Congress Of Vienna 1815 Essay Typer
Revision Notes and Essays for the 1848 Revolutions
Scope: The Industrial Revolution was primarily a Northern and Western European phenomenon. Elsewhere, the big issue was nationalism. The failure of the Congress of Vienna to take the new forces of nationalism and liberalism into account led to revolutions across Europe throughout the next 30 years, in France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, the German states, the Italian states, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Where those revolutions received the assistance of the middle class (France) or outside countries (Greece), they prospered. Otherwise, the forces of reaction were too strong.
The period after the Congress of Vienna saw a marked attempt to turn the clock back on liberalism and nationalism.
The Congress of Vienna had been called into being by the Allied powers to solve the mess created by the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.
1. The Austrian foreign minister, Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773−1859), and the British foreign minister, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (1769−1822), agreed that France had to be contained but also preserved as a great power.
2. The third architect of the Congress was the French foreign minister, Count Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (1754−1838).
3. All three were wily conservatives who feared liberalism and sought to preserve the ancien régime and European peace; their approach was to ring big countries with defensible borders by shuffling little countries around in defiance of nationalist sentiment.
4. They restored the Bourbon monarchy in France (albeit constitutionally), Spain, and Naples.
5. They then divided the rest of Europe up among the remaining great and lesser powers.
6. The European state system devised by the Congress of Vienna worked for 99 years, but that does not mean that the people who lived under it were happy.
a. Monarchies were preserved and new liberal ideas coming out of France and England were
b. Many people were ruled by governments of a different nationality and culture.
i. The Dutch ruled the Belgians.
ii. The Austrians ruled Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, some Poles, Rumanians, Serbs, Slovenes,
Croats, and some Italians.
iii. Russians or Prussians ruled the rest of the Poles.
iv. The Russians also ruled Finns, Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians.
v. The Swedes ruled the Norwegians (albeit with plenty of autonomy).
7. Only in France was some of the legacy of the French Revolution honored in a moderate constitution.
The Holy Alliance was formed by the five great powers to stave off the threat that liberalism and nationalism would once again erupt into revolution, bring down their ancien régimes, and break up their empires.
Proposed by Czar Alexander I, the idea was that the great powers would rule their peoples with paternalistic Christian love as an antidote to godless democracy.
If that did not work, the leaders of the five great powers would hold periodic conferences to discuss their differences and possible trouble brewing.
If that did not work, and any of them suffered a liberal or nationalistic revolt, they would all rush to defend each other.
Initially, this seemed to work.
In Spain and Portugal, Napoleon’s liberal reforms were abolished.
In the Papal States, Pope Leo XII also abolished Napoleonic reforms, revived the Inquisition, and drove some Jews back into the ghetto.
In Russia, Prussia, and Austria, liberals were fined and imprisoned.
d. In 1819, Prussia and Austria agreed to the Carlsbad Decrees, stifling freedom of expression in universities.
5. But in the end, the Holy Alliance was not terribly realistic and early on lost the support of increasingly liberal regimes in Britain and France. Gradually, Europe split into a liberal West and a conservative South and East.
II. If the period 1820−1848 was another age of revolutions in Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe, these were provoked equally by the increasingly respectable ideas of liberalism and nationalism and the increasingly harsh repression of the ancien régime.
A. Southern Europe experienced a series of revolutions in 1820–1823.
1. In Spain, liberal intellectuals demanding a return to the Bonapartist Constitution of 1812 were suppressed by French troops.
2. The revolution spread to Portugal and Italy, where it was suppressed by the Austrian army.
B. In Russia, the Decembrist Revolt against the conservative Czar Nicholas I failed in 1825.
1. Nicholas I, pathologically fearful of reform, established a secret police, the Third Section, to spy on the opposition.
2. The issues he deferred would erupt again in 1905 and 1917.
C. Revolutions in the Balkans and Greece (1817−1829) against the Ottoman Empire were more successful because they were supported by many Western European governments.
1. In 1817, the Balkans and Greece were still controlled by the Ottoman Empire, which was well run and relatively tolerant but viewed in Europe as corrupt and oppressive.
2. In 1817, the Serbs rebelled and gained their independence.
3. In 1820, a Russian general of Greek descent led a Greek revolt against the Turks that failed when
Metternich urged the czar not to support the rebellion.
4. In 1821–1823, a second round of revolts began at the grassroots. Greek peasants killed Turks, and
Turks retaliated by hanging the Greek patriarch of Constantinople, pillaging Greek Orthodox
Churches, massacring thousands of men, and selling Greek women into slavery.
5. This enraged Western public opinion. Greece was portrayed as the cradle of Western civilization,
fighting barbarian occupiers.
6. In 1827, a combined British, French, and Russian fleet defeated the Turkish navy at Navarino.
7. In 1828, Russia advanced on Istanbul.
8. In 1829, all parties signed the Treaty of Adrianople. Greece received its independence the following year, and Russia was appointed to “protect” the semi-independent provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, that is, western and eastern Romania.
9. This arrangement would eventually lead to the Crimean War (1853–1856).
D. Revolutions elsewhere in 1830 only succeeded where great powers did not interfere.
1. As we have seen, the French deposed Charles X and installed a moderately liberal constitutional monarchy under Louis-Philippe.
2. From this point, the revolution spread to Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Italy.
3. But this wave of revolution was successful only in Belgium. The great powers, occupied with
rebellions closer to home, acceded to Belgian independence on the promise of Belgian neutrality.
4. Elsewhere, the revolutions were crushed by Russian and Austrian troops.
III. The revolutions of 1848 were the most threatening of all: During one remarkable year, the entire continent west of the Elbe exploded in revolution.
A. All over Europe, the revolutions of 1848 were precipitated by bad harvests and declining economies.
B. The rebellions began, as usual, in France, on 22 February 1848.
1. As we have seen, Louis-Philippe was deposed in favour of a republic under Louis Napoleon.
2. This event touched off nationalistic/liberal revolutions elsewhere, except in Britain and Russia.
C. Liberals in German states revolted in March 1848 to create a single, liberal German state.
1. But each important group in Germany wanted something different out of the revolution.
2. Above all, the revolutionaries could not decide at first whether the united Germany should be headed by Prussia or Austria.
a. Neither monarchy wanted a liberal constitution.
b. Neither monarchy was willing to accept second place.
3. Delegates from all over Germany met in Frankfurt to try to hammer out these differences.
4. After a year of debate, they offered a constitutional crown of Germany to Frederick William IV
(1840−1861) of Prussia.
5. But Frederick William, encouraged by the success of the Austrian emperor in suppressing the
revolution in his own domain, refused any crown offered by the people.
In Italy, the Risorgimento (“resurgence,” that is, of Italian unity and greatness) was equally a movement to unite the country under a liberal constitution and, in this case, to drive the Austrians out of Venetia (Venezia).
1. Revolts began in Sicily in January 1848, where nationalists and liberals wanted the Bourbon monarchy to push for both national unification and a liberal constitution; the revolts then spread north to Venice.
2. As in Germany, nationalists could not agree on who should lead Italy—Piedmont-Sardinia, Venetia (controlled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire), the pope, or the Two Sicilies—but their reactions to the Risorgimento made their decision for them.
a. Austria crushed the Venetian Revolt.
b. In the Two Sicilies, the government also suppressed a revolt.
c. The pope condemned the rebellion, then fled Rome.
i. Briefly, a Roman Republic was established under the radical nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini, supported by Giuseppe Garibaldi.
ii. But in 1849, the French intervened on the side of the pope and crushed the republic.
d. Only King Charles Albert of Piedmont-Sardinia (1831−1849) embraced the Risorgimento.
i. He enacted a liberal constitution.
ii. He attempted to aid Venetian rebels but was defeated at the Battle of Novara by the Austrian
army in 1849.
3. Thus, the Revolution of 1848 failed in Italy, too.
In Austria-Hungary, the revolution sought independence for the constituent members of the empire, as well as liberal constitutions.
1. The revolution began in the spring of 1848 with simultaneous anti-Austrian riots in Venetia and Hungary, as well as student riots in Vienna.
2. Austria’s corrupt government fled to Innsbruck; promising an elected parliament, an end of censorship, and Hungarian home rule.
3. A National Assembly convened to draft a constitution, first passing the March Laws granting Hungary some self-government and abolishing the last vestiges of aristocratic privilege, feudalism, and serfdom.
4. In Hungary, nationalist Lajos Kossuth (1802–1894) proclaimed complete independence.
a. He abolished serfdom, thereby offending the landlords.
b. He offered nothing to Czechs, Serbs, Croats, and Rumanians.
5. Gradually, the Austrian monarchy under a young, new emperor—Franz Josef (1848−1916)— reasserted itself.
a. He mobilized the army under Count Joseph Radetzky.
b. He gathered allies among the aforementioned groups pushed around by Kossuth.
c. Together, they crushed the rebellion in Italy, then Hungary.
6. In 1849, the National Assembly was dissolved and an authoritarian constitution was imposed. All across Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe, the old monarchies and aristocracies had reasserted
failure of these revolutions tells us six important things about Europe at this time.
First, liberalism, nationalism, and in France, socialism were important and, to some extent, viable movements in Central and Southern Europe.
B. Second, the fact that the revolutions failed tells us that the ancien régime still had a great deal of residual strength.
1. There was little unity on the other side. Different groups were attracted to one or another of these movements in varying degrees and for different reasons, but there was little revolutionary unity across national boundaries, as Marx had wanted.
2. As in Britain and France previously, liberal intellectuals wanted government reform, universal manhood suffrage, and a free press. The middle class wanted government reform, the vote for itself alone, and economic equality. The working class wanted the vote and social welfare programs, and peasants wanted land. Yet none of these programs had a chance unless their backers were united.
The third significant point about the Revolutions of 1848 was what happened to the radicals who advocated them.
1. Many were proscribed in their own countries.
2. Many emigrated to the United States, where they were instrumental in helping to form radical
Fourth, before the “liberal” issues could be solved, the national issues had to be solved. That is, before Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary could enact liberal constitutions, they had to sort out whether they would be countries. They had to go through the process that Britain and France had experienced from the Middle Ages to the 18th century.
Fifth, given that unification would clearly come from the top down, it was highly doubtful that the result would be liberal democracies.
1. In every case, the hopes for national unity began to focus on a king or great leader.
2. As this implies, the champions of reform in 1848 had to grow less idealistic and more practical.
F. Finally, it should be clear that German or Italian unification depended to a great extent on what happened in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. For once, the key to Europe’s future lay in the east and south.
Chambers, chapter 22, section I; chapter 24, section I.
H. Kissinger. A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812–22. P. Alter, Nationalism.
E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789 to 1848.
Questions to Consider:
1. On balance, was the Congress of Vienna a success or a failure?
2. Are nationalism and liberalism compatible?
Scope: Following the revolutions of 1848, Prussia and Piedmont-Sardinia rose to leadership of the German and Italian states, respectively. In the meantime, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires grew weaker as many of their constituent peoples (Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Rumanians, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and others), especially in the Balkans, yearned to break out and form their own independent states. The creation of a unified Italy in 1861 did little to upset the balance of European power because its economy remained primarily agricultural. But the unification of Germany at the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, combined with its growing industrial might and the instability of Eastern and Southern Europe, would upset the balance of power on the Continent for generations to come.
I. All across Europe, Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Rumanians, and others had, since Napoleon, begun to embrace the uniqueness of their own history, language, and culture and to argue that they needed to live in nations of their own.
A. For Germans, this meant national unification.
B. For the Italians and everybody else, it meant the removal of foreign occupiers, followed by national unification or independence.
C. In many ways, the key region for all of this was Central Europe, especially the Austro-Hungarian Empire, because its weakness would make German and Italian unification possible and render the Balkans unstable, thus making Russia and the Ottoman Empire players in this “great game.”
A. It did so by making concessions at first, followed by repression.
B. But the problems that led to 1848 did not go away.
Austro-Hungarian Empire barely weathered the revolutions of 1848.
1. The Ottoman Empire continued to weaken, leading to independence movements and general instability in the Balkans.
2. Austria’s failure to support Russia in the Crimean War against the Ottoman Empire (1853−1856) meant that Russia would not support Austria in holding onto its Slavic and Balkan territories.
a. Rather, Russia publicly supported the claims of ethnic Serbs, Hungarians, Rumanians, and others.
b. It secretly hoped to “move in” and become the next big imperial power in the Balkans.
3. Austria’s response was tighter repression.
C. Austria’s obsession with its eastern and southern problems would divert it from the German and Italian
questions, making unification possible in those two regions.
III. After 1848, it was clear that Piedmont-Sardinia, under the Savoy dynasty, was the key to Italian unification. Piedmont-Sardinia had stood up to Austria (albeit unsuccessfully) and retained its liberal constitution in 1848.
In 1852, King Victor Emmanuel II (1861−1878) named the extremely competent Count Camillo di Cavour (1810–1861) as first minister.
1. He strengthened Piedmont-Sardinia against its Austrian rival.
a. He fostered the creation of a modern industrial and financial state.
b. He reformed and expanded the armed forces.
c. He secured the support of France in case of war with Austria.
2. In 1859, Austria demanded that Piedmont-Sardinia stop its military build-up.
When the Italians refused, Austria invaded Piedmont-Sardinia.
1. Napoleon III sent troops.
2. The French forces defeated the Austrian army at Magenta and Solferino.
At this point, nationalists all over Italy rose in revolt against their conservative rulers.
1. The southern revolt, led by Giuseppe Garibaldi and his Carbonari, was especially successful.
2. Fearing that Garibaldi might establish an Italian republic, Cavour ordered the Piedmontese army to
march further south.
3. But when the two armies met, Garibaldi knelt and submitted to Victor Emmanuel II as king of Italy.
E. Victor Emmanuel II was proclaimed king of Italy in March 1861.
1. Venezia remained officially Austrian until 1866.
2. The pope disliked the new arrangement, and Rome remained under papal control until 1870.
3. Liberals were disappointed: They wanted a republic.
F. Contemporaries thought that the unification of Italy was an epochal event, reviving the Roman Empire.
G. In fact, Italy’s internal rivalries and relatively poor agricultural economy meant that its unification did not change greatly the balance of power in Europe.
IV. In Germany, too, the weakness of Austria, the pretensions of Napoleon III, and the machinations of a great minister proved decisive.
A. German nationalists were torn in attempting to decide whether Prussia or Austria should lead a unified Germany.
1. Austria-Hungary was the sentimental favourite.
a. It was already an empire, descended from the Holy Roman Empire, the first German Reich.
b. The Austrian government, though, was repressive, inefficient, corrupt, and obsessed with its
c. Its defeat by Piedmont-Sardinia in 1859 further damaged its prestige.
2. Prussia had numerous advantages.
a. Its population was more homogeneous.
b. Its government was efficient.
c. Its economy was strong in agriculture and industry.
d. Its army was the best trained in Europe.
e. Its chancellor from 1862 was the brilliant Otto von Bismarck.
B. Arguably, the most significant European statesman of the 19th century, Bismarck believed that politics should be governed by practical considerations and realistic aims, that is, Realpolitik.
1. Bismarck’s aim was to ensure Prussia’s supremacy among the German states, especially in the north, but not to unite Germany—unification was instead the dream of the National Liberals.
2. But Austria would not cooperate, attempting to subtly undermine Prussian influence with the north German states.
3. Bismarck prepared for a showdown. He made an alliance with Russia, he favoured Italy and France in disputes with Austria, and he engineered three wars as demonstrations that only the Prussian state could protect the interests of Germany.
C. The first of these clashes, the Dano-Prussian War of 1864, began in a dispute with the Danes over the independence of Schleswig-Holstein.
1. In 1863, Denmark foolishly annexed Schleswig-Holstein.
2. Both Prussia and Austria sent forces north, which handily defeated the overmatched Danes.
3. The Peace of Vienna of 1864 gave Prussia and Austria joint responsibility for Schleswig-Holstein.
4. This created tensions with Austria that would boil over into the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.
D. Bismarck used disputes over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein as a pretext to send troops into Austrian Holstein, but the Austro-Prussian War was really about who was to lead Germany.
1. At the end of seven weeks, Prussia’s more efficient military overwhelmed the Austrians.
2. The Peace of Prague (1866) was relatively lenient, but it led to the establishment of the North German
Confederation in 1867, which excluded Austria. Prussia and Bismarck had achieved their goal.
3. After 1866, France grew alarmed at the growing might of Prussia.
a. Napoleon III had supported Bismarck in the hope that Austria and Prussia would destroy each other.
b. Instead, Prussia appeared to be reviving a strong German presence on the western border of France, which was very unpopular with the French people.
c. To retrieve his prestige, Napoleon demanded German territory of Bismarck or, failing that, Belgium.
4. Realizing that the French problem would not go away, Bismarck began preparations to fight France on Prussia’s terms.
The Franco-Prussian War 1870−1871 was Bismarck’s masterpiece. 1. Bismarck maneuvered France into isolation and war.
a. First, he discredited Napoleon III by informing both the southern German states and Britain of his request for territory.
b. Then, he manufactured a pretext for war by proposing a member of the Prussian Royal House as the new king of Spain.
i. Spain needed a king because it was in the midst of a revolution against the Spanish branch of
ii. The French were appalled at the thought of German rulers on two borders (sort of Louis
XIV’s dream in reverse!).
iii. When French diplomats attempted to get the Prussian king to renounce the Spanish throne for
his nephew, Bismarck edited his answer (the Ems dispatch) so as to be insulting to the
iv. He then sent copies to the French papers.
v. The French people demanded war.
2. As usual, Prussia’s more efficient government, industrial might, and better trained army, allied with the south German states, beat the French in a matter of weeks.
3. Napoleon III’s defeat at Sedan was the end of the Second Empire, yet the war dragged on.
a. Liberals and Socialists proclaimed a new republic—the Third Republic—and immediately sought
b. Bismarck insisted that France give up the rich western provinces of Alsace and Lorraine.
c. The French foreign minister, Jules Favre, tried to argue that the days of conquest and passing land
around like poker chips were over, that seizing French provinces would permanently embitter the
d. Bismarck insisted, and the French resolved to fight on.
e. At this point, toward the end of 1870 and the beginning of 1871, the Germans surrounded Paris
and lay siege to it.
f. On 28 January 1871, the French finally signed an armistice. The Peace of Frankfurt, worked out
by May 1871, was harsh, breeding French feelings of humiliation and resentment that would
contribute to future wars.
g. The fall of France weakened the new republic from its inception. The citizens of Paris proclaimed
the Commune in 1871, which existed for two months as a self-governing communist entity. The government restored order after bloody street fighting.
Bismarck used the war and Prussia’s victory as an argument that all Germans needed the protection of living in a single German Empire.
1. On 18 January 1871, in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, all the German states, minus Austria, acknowledged the king of Prussia, Wilhelm I (1861−1871) as kaiser (emperor) of all Germany (1871−1888).
2. This event changed the balance of power in Europe forever.
3. Europe would spend a century adjusting to the new reality.
unification of Germany initiated a new epoch in Europe.
It created a state that was rich, powerful, and ambitious in its middle.
That was made more dangerous by the fact that the Austro-Hungarian Empire had not solved its
The Ottoman Empire grew weaker.
Russia was anxious to take advantage of the situation. What role would Germany play?
C. Finally, in solving their nationalistic problems, neither Cavour nor Bismarck had concerned themselves overmuch with ethical or moral issues. Rather, international diplomacy and politics were decided by considerations of Realpolitik and expenditures of iron and blood.
1. Other old verities, such as French supremacy, German weakness, and British neutrality, were also swept away in the German tide.
2. Could Europe adjust to the new rules? Could Europe contain this new colossus and its ruthless leadership?
Chambers, chapter 24, sections II–III.
D. Beales, The Risorgimento and the Unification of Italy.
O. Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany: The Period of Unification, 1815–1871. M. Howard, The Franco-Prussian War.
Questions to Consider:
1. Why did contemporaries think that the unification of Italy was a momentous event?
2. How would a Germany united around Austria have been different from the one created by Bismarck?
To what extent was Frederick William IV the reason for the failing of the Frankfurt Parliament?
Bismarck’s quote on the Frankfurt Parliament is expressing doubt in the orthodox opinionthat Frederick William IV was responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament. Threedifferent incidents from the time of the Frankfurt Parliament will be analysed, explained andevaluated in this essay. Thereafter a conclusion will be drawn to clarify a plausible justification.
„Nicht durch Reden und Majoritätsbeschlüsse werden die großen Fragen der Zeitentschieden — das ist der große Fehler von 1848 und 1849 gewesen — sondern durch Eisen undBlut.“ - Otto von Bismarck
In March of 1849 the Frankfurt Parliament voted for Frederick William IV to be the GermanEmperor. He refused the crown, with the implication that ‘the gentlemen of Frankfurt’ who hadtaken it upon themselves to speak for the united Germany without any legal authority, had no rightto offer the crown to him. Frederick William IV was acting in his own interest with his refusing ofthe crown. Reasons why he didn‘t accept the crown include, but are not limited to: Foreign PolicyIssues / probable war with Austria, and putting himself and Prussia under the control of theFrankfurt Parliament.2 It can be deduced that Frederick William IV was acting in a tactical manner,not yearning power, but politically evaluating the situation and choosing his best option. AfterFrederick William IV refused the crown, the rulers of Bavaria, Saxony and Hanover rejected theoffer as well. This caused around 400 delegates to leave the parliament, and left the 130 remainingdelegates to trying to recover the situation. This eventually led the Parliament to be moved toStuttgart, and being dispersed by the King‘s soldiers in June 1849.3 If this situation is analysed withthe domino effect in mind, it can be reasoned that Frederick William IV was the reason for thebreakdown of the Frankfurt Parliament.
The Schleswig-Holstein dilemma in 1848 was one of the failures of the Frankfurt Parliamentif seen from a revisionist point of view. The Frankfurt Parliament turned for help to Prussia, and didreceive it. The Prussian army occupied Schleswig and Holstein and later signed a treaty withDenmark, which caused both of them to retreat from the territory. Even though Denmark no longerhad control of Schleswig-Holstein, the Frankfurt Parliament saw the retreat of the Prussian Army asa betrayal of the German national cause. Nevertheless they could do nothing about it.4 This showedthe people of Schleswig-Holstein and Germany that the Frankfurt Parliament was weak and had nocontrol over the land. The withdrawal of the troops was Frederick William IV’s decision, as theFrankfurt Parliament asked him for help in the first place. The growing mistrust in the eyes of thepeople, towards the Frankfurt Parliament was caused by the poor decisions of the very sameParliament. Frederick William IV had made a political decision of withdrawing from Schleswig-Holstein which he did to please the Russian and British opposition, who had been disapproved hisdecision to send his army to Schleswig-Holstein.5 Taking all above into consideration the FrankfurtParliament is more to be blamed for their own failure and loss of citizen’s trust, than FrederickWilliam IV.
The Frankfurt Parliament was divided into two groups of members; those who wantedGrossdeutschland and those who wanted Kleindeutschland. The debate between the two groupstediously continued for about the entire existence of the Frankfurt Parliament. The FrankfurtParliament had little respect for non-Germans in Germany, so the crumbling relations between thepeople of Central Europe didn’t help the situation.6 Frederick William IV played no part in thisdebate and the conflicts between the groups. He neither endorsed nor opposed the ideas of theFrankfurt Parliament and simply minded his own business. He kept balance between Prussia and hisoppositions and did everything to strengthen Prussia and no one else.7 The Frankfurt Parliament lostall of it’s support in this debate, and there by became it’s own worst enemy. Frederick William IVwas not the cause for the Frankfurt Parliament to fail in it’s debates, rather it was the delegates inthe Parliament that where unsuccessful.
Overall this essay has only scratched the surface of the problems with the FrankfurtParliament. Nevertheless it can be deduced that Frederick William IV was not the main cause forthe Parliament’s failure. Over and again more often it was the Parliament itself that stopped thedevelopment of Germany and of the promised exercising the liberal rights promised. In this caseOtto von Bismarck was right in saying that not through talking and voting will they progress... butwith iron and blood.
1 "Otto Von Bismarck." Wikiquote. Wikiquote, 2 July 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2013. . 2 Stiles, Andrina. "Chapter 2." The Unification of Germany 1815-191. By Alan Farmer. Third ed. London: Hodder Education, 2007. 36. Print. 3 Stiles, Andrina. "Chapter 2." The Unification of Germany 1815-191. By Alan Farmer. Third ed. London: Hodder Education, 2007. 36. Print. 4 "Frankfurt Parliament." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 09 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2013. . 5 Stiles, Andrina. "Chapter 2." The Unification of Germany 1815-191. By Alan Farmer. Third ed. London: Hodder Education, 2007. 35. Print.
Fredrick William IV is to blame for a small extent for the fall of the Frankfurt parliament just like the other causes. However this essay will argue that he is not the main cause for the fall but another reason that caused it to fail.
After the wave of revolutions in 1848, 1849 wasn’t a quiet year. The disorder and Uncertainty swept throughout Germany for example in Prussia after the events in 1848 there was total confusion and discomfort. Therefore when the Frankfurt parliament was elected it was a big and important achievement. The Frankfurt parliament’s main goal and main issue was to make a national constitution, which would be accepted by all Germans. Also, they were hoping to make ‘A basic Right and Demands’ series which would include, freedom of the press, equality of political rights without judging your religion and more. However, it was hard for the parliament to reach agreements, this led the Frankfurt parliament to become a ‘talk shop’.1 Meaning they addressed the matter and problems but didn’t agree on what action to take or how to resolve it. For example, setting up a government. Setting up a government became a difficult task to the parliament because some of them wanted to do things differently and not follow the logical orders like other suggested. Another reason that caused the fall of the Frankfurt parliament was the division within the parliament.
Another aspect that caused the fall of the Frankfurt parliament was the division within the parliament. There was a group of liberals who wanted a moderate settlement, which would protect the rights of individual states and the government. Nevertheless, there was another group of conservatives who wanted to protect the rights of individual states but also make sure that the parliament or the government would have enough power and control. Additionally the parliament found it very confusing and hard to take control and resolve the differences without causing more revolutions and problems. Furthermore, there was a lack of support from the working class side to the parliament. They didn’t see ‘eye to eye’ with the parliament and most of time they felt like the parliament was failing them2. For example, in 1848 the German artisans (skilled-workers\craftsman) made their own assemblies. There were two important Meetings in Hamburg and Frankfurt, where the industrial code were discussed. The code helped to progress and adjust hours and rate of pay of the middle class. In the meetings it was also suggested to the working class to keep the restrictive practices of the old guild system. This work agreement was great for the working class. Nevertheless, the parliament rejected the industrial code because they regarded political freedom and economical freedom as one principle and the code did not fit to what they believed. Therefore the working class lost faith in the parliament. Another example that caused the Frankfurt parliament to fall was Fredrick IV.
In March 1849 a constitution for a German emperor was agreed upon. 3The parliament decided that there should be an emperor who had significant power but he would only be able to have legislation for a certain period of time. The Frankfurt parliament voted to choose the Prussian king, Frederick William to be the emperor of Germany. However, Frederick chose to refuse the offer because he didn’t want to be given a crown from his liberal opponents. Frederick was a conservative and he thought that it wasn’t the parliament’s place to offer him the crown. The parliament did not have another emperor in mind other than Frederick and to top it all the rulers of Prussia, Saxony, Hanover and Bavaria also rejected the constitution. With all the disappointments, most members left the parliament and went back to their homes. The remaining 130 tried to recover and made an attempt for a new election to the first ‘New German parliament’ (Reichstag) but it failed too and the parliament was driven out of Frankfurt by the government. Even though the parliament was a good idea and they had high hopes for a unified Germany, it failed for many reasons.
The Frankfurt parliament failed for numerous reasons for instance, the lack of support from the middle class, the division within the parliament, the hours of discussions without taking action and finally the rejection of Frederick William and the rejection of the constitution. All these reasons led to the failure of the parliament, Frederick William was another cause that unfortunately led to the breaking up of the parliament. Additionally, the main reason of the failure was that the parliament just talked and didn’t take enough action. People did not fear the parliament and all that Frederick William did, was to reject an offer that led to total defeat. Therefore Frederick William is not to blame for the failure of the Frankfurt parliament, simple because he was only another factor of the termination of the parliament. He is not the main cause and for that reason he is not to blame to the full extent. He can be blamed to a small extent but just like the other causes, which led to the failure. Meaning, if Frederick led to the failure than the lack of support from the middle class led to the failure just as much. To conclude Frederick William did not cause the Frankfurt parliament to fail.
“That a Parliament, especially a Parliament with Newspaper Reporters firmly established in it, is an entity which byits very nature cannot do work, but can do talk only” - Thomas Carlyle1Thomas Carlyle’s words are quite powerful being read now; even though they did not have direct relationto the events of 1848-9 they have meaning, the quote seems to suggest that a Parliament is doomed fromits creation to fail in accomplishing anything. In 1848 after widespread revolutions across the GermanStates a parliament was set up known as the Frankfurt National Assembly or the Frankfurt Parliament.Just a mere year later after being created the Assembly was dissolved and the full hierarchy was re-established. This essay shall attempt to answer the question as to why the Frankfurt Parliament failed witha specific look upon Frederick William IV and to what extent he was to blame for it’s failure. The essayshall attempt to accomplish this by first looking at the three major issues of the parliament itself, then twolesser issues until finally Frederick William IV’s failures to uphold the assembly and shall end off byconcluding that although Frederick is partially to blame for the failure of the Frankfurt parliament themajority of the blame falls upon the parliament itself.
The Frankfurt National Assembly was created in response to widespread revolutions across theGerman states, with a mission of creating a constitution that would satisfy the needs of all member statesand institute a central government for ‘Germany.’ It could be argued that in many ways it was doomed tofail from the start. It was created amongst turmoil in an attempt to create peace and control; in addition tothis it had 5 major flaws, amongst these there were three dominant issues that were: the fact that theParliament was divided, it was disorganised and it was a “product of a middle-class franchise that omittedthe masses2(Page 48).” The Parliament was full of divisions, there were liberalists who wanted aconstitutional monarchy with partial incorporation of democracy, then there were the radicals who wantedto go to the extremes and then there were the conservatives. Having such divisions made the creation of aconstitution that keeps everyone happy an idealistic dream that would never come true. In addition to thisthe Assembly was unorganised, referring back to the original quote, “is an entity which by its very naturecannot do work, but can do talk only3” it can be seen that this was also true of the assembly, the Frankfurtparliament with it’s divisions became a lot of debate with little action; every idea or proposal that one sidewould have would be crushed by the other leading to unresolvable blockages and a lack of action. Marx’sfriend called it an “assembly of old women4” Furthermore the parliament was created by the middle classand therefore failed to develop and gather the amount of support needed from the lower class; theparliament failed to account for the majority of the populous and therefore weakened its political grip.
There were two less prominent issues with the assembly, among these was the fact that theparliament contained the two major powers of the time, Austria and Prussia, who both wished to protectand preserve their Sovereignty.5(Page 37) The two powers both wanted to keep the German states weak and divided so that they were able to establish monopolies and control; such an opposing force wouldobviously have made the mission and objective of the parliament a much harder thing to achieve.Theother issue that the parliament had was that it did not have the support of Prussia; Prussia having thelargest army at the time 6 had a huge amount of power and influence, the rest of the German states had torely upon Prussia for any military action and the past had proven that Prussia had issues with externalauthority, i.e. in Denmark where the Parliament had not given Prussia to use its army for military forceand were not listened to wherePrussia acted without the permission of the Assembly.7 Such disobediencewould have reflected poorly upon the Assembly’s ability to rule.
Frederick William IV was the King of Prussia, the largest empire and army in Europe at the time.Being an autocrat he did not believe in the people having a say, the parliament was created due to therevolutions and he was quick to dissolve it. It could be said that it’s failure was his fault, his refusal toreceive the position as Emperor due to it being ‘an abridgement of the rights of princes of the individualGerman states’,8 his absolute lack of respect and obedience for the parliament and his failure to see theEmperor’s position as a political vantage and tactical move.Frederick William IVwas a militaristic manin charge of a militaristic state; the entire state was surrounded by the military and he would use it with orwithout the permission of an unimportant assembly. An example of this was in Denmark where FrederickWilliam IV went to war in Schleswig without the permission of the parliament, and the parliamentcouldn’t do anything about it; this undermined the authority of the parliament and reduced the level ofrespect the people had for them.Another fault was the fact that taking position as Emperor would havebeen a large tactical advantage and given a lot of power to the already powerful state and King. Prussiawanted Europe and this would have given them more of a possibility for this.
It can be concluded that although Frederick William IV was partially to blame for the fall of theFrankfurt Parliament it was mainly their own fault. Unfortunate circumstances and failure to act upontheir part; with division from within and the two major powers not fully behind the mission would havemade the Assembly’s mission near impossible to accomplish. The assembly’s failure to demand respect,to take action and it was divided. This in addition to Frederick William IV’s lack of confidence in theparliament and his refusal to follow its orders lead to it failing and being dissolved.
1 Carlyle, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Carlyle. London. 1865 Print. 2 Farmer, Alan. The Unification of Germany 1815-1919. London. 2007. Print 3 Carlyle, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Carlyle. London. 1865 Print. 4 Friedrich Engels 5 Farmer, Alan. The Unification of Germany 1815-1919. London. 2007. Print 6 Kock, H. W. A History of Prussia. New York. 1978. Print 7 "The Schleswig-Holstein Rebellion - Dansk Militærhistorie." 2003. 23 Sep. 2013 8 Frotscher, Werner. Verfassunggeschichte. Munich. 2005 (5th Ed.)
The Frankfurt Parliament was created in 1848 in order to fill a power vacuum thathas been created by the widespread revolutions throughout Germany. The liberalParliament intended was to establish a united Germany under a constitutionalmonarch who would role through an elected Parliament1. However, the Parliamentwas weak and it had failed. Despite some achievements the parliament was unableto establish none of its goals2 which mainly were unification of Germany, freedom ofthe press, fair taxation, equality of political rights and German citizenship for all. Thefailure of the Frankfurt Parliament was partly to do with the Prussian king - FredrickWilliam IV. In this essay I will be examining to what extend Fredrick William is to beblamed for the failure and the other main reasons which led to it.
Since the establishing of the Parliament, it lacked power. It consisted 596 electedrepresentatives, one representative for every 50,000 people, from all German states(80% of its members had university degrees and the rest was comprised of a fewland owners, four craftsmen and one peasant3).This led to division within theparliament, and to many conflicts. Every representative came from a different state,a different point of view and with a different interest. Discussions were ill organizedand it was a complete ‘talk shop’, however, took a little action. Conflicts wereuneasily solved and it was almost impossible to agree on something with so manypeople who think differently and have different opinions and interests.
Congress of Vienna (1815)
- Length: 730 words (2.1 double-spaced pages)
- Rating: Excellent
Congress of Vienna (1815)
In September 1814 – June 1815, the leaders who vanquished Napoleon, European representatives, and those who believe they were in “high circles” gathered together to redraw territorial boundaries and fashion a lasting peace at the end of the Napoleonic wars after the downfall of Napoleon.
 Dominated by four major victors – Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria set peace term with France in April.
 signing a crucial document
 legitimacy (territories should once more be placed under the control of the old ruling houses of the traditional order), and stability (balance power in Europe)
 light penalty for France and restore it to 1789 boundaries and required France to pay.
 abolish slave trade
 the Holy alliance was formed to secure the Vienna settlement
Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905)
In 1904, the Russian angered Japan by increasing it’s presence in China’s Northern Province of Manchuria. Eventually, the Japanese decided to attack the Russian to keep their power on the Asian Mainland and surprisingly, defeated them both on land and at sea. Eventually, Japanese became the dominant power in Manchuria.
Second Reform Act (1867)
 Caused by the people who are tired and want to gain to the political system
 tired of the British government who sympathize with movement for national liberation abroad and parade British naval, and national pride.
 started by the Conservative Party, under Benjamin Disraeli, demand for democratic reform
 they passed the Reform Bill of 1867
 doubled the electorate and gave the vote to the lower-middle class for the first time
 gathered support from the working class by passing laws that limited working hours, established sanitary codes, created housing standards, and aided labor union.
Alfred Dreyfus (1894)
In 1894, A Jewish captain was falsely accused and convicted of betrayal and sent to solitary imprisonment on Devil’s Island in South America.
 France people followed the news from time to time
 3 years later, the proof of his innocence appeared. Yet, the high-ranking officers refused to open the cased.
 Eventually, it divided the nation into two (Left and Right)
 Republican, socialist, and intellectuals under Zola rallied for Drefus.
Nationalist, conservative, monarchist, and anti-Semitic force supported the Army
 in 1899, a second court-martial again convicted Dreyfus for evidence of another’s officer’s guilt.
 The Republic pardoned him, but it took seven years to get his name fully acquainted
 marked the battle over anti-semitism, but the victory became a victory for republicanism and anti-clericalism.  made them strong enough to separate church with state.
How to Cite this Page
|Why was Italy not unified after the Congress of Vienna (1815)? Essay - Before the Congress of Vienna the French occupation had far reaching affects on Italy. The power of the Church and the Pope was reduced, changes were made in landownership and land was redistributed. A new middle class began to appear. Agriculture was improved and the peasants were freed from their old feudal ties and obligations. Then when Napoleon was defeated and the restoration of the old regime and monarchs was started, Italy again became a country divided into eleven independent states, excluding the tiny principalities and the Republic of San Marino.... [tags: essays research papers]||633 words|
| The Triumph of the Congress of Vienna Essay - The Congress of Vienna was a series of conferences held in Vienna, from 1814-1815. In which many European heads of government met to establish long-lasting piece, preventing revolution and any other nations from becoming to powerful, on the European continent after the defeat of Napoleon. Even though many countries came together to discus an issue, “the Congress of Vienna was more successful than many other peace meetings in history” (Beck, 241). The most influential of these representatives was the foreign minister of Austria, Prince Klemens von Metternich (Beck, 238).... [tags: Europe, peace, Talleyrand, Matternich, politics]|
:: 5 Works Cited
|Essay about The Congress of Vienna - 1. Discuss the congress of Vienna. Who were the leaders. - To rebuild Ausstria after Napoleon had destroyed it. i. Austria: Prince Metternich ii. Russia: Alexander I iii. Prussia: King Frederick William III iv. England: George III, but by then he was insane, so Lord Castleregh filled in v. France: Tallyrand 2. List the Russian Czars from 1814-1914 a. Alexander I: helped defeat Napoleon and went to the congress of Vienna b. Nicholas I: stopped the “Decemberist Revolt” c. Alexander II: stopped the Crimean War and freed the serfs d.... [tags: essays research papers]||1079 words|
| Essay about The Diversification of Congress: Beneficial, Pernicious or Benign? - The Diversification of Congress; Beneficial, Pernicious or Benign. Although the 113th Congress is the most diverse in (Jennifer E. Manning)Gender 98 Women, Ethnicity, Religion 18 specific, Occupations 16 specific, age, sexual orientation 7 openly gay or bisexual and abilities. Yet, it is the most unproductive Congress of more than 60 years. This class, plagued with indications of Internalized oppression and self-destruction, has produced less than 50 laws and has no adherence to the budget timeline this session.... [tags: Congress, Republican Party, Governement]|
:: 17 Works Cited
|Minorities in Congress Essay - Minorities in Congress In forming a government for the people, by the people, and of the people, our Founding Fathers developed the idea a bi-cameral legislature. This Congress, composed of the House of Representatives and Senate, thus became known as the people’s branch of government. American children are taught in schools that anyone can be elected to Congress, so long as they meet the qualifications of the Constitution. So long as you meet the age and residency requirements you are indeed qualified to be a candidate for Congress.... [tags: Congress Racism Politics Essays]||4214 words|
|Austria And Prussia 1815 - 1850 Essay - How did the relationship between Austria and Prussia develop after 1815 and before 1850. The relationship between Austria and Prussia developed a lot during the era of economic wealth, revolution and war. Many governments were restored in Europe (after the defeating Napoleon). Legitimate monarchy was set up meaning the hereditary ruling families would be restored to their old thrones. This was agreed partly because it was seen as a more stable and suitable system suited to peace. Also Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor, saw it as a useful way to prevent the Russians and Prussian from gaining extra territory.... [tags: essays research papers]||560 words|
|Vienna Settlement as a Reasonable and Moderate Compromise Essay - Vienna Settlement as a Reasonable and Moderate Compromise Answer: After the Napoleonic upheavalå·¨è®Š, the representativesä»£è¡¨of hundreds of victoriouså‹åˆ©çš„ European states met at Vienna in 1814-15 to redrawé‡æ–°åŠƒå®š the mapç‰ˆåœ– of Europe. The Settlement was dominated by the "Big Fiveäº”å¼·", that is Castlereaghå¡è˜‡é‡Œ of Britain, Czar Alexander Iæ²™çš‡é˜¿æ·å±±å¤§ä¸€ä¸– of Russia, Metternichæ¢…ç‰¹æ¶… of Austria, Hardenbergå“ˆç™»å ¡ of Prussia and Talleyrandå¡”åŠ›è˜ of France.... [tags: Papers]||1421 words|
|Essay on The Library Of Congress - HISTORYThe Library of congress was established by an act of congress on April 24, 1800. It was originally housed in the United States capitol. The collection, which stared out small at 740 volumes, slowly increased to over 3,000 volumes by 1814. That year, though, the British along with the capitol burned those books during the assault on Washington.To rapidly replace the collection, Thomas Jefferson offered his personal library to congress at no cost, describing the nature of his books like so: "I do not know that it contains any branch of science which Congress would wish to exclude from the collections; there is, in fact, no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasio... [tags: essays research papers]||2798 words|
|ViVa! Vienna! Essay - Small children shriek at the excitement of experiencing toddler rides at ViVa. Vienna!. Teenagers scream as they cling to their seats on the scary rides. Adults scrutinize the intricate crafts on sale at vendor booths along an historic street. People of all ages enjoy the food court, a veritable United Nations of tastes. Parents appreciate the fact that there is no cost to attend ViVa. Vienna. Music fans soak up the sounds of a wide variety of free music to suit everyone’s taste. These statements, you are probably thinking, describe events at different festivals, different locations, and different parks where you would have to pay big bucks just to get in.... [tags: Event Planning]||871 words|
|Congress Essay - There is a definite need for Congress in the United States. It serves many roles such as making laws, implementing national policy and watching over the other two branches of government. These are just a few of the duties of our U.S. Congress. Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems. People are not always satisfied with the length of time involved in passing a law as well as the deadlock Congress can experience on an issue. Another potential problem people see with Congress is representation.... [tags: essays research papers]||1721 words|
Congress Of Vienna Reform Bill Vienna Settlement Napoleonic Wars National Pride Working Hours Russo-japanese War Reform Act
Decembrist Revolt (1825)
After the death of Alexander I, Nicholas I became the new leader and go for discipline and authority. (In December 1825)
in Russia, a group of young liberal military officers under Nicholas I revolted because they want to write a constitution and free the enslaved laborer
 Nicholas crushed it immediately and turned against any hints of liberalism.
 he makes a policy demanding submission of everyone to the autocracy and the Orthodox Church.
 They gain reputation as liberal political martyr
 Russian politician and Finance minister who has aggressive policies for industrialization in 1880s and rolling in the 1890s.
 introduce foreign capital
 stimulated the growth of the middle and working classes in a lot of cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg.  these people were annoyed to the Russian traditional society and archaic government
 when Russia lost the Russo-Japanese War, he represent them to sign the Treaty of Portsmouth in Summer 1905 in Portsmouth New Hampshire
Holy Alliance (1815)
 An alliance made to be responsible and preserving Vienna Settlement
 Willingness to intervene other countries for its conservative principle.
 Conceived by Alexander I, Francis I, and William III, believe in the Christian principle.
 Russia, Prussia, and Austria first join.
Crimean War (1853 – 1856)
War between Russia and Ottoman Turks.
 reasons was complex, but Russia hope to gain territory from the Weakened Ottoman Empire
Russia wanted shipping access to the World via the Black Sea through the Turkish Straits and gain influence in the Near East.
 Early next year, Russia attacked the Ottoman navy and caused France, Britian, and Kingdom of Sardinia to to be their enemy.
More than 250,000 soldiers died (diseases)
No one could claim the victory
 became the major turning point in the political history