I've been trying to get a grasp on this topic and am finding it difficult. I'm hoping someone can simplify it for me. After the French Revolution in 1789, it's my understanding that the monarchy was overthrown and nobles were executed by the thousands. Then noble titles are reintroduced by Napolean in 1808 and remain in use until the revolution in 1848. Then they're restored again in 1852.
My question comes in a couple of parts. Overall I'd like to know how accurate my very generalized understanding above is. As for the nobles, why were they brought back? Were these just random people given titles or were they the existing bloodlines that survived the Reign of Terror? Were nobles affected by the July revolution in 1830? What was life like for a French noble in this time, especially right before the revolution of 1848, and what happened to them after? How did the common people feel about getting rid of monarchs and nobles just to get them back so many times?
I hope I don't sound too ill-informed, but that's why I'm asking. Thanks in advance to anyone who will educate me on this topic!
Impact here means the length with which the revolution had direct consequences on the country as well other nations. Moreover, how did the impact change over time? Was 1789 impactful because of the Napoleonic wars that followed, or were the 1830 revolutions to narrow in their scope?
The Revolutions of 1848 led to:
- Overthrow of the French monarchy and introduction of universal male suffrage (which lasted from thereon, rather than being reversed as in 1789).
- Abolition of Serfdom in Austria, Hungary, and Prussia.
- Transformation of Denmark to a Constitutional Monarchy.
- Introduction of Nationalism and Liberalism (both social and economic) as mainstream political forces, which in subsequent decades led to entire countries being re-shaped along ethnic and national lines.
- Beginning of modern Socialism/Communism as a political force.
Sure, not everything the revolutionaries wanted they got, and in many places the changes were not achieved, or reversed in the immediate term. It would take the subsequent decades for the seeds of Nationalistic, Liberal, and Socialist forces planted during 1848 to grow by the late 19th century.
By comparison, the French Revolution of 1789 is considered to be of monumental importance, a defining point in modern civilization, while the 1848 revolutions are considered a fad, a failure. Why so? If anything, the immediate achievements of the French Revolution of 1789 (republicanism, universal male suffrage, Rights of Man and specifically rights of the poor Sans-Culottes) were soundly reversed by the mid-to-late 1790s (and not before a disastrous and bloody civil war and reign of Terror), without ever spreading out of the country, and arguably the longest-lasting achievement was the rise of Napoleon and his own achievements such as the Napoleonic Code. Whereas the liberal and nationalistic ideas espoused in the Revolutions of 1848 were achieved on a much closer timescale after they happened, if still not immediate, and transformed Europe as a whole.
So by their long-lasting legacy, one could argue the Revolutions of 1848 were of bigger impact on Western civilization than the French Revolution of 1789. Is there a reason, therefore, many consider the Revolutions of 1848 a failure?
I'm actually really excited for this new game. This is one of my favourite historical time periods both in America and continental Europe. I'm a History major at the University of Toronto and I've taken multiple courses throughout senior high school and university in the French Revolution and European history.
I'm not quite sure the game will be set in the French Revolution (of 1789), however. The only thing giving it off as French Revolution is the guillotine. What the trailer does look like is either the Revolution of 1830 which installed the Citizen King Louis Philippe, or the Revolutions of 1848.
My reasoning is that: a) The architectural design looks less 18th century and more early/mid-19th century. b) The tricolour flag was not used prominently during the 1789 Revolution but used prominently in the latter revolutions. c) The chaos and litter on the streets remind me more of the barricades erected during 1830/1848. d) Clothing styles in the leaked screens also look more like 1830/1848. e) Guillotine executions were not prominent in front of Notre Dame (technically, there are no buildings directly in front of Notre Dame...) but take place more likely in the Place de la Concorde.
Regardless, either setting would be great. The "French Revolution" of 1789-1815 would be great because it links to the earlier American Revolution, it brings back characters like Marquis de la Fayette and it can explore the "Reign of Terror", Robespierre, the Jacobins, the Directorate, the Tennis Court Oath etc. It could also spill over into the French Revolutionary Wars and the rise of Napoleon and his wars - it'll take on a full global setting or at least continental Europe!
With 1848, the "turning point that failed to turn", you'd spend a lot of time in Austria and Prussia and Frankfurt! It would take on another whole continental European setting.
Anyways, just my analysis! As you can tell, I'm really excited.
Speak your mind.
Older important revolutions in Europe like the 1789 French Revolution did not spread from country to country like these did. What was different? Conversely, why were a few areas like Russia and Spain not affected?
Germans made up the largest immigrant minority in the united states during the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly after the failed South German revolution of 1848, which lead many more democratic Germans to flee for the U.S., fight for the union in the civil war and support pro-abolition and workers rights legislation. German communities maintaining their language, culture and customs were found from Pennsylvania to the Dakotas to Texas.
However much of this cultural identity was suppressed or phased out following the sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman Telegram and the U.S. entry into the Great War, despite German immigrants and German Americans preferring neutrality over support for the German monarchy. This was intensified by magnitudes following WWII, leading to the more Anglo-centric cultural influences being dominant across the 20th century.
But what if in 1917 following U.S. entry into the war, instead of isolating and discriminating against their largest immigrant minority, the U.S. tried to recruit German American citizens to fight what they deemed the 'illegitimate' German government? That this was the opportunity to continue the revolution against 'royal tyranny' that their ancestors bravely fought back in 1848, linking their struggles to the American revolution and their fight for democracy and encouraging them to 'take back Germany'.
So how well would this recruitment strategy work? What would be the reaction to the public of German Americans and immigrants being portrayed as long suffering victims of their new enemies instead of spies or sympathizers? What would the allied response be to Germans being recruited to fight Germans? How does the dynamic of the war change with the U.S. implying that the Kaiser's rule is illegitimate and are now fighting a war to 'liberate' the German Federation from tyranny.
With the eventual victory, does the U.S. honor its word and push for a more democratic reform of German government or drop it as soon as the war is over and let their allies dictate the demands more much like OTL? How are German Americans viewed with the war portraying them as the 'real Germans'? Does this pseudo-notion of the 'two sets of Germans' persist into the 20s and 30s? Should the U.S. push for democratic reform fail, does the notion make a resurgence with the actions of the 3rd reich? The notion that the 'real Germans' wouldn't do that and that another war to free the homeland from tyranny maybe needed?
