginning of the road to the Russian Revolution.

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

8.Civil War in the United States (1861-1865)

SummaryWhile revolutions erupted throughout the major cities of Europe in 1848, the United States was engineering a peaceful and democratic transfer of power in the presidential election year. After only four years out of the White House, Zachary Taylor brought the Whig Party back to power in 1848. In 1850, he signed a treaty with Britain, guaranteeing the neutrality of any future canal across Central America. However, 1850 is more famous for the Compromise of 1850, which admitted California as a free state, abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, organized Utah and New Mexico as territories without reference to slavery, and enforced a stricter fugitive slave law. Once again, the issue of slavery was postponed for future debate.

In 1858, a little-known former congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln (See the Abraham Lincoln SparkNote), ran for the United States Senate as a Republican. Facing off against northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, the two politicians offered the essential arguments occupying the northern United States. Lincoln called for the abolition of slaveryon moral and nationalistic grounds; Douglas called for government non-intervention on federalism grounds, claiming that though he abhorred slavery, he could not tell another citizens, living in another part of the country, what to do. Douglas won the Senate seat, but two years later, Lincoln won the White House, igniting the American Civil War.

In 1863, under moral and political pressure, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, setting all slaves in the rebel southern states free, though not freeing those slaves in the key border states (that was done only at the end of the war). By 1865, the Union had used its superior personal, industrial, and military resources to vanquish the southern rebels and reunite the country by means of force.

Reconstruction, the period of reunification and repair after the Civil War, began under Lincoln's forgiving hand. After he was assassinated, the radical Republicans, intent on punishing the South and ensuring African-American equality, took control of Reconstruction. Reconstruction ended in 1877 with the Compromise of 1877 and the removal of Union troops from the South.

CommentaryThe details of American history at this time is not absolutely essential to our discussion of Europe intransition. However, it is useful for comparison. In 1871, Otto von Bismarck forcibly united Prussia and the Germanic provinces into the German Empire. Didn't Abraham Lincoln forcibly unite the North and South into an American Union quite similarly? Granted, the circumstances are different in that there was no civil war in Prussia and the provinces; however, in both cases, force was used due to a realistic assessment of politics at the time. The nineteenth century, therefore, was successful at national unification and national healing because of the use of realpolitik, rather than an idealistic approach. However, the United States chose union under constitutional republicanism, while Germany chose union under autocratic monarchy.

We can also compare the United States and Russia in terms of the emancipation of serfs and slaves. The Russian edict in 1861 affected over fifty-two million peasants, while the American proclamation freed less than four million American slaves. In addition, even though the freedom laws were in the context of an autocratic state and a democratic state, both failed. In Russia, peasants were still tied to the land and were required to pay the state for their land and freedom for the next forty-nine years. In the United States, Southern whites took the opportunity of the end of Reconstruction to pass laws that restricted black movements and actions, known as Jim Crow laws. Not until the 1960s did African Americans begin to see the rights they were promised in the 1860s. Why did both emancipations fail? Most probably because one cannot legislate morality or change deep-seated cultural mores in an instant. However, the freedoms acts did eliminate the last vestiges

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

of ancient culture--modernity, even in Russia, was on its way.

9.New Ideas and Changing Assumptions in European Culture and Politics:

SummaryIn addition to nation states, the period from 1848-1871 saw the rise of transformative new ideas, most particularly the ideas of Darwinian Evolution and Marxism. In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, introducing what some historians call the "New Science." His argument was simple: life originated and perpetuated itself through a push-and-pull struggle in which the successful forms adapted themselves to changing conditions and survived, while those that did not chance became extinct. Though he never used the word "evolution," the basics of the argument noticeably suffuse the work. Years later, the notion of "social darwinism"--the application of "survival of the fittest" to political and economic arenas--offered a distinctly conservative approach that advocated unregulated capitalism as the natural formof progress. Darwin, however, never intended such an interpretation of his original biological theory.

In 1848, Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto . He followed this with his seminal work in 1867, Das Kapital , introducing "scientific socialism." Here was a materialist interpretation of history and society. Labor, a Marx defined it, was the essential effort to transform nature into things useful for survival. Building on this, Marx, joined by his colleague Friedrich Engels, saw society as divided into two groups: those who owned property and those who did not. In the nineteenth century, the middle class bourgeoisie owned property and the means of production, while the workers, or the proletariat, owned nothing. In history, Marx argued, any society based on class division maintained, by its very divided nature, the seeds of its own demise because, inevitably, the proletariat would rise up and overthrown the capitalist system that kept them down. Marx predicted that as the bourgeois society expanded and grew its capitalist base, it would employ more workers in ever larger factories and industries, bringing the working classes into association and organization and thus creating the atmosphere conducive to the eventual progression from capitalism to socialism.

CommentarySeen as a conflict, social Darwinism versus Marxism provided the framework for the most basic understanding of the modern Cold War. However, these theories were based on an interpretation Darwin did not intend and a misuse of Marx's intention. We can only understand these two "New Sciences" in contemporaneous terms by viewing them as intellectual developments in a Europe ripefor change. The conservatism of the first half of the century, though once again in power after the defeat of the revolutions of 1848, was not enough. Radicals and intellectuals were starved for something different. Though Darwin offered nothing to uproot the society as it stood, the introduction of a New Science brought much needed depth to a society (especially German society) starved for active thought. In relation to the argument that Europe from 1848 to 1871 was in a transition from the first to the second stages of modernity, these issues were among the new debates,new questions, and new sciences that finally brought Western societies into full modern swing.

Study Questions After the revolutions of 1848 failed throughout Europe, conservative forces were able to reassert their dominance throughout the Continent. Why was it so easy for them to do so?

AbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlightAbhishekHighlight

The reassertion of conservative and "law and order" stability throughout Europe was probably due to

the support the members of the middle class gave to those conservative elements in government. The

revolutions of 1848 had changed, since the beginning of the uprisings in Paris, to those of a more

radical bent, led by workers and students with radical ideas and leftist leanings. The middle class--

lawyers, civil servants, doctors, other professionals, merchants--was frightened of the instability and

uncertainty that developed from radical leadership of the waves of change. Therefore, in response to

that uncertainty, the middle class put their trust in conservative elements that promised to return order

and stability to a previously dangerous European situation.

Did the Crimean War mark the end of Russian military dominance on the Continent? Discuss arguments for both sides of the question before coming to your own conclusion.

Some historians argue that due to the utter defeat Russia experienced in the Crimean War, the charade

that Russia was strongest power on the Continent, a notion maintained since the defeat of Napoleon,

finally ended. Soldiers were poorly led, the navy was antiquated, and the armed forces could not

succeed against a smaller British and French force. However, an argument can be made that the

Crimean War brought about an improvement in the Russian military. Military reforms and the

emancipation of the serfs freed up millions for military service, and the army and navy were reorganized

for the future. One can say that the defeat was a wake-up call that pushed Russia out of its

complacency and forced it to make sure it really did have the strongest army in the world. However, that

argument is based only on a theoretical approach. History tells us that the Russia army was quite weak,

defeated by the Japanese in 1905 and destroyed by the Germans in 1914.

What were the effects, in terms of European international relations, of the creation of a unified German Empire in the center of Europe? Assess the effects from the perspectives of various other nations in Europe.

The unification of Germany was a revolution in international relations, overturning centuries of foreign

policy perspectives since the days of Henry IV of Navarre in France. Traditionally, France had dedicated

itself to the maintenance of Germanic division in central Europe for fear of the awesome power one

nation could wield in the strategically important and resource-rich center of Europe. With that tradition

gone, the European balance of power was upset. From France's perspective, it marked a real danger to

security. From Austria's view, it marked the end of Austrian power in the Germanic provinces and the

lasting dominance of Prussia-Germany in foreign policy. From Russia's view, the organization of

Germany into one powerful nation should have been received with some fear, since the nation

stretched from Russian lands to France. No one can really tell how England may have viewed it, since

the country was still enforcing its "splendid isolation" from European affairs.

What were some of the main differences between the processes of unification undertaken in Italy and

Germany? What were some of the similarities? Is there one unifying theory or concept that was

necessary to both processes?

"The Crimean War began a period of great reform in Russia, never seen before and never repeated

since." Assess the validity of this statement using specific examples of reforms in Russia from 1855-

1871.

Why did Camillo di Cavour succeed with his plan to unite the Italian nation while Giuseppe Garibaldi

failed in his?

How could Napoleon III be described as the first modern politician? Use specific examples from the Second Empire in answering this question.

Explain, in brief, the philosophical debate ongoing between the Liberal and Conservative parties in

Great Britain during the Victorian Age. Use specific examples of laws passed and changes made during

the Gladstone and Disraeli governments to elaborate.

Why did Great Britain avoid some of the major uprisings that plagued Europe in 1848? What about the British situation seemed to make it immune to radical revolt?

Compare the forcible unification of the United States via Union victory in the American Civil War with the

unification of the German Empire. Compare Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation with

Alexander II's Emancipation Edict.

EUROPE (1848-1871)TermsPeopleEventsSummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentary