Q- In the short-run the revolutions of 1848 failed to achieve almost all their

aims however it is clear that revolutions were truly revolutionary. How far do
you agree with this assessment?
Q- The revolution of 1848 challenged in old older. Discuss.
Introduction
“Europe’s history is not one of progress or stability, but of repeated
convulsions, where the transfer of power has been shaped as much by violence
and destruction as by diplomacy and negotiation.” – Mark Mazower
Throughout European history, the continent has witnessed dramatic shifts in
power, driven by wars, revolutions, colonial ambitions that have led to the rise
and fall of empires. These changes, be it from the Treaty of Westphalia to the
Congress of Vienna, reshaped the political, social, and economic landscapes of
Europe, often leaving a lasting legacy on the global stage, reflecting the
complex interplay of ambition, ideology, and human struggle.
The period from 1830s to 1848 Europe is of a similar kind with Eric Hobsbawm
describing it as ““an age of capital, an age of empire, and an age of revolution.”
In this very context, the following paragraphs intend to look at how the
revolutions of 1848 despite achieving a long-term success is not considered
revolutionary or one might even ask, were these revolutions inevitable? or why
did they fail?
Nature
The Revolutions of 1848, termed the "Springtime of Nations" by Eric
Hobsbawm, were the largest and most violent political upheavals of 19th-
century Europe, spreading from France to Germany, Austria, southeastern
Europe, and Italy, though Britain and Tsarist Russia remained unaffected. Aimed
at establishing constitutional republics, equality, and ending privilege, these
revolutions initially succeeded in shaking old regimes but quickly lost
momentum, as highlighted by Roger Price.
Jonathan Sperber in this regard, offers three interpretations: the “romantic
revolution,” emphasizing heroic leaders like Giuseppe Garibaldi and Lajos
Kossuth; the “incompetent amateurs” view, which critiques poor organization
and leadership; and the counter-revolutionary strength perspective, which he
sees as the primary cause of failure.
A newer approach however, shifts focus to localized activism, exploring rural
uprisings and symbols of resistance. Price and Sperber also connect these
uprisings to broader socio-economic changes, marking them as part of Europe’s
transition toward industrialization and modern politics, despite their ultimate
failure.
Causes
The Revolutions of 1848 were a culmination of economic, social, and political
crises that had been building up throughout the late 1840s. Scholars like Roger
Price emphasize the importance of balancing long-term preconditions with
immediate triggers to understand these uprisings.
Economic Crisis
The 1845-1847 economic crisis combined pre-industrial subsistence and
overpopulation-under-consumption dynamics. Poor cereal harvests and potato
blight led to near-starvation, rising food prices, and sparked strikes,
demonstrations, and food riots. Additionally, industrial production collapsed,
creating unemployment and credit crises which coupled population pressure
on agricultural resources and early industrialization exacerbated rural misery,
paving the way for revolutionary activity.
Social Tensions
However, the first half of the 19th century saw the emergence of an educated
bourgeoisie—civil servants, lawyers, doctors, journalists, and businessmen—
who felt alienated from the existing political order, demanding parliamentary
government, individual freedoms, and the rule of law. Workers and the petty
bourgeoisie, on the other hand grew radical, and the crises of 1845-1848
politicized the working class, leading to a broader mobilization against the
established order through strikes and demonstrations.
State Aggravation
In addition to this, Jonathan Sperber highlights the role of the state in
exacerbating tensions where escalating demands for taxes and military
recruitment placed enormous pressure on a population already experiencing
declining living standards. This erosion of popular legitimacy, coupled with
insufficient means of coercion, further fueled political unrest.
National Unification
More so, nationalistic sentiments also played a crucial role in the revolutions.
For instance, in Germany, the desire for a pan-German union emerged as a
response to French domination. Here, Moderate liberals pushed for national
unification alongside demands for greater representation, while radicalized
lower classes contributed to the broader uprising against the old order.
Course
Now, as far as the outbreak of the Revolutions of 1848 is concerned, it referred
to by Eric Hobsbawm as the "Springtime of the Peoples," where widespread
uprisings across Europe, driven by demands for liberal reforms, national
unification, and political representation arose. However, these revolutions were
remarkably short-lived, with initial successes quickly reversed. Scholars like
Roger Price highlight that by 1848, the material for revolution was so ripe that
a minor event, such as the repression in Paris, could ignite the revolutionary
zone. Let us look for these with few examples.
France
In France, the revolutions began with demands for universal suffrage. When
Guizot, the premier, banned a campaign for electoral reform in February 1848,
protests erupted in Paris. The National Guard refused to suppress the
demonstrators, leading to King Louis-Philippe's abdication and the
establishment of the Second Republic. This French revolution inspired uprisings
across Europe, demonstrating the fragility of the old order which J. Sperber
describes as the rippling effect.
Germany
In Germany however, the discontent over liberal political demands and German
nationalism spread rapidly. In Berlin, protests forced King Frederick IV to
introduce a liberal cabinet and agree to a constitutional monarchy. However, as
in Paris, military repression led to civilian deaths, escalating the crisis.
Revolutionary fervour spread beyond cities into rural areas, reflecting
widespread discontent.
Austria
For Austria, the rising nationalism among Czechs, Hungarians, and others,
combined with demands for constitutional reform and peasant emancipation,
fueled unrest. Demonstrations in Vienna forced Metternich, a symbol of the old
order, to resign. His led Emperor Ferdinand I fled Vienna, highlighting the
empire's inability to quell revolutionary forces.
Italy
In Italy, revolutions targeted Austrian rule in Lombardy and Venetia and
conservative regimes in other states. Uprisings like the revolt in Milan forced
constitutional concessions, demonstrating the influence of nationalistic
aspirations. While these revolutions mobilized workers, petty bourgeoisie, and
peasants, they ultimately failed to establish lasting regimes. Hobsbawm argues
their brevity and defeat underscore the resilience of the old order, which
returned to power by late 1848.
Failure
Following the 1848 revolutions, the challenge was to establish new
governments' authority and legitimacy, with France's provisional government
being socially and politically divided, and Austria and Germany also facing
similar divisions, contributing to their failure.
Historians have analysed why the 1848 revolutions failed where those of 1789
or 1917 succeeded. One major reason was due to lack of zeal among
revolutionaries, who avoided decisive actions, according to Marxist scholars.
These revolutions they argue, exacerbated economic crises, leading to
widespread disorder among workers and peasants. This fear of losing control to
the masses led to middle-class revolutionaries compromising with pre-1848
authorities, diluting revolutionary momentum.
Sperber argues that the lack of industrialization and labor force in mid-19th
century southern and eastern Europe undermined efforts to mobilize the
masses. Even in more industrialized regions, craftsmen—not laborers—were at
the forefront of uprisings. More so, the counter-revolution’s tactical advantage,
bolstered by loyal military support, also rendered the revolutionaries weak.
Apart from this, the divisions within revolutionary coalitions were another
critical factor. Conflicts between liberals and radicals over state intervention
and economic reforms weakened the movements. Sperber highlights how
competing nationalisms fragmented revolutionary unity, while Conservatives
capitalized on these divisions, emphasizing the need for peace and economic
recovery, which appealed to a fearful middle class. The Conservative
propaganda painted radicals as violent threats to society, solidifying their
support among the broader population.
As Roger Price suggests, the combination of strong conservative influence,
military power, and revolutionary disunity ultimately ensured the defeat of the
revolutions of 1848.
Legacy
Although the Revolutions of 1848 ultimately failed, they left profound political
legacies. Scholars such as Roger Price emphasize that these uprisings
inaugurated the era of mass politics, with workers making organized demands
for political rights for the first time. While the middle class dominated the
revolutions, calls for universal male suffrage and women’s rights also emerged,
highlighting broader political aspirations.
The revolutions fostered the rise of distinct political factions—moderates,
radicals, and conservatives. However, the counter-revolution ensured the
suppression of committed republicans, nationalists, and socialists, with many
exiled. Thousands of French exiles were sent to Algeria, while German and
Italian revolutionaries emigrated to America.
The revolutions also intensified nationalist sentiments. Nationalism, though
less pronounced during the uprisings, began to grow in the German and Italian
states. Roger Price asserts that the wars of the late 19th century stemmed
from the nationalist politics sparked in 1848. However, ethnic tensions in
Central and Eastern Europe also deepened, particularly hostility toward
Austrian rule in Italy and Austro-Prussian rivalry in Germany.
According to Hobsbawm, the abolition of serfdom and feudal obligations
marked the most significant achievement of 1848, relieving peasants of
centuries-old exploitation. Additionally, the revolutions stimulated political
awareness, with petitions, demonstrations, and public meetings becoming
common. Price highlights that modern state institutions and political practices
evolved from this period.
Conclusion
Thus, the revolutions of 1848 may not have immediately achieved their stated
goals of widespread and enduring change. They prompted monarchs and ruling
elites to recognize the growing demands for change, leading to concessions
and limited reforms in some regions. Moreover, these events left an indelible
mark on the collective consciousness, fuelling future movements for
democracy, workers' rights, and national self-determination. Despite their
immediate setbacks, these revolutions contributed significantly to the gradual
march towards modernity, influencing future movements and the eventual
reshaping of European politics and societies.