CHAPTER 1
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 1789-1799
Introduction
The French Revolution of 1789 marked the turning point of European politics, economics and social
organisation. The existing forms of government and organisation of the society were challenged
from below within France. The system of the government under the absolute monarch with the help
of a minority group of nobles and clergy came under fire as they failed to bring significant reforms in
particular equality of all and fair administration. The majority were excluded from political
participation on the basis of birthright and not merit. The rise of educated elites brought a new wave
known as ‘the spirit of rationalism’1 that questioned the existing forms of government and social
structure. Together with the worsening state of the economy, poor harvests, failures in foreign
policy the revolution of 1789 became inevitable. However the impacts of this event were not only
felt in France but throughout Europe and beyond. Therefore it is important to consider the causes,
course and effects of the revolution.
Pre-Revolutionary Conditions
Before looking at the causes of the revolution it is important to understand the nature of the French
society.
i) Ancient regime- a term that is used to describe the old system of governance
operational within France. The king enjoyed absolute power and Divine right of
monarchs (ruled on behalf of God). He was assisted by a group of privileged nobles and
clergy. The whole system was oppressive, inefficient, and corrupt and suffered from
inconsistence. There were no laid down laws except for arbitrary arrest and unfair
taxation. Under it the minority enjoyed privileges such as exemption from taxation,
payment of feudal dues and could be appointed to high offices. Such positions were
awarded on the basis of birthright and not merit. The majority of the population was
denied any forms of involvement in the politics of their nation. Furthermore there was a
marriage of reason between the Church and the State, such that the Church was almost
a state within the state.
ii) Absolutism- Louis XVI inherited a system of long absolute monarchs. Absolutism refers
to a system where power is vested in the hands of one man. This mean the life of the
French was in the hands of the kings. Thus there was room for the abuse of power by
1D. Thomson, Europe Since Napoleon,
1
the king. This is the form of governance that Louis XVI inherited from his predecessors
and challenged by the revolution from 1789.
iii) Enlightenment- France was one of leading nations with a high rate of literacy hence
revolutionary literature and ideas began to ferment during the second half of the 18 th
century. They criticized the wrongs of the systems operational on that day. The greatest
grievances of the educated elites were the exclusion from participating in the politics of
their nations. They therefore advanced various reforms which could have transformed
their society for the benefit of all. By the time the Revolution began they helped to
shape the principles of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’.
iv) Nature of the society- it was divided into three distinct classes that housed
contradictions that propelled towards the revolution. The classes were as follows:-
a) The 1st Estate was made up of the members of the church known as the Clergy.
b) 2nd Estate comprised of the nobility sub-divided into the Upper Nobility, Lower
Nobility and Nobility of the robe.
c) 3rdEstate made up of peasants, educated elites and the merchants/middle class.
Causes of the Revolution
No single factor must be more than privileged to explain what brought about the Revolution. It is
best for the history student to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to be able to account for the
Revolution.
System of Government
Under the Bourbon Monarch, France had fallen from a great power due to internal contradictions.
Power was vested in the hands of one man the king who enjoyed DivineRights and as such was
vulnerable to abuse. He was the law and show their supremacy Louis XV said, ‘the state is myself’,
and Louis XVII was to state that, “the thing is legal because I wish it”2. The King was assisted by the
minority and privileged nobles and clergy who were corrupt and lacked efficiency. They had access
to positions of influence such as ambassadors, ministers, commissioned officers in the army. These
were appointed not on the basis of merit but birthright much to the dismay of the educated elites,
who questioned why they were excluded from political persuasion. At the end of the day there was
no system of accountability and a complete failure to respond to the demands of the people. A case
in mind according to D. Richards a church applied for a loan to fix a licking roof but only received the
2D. Richards , illustrated textbook of modern Europe
2
reply after ten years. One only wonders what had happened to the lick 3.Furthermore the state lost a
lot of revenue due to an archaic system of tax collection. Thus then people demanded for the
introduction of reforms to deals with the rotten system of government.
The state had no written constitution hence the use of letter de catchetor arbitrary arrest. The result
was the demand for a constitutional monarch to end the suffering and persecution of the masses.
However, though an important cause of the Revolution the interplay of other factors must not be
ignored.
Character of the King Louis XVI
Most historians have questioned the way the king handled the crisis from the day of his
enthronement. His character came under scrutiny. In the early stages of his reign he was not backed
up by a powerful military system. According to A RammLouis XVI as welcomed in 1772 as a reformer
king but what the French failed to realize he was not Fredrick The Great nor Peter The Great4.
He has been blamed for failing to deal the situation due to his weak character that made him
vulnerable to be duped by his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette and nobles to act against the interest of
the majority. He did not act according when he was supposed to hence Thomson comments that he
was well meaning but weak –willed5. Richards then popularized that he was a king in name in power
but not in character. For example he had the talent to appoint able ministers but was easily
influenced to fire them thereby worsening an already delicate situation. All his actions show that he
was not interested in the reform schemes to the greater extent thus setting in motion a series of
events that later caught up with in the form of the revolution showing his incompetency. Some of
the decision he pursued proves that he was unable to stand and stamp his authority. There is need
to question why he went to American War of Independence when the French coffers were already
showing signs of strain. In the end historians have argued that, to some extent the revolution of
1789 was against an incompetent king. Though he inherited a troubled throne, the problems
became more acute under him.
Influence of Marie Antoinette
The Queen has been regarded as one of those who conspired against the wishes of the French
masses. Largely blamed for her luxurious lifestyle evidenced by the purchasing four pairs of shoes
per week, could not manage without 500 maids. However it was her Austrian background that made
3Ibid4A. Ramm,5D.Thomson, Europe…
3
her a target by the French. Mary has been blamed for Louis’ incompetency due to way she meddled
in state affairs.
She was the brains behind the hiring and firing of finance ministers like Necker and Turgot, because
their reforms were aimed at reducing the court’s expenditure. Richards describes her as too strong
minded to be sensible. One of the revolutionary figures Count Mirabeau contested that, “the king
has one person about himself that is his wife”6. In all cases she is mostly blamed for the extravagancy
of the court and her lack of sympathy for the plight of the masses e.g. when women marched to the
court during the course to the palace demanding reduction in the prices of bread she is believed to
have said, “if they can’t have bread let them have cakes.”7
The financial crisis
By1789 the government of France was bankrupt to the extent of failing to pay workers. This state of
affairs is largely considered to have been the trigger of the revolution. The government resorted to
excessive borrowing thus further worsening the state of the French coffers. Historians like A Ramm
do agree that the revolution came through the path of the financial crisis. But what brought the
financial crisis?
King Louis XVI inherited the financial crisis due to the extravagancy of his predecessors. Louis XV had
engaged in the Seven Years War leading to the French loosing important colonies of India and
Canada. There was lack of accountability, since no records were kept of taxation and expenditure.
Louis XVI due to the pressure exerted upon him resorted to the hiring and firing of finance ministers
who could have averted the coming of the French revolution. For instance Necker and Turgot had
advised the king on the need of the following taxation for all, reduction of court expenditure and the
publication of the annual financial record known as the compete rendu. All these were opposed by
the upper members of the French caste and the Queen. The Queen was also responsible as she
could not manage without 500 maids, four pairs of shoes every week, and other forms of delicacies.
The finances were further thrown into disarray by the decision to engage in the American War of
Independence [1774-76] .The soldiers that went under General Lafayette [the hero of two worlds]
gained an idea of the revolutionary principles which they demanded upon their return. The war also
led to excessive borrowing from the government and at the end failed to pay back the middle classes
their dues thus further deepening the state’s bankruptcy. The rate of unemployment rose
significantly due to the hyperinflation caused by business speculation. By 1789 the situation was out
of hand such that Necker was called back into office only to advise the king to summon the Estates-
General before he was fired for the second time.
6D.Richards, Illustrated…7Ibid.
4
The Class System/ Social Stratification
According to Karl Marx in his theory of class struggle argued that maintenance of discriminate
classes make conflict between or amongst them inevitable. The French society was evident of this
since there were three distinct classes that caused widespread discontent thereby helping to bring
about the revolutionary tide and atmosphere.
The First Estate was made up of members of the church or the clergy. It was further subdivided into
two classes the upper clergy comprising of the bishops and cardinals. They enjoyed the extravagance
of the court and received higher stipends as much as 2500livres.They could be appointed to
positions of influence. It was followed but the lower clergy mainly parish priest who did much of the
work like registering of deaths and births and provision of elementary education. At the end of the
day they were paid very little 250 livres. Thus the lower clergy felt jealousy of the upper clergy and
their far reaching privileges. Just like the lower nobility when the revolution began they joined forces
with the members of the third state. In simple terms they welcomed the revolution as the only way
of improving their lot.
The Second Estate was made up of the nobility, a position earned by services rendered to the state.
Like the upper clergy they enjoyed privileges such as exemption of taxation, appointment to official
positions, commissioned officers in the army and owned substantial chunks of land. Below them
were the lower nobility who enjoyed nothing. The nobles owned much of the French land, they were
the landlords. They received feudal dues from the serfs for the use of their ovens and winepresses.
The whole system was designed for their benefit. They were highly resented by the nobility of the
robe and the third estate.
The Third Estate was at the bottom of the caste, comprised of the peasants burdened with excessive
taxes like gabelle, taille, poll and a salt tax paid by all above the age of seven. They were not allowed
to hunt small animals like rabbits and birds which were preserved for the nobles to hunt. They also
affected by the existence of a variety of custom laws that made it difficult for movement of their
produce and people together. They were victims of letter de catchet and trial without jury. They
shared such misery with the educated elites who were denied political participation despite their
knowledge. They resented the art of office according to birthright and not merit. They further
demanded liberal reforms and a constitutional monarch. The merchants were not left out despite
paying high taxes and lending money to the state had no voice. Members of the Third Estate
therefore were passive citizens. The under privileged 3rd estate naturally caused, discontent and
antagonism which helped to create revolutionary tendencies. However the class system may have
5
caused discontent but not necessarily a revolution. They welcomed the revolution as a means of
gaining what they had been denied for long. The Paris Mob became a major determinant factor in
the course of the revolution.
Influence of the philosophers
The writing of political idealists also contributed to the outbreak of the revolution. They played a
significant role in enlightening the Frenchmen about the political and social injustices within France.
They exposed the abuse of power and advocated for reforms, did not agitate for the revolution. The
most influential were Voltaire, Montesquieu and Rousseau.
Voltaire was one of the greatest satirist, poet and dramatist of his time. He dwelt much with human
affairs with a bias towards advocacy for freedom of the individual. A well-travelled man, who drew
inspiration from the English and admired their constitution. In his article Letters to the English he
moaned the absence of freedom within France. Mostly affected by the domination of the Catholic
Church to which he became its greatest enemy. In the article he attacked the absence of religious
toleration and the political influence of the church. Apart from freedom of worship he demanded
press freedom, freedom of association and trial by jury. He was against the monarch but wanted it
to implement such reforms with the assistance of the educated elite. Not in favour of revolutionaries
he stated that, “I would rather be ruled by a lion than a hundred rats” 8. Moreover, he was not
against the monarch, but he wanted the monarchy to lead the reform with the aide of the educated
elites. His ideas became very influential during the course of the revolution since it inspired the
drafting of the civil Constitution of the Clergy.
Montesquieu was interest in aspects of power and its use. In his writing, The Separation of Power,
he advanced the need to decentralize power on order to avoid its abuse and enable a system of
checks and balances. He was against the absolute monarchy were power was vested in the hands of
one man that is the king. In simple terms he was in favour of the limitation of the powers of the
monarchy. He called for the establishment of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative Assembly. Such
a system was self-regulatory as each department would be monitored by the others. He therefore
meant that the monarch should be constitutional as to govern the operations of the arms of the
state. Like his contemporary, Voltaire he wanted the moderate reforms to be championed by the
King. His ideas became active during the course of the revolution and later adopted by Napoleon I.
Rousseau was much interested on issues to do with the rights of the individual. He articulated his
ideas in his book The Social Contract. This is what he viewed as the general agreement between the
8 D. Richards,
6
state and the people as a means of safeguarding rights of the individual. His greatest observation
was that man is born is born free but heavily oppressed, as a result of the way society behaved
regarding others as superior than others. He envisaged a situation where the king would rule
according to the interests of the people through The General Will. However failure would lead to the
people to change the top brass. For him those entrusted with public offices were supposed to save
the interest of the people what he termed the general will. This was the problem with the Ancient
Regime. His ideas influenced the writing of the Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen by
the National Assembly.
The Encyclopaedists Diderot and D’Alembert advanced the need for land allocation to the peasants.
Heavily criticized the government and the church and called for an end to the taxation of the
peasants. The philosophers thus did not call for a revolution but simply highlighted the vagaries of
the ancient regime. They only opened the minds of the people and helped to nature the
revolutionary principles of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”. There contributions to the outbreak of
the revolution were rather indirect.
The Church
It enjoyed a position of influence and a marriage of reason with the state. It operated it’s on civil
courts which totalled above three hundred. As a result it was regarded as a state within a state.
Catholicism was accepted as the religion of the state. The church was one of the richest institutions
within France owning a total of two thirds of the French land. Apart from denying the freedom of
worship it demanded from the masses tithes in the form yields from their harvest. With time the
church gradually began to shift away from its empirical role that is providing elementary education,
registering births and deaths. The French were denied freedom of worship. Non-Catholics were
openly executed hence no denial that the church was a contributory factor towards the outbreak of
the revolution.
Social and economic distress
During the 18th century French population increased rapidly yet agriculture and industrial production
remained static. The land was underutilized. The long-term effects were high rate of unemployment
and falling living standards. The resultant effect was inflation as prices of basic commodities doubled
while the wages remained static. With a growing population unemployment rates continued to rise
coupled with food shortages set in by the freezing of the rivers during 1788-1789 hence all of France
was faced with a severe famine. The rural folk moved to the city in search of food, shelter and
7
employment only to find the situation even worse than were they had come from. With such a
delicate situation enough material for combustion was there, all that was required was a leader to
mobilize and organization of the middle class and then the revolution. The educated elites were able
to fill that vacuum and lead the revolution. Those that had come to Paris formed the Paris Mob, a
group that shaped the course of the revolution.
List of Cahiers
Before the meeting the King had given a directive for each class to bring their list of cahiers or
grievances that required attention. The upper classes failed to come up with any meaning that they
were satisfied with the system. All members of the third estate produced identical demands like an
end to the system of privileges, end to feudal dues, freedom of association, taxation for all, and
office on the basis on merit.
Summoning Of States-General
The situation by 1789 was precarious and the king gave in to the advice of Necker to summon the
state general to find a lasting solution to the problems of the state. However doom waited as Necker
was fired before the meeting. According to D Thomson Louis XVI’s incompetency was exposed as he
attempted to use an outdated, rusty and creaking machine that had last met in 1614. With this he
hoped to amend whatever had gone wrong. The process began with the election of new deputies.
He showed his desire for reform by doubling third estate representation to 600 from 300 in order to
equal the combined nobles and clergy. The meeting began on 5 May 1789 with arguments over the
seating arrangement, voting by head or by class and deciding on the agenda. The meeting was
supposed to bring about reform but instead brought the revolution. This could have been so due to
the conflict over the seating and voting arrangement.
Course of the Revolution
The revolution faced internal and external threats the same as its effects.
i. The revolutionary war in France succeeded in exporting the ideas of the revolution to
other states of Europe and beyond i.e. nationalism found respectable meaning in Italy
and Germany during the second half of the 19th century.
ii. It paved way for the rise of man of talent like Napoleon Bonaparte after being given
opportunities to display his military abilities after the death of many generals.
8
iii. People lost property and their lives hence very costly for France in terms of human and
financial resources.
iv. Became difficult to trade under a war atmosphere throughout France.
The Tennis Court Oath
The state general meeting was characterized by tension, the king had not set the agenda for the
meeting neither had it been agreed how the three classes must seat and debate. Thus the initial
debate was based on the following how they were going to seat, to vote by head or by class. The
third estate representation had been doubled from 300 to 600 with its leaders being count Mirabeau
and constitutionalist Abbey Sieyes. Due to misunderstanding around the meeting the third class
were made to believe that they had been locked outside the chamber and came together in a nearby
tennis court .they declared themselves the national assembly. The king demanded that it should be
dissolved but they remained resolute. Sieyes is believed to have said to one messenger, “go tell your
master going to leave until when the bayonet reigns.” the king was forced to give and asked the
other classes to join the National Assembly upon which it set down and began its work.
The Storming of the Bastille July 14
The members of the Estates General wasted time discussing about the seating and voting
arrangements without paying attention to the demands of the people. This infuriated the mob
leading to the storming of the Bastille (symbol of the ancient regime) and destruction of former
houses of the aristocracy and led to the formation of committees to safeguard the gains of the
revolution. The Bastille was a symbol of tyranny and despotism of the French aristocracy. The event
was sparked by the unwillingness of some nobles and clergy to surrender their privileges. It was used
as a prison of victims arrested under the royal policy of letter de cachet. After the declaration of the
national assembly nobles, clergy and the king continued to approve new arrangements while
lawyers diluted political principles. Taxes were paid, disorder spread in the countryside with attacks
of noble houses and farms.
Trade and supply of food broke down and the number of the restless, unemployed workmen in Paris
swelled into the Paris mob which proved to be a dangerous and effective weapon behind the
revolution behind the middle class assembly.
Rumours of a Royal March and the dismissal of Necker a popular idol led to commune, an
emergency from the municipal government that sympathized with revolution. A civil guard
developed into the National Guard formed by the citizens of Paris. It was armed with weapons
9
raided from the Hotel Des Invalids and the citizen part police, part army were armed and found it
difficult to defend the rights of property city of Paris. A revolutionary pattern was set up which was
to be copied throughout the country. The people of Paris showed their power by attacking the
Bastille. The storming was regarded a symbolic act marking the end of tyranny. This did not only
prove the weakness of the king as he yielded to popular forces but strengthened the assembly which
was the success of the assembly. It marked the entrance into the revolution of new forces the
commune, the National Guard and revolutionary clubs like the Jacobins and Girondins.
Declaration of the Rights of the Men and Of the Citizen (August 1789)
Another important event of 1789, the National Assembly had its first meeting where most bishops
supported economic and social reforms. While the discussion centred on the restoration of the
people’s political liberties and how to safeguard them, some nobles and clergy aborted. By the end
of the meeting a general agreement was reached and a document was prepared. This greatly
affected the history of France. At the end of the month it was agreed to adopt the new document to
protect the liberties of the Frenchmen and safeguard their citizenship.
It significant as it was adopted beyond the French borders. The French were granted freedom of
speech, worship, equality before the law and taxation for all. These were the good principles to ideas
which if well implemented would have bring justice, law and order among the French. The French
were enlightened on what they should if tolerate any government that did not protect the liberties
such were bound to face internal revolt and unpopular like the Directory. In view of this one
historian commented that, “It was pointless for people on top of the mountain and show them
wonderful plants which could not be given unto them”. The document literally eroded the vagaries
of the ancient regime hence described as the death certificate of the ancient regime.
The March of Women(October 1789)
A rumour spread around that a military plot against the Assembly instigated by those who were
attempting to influence the king. It was out of this situation that the famous march of women to
Versailles took place. On the morning of 5 October 1789 a huge crowd of women forced their way
into the Hotel des Invalids seized arms and dragging cannon along with them and began the march
to Versailles. The idea was to get the king to reduce the prices of bread and to ensure punishment of
those who had insulted that flag. They were joined by men dressed as women. General Lafayette
was alongside to prevent any havoc. Louis XVI made the promise to reduce the prices of bread and
other basic commodities. The king was forced to abandon his residents at Versailles and come to
10
Paris. The price of bread was reduced but soon inflation took its toll. It is during this event were the
Queen Mary made her unpopular statement, “if they can’t have bread let them have cakes”.
Attack Of The Church And Of The Pope. (Civil Constitution of the Clergy July 1790)
Before 1789 the Catholic and the Pope exercised great influence in French political affairs. The Pope
could easily influence the policies and decisions of the King of France. The catholic religion was
dominant and it controlled large estates of land. However in the course of the revolution the church
and the pope became centres of attack from the revolutionaries. Nationalisation of church property
was aimed at, using revenue to run government affairs using the new paper money known as the
assignats. This was introduced as security to arrest inflation. Unfortunately due to persistent
inflation the new currency lost its value. The peasants had finally gained plots of land from the
revolution.
It was important as the Assembly managed to raise revenue to run administrative affairs of the
country. The document was called the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The clergy having lost their
privileges become displeased by the revolution. For the first time religious tolerance was
introduced, the clergy had to be elected by the general public, to be paid by the state uniform
salaries and therefore became civil servants. Members of the clergy were entitled to take an oath to
the constitution. As a result the upper clergy refused to take the oath and became known as the
non-jurying priests since they refused to work under the new law. The majority of the lower clergy
welcomed the document with both hands hence referred to as the jurying priests. Some of the non-
jurying priests left France and joined the nobles in neighbouring states of Austria and Prussia. The
Pope condemned the document and excommunicated the French. When it was given for
endorsement to the king Louis XVI, he preferred the flight since it was an attack on the basis of his
power to sign the document into law.
The Flight to Varennes
If the king had signed the civil constitution, the church would have become a department of the
state. He was afraid of losing the support of the church and the Pope. Upon the instruction of the
Queen he decided upon the flight to Varennes, to cross into nearby Austria to gain support and
crush the revolution. His objective was to join the counterrevolutionary force [made up of the
émigrés] that intended to crush the revolution once and for all. According to Richards the king and
his entourage were disguised as the baking staff and the journey was characterised by gross
miscalculations. Before crossing the bridge he was arrested and returned to Paris were he appeared
as the enemy of the French and of the revolution. In H.L Peacock an illustration appears where he is
11
forced to wear the tri-colour-the colours the revolution. He lost popularity among the church and
people. The monarchy became unpopular and radicals began to advocate for a republic and such
circumstance revealed about the king was not in support of the revolution. He was declared the king
of the French by the Will of the people and by the grace of God. The flight proved to the French that
he was working with the enemies of the revolution.
Stages of the Revolution
The revolution can be divided into two distinct periods which are distinguished by changes both in
time, forms of government and revolutionary relations with other powers.
a) Monarchical rule and allied intervention 1789-1792
The constituent or national assembly, the system of government was a limited monarch and was
dominated by the upper middle class. It made remarkable series of distinction and
reconstruction.
i) Decreed the doom of feudalism and serfdom in France although the liquidation of the old
system remained incomplete.
ii) It obliterated the old patchwork of provincial, physical and aristocratic divisions in France and
supplants them by departments headed by an official government the prefect.
iii) Suppressed the conflicting legal tribunals, parliaments and feudal courts which complicated
the administration of justice under the old regime. These were replaced by a graduated system
of judicial courts with selected judges.
v) It stripped the church and monastic orders off wealth and power and made the clergy
the servants of the state.
vi) It stripped the absolute monarch of its authority and confided it to an assembly of
sovereign people.
b) Legislative Assembly
The influence of the lower classes became greater, France was soon at war with six foreign powers
and eventually the king was disposed and the republic was declared. During this period France was
controlled theoretically by a National Convention [Jacobin club] but practically ruled tyrannically by a
small clique of the Jacobin club. These were led by lawyers like Robespierre and Danton.
12
Work of the National Assembly
It was of one the most successful of revolutionary governments in France. It drafted the rights of
men, brought to an end the system of privileges, tithes and feudal dues which had troubled the
peasants and other members of the lower classes. The church was reorganised and its powers were
heavily reduced through the civil constitution of the clergy. In the field of administration they
restructured it by introducing the system of departments under the locally elected councils some of
the assembly’s work were to be incorporated into the reforms of Napoleon I.
The Constitution Of 1791
The assembly produced a new constitution which transformed France into a constitutional
monarchy. It awarded the king limited powers and was to be assisted by a new assembly known as
the legislative assembly. It further produced a franchise made up of people who paid taxes hence
the distinction between active and passive citizens. It is at point that the King was resented by some
section of the citizens; the Republicans. As a sign of democracy members of the National Assembly
openly declared that they would not stand in the next elections. This is a point bemoaned by
Richards as he outlines that, “the point was to cut off from the conduct of the government the main
body of men who had begun to acquire some experience of it”. The new assembly was made up of
members belonging to various clubs in particular the Girondins, Jacobins and the Feuillants. The
French Revolution from this point became radical as extreme policies were implemented. It is
evident from this point that the attitudes towards the king and the Royal family completely changed.
13
The Reign Of Terror
This refers to a period of total breakdown of law and order, violence, terrorism, negative growth of
the economy, loss of lives and property e.g. the death of Louis XVI, the Queen and the leaders of the
Girondins club like Madam Roland. The French wanted a democratically and constitutionally elected
government. They had no intentions of killing the king and removing the monarchical government
but with the leadership of Robespierre of the Jacobin club, the course of events changed towards
dictatorship.
Many revolutionaries feared the royalist intrigues might overthrow the revolution e.g. in La Vendee
a royalist uprising took place and the economy was shaken by the political situation. The period of
dictatorship ended with the death of Robespierre and the downfall of the Jacobins.
Why the Reign Of Terror?
The terror was introduced with soul aim of creating a republic of virtues within France. However,
there were other secondary aims like elimination of the enemies of the revolution within and
outside France. The leaders of the Jacobins also intended to export the gains of the revolutions to
the oppressed people of Europe.
Collaborations of the king with the enemies of the revolution
The king became the enemy of the people and the church as the pope had condemned the paper.
Louis wanted to stop the revolution by seeking military assistance from abroad. The unsuccessful
flight led him to lose the confidence and refused to sign the documents of amnesty to the émigrés
hence became unpopular until his death in 1793.
Death Count Mirabeau
He was close to the king and it is argued that if only had he lived up to the 2nd of July he would have
advised the king against the flight. After his death, power struggle and rivalry, over control of
revolutionary governments and the revolution became radical. His death left a vacuum that was only
filled by those hungry to drive France into political chaos hence the reign of terror. Richards quotes
him before his death, “I carry with me the last rags of the monarchy”.
Formation of Rival Political Clubs
14
Clubs emerged namely the Jacobin club dominated by Robespierre and Danton and the Girondins
which was influenced of Marat but under the leadership of Brissot. The Girondins were republicans
but less extreme. They were in and out in competition and this led to the period of violence and
political instability e.g. when the Jacobins won they began to eliminate the Girondins.
Mobilization of the Émigrés on the French Borders
Émigrés had the support of Prussia, England and Austria who intended to intervene and end the
revolution as they were afraid of the spreading of revolutionary ideas and tendencies.
Revolutionaries therefore passed the Edict of Fraternity were they declared that all the monarchs of
Europe are our enemies and all the people our friends. Thus the terror was an attempt to eliminate
external threats and to internationalize the revolution. The British were annoyed by the way the
revolutionaries denied the Dutch control of the Scheldt River. The murder of the king and the edict
issued by the convention threatened the entire fabric of order in Europe. European monarchs were
declared enemies of the revolution thus the war was sparked when the Prussians captured Verdun
in August 1792.
Domestic Unrest
Royalists’ uprisings took place and the economy was shaken by the political situation. There was
rapid increase in the prices of basic commodities. This encouraged hording and speculations. Thus
this may also have triggered the terror. The people were ready to support any strong measures to
deal with the dangerous position of the French. They had predicted enemies at home and abroad, as
a result this power was delegated to the committee of public safety in April 1793. This board in
conjunction with commissioners of the convention and various special committees exercised
considerable authority over the people.
Robespierre was determined to suppress all forms of domestic unrest by terrorism. All terms of
resistance could be denounced as treason/counter-revolutionary and could be punished with the
guillotine. He was a follower of the ideas of Rousseau. He had supported the declaration of the
republic and supported the execution of the king indeed he was idealistic or romantic. He desired for
a new structure based on virtue and supported by religion in order to establish peace. An admirable
speaker and a Jacobin he had friends who supported what he lacked in the form of Danton. The
Committee of Public Safety had twelve people and five concerned with the organization of the army
and the navy.
15
The revolutionary tribunal already at work was helped by the law of suspects passed in September
1793. It arrested and imprisoned without proof of guilty. Many were constantly brought to the
tribunal, prisons were overcrowded and releases were very rare. The guillotine was the universal
penalty and amongst notable victims was Queen Mary; King Louis XVI considered chief enemies of
the revolution. Philippe the Duke of Orleans was put to death due to his connections to the Queen.
Madam Roland was executed because she was the social centre of the Girondins; Bartley the 1 st
president of the National Assembly was executed before the crowd. Several generals were killed and
accused of treason or slackness in pursuit of the enemy. The government was feared within and
outside France.
At Leon a revolt broke out due to the fear of a new government but was easily crushed. The division
within the Jacobin forced them to send each other to the guillotine. Hebertists were killed on March
24, 1794, Danton and Desmoulins were executed upon which Danton said, “Infamous Robespierre;
soon you shall follow me”. This was a result of rivalries and the threat of being overthrown.
Through the law of the maximum citizens were called upon to denounce traders. None was allowed
to trade above state gazetted prices. This was made to make food accessible and affordable to the
French citizens. Members of the convention were no longer immune to arrest and victims of the
terror rose considerably. Thomson with a sympathetic tone states that, “the reign of terror became
possible because of the overthrowing of familiar established government and the double menace of
counter-revolution at home and invasion abroad”.
By 1794 many were arguing that the terror had gone too far due to the level of violence, exploitation
of criminals to the urban mob. It was not directed against disobedient nobility and clergy but also
masses of the ordinary Frenchmen and women who were unfortunate to fall victim to the twists and
turns of revolutionary strive. Men who were denounced had to suffer anxiety in order to save it by
condemning others from June 10-July 27 1794.654 victims were from the upper classes.
Robespierre made his last speech in a last attempt to serve the terror but the convention did
approve of it defended by his friends those that opposed were executed. The tribunal in Paris
condemned to death 2039 and about 40 000 victims were killed in mass execution known as the
September massacres in La Vendee and Lyon. An open revolt against the convention hence the
terror was now devouring its own children both in exile and at home.
Despite its preoccupation with preserving the tide of the revolution in the convention was able to
pass measures that were very useful. It undertook to control the prices and wages, organized
distribution and supplies, introduced a regulative currency and encouraged improvements in
16
agriculture. Education was improved to provide better technical expertise. Basically it devoted much
of its energies in relieving the poor.
It brought a new calendar as months were rearranged. The traditional names of months were
changed and the new names were derived from physical phenomena associated with them. The
calendar was divided into two phases and religion was replaced by the worship of reason. The
churches were closed down and Notre Dame became the temple of reason.
It adopted a system of height and measures, abolished slavery in its colonies. The law of
primogeniture was repelled. It stated that property could not be divided amongst the heirs but had
to be left in the hands of the elder son.
Military Success
The French made remarkable recovery under General Carnot as Toulon was recovered. From the
end of 1793 the coalition was defeated. During 1794 the alliances were driven back across the Rhine,
Holland, Prussia and Spain withdrew from the war. The Dutch after their defeat at Fiennes in 1794
the treaty of Bastille in April 1795.france promised to respect the neutrality of northern Germany
which Prussia wanted to control. In May 1795 some of the states in the south made peace with
France due to their fear that Austria had designs over Bavaria and hoped to reverse their benefits
from France
What led to the defeat?
The efficient organization by Carnot was designed to push back the enemy. The Marseillaise became
the national anthem inspiring the French for more personal sacrifices. All resources of the nation
were harnessed in defence of the revolution and freedom. Their opponents were unwilling, corrupt,
absolute monarch and mercenaries. The French were led by young and enthusiastic generals like
napoleon Bonaparte who knew that defeat was punishable. The allied high command was
characterized by controversy. The Russian commander and the Prussian command General
Brunswick disagreed on the general strategy to be used against France. They were haunted with
European natural jealous which prevented Austria and Prussia from following co-ordinate policies.
The End of the Terror
By 17994 and with the death of Robspierre, moderates French argued that the terror had gone too
far. Since the threats posed by external factors had disappeared there was longer any reason to
continue with the terror. The members of the first coalition had been contained except Britain. At
17
home the September massacres had eliminated many innocent souls such that it was no longer
viable. The death of Robespierre was another factor for its end. He was the only determined to
continue with the violence in order to keep himself in power. A new government was formed known
as the Directory to guide France after the horrors of the terror.
The Directory 1795-99
After the death of Robespierre, the remaining members of the convention drafted a new
constitution. It set up a board known as the Directory in 1795.It was used until 1799. It favoured a
republic which was an attempt to do away with dictatorship, the rule of the mob. This was achieved
by having restrictions on voters’ through the franchise made up of taxpayers.
The Directory was made up of five people who held creative powers under the new constitution and
were responsible for the everyday administration of the country. One member was to retire each
year to prevent the rise of dictatorship. This board was filled with self- seeking and disrespectful
politicians of no or little liability. They wanted to further their own personal interest.
It was and forced to contain internal pressure from royalists and Jacobins who wanted to reassert
their authority. They tried an insurrection but were checked by Napoleon known as the Whiff of
Grapeshot. Another scheme against the Directory was organized by Babeuf. The Babeuf’s plot foiled
and he was captured with his followers and executed in 1796.
By 1799 it was clear that the Directory was afraid of its successful generals whom it dispatched on
foreign duty i.e. Napoleon who had considerable respect among soldiers went to Italy. By
coincidence Napoleon became more popular than the Directory. His presence on the political scene
18
began to fulfil the prophecy of Sir Edmund Burke who upon a visit to Paris in 1792 had wrote only a
soldier’s hatred for disorder would be able restore peace and Order.(In Reflections On The French
Revolution)
In November 1799 he was invited to restore order by the Directory against public unrest however he
took advantage of the scenario and carried out a coup on 19 Brumaire 1799. He then formed a new
government run by three consuls. He was the first consul and was the most powerful of all the
consuls. The rise of napoleon marked the end of the revolution.
Revision questions
i. Why the long standing problems of the ancient regime did became more acute under Louis XVI?
ii. Assess the contributions of the financial crisis to the outbreak of the revolution in 1789?
iii. The contribution of the philosophers to the outbreak of the revolution was rather indirect. Discuss.
iv. The division of the French into classes was a recipe for the revolution. How far do you agree?
v. Why and with what results did Louis xvi summon the meeting of the estates general in 1789?
vi. Why did the meeting of the States general lead to the revolution and not reforms?
vii. Asses the work of the national assembly between 1789 and 1791?viii. How and to what extent did the Civil Constitution of the Clergy increase the
support base of the revolution?ix. The Declaration of Rights of Men was the death certificate of the ancient
regime. How true is this statement?x. Louis XVI was responsible for his execution in 1793. Examine the validity of
this statement?xi. The reign of terror was a necessary evil. Discuss.
xii. In what ways did the Jacobin terror try to preserve the ideal of the revolution?
19
xiii. Which groups benefitted and which groups suffered during the period 1789 and 1799?
xiv. Explain why the revolutionary governments were so short lived?
CHAPTER TWO
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE 1799-1815
Background
Louis Napoleo0n Bonaparte was born in 1769 in Corsica to an unprivileged family. He became a
French citizen by coincidence when Corsica was annexed by France in 1768. At the age of ten his
father secured a vacancy in the military at Brianne in Paris. Despite the challenges he managed to
excel. He was a close ally of Robespierre and followed the writings of Rousseau. During the
revolution he displayed excellent military leadership. He kept an eye on the events of the
revolution. His later life has made historians to describe him as a child of the revolution and one of
the last enlightened benevolent despots. The revolutionary wars gave a platform to show what he
was made of that later made him a popular figure. He defeated the insurrection of the royalists
together with the British at the port of Toulon and was promoted to the rank of brigadier.
20
Rise and Consolidation of Power
Despite his background he emerged as an outstanding soldier and ruler of an extensive empire until
his demise in 1815.His ascendancy to power was the fulfilment of Edmund Burke’s prophecy that
only a soldier’s hatred of disorder would restore order to France. Southgate in regard to this alluded
to the fact, “The chance only for strong government appears to lie in the elevation to a position of
supreme authority of a general who had won fame for the republic”.
FACTORS FOR HIS RISE
Napoleon Bonaparte’s ascendancy to power was necessitated by an interplay many factors as
outlined below.
The French Revolution
He has been described as the child of the revolution thus without it he could not have appeared. It
destroyed the traditional discriminative classes which saw common like Napoleon climbing the
ladder of leadership. During the Reign of Terror the majority of the French generals were executed
leaving behind a vacuum he easily occupied. And because of that his rise to power was within
meteoric9. The revolution brought about ideas such as freedom, equality and fraternity. These are
the same ideas he used to gain support. It also provided a platform for him to display his natural
abilities in particular during the revolutionary wars between 1793and 1799. Consequently without
the revolution Napoleon could have died a common man.
Personal Merit
He was a man of clear foresight and military genius who was skilful and brilliant. His ability to
organize battles partly explains his early success for example in the Italian campaign of 1799. An
orator and politician of his time however his personal merit and his abilities must not be exaggerated
if there was no revolution which destroyed the barriers of the past he may not have risen to power.
Weaknesses and Unpopularity of the Directory
The directory faced many problems like unemployment and failed to arrest inflation. The
government relied on the army which was in the hands of napoleon hence the situation worked in
favour of Napoleon. He used the support of the army and the goodwill of the people to overthrow
the Directory.9
21
His overwhelming ambition
At the age of ten he admired the character of his father whom he partly inherited his straits. He even
attempted to liberate Corsica from the French. From 1796 his ambitiousness can be observed as he
risked war against Austria and in 1798 against Britain. Thereby he was able to capture the attention
of the French especially through his military brilliance like the Italian campaign. It was clear by 1799
he was very popular making it easier to come to power.
Good Fortune
Some scholars have argued that Napoleon’s rise was helped by fortune given to nature of his
background. They point out that he grew up during the days of the revolution. He was born in
Corsica before it became a French territory. And had the King of France not given his father and
other exiles an opportunity he could have lived a common man. This could have limited the
possibility of making Napoleon a great soldier. Other scholars argue that if the Directory had not
become unpopular he could have had no excuse of convincing the Frenchmen to overthrow the
regime.
CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
Constitution
When he came to power he introduced measures that were later to strengthen his position in
power. He granted France constitution. Unfortunately it did not cater for the interests of the
Frenchmen but increased napoleon’s domestic power. France was headed by the consuls namely
Napoleon, Abbey Sieyes and Durcus. It gave him more power than the rest of the consuls. G.W
Southgate commented that though he may have revived the despotism of the Ancient Regime At
least was benevolent despotism. D Thomson was not left out alluding to the effect that Napoleon
was one of the last enlightened despots. He was the head of the army and could make decisions
without consulting the other two members meaning that he gradually transformed into a dictator.
Centralized Administration
He followed the ideas of the national assembly to give France a centralized system of government.
He created departments administered by the prefect, arrondissements and departments under the
mayor/sub prefects who were appointed and answerable to him. In other words his appointees
carried out his will and any forms of opposition he could easily suppress. His gave him a chance to
make his authority felt and strengthened his position. Until his fall in 1815 no democratic elections
22
were contacted but used referendums or plebiscites. By 1804 he felt more secure to extent of
declaring himself emperor Napoleon I.
Strong economy
He improved the agricultural and industrial sectors. In agriculture scientific methods were
introduced such crop rotation. Farmers could access loans from the established bank which resulted
in increased agricultural production. Old industries were rehabilitated and new ones were built
thereby creating employment. New and improved farming methods were introduced so as to make
France self-sufficient. Public works which include expanding of the railway networks, drainage,
canals and ports were introduced. The economic reforms created employment hence was able to
eliminate the revolutionary tendencies. The end result was increased agricultural and industrial
production. France therefore was blessed with a stable economy due to the stabilization of the
currency. Taxation was normalized with establishment of the Bank of France. The continental system
of 1806 was meant to destroy the British economy so as to eradicate competition against the British
industries.
Reconciling the Church and the State
To fully consolidate his position he mended relations between the state and church. This was to end
the conflict which had been set in motion by the granting of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. In
1801 he entered into an agreement with the Pope making catholic the religion of the state while
other churches were allowed to operate. Members of clergy became civil servants. It granted
freedom of worship to the French a fulfilment of the ideas advanced by Voltaire. The church did not
regain what it had lost during the early days in 1790 in particular land. For the first time since the
revolutionary chaos of 1791 the French and the head of the Catholic Church were now in good
relations. Through this policy Napoleon i.e. reconciled the catholic, the law, order and peace.
Another view is the concordat was a means by which he made himself acceptable to the Europe and
to entertain the support of the French. He knew behind the church were the masses; thus used
religion as a social cement.
Efficient judicial system
Napoleon also consolidated his power by completing the codification of the French a programme
known as the Code Napoleon to France which the early revolutionaries had failed to do. The code
had many branches namely the commercial code and criminal code, civil code. These laws brought
stability in France. Everyone was now equal before the law, assured the liberties of the individual
23
and ended arbitrary arrest. According to Cromwell the Code was Napoleon’s greatest achievement
for enshrined the revolutionary hopes and ideals.
Strong Military Machine
Finally Napoleon created strong military machinery that was later not only to protect the emperor
and also to defend and protect France. The then embarked on an aggressive foreign policy, leading
to the creation of the French Empire. The Grandee Army as it was known enabled him to dominate
Europe until his demise in 1815. The army was recruited from among the French and also each
defeated power had to contribute soldiers to the emperors upon request. He was the commander of
the army and promoted men of talent to senior ranks like Marshall Ney, General Bernadette and
Bagretion.
Domestic policy
The Law
He tried to create state law with numerous codes like commercial code, civil codeand penal code
based on the Roman Dutch law. He organized a team of lawyers to complete the codification of the
French law. The civil code brought stability in the French homes as divorce, inheritance of property
was formalized and children could not get married without the consent of their parents. Napoleon to
some extent destroyed the aspirations of the French through the penal and criminal code as he
became reactionary like Louis XVI. However the code granted freedom of speech, ended arbitrary
arrest and imprisonment without trial. Public meetings were banned.
Education
He reformed the education system in France. Military and secondary schools expanded to create a
civilized state. The teaching of subjects like history and philosophy were discouraged in favour of
sciences like maths. The University of Paris was build. Education was made a privileged of the boys.
Historians have attacked this policy on the basis that it undermined the position of women he has
widely been quoted saying, “I don’t think we need to trouble ourselves with the education of
women for they are never called to act in the public. All in all manners and needlework is all they
look forward to”. He has then been accused for betraying revolutionary ideas and failing to
recognize the role that women executed during the revolution. He banned the teaching of subjects
like history and philosophy in schools.
Agriculture, industry and commerce
24
Reorganization of the economy has remained one of the leading reforms of Napoleon. He gave
France with a favourable environment for expansion of commerce, industrial and agriculture sector.
Farming equipment, farming methods developed and peasants were made rightful owners of their
land. Small scale industries were developed to solve the problem of unemployment. Transport and
communication networks developed to facilitate production in agriculture and industry. By 1814 a
powerful economy had been created which explains why there was no revolt against Napoleon
between 1800 and 1815.
Local Government
France was divided into 83 departments under the prefect; these were further divided into
arrondissements under the mayor and sub-prefects. All these officials were directly appointed by
napoleon and answerable to him. This meant that napoleon was in total control. His form of
dictatorship gave order at the expense of liberty. Centralization of the administration Napoleon
made the same mistakes of the kings of the ancient regime. Elections were banned in favour of
plebiscites. The hierarchy could not be criticized. He set up a spy network that was everywhere,
arrested arbitrarily and denied the French some of their liberties. It is interesting to note that the
newspapers were gagged as only four were allowed. He believed to have said that four newspapers
must be feared than a company of soldiers. Those that were allowed were in favour and served the
interests of the Emperor. To some extent though limited he adopted the ideas of Montesquieu
about the separation of powers.
Evaluation of the domestic policy
Napoleon I’s domestic policy was a blend of the ideas of the revolution and of the ancient regime.
He tried as much as possible to compromise between the two in order to give France order that she
had never known since 1789. Here and there historians have stated that it designed to increase his
personal control of France while others stated that he aimed at increasing his personal control over
France. Whatever may be postulated all arguments remain valid to a particular extent depending on
material one has covered.
The legal systems, the centralised administration and the constitution gave order at the same time
depriving the French of elements of the revolution. The economic policies despite making France an
economic giant restored order by creating employment, arresting inflation and making her self-
sufficient. By use of plebiscites he robbed the nation of its right to elect leaders of their choice
despite his appointees doing an excellent job in office. The legion of honour inspired men to do their
25
best once appointed in office. After 1808 he reverted to the use repressive laws and policies as a
result of the drawbacks in his foreign policy. These include strict censorship and the secret policy.
In the end it will be legitimate to suffice that napoleon I was everything that one may choose to
describe him; a child of the revolution or one of the enlightened benevolent despots of his era.
Foreign policy
He was widely supported in his foreign policy until 1808, almost where he went he was welcomed as
the liberator. Historians are of the belief that his foreign policy can be categorized into two phases.
The first phase was characterized by victories and the expansion of the empire and recognition of
France as a great power. This phase lasts until 1807 after the Treaty of Tilsit. The second phase is
characterized by his over ambitiousness after 1807 which made his downfall inevitable; it was a
direct result of the imposition of the Continental System.
He was also inspired by thekeenness to export the achievements of the revolution throughout
Europe. From the signing of the Peace of Amiens (1802) he still dreamed of dominating the British
and that France would become the dominant power of the era.
Defeat of the Second Coalition
In his foreign policy Napoleon aimed at dominating of Europe. His objective was to defeat members
of the second coalition. As a child of the revolution he also wanted to export the gains of the
revolution. The Tsar Alexander I was disappointed by the occupation of Malta by the British hence
withdrew from the 2nd coalition. The Russians were defeated at the battle of Marengo and
Hohenlinden leading to the Treaty of Luneville of 1801. Austrians were forced to recognize French
authority in Italy, Holland and Switzerland. France received mineral rich territories that enabled
industrial development. Britain remained the only undefeated power due to her naval power. Britain
and France only signed a treaty after the defeat of the Danish fleet by Admiral Nelson in 1801. This
was the Peace of Amiens (1802). It was an agreement to end hostilities hence largely recognized as a
truce/breathing space. The treaty is very important as it enabled Napoleon to complete domestic
reorganisation of France before venturing on an adventurous foreign policy.
Third Coalition
Members of the Second Coalition regrouped to form the 3rd coalition. It was characterized by the
defeat of the French at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 at the hands of Britain. This was after a failed
attempted invasion of England through the English Channel, a feat none has accomplished in history.
26
The English naval supremacy had an upper hand against the French. The failure to defeat the English
led Napoleon to come up with the continental system. Napoleon was able to defeat the Austrians
and the Russians at the battle of Austerlitz and Ulm. The Austrian signed the treaty of Pressberg
were Austria was reduced. She was forced to pay reparations of 40 000 000. The money was used to
develop the French industry hence his popularity was at the centre stage. This was followed by the
victory against the Prussians at the battle of Jena and the checking of the Russian for the second
time at Friedland. She had to sign the treaty of Tilsit in 1807 which added the benefits of France. At
this point ha was at the height of his power as almost a larger section of central Europe was under
his jurisdiction except the British. Under his jurisdiction were Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden,
Spain, Portugal, the Grandy Duchy of Warsaw and the German Confederacy.
It is these conquered that he appointed his family members and trusted generals to rule on his
behalf what is referred to as the dynastic policy. His cousins joseph and Jerome ruled Spain and
Portugal respectively while Marat and Bernadette his generals ruled Naples and Sweden. He ruled
the kingdom of Italy and Warsaw as the king while Josephine her assigned territory.
The Continental System
According to Thomson the continental system was a vast system of economic preference and
protection in favour of France. It caused hardships in Europe which marked the beginning of the end
of Napoleon. He was very confident of his intentions that he said, ‘I want to conquer the sea by
land’. The system was an economic war against the British. It was a system of economic preferences
against the British since he regarded them as a nation of shopkeepers. He designed to block trade
with the English as a means of starving the British economy. In 1806 he declared the Berlin Decrees
setting in motion the system to cause economic bankruptcy in Britain. The Berlin Decrees were
followed by the Milan Decrees of 1807. Napoleon was certainly biting more than he could chew. The
British retaliated by passing the Orders-in –Council of 1807. Any country that accepted the French
policy was labelled an enemy in a state of blockade. The British further demanded that the Danish
fleet be kept by them until the end of the war. The Danish refusal to hand over the blockade led to
the bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807. The economy of Europe was adversely affected, and
France was not spared by the resulting depression.
However the plan was good on paper but Napoleon had the wrong impression, that he would force
the English to beg for peace. He failed to realize that it was Europe that depended on the British and
that the British could survive without Europe. This was due to the British access to overseas
territories and the introduction of import substitutes thus depriving French business. He further
27
failed to realize that the Portugal and Russia would be used to smuggle British goods into Europe
leading to the Peninsular War 1808-1814 and the Moscow Campaign 1812.
The Peninsula War 1808
The first country to rebel against the effects of the system was Portugal. She enjoyed favourable
economic relations with the British. During the continental system she made huge profits from
profitable trade with England. To Napoleon there was no way he was to be successful with a
rebellious ally like Portugal even though itwas ruled by one of his cousin Jerome. To teach them a
lesson was his next move hence organized an army of 2000 raw soldiers from Spain. Spain was ruled
by one of his cousins’ Joseph Bonaparte. At the battle of Baylen the French were defeated by the
Spanish and Vimeiro with the help of the British fleet under Wellington. The French army basically
was suited for conventional battles found it difficult to fight in mountainous regions. The situation
was worsened by the role played by both the Spanish and Portuguese partisans. Napoleon was
forced to endure the pain of defeat due to the use of guerrilla tactics i.e. harassing of his lines of
communication. The war placed him at a disadvantage because he could not use the bulk of his army
stationed in Spain. Interesting to note that, the Spanish joined and fought against the French as a
result of the growing concerns over nationalism and liberalism. The Spanish uprising is well
documented as the Spanish ulcer that finally killed Napoleon. Until 1815, the defeat in the Spanish
war continued to haunt him. The Peninsula war demonstrates that Napoleon was over ambitious as
proved by the way he handled the case. How could he march into the Peninsula with raw solidiers?
The Moscow Campaign 1812
The defeat of the French in the Iberian Peninsula showed Europe that after all Napoleon was not
invincible. Alexander I failed to swallow the pain of watching the Russians suffer from the effects of
the continental system therefore he decided to rebel against the agreement made at Tilsit. The
invasion of Moscow was of paramount importance; Napoleon did not even consider why he had
been defeated in the Peninsula. Without any delays he raised the greatest army of over half a million
men to cross the Niemen River into Russia. His main objective was to enforce the continental system
in order to defeat Britain by way of land.
The first battle was at Borodino which he described “as the most beautiful battle”. The French were
victorious but with the heaviest losses. This battle was a curtain raiser to what he was to expect in
Moscow. He pursued his victory towards Moscowhoping for a decisive battle and reinforcing the
continental system. The Russians adopted the scotched earth policy by destroying the city of
Moscow. It was a strategic move to deprive the French Grandee Army of any supplies. This left the
28
French hungry. Again Napoleon I had made another great blunder. The campaign was ill-timed
because the Russian winter dissented early in November. The French forces were not well equipped
neither were they dressed for a winter campaign. The French stayed in Moscow for three months
and the hope of a Russian capitulation disappeared as Alexander I did not beg for peace.
Unfortunately the Grandee Army had to retreat in the face of mounting challenges.
It was the retreat that made life difficult for Napoleon. The Russian partisans fought alongside their
gallant soldiers to disturb theGrandy retreat. Like in the Iberian Peninsula, guerrilla tactics made the
difference. The long lines of communication were harassed and many died. However the winter had
already taken its toll killing many from frost bite and even forcing them to slaughter their horses so
as to wear the skins.They also suffered from extreme hunger which forced them to feed on rats and
cats. The retreat was stained by the fact that they had not taken note of the extent of Russian
retreat deep into their country. They had been drawn deep into Muscovite territory, a country
whose terrain they did not well comprehend. Worse still they had carried the wrong and outdated
maps. All these factors affected their morale and made them vulnerable to defeat. No surprise when
they crossed the Niemen only 20 000 of the initial half a million men crossed into France. The
Moscow retreat according to Thomson showed that the greatest weakness of the French empire was
militarism and not nationalism. This reinforces an argument that the army in Russia was not inspired
as it was made up of different nationals compared to the Russian fighting in defence of their
motherland.Europe responded without haste by reviving of the forth coalition. France had suffered
from the idea of sovereignty which they had done so much to enhance when they fought aginst
Europe in 1792.
The Battle of Leipzig and the Liberation of Europe
After the disastrous defeat in Russia,Napoleon made one greatest blunder; that is reject the
favourable terms for peace that he was offered. It proves that the departure of Talleyrand had left
behind a poor negotiator. What made him to do this is a matter of supposition. He still believed that
he was still the same but Ramm disagreed. It was not his shear military brilliance that led to the
earlier victories but the foresight of his great generals like Bernadette, MarshallNey, and
GeneralBagration. Thus in 1813 Napoleon made another blunder practically as he was checked at
the Battle of Nations. The coalition had adopted the very methods that he had used to conquer
Europe to destroy him. Under the leadership of his former General Bernadette the French
Napoleonic glory came to an end. Thomson then concludes, the very methods used to create the
empire were responsible for its demise, in other words he continues to assert that Napoleon created
the empire and later destroyed it
29
After the Treaty of Bloemfontein he was banished to St Elba. The treaty provided that he was to
keep the title of emperor, to receive a pension fund from the British. The great powers promised to
keep the Forth Coalition intact for a period of twenty years and adopted the term the Quadruple
Alliance.
The Hundred Days
The states of Europe then met in Vienna, Austria to decide on the general peace of Europe. They
quarrelled over the sharing of the spoils of victory in particular over Poland and Saxony. Napoleon
took advantage of these disputes and escaped back to France. He regained power and raised any
army of hundred thousand men. He attempted to conquer again Europe as he marched into
Belgium. The Forth Coalition was immediately revived and went for battle. The Napoleonic army was
defeated at the Battle of Waterloo ending the famous hundred days were he enjoyed power like
before. This act showed that he was a threat and was stripped off his imperial title; pension was
cancelled and was exiled to St Helena where he died in the 1820’s. This marked the end of an
illustrious career of Napoleon. Southgate alludes to the effect that Napoleon’s career was meteoric.
In other words he came and went like a flash.
Reasons for the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire
Napoleon was the author of his downfall due to his excessive ambition, unquenchable thirst for
power, strategic blunders, rise of nationalism and liberalism.
British naval supremacy
It played most important role towards the downfall of Napoleon. France was never able to defeat
the English on the high seas. For example the battle of Trafalgar 1805 was clear evidence of the
supremacy of the British on the high seas. It enabled the British to override the intended objectives
of the continental system by providing the British necessary raw materials to burst the blockade.
Hence a source of inspiration to other nations as up to 1815 Britain remained the only country never
to have been invaded by the French.
Strategic blunder/miscalculations
The continental system was a monumental blunder as it exposed his excessive ambition to dominate
the whole of Europe. The system led to unnecessary results which were to haunt the emperor until
1815.For example the revival of nationalism in Italy, the Iberian and Russia as a result of their
suffering therefore against the primate goals of the system.
30
Peninsular War
It was a direct result of the continental system. Proved how he underestimated the strength of his
adversaries. He marched into Portugal with only 2000 men who had never seen the sight of a battle.
The use guerrilla concept was evidence that the Napoleonic army was not familiar with it. Even when
it was applied in Russia nothing had been done to deal such eventualities. Further he did not foresee
the coming in of the British with their navy hence Thomson concludes that it was not guerrilla tactics
that defeated napoleon in the peninsula but the involvement of the British.
Liberalism
The code napoleon introduced a fair system that of administration wherever he conquered. Ayster
agrees by asserting that the code followed the army. In Italy he paved way for liberal reforms to take
root just like elsewhere in Europe. However the revival of oppressive policies at home and abroad
after 1808 began to invite enemies. The liberator now transformed into an oppressor as such
contributing to fall of the empire.
Nationalism
As an idea it gained strength from the revolutionary events i.e. the war against Europe asserted the
sovereignty of the French over France. Those under the empire began to question the genuineness
of foreign domination. The Prussians had been forced to semi-retirement after the defeat at Jena
1806. In between 1806 and 1813 they carried out military reforms hence were able to defeat the
French at Leipzig. It was national aspirations that led the Portuguese and Spaniards to defend the
Peninsula 1808-1814. The Russians were no exception as proved by the Moscow campaign of 1812.
From another angle the Grandee Army was driven by military glory without it being reinforced by
nationalism.
Desertion by his Lieutenants
Napoleon’s greatest strength was the horde of men that serviced the empire. However with time
they failed to continue with their marriage after 1806/7. Talleyrand was the great negotiator and
without him Napoleon was a bad negotiator. After appointing General Bernadotte as the king of
Sweden in honour of his exploits. He joined the coalition, which he led against Napoleon at
Waterloo. Talleyrand and Bernadotte were joined by the Chief of Police,Fouche leaving the emperor
to make fateful decisions alone. They deserted him at a time when he needed them but because of
the nature of the empire’s desire for glory they could no-longer continue to serve. Others are of the
view that Talleyrand had already seen the fall of the empire hence was nurturing his future.
31
Forth Coalition
In 1813 it was the decision by the powers to bury their differences and defeat a common menace
Napoleon. Britain was the conductor bringing resources both military and humanitarian to ensure
Napoleon’s banishment. She was joined by Russian, Prussia and Austria in the fourth coalition. At
the head of the army was Napoleon’s former General Bernadotte, so immense were his
contributions to fall of Napoleon I. He used the very tactics which Napoleon I had used to conquer
Europe. Napoleon a result agreed to the peace terms of Fontainebleau in 1814.
Revision Questions
1. Account for the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte?
2. The inefficiency of the Directory was the main contributor to the rise of Napoleon
Bonaparte. Discuss.
3. Without the revolution Napoleon could have died a common man. How authentic is this
view of Napoleon’s rise to power?
4. Napoleon’s domestic policy was a blend between the ideas of the ancient regime and
the revolution. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
5. “A child of the revolution”, “one of the last enlightened benevolent despots”. Which of
these two statements best describes Napoleon in view of the domestic policy?
6. Napoleon gave order at the expense of liberty. Is this a fair assessment of the emperor’s
domestic reforms?
7. In his foreign policy Napoleon I disrespected the independence of other nations. Is this a
valid analysis of Napoleon’s foreign policy?
8. “A wise step.” How far do you agree with this view of the Continental System?
9. Assess the methods used by Napoleon in the administration of the French Empire
between 1804and 1814?
10. Assess the role played by the following nations in the downfall of Napoleon I; (a) Spain
(b) Russia (c) Britain and (d) Prussia.
32
EUROPE AFTER 1815
THE VIENNA SETTLEMENT
INTRODUCTION
D Thomson one of history’s renowned scholars regarded the period from 1815 as dominated by the
conflict between conservatism and continuity. The powers that met in Vienna sought to redraw the
map of Europe to suit their national aspirations. To some extents the Revolution and Napoleon were
non-events, and ideas linked to these were to be suppressed at all cost. But to what extent did they
achieve their goals? Did they achieve the intended results? Could the ideas of the revolution,
Napoleon and the new forces of change be ignored? The answer can be grasped by analysing the
settlement of 1815 and how Europe responded until the year 1871.
The Vienna Settlement 1815
33
The great powers that had enabled the downfall of Napoleon met in Vienna to map the way forward
and how Europe was to be. The agreement to meet was made at the signing of the Treaty of
Fontainebleau early in 1815. The main agenda was to redraw the map of Europe10 so as to prevent
the calamities of the previous twenty years. They intended to share the spoils of victory or rather
compensate one another for having defeated Napoleon I.
The Delegates
The settlement was graced by the leading statesmen of Europe. They came to Vienna not to
champion the interests of those people they claimed to represent but of those in power. They also
belonged to the old order to which wanted to re-invent in 1815. Prince Metternich was the host as
the foreign minister of Austria, Lord Castlereagh stood for the British, Alexander I for Russia,
Hindenburg presented the Prussians and Talleyrand stood in the chair of France.
The Basis of the Settlement
The great powers sought to agree on mechanism that would prevent the domination of Europe by a
single power. Napoleon’s disrespect of other nation’s independence had forced them to come up
with a solution to such a problem. This was only to be achieved by redrawing the map of Europe.
However scholars seem to have come with flowery statements in summarizing the settlement.
Thomson saw it as, “a network of bargaining and negotiated compromises”, with Seaman
disagreeing whether there was a settlement at all. Others recorded it as a triumph of diplomacy and
a shameful example of self-interest. Prior to the agreement at Vienna the states of Europe had
already made peace with France and Napoleon I. They had signed the treaty of Fontainebleau, the
first treaty of Paris and the second treaty of Paris.
Treaty of Fontainebleau 1814
Napoleon was given moderate terms of peace. He was to retain the title of emperor, to receive a
pension from the English. He was to retain the title of emperor. The settlement came after the first
defeat of the Emperor at the Battle of Nations by the Forth Coalition.
First Treaty of Paris(may 1814)
This was signed immediately after the defeat of Napoleon I. The powers at this juncture considered
the Emperor as the enemy of Europe and not the French. France was not asked to pay any
reparations neither to have an army of occupation. France was made to accept the return of the
Bourbon monarchy in the form of Louis XVIII under the terms of the principle of legitimacy. 10
34
Napoleon I went into exile of the Italian coast at St Elba. It was during his stay that he escaped and
returned to France before his defeat at Waterloo. The impact of this event was the revision of the
First Treaty of Paris.
The Second Treaty of Paris(1815)
After the famous Hundred Days, Napoleon I and the French were considered the enemies of Europe.
As a result France was given harsh terms of peace. She was reduced to her pre-revolutionary
boundaries, to pay reparations and to have an army of occupation. Napoleon I lost his imperial title
and was sent to exile far away from Europe to St Helena. Louis XVIII who had run away after the
return of Napoleon returned to the throne. With Europe and France at peace the gentlemen at
Vienna set down to settle all the outstanding issues.
Aims and Objectives
It has been said over and above that the delegates at the settlement were driven by the interests of
their principals and not the people they claimed to represent. Each came to advance his imperial and
not national interest.
Aims
Britain
It was represented by its secretary of foreign affairs Lord Castlereagh. She was determined to keep
Europe peaceful and to act as the champion of the oppressed. She wanted to promote co-operation
as shown by how she had brought the Quadruple Alliance into existence. Castlereagh further
advanced the idea of non- intervention as a means of preserving the sovreignity of the people. To
Britain intervention would only be necessary if the revolt in question has the potential of disturbing
the peace of Europe like the revolution of 1789. In terms of territorial compensation the English
looked beyond Europe on the colonial sphere and the high seas to further maintain her naval
supremacy.
Austria
Represented by one of the most reactionary leaders of the 18th century Metternich, the Hapsburg
was the host and wanted to make the best out of it. Metternich kept a network of spies that opened
letters and closed them as he wanted to have a clear sight of the motives of other participants. A
champion of old system he was much against new ideas like Nationalism and Liberalism. The
35
domination of all Germany states was another of her intentions. He had set his eyes on the return of
Italian domination by Austria. She also targeted on the Hapsburg expansion in the east.
Prussia
It was one nation with no major objectives at the settlement, except the control and domination of
the Germany Confederacy.
Russia
Alexander I argued that he was the liberator of Europe as his troops were the ones who invaded
France for the first time in 1815. In search of compensation for her efforts and set his eyes on the
Grand Duchy of Warsaw created by Napoleon. Like Austria she intended to make great moves
towards expansion in the East.
Objectives;
Despite their differences the major powers at the settlement were driven by common objectives. To
them Napoleon and France had disturbed the order of Europe. They were motivated by the
following; (a) establishment of the balance of power;(b) creation of buffer zones around France; (c)
sharing the spoils of victory and (d) implementation of the principle of legitimacy.
Balance Of Power
The balance of power is a concept of international relations which seeks to prevent the domination
of other countries by a single power. The domination of Europe by France had shown that a uni-
polar system was a disaster therefore the balance of power was adopted as the only means to
ensure a system of checks and balances. The concept was to be sustained by the creation of alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance immediately formed at the First Treaty of Paris was aimed at promoting co-
operation and keep these powers closer together. In their minds any future war was to involve these
great powers hence accepted it as a preventive measure.
They agreed on regular meetings to discuss the problems of Europe without resorting to war as
means of dealing with international problems. This notion brought into existence the Congress
System with the Vienna settlement being the first of such congresses. Furthermore by increasing
their sizes they believed that the resultant strength would lead to a balance. However this was not
effectively achieved due as it failed to co-apt the smaller nations like Spain and Portugal. The
delegates also differed on how the alliance was to be used. Britain saw it as a weapon to monitor
and combine efforts in creating a more peaceful Europe as to enable economic and as well as
36
political transformation. To Metternich a conservative by nature it was to a weapon to suppress the
revolts that would disturb the authority of monarchical rule. According to T.A. Morris Metternich
had said that ideas like liberalism and nationalism were dangerous for human association. This
explains extensively why Austria after 1815 was very active suppressing internal revolutions in Spain,
Italy and Greece as feared for the disintegration of the Hapsburg Empire until1848.
Alexander I one of the reactionary leaders was motivated by liberal ideas to which he was not loyal
to. He advanced that monarchs should rule and exist according to religious beliefs. He proposed the
Holly alliance to promote Christian brotherhood amongst the rulers of Europe. It was signed by
Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Holy Alliance was dismissed as a high sounding nothing and sublime
of mysticism and cynicism. The two alliances were expected to bring European powers much closer
and prevent war. The balance of power has been credited for preventing any major war between the
powers until 1854. However, Seaman disagrees by asserting that no power was willing to risk war or
that no nation wanted war until the rise of Napoleon III.
Creation of the Buffer Zones around France
There is no denial that the delegates at Vienna were driven more by the fear of further French
aggression. The French entrust Talleyrand was treated with suspicion and every agreement reached
pointed towards the undressing of the France. In particular after the Hundred Days, the terms of the
Second Treaty of Paris shows that it was now the French and Napoleon I who were considered the
enemies of France. The independence of smaller nations was sacrificed in creating buffers around
France as guarantee for lasting peace. The state of Belgium was amalgamated with the Netherlands
to give birth to the kingdom of Netherlands. The republic of Genoa was given to Piedmont because
republicans were no longer fashionable as in the words of Alexander I. The independence of
Switzerland was guaranteed. Austria received direct control of Lombardy and Venetia as
compensation for her loss of Belgium. They also agreed on the reduction of the Germany
principalities to only 39 from 300. No matter the criticism that may have been wedged against the
territorial agreement there is no denial that from 1815 France seized to be threat to the peace of
Europe until the rise of Emperor Napoleon III in 1854. From another angle the buffer zones served
the purpose of the great powers since they glossed over the principle of nationalism.
The Principle of Legitimacy
37
This was advanced by Talleyrand in his quest to position France at an advantage by the return of the
Bourbon Monarchy. Some scholars are of the view that he was paving way for survival after dumping
Napoleon I at the darkest hour. The concept sought to return all the rulers that had been dethroned
by Napoleon and replaced by his relatives. The Bourbon rule resurfaced in France under Louis XVIII,
Spain under Ferdinand II and in Naples under Ferdinand VIII, in Portugal the Cadiz returned from
their exile in Brazil. In the central Italian duchies Austrian supremacy was reinforced through
appointees of the Hapsburg. Seaman discredit the principle as it selectively applied. It was adopted
due to the belief that only monarchical rulers could maintain peace. To the extreme it saw the return
of some of the worst rulers Europe had ever seen in the form of the bourbons of the Spain and
Naples who refused to rule according to the charter of 1814.
Sharing of Spoils of Victory
The great powers argued that there was need to reward each for defeating Napoleon I. This is an
interesting point as certain fundamentals were ignored or forgotten by default or design.
Austria received the Italian duchies of Lombardy and Venetia and indirect control of the central
Italian duchies of Romagna, Tuscany, and Parma. She received Pomerania giving her complete
dominance over the various nationalities of central Europe. Amongst these nationals were Slavs,
Magyars, Croats and Czechs.
Britain was not interested with any territorial gains within Europe but on the high seas. To her were
strategic gains to further strengthen her naval supremacy. She gained access to the naval base of
Heligoland, Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, and Trinidad and Tobago. In strategic terms the British gains
were of great importance. They reinforced her as a naval power and gave her access to unlimited
resources tilting the balance in her favour.
Russia regarded herself as the liberator of Europe hence negotiated with a sword in one hand. She is
the one that gained more territories than any. Amongst her gains were Poland, parts of Saxony, and
much of Eastern Europe. Despite gaining more territories than any other nation Russia remained
below the leading powers. She was to continue to look for means of manoeuvring into the east.
Prussia was given parts of Pomerania, Saxony and the vice premier of the Germany confederacy to
which Austria was the president. This was against her dream of the domination of Germany. After
the settlement, Prussia retired from international politics, to focal on internal reorganisation. She
resurfaced only when her integrity was under threat.
38
Other agreements
The leaders at the settlement made worthwhile progress in discussing other matters affecting
Europe. The challenge was the threat posed to trade by the Barbary pirates along Mediterranean
Sea. The British navy was mandated to safeguard the straits. Another matter considered was the
ending of slavery and slave trade. There was a general consensus that the two had to be abolished.
Each nation was left to decide when it was safe to do so. The Dutch seriously thought about the
matter in the 1830’s. Some scholars are of the view that the British who advanced the matter had a
motive. She had made exceptional gains from the human trafficking. By that it was no longer
profitable since she was on the path towards industrialisation.
Evaluation
Despite the weaknesses that historians may have identified with the settlement it must be bone in
mind that it was the best that Europe could do. The outcome was shaped by their historical
experience. The amalgamations though they may have led to problems they were not caused by the
settlement but the means by which they were administered. The Dutch did not offer the Belgians
any meaningful concessions in politics, economics and religion. The Belgians thus felt undermined as
Dutch was made the official language with less than half representation in the parliament. Such
developments provided seeds for future revolts. In 1833 they revolted leading to Belgian
independence.
In the German states the spirit of nationalism found meaning as they resented Austrian dominance
and the variegated nature of the Hapsburg Empire. This can be said of the Italian duchies. They were
made to remember how Napoleon had removed the same Austrian tyranny in1799. The most
prominent was the Neapolitan revolts against the leaders returned by the principle of legitimacy.
The situation was the same as in Spain hence H.L. Peacock noted that legitimacy returned some of
the worst rulers Europe had ever seen. Italian duchies and Spain emerged for a while as the new
centres of rebellion during the 1820’s. Their crime unlike Louis XVIII they had refused to rule
according to the dictates of the charter of 1812.
The settlement has been largely attacked for its failure to give room the idea of nationalism. Yes
people were moved like pawns in a game of chase. It should be remembered that the buffer zones
or the sharing of the spoils from the vanquished may have been done without considering the
aspirations of the masses; it was done for the best. It was a reality that France was a threat to the
39
peace of Europe so anything that could be used to prevent history repeating itself was deemed
necessary. From another angle, one must set an eye on the old guard that came up with settlement.
The reduction of the Germany confederacy was not informed by Pan-Germanism but the threat of
France. However the reduction of the Germany states to only 39 may brought them close enabling
the fermentation of ideas towards unification. The greatest problem created in 1815 was to appoint
Austria as the president of the confederacy and Prussia it’s vice thereby making the war of 1866
inevitable.
Rather in simple terms the events that engulfed west and central Europe were to some extent a
reaction to the Vienna settlement.
THE CONCERT OF EUROPE
Aix-la-Chapelle 1818
The Vienna settlement had dealt with the problem of France deservedly. After the hundred days, the
second treaty of Paris had imposed harsh terms on her. Under Louis XVIII and Minister Richelieu the
French finances were put in order enabling her too quickly to pay off the reparations. The statesmen
of Europe were satisfied hence the need to review French status in continental politics. Unanimously
they agreed to remove the garrison force in Paris which had been kept to keep an eye on
revolutionary tendencies. France was accepted as one of the major powers and allowed to be a
member to the Quadruple Alliance making it the quintuple alliance. However the four other powers
were still sceptical about France, therefore secretly vowed to keep the Quadruple Alliance intact for
another twenty years.
Alexander I proposed for an international army at the congress. The plan was vehemently turned
down by the others powers. Britain was fearful that Russian would use it for global dominance.
Despite this minor incident the congress showed very little lines of suspicion since it dealt with a
fellow great power.
Troppau 1820
Europe after 1815 was a period of reaction. The settlement began to show point of weaknesses in
Spain and Naples. The Bourbon rulers failed to adhere to the dictates of the charter of 1814.
National pride took centre stage as the people rose up to challenge the leaders. Metternich was
highly concerned about the Neapolitan uprising in Italy. He was afraid that the revolts would soon
flare up the rest of Europe; he called for a Congress at Troppau.
40
Britain and France considered the events in Spain and Naples as mere domestic revolts which did not
warrant the entrance of the other powers. To this congress they sent representatives whose
directive was not to participant but to keep an eye on events. Russia and Austria drew up a paper
document the TroppauProtocol which gave them the right to intervene in any conflicts in Europe.
The document was adopted by the eastern emperors who felt more threatened by liberal and
national revolutionary movements.The rift between the great powers was now showing or rather
the collapse of the congress system was just a matter of time. Britain was driven by her non-
interventionist policy.
Laibach 1821
The congress was called upon to reinforce the agreements made at Troppau. Again the eastern
emperors were present.
Verona 1824
The forces of conservatism were at work again in 1822 following the events in Spain. At this juncture
Lord Castlereagh had committed suicide and in came Lord Canning. Castlereagh had begun tearing
apart the system by the policy of non-intervention yet Canning went even further. Canning did not
share the same sentiments with other powers about the congress system. The British representative
at the congress Wellington was given firm orders to against intervening in Spain. However the rift
between the powers was exposed by the French resolution to get involved on herwill. Her role in
Spain led to the restoration of the bourbon monarchy in Spain.
Problem in the Spanish colonies
The restored king of Spain set in motion events which changed the face of colonialism in the
Americas. He gave no guarantees to British trading with her spheres of influence. In 1822 the blow
came with the declaration of independence by Brazil from Portugal. This was followed by president
Monroe declared that America was no longer open for colonisation and such acts would lead to the
intervention of the United States of America. Canning accepted the declaration and supported then
revolutions in Latin America. The other European nations fearful of the interference of a combined
U.S.A and Britain backed down. Here it shows that the British policy of none intervention was
crippling the other power. After the independence of Greece in 1827, the policy of intervention was
dropped altogether. Lord canning summed the atmosphere, “Things are getting back to a
wholesome state again. Every man for himself, and God for us all”.
41
Collapse of the Congress System
Several reasons explain why the congress system collapsed in the 1820’s. The Spanish colonies
proved that the unity of European states was for convenience. They failed to agree on a single line of
action contributing to their separation. The system was predominantly for the super powers, the
exclusion of the smaller nations was a major let down. It worked to serve the interests of the
absolute powers hence Russian, Austria and France were opposed by Britain through the policy of
non-intervention. The British under canning were tired of rescuing Europe in times of crisis. There
was need to liberate herself from continental obligations a task which canning completed with great
alacrity. Britain was the only nation that championed against foreign intervention in the affairs of
smaller nations like Naples, Spain and Greece.
Other minor factors include the death of Castlereagh and Alexander I; two men that were
instrumental in the birth of the system. Whosoever replaced them did not share the same
enthusiasm about the system.
Revision questions
i. Why and with what success did the European states converge at the Vienna settlement?
ii. The Vienna settlement of 1815 was an attempt to create a balance of power. How far do
you agree?
iii. The Vienna settlement (1815) was a platform by which the strong dominates the weak.
Justify or refute this verdict?
iv. A network of bargaining and negotiated comprises. Discuss the validity of this assertion
n view of the settlement of 1815
v. The British policy of non-intervention was largely responsible for the collapse of the
congress system by 1825. Is this valid examination of the collapse of the congress
System?
vi. The congress system showed the division rather the unity of the major powers. To what
extent do you agree with this view?
42
THE RESTORED BOURBON MONARCHY 1815-48
Louis XVIII and the Charter
Just as in Italy and Spain the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo saw the resurrection of the Bourbon
rule in France in the name of the Louis XVIII. He was a brother to Louis XVI and in attempt to ignore
the period 1795-1814 refereed to 1814 as “the 19 th year of our reign”. He implied that he had been
ruling since 1795(the year in which Louis XVI’s son died in prison). He was to rule France for ten
years and succeeded by his brother Charles X, who ruled until 1830.
Various groups of people in France felt that the return of the bourbon monarchy in France meant
that the gains of the revolution and the Napoleonic period were under threat. The most important
among then were the following;
Royalists/ultra-royalists- made up of the catholic clergy and the rich landed aristocracy and the
émigrés. According Wilmont, the royalists because were loyal to the monarchy were intent on
reasserting their former, authority and influence and regain their former status. They were led by
Comte de Artois (Charles X), a royalist of the deepest age (A Ramm), a hardcore royalist (Thomson),
an ultra of the ultras (Richards), a royalist of the highest forum.
Liberals-these sought to defend all liberal concessions (constitutional rights, legal rights, all forms of
liberties). These had been gained during the revolution and napoleon. They also after 1815 sought to
prevent by any means necessary to prevent a return to the monarchical and absolutism rule in
France.
43
Bonapartistes (the supporters of Napoleon and the Empire) who sought to reassert the empire and
therefore called for the return of the empire. These had the nostalgic feeling of the Napoleonic
Empire and the laglore it had brought to France. They were led by Louis Blanc and later Louis
Napoleon later to become Napoleon III. Napoleon III was the first to challenge the cornerstones of
the Vienna settlement in the 1860’s.
The republicans-like the liberals, republicans wanted to secure the constitutional and legal rights
from the revolution and Napoleon I. on top of that and more importantly, they tasted republicanism
during the revolution. They thought a republic as the best form of government and called for a
return to republicanism.
Worrying characteristics of Louis XVIII
He was the king by the grace of the God. When he stated that 1814 was the year of our reign the
rest of the groups thought that he was doing way with the gains of the revolution and napoleon. He
said the preamble of the constitution was granted, “Voluntarily and by the free exercise of our royal
authority”. This meant that he believed in the Devine rights of the kings and absolute rule, what the
revolution had tried to baol.ish.
He adopted the title of the king of the French and Navarre thus he emphasized the traditional title
and customs of his ancestors. He regarded the constitutional charter as a concession to the French
people and not as a something that they so enjoy as a natural right.
He was faced with various groups with divergent interests. His main task was to adopt a conciliatory
approach in which he would compromise the interest of these groups. In pursuing this middle of the
road approach, he kept his motives about Devine rule away from the public and at the same time as
a moderate constitutional monarchy hence breaking a new ground.
By ruling with a constitution, he represented a major breakthrough from tradition and thus silencing
his critiques who that the return of the bourbon meant the return of the 18 th century absolutism.
Charter of 1814
The policy document was drafted by the powers of Europe as a means of preventing the rise of a
dominant force in France. It was enshrined with some of the very ideas that the revolution stood for
amongst them the following: Equality before the law; civil liberties; freedom of conscience, arbitrary
arrest and trial, worship and expression; political opinions and actions prior to 1814 must not be
investigated; taxation according to wealth and not status, equality of opportunities in employment.
44
Parliament
It was bi-cameral having the chamber of deputies and of peers. The deputies were elected by voters.
For one to be a voter the following were mandatory. One had to be over 39 years, pay 300 francs as
direct taxes thereby giving francs a total of 90,000 voters. In order to be candidate one had to be
forty years and above, pay 1000 francs as directly taxes and 12,000 citizens qualified. These
provisions were heavily attacked by the republicans who demanded universal suffrage. They
attacked it for creating a franchise which excluded the majority of the French out of political matters.
The King
He was the head of the executive. He was the solitary factor in proposing laws; chose ministers to
form the government; could dissolve the chamber of deputies; commander of the armed forces;
appointed judges; could declare war; could alter the electorate; could declare state of emergency
and could create peers. The vote was restricted for the wealthy section of the populace. The king’s
excessive executive powers were reduced with. D Thomson observes that the major weakness of
French democracy after 1814 was France’s relative inexperience with working parliamentary
institutions. This made France to be different from Britain. France parliamentary trades were only 25
years old in 1815.
The White Terror
When Napoleon escaped Elba in late 1815 and returned to France, most people especially the
Bonapartists supported him. After his defeat in 1815 at Waterloo, the royalist carried a White Terror
against those who had supported Napoleon. This violence and reprisal continued into 1816.The
bourbon were really unable to restrain their supporters or even become part of the violence. As a
result of the white terror, there was 29 peers chased away from the chamber, about 3.300 arrests
without trial, 250 terror linked deaths and 18 Bonaparte’s generals were shot. In Paris Marshal Ney
one of Napoleon’s generals “the bravest of the brave’’ was executed. In Avignon Marshal Bruce,
another Napoleon general was shot. At his funeral his coffin was smashed open and his body was
thrown into the river (Rhine) in France. In Marseilles, 50 Bonapartists were brutally butchered
following news of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.
The Chamber was populated with extreme Royalists who passed new press laws (November 1815)
which made liberal newspapers liable prosecution. In May 1816 there was a Bonapartistes outbreak
in Grenoble against these Ultra-excesses and Britain and Russia were concerned about events in
45
France. This is when Louis XVIII decided to act. He dissolved the chamber in September 1816 and
held fresh elections.
Between 1816 1nd 1820 the King with his Chief Ministers Richelieu who had replaced Talleyrand and
after 1818 Decazes, adopted a moderate course between the subversive intentions of the Ultra
Royalist (on the right) and the Extreme Liberal on the left. He had seen that the policy of the ultras of
re-inventing the nation would lead the country into civil war and unrest.
Achievements of Louis XVIII
The handling of the nation’s finances was skilful and it enabled France to pay, off indemnity. Because
of this achievement, the army of occupation was withdrawn. Under Decazes censorships of the press
was relaxed and the army was reformed along democratic lines .in 1817 the number of people who
could vote were increased and this enabled the liberals to make electoral fanning. France was
admitted into the Quintuple alliance.1823- French troops successfully restored Ferdinand VII to his
throne.
The death of Duc du Berry
In February 1820 Duc de Berry a nephew of Louis XVIII, who was to succeed Louis XVII was stabbed
to death (by a lunatic outside the Opera House in Paris) the murderer Louvel, was a Bonapartists.
The event was an outrage to the ultras. They blamed Decazes for his moderate policies. The king was
forced to dismiss Decazes and recall Richelieu. With Richelieu in office, policies moved once more
from the left to the right as press censorship, political suspects for more than three months went to
trial, electoral laws were passed in favour of the rich, secondary education was placed under the
supervision of the church.
Richelieu was forced to resign in 1821 and was replaced by Villele who tightened press laws further.
For example, it was a criminal offence to write or publish any article which had the chance of
provoking public disturbance. In the election of 1824, more seats in the chamber of deputies fell
from 110 to 19.In 1824 Louis XVIII died without fulfilling his desires of reconciling the royalists and
liberal opinion. He found it difficult to restrain Artois and the forces of reaction. At least by the time
of his death France had revived from the setbacks of the settlement and the terror.
Charles X 1824-1830
Louis XVIII’s failure to contain the ultras notwithstanding, his reign was a great success. The success
was due to the good sense when he appointed ministers in accord with their swings of opinion
46
reflected in the charter; while at the same time managing to avoid the extremes of political emotion.
He was succeeded by his brother Charles x who was 67 years old. He inherited a stable and
prosperous country in which the immediate difficulties of the bourbon had been effectively
weathered.
D Thomson comments that he was succeeded by an unstatesman like brother who relinquished the
throne after a six year reign. Charles was to fall in 1830 not only because of the revolution but also
by a combination of Ultra-Royalist principles and extreme religious policies which violated the
constitution. Charles X showed that he had learnt nothing from the revolution and Napoleon. He was
a catholic at heart and a well-known reactionary. He insisted on being crowned at Rheims Cathedral
for five hours in 1825. This was a traditional and medieval tradition which had not been employed
since in 1775. Thus he was recalling the ancient relationship between the crown and the church, a
tradition the revolution of 1789 had fought to destroy.
Unlike Louis XVIII who sought to compromise, he adopted a conciliatory policy; Charles X was bent
on repairing the “massive damage done by the Revolution and Napoleon”. He is reported to have
said that, “It will never be my intention to compromise. Over my dead body, compromise brought
down my brother Louis XVI”.
His first task was to encourage Villele to start to restore the ancient tradition of authority of the
church. As a result sacrilege was a crime punishable by death. As a contrast to Napoleon’s rule the
church was given back its tight control of education and the Jesuits.
Liberals critics were attacked and silenced; publishers and journalists were prosecuted and
imprisoned. The émigrés received compensation for their lost lands and those who had gained the
lands of the nobilities and church were taken away. The middle class and liberals were angered
when Villele introduced the censorship in 1827; the gaggling of the press. Again the fact that the
émigrés had been compensated with public money was outrageous to many French especially the
taxpayers. This influenced an inflationary environment angering the middleclass businessmen and
sacred away the investors.
The new elections resulted in a majority that was hostile to Villele. Charles responded by dismissing
Villele in 1828 and chose Martignac who was more moderate and was dismissed before he could
celebrate his first anniversary as chief minister. He was replaced by Polignac in 1829. This
appointment meant that the king could overthrow the constitution. He is reported to have said, “I
would rather chop wood than rule in the fashion of the king of England”.
47
According to Thomson and Watson not only was Polignac an ultra of the extravagant type, therefore
a natural enemy of the liberals, but he claimed to have seen the visions of virgin Mary who guided
his policy .this was strongly detested by the anti-clerical. In 1830 the assembly decided that Polignac
should resign, Charles responded by dismissing the assembly and suspending the constitution.
Opposition against Charles and his government grew towards1830. Liberal publication condemned
catholic revival. Church buildings and anti-clerical demos were widespread.
After suspending the constitution, Charles issued the ordinance of St Cloud (July 1830) which was a
set of his intended solutions to the crisis. The ordinance spelt out even stricter censorship of the
men. A new assembly was to be elected by very few rich people. Only about 0.1% of the population
qualified to vote. Therefore got out of hand a few days after issuing the ordinance and he abdicated
the throne.
An analysis of the bourbon monarchy
While Louis XVIII had the political; foresight, his brother Charles lacked political imagination.
Thomson has referred the bourbon monarchy as an example of new wine in old bottles. Another
cause for the failure of the bourbon monarchy was the quality of the ministers who served them.
They were men of the old order for example Richelieu, Martignac, Polignac. While it is true to a
larger extent that the bourbon had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, though the statement is
not wholly justifiable. To a larger extent Charles X had learnt nothing. He had not learnt the lesson
that in the 19th century constitutional liberties and representative government was not to be
substituted with material progress. Louis VXIII had learnt that Napoleon was popular.
Louis XVIII had learnt that Napoleon I was popular because he comprised. He had also learned that
there was need to reconcile the monarchical rule/ royal power and parliamentary/constitutional
democracy. He thus chose able ministers who brought economic recovery unlike Charles whose
ministers destroyed it. Charles had learned that sound policy was cemented with an advantageous
foreign policy. He completed the conquest of Algeria in 1830(the beginning of the colonial empire in
Africa).
The bourbon monarchy collapsed because it sought to find comfort in nationalism and not
liberalism. Charles X and his minister Polignac lacked the vision or capability of the political
requirements of their positions. His chief mistake was that he alienated the traditional classes with
his traditional coronation at Rheims and his extreme pro-catholic policies and the compensation of
the émigrés and the gaggling if the press. His fatal error was to first create a reactionary ministry
48
with Polignac and secondly to issue the Ordinance of Saint Claud which proved to be the last kicks of
the dying horse.
One historian, W Fortescue, Revolution and the Counter Revolution in France (1988) states that,
“through his political incompetence, Charles X lost one of Europe’s most glorious throne and most
beautiful kingdom”.
Liberal revolution of 1830
The year 1830 was the year of revolution in France, Belgium, Italy, Poland, Spain and Portugal. They
were different from the events of the 1820’s which were merely national risings led by military
groups while the in the 1830’s were never liberal revolts led by broader elements of wealthy middle
class. They were directed towards the reactionary conservative policies after 1815. They had two
things in common, they sought to overthrow and bring the government closer to the people.
Revision questions
i. Compare and contrast Louis xvii and Charles X’s policies between 1815 and 1830.
ii. Why was Louis xviii more successful that his Brother Charles X?
iii. Examine the reforms of Charles X between 1824 and 1830.
iv. What were the causes of the 1830 revolution in France?
The July Revolution in France
The 1830 revolution in Paris
The major cause of the revolution in France was the Ultra-Conservative government of Charles X.
The immediate cause was the issuing of the five Ordinances of Saint Claud in July of that year. The
Paris working class responded by erecting barricades, waved the tri-0color of the revolution and
sang revolutionary songs. They were led by Adolph Thiers, Guizot and Lafitte. On 24 July
demonstrators seized the Hotel de Ville. The soldiers proved powerless and fell to the
revolutionaries.
49
At that time no-one wanted the Bourbon Monarchy anymore. Many demanded the setting up of the
Republic as they remembered the republic of 1792 that disposed the monarchy of Louis VXI. Charles
X abdicated in favour of his grandson Comte de Chambord (King Henry V) but none wanted him.
According to Thomson the fall of the Bourbon Monarchy was achieved without the shading any
drops of blood. It was a bloodless revolution just like the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
After the fall of the monarchy the revolutionaries were divided as to what form of the government
was to be adopted. The bourgeoisie wanted to set up a constitutional monarchy. They did not want
a republic and the equality with the masses, under the leadership of Lafayette (74 years). Liberals
under Thiers wanted a liberal government and to make the Duke of Orleans king. They feared that if
France was to turn to Republicanism the powers of Europe would intervene to restore the bourbon
monarchy.
Louis Phillipe agreed to rule as a constitutional monarchy. He was the descended from a young
brother of Louis VXI. This would mean that he would satisfy the republic ideas and the royalists. His
background also attracted the poor as he had known poverty and exile. He promised that he would
be a citizen king and observe the constitutional liberties. He was proclaimed, “The king of the French
by the Grace of God and the Will of the Nation”. He was to compromise between royalist authority
and republican ideas and also divergent demands of various other political groups. The reign was
marked with contradictions from the start; on one hand as the citizen king as promised while on the
other hand professed royal authority (meaning that he would require all his abilities to balance both
tracts).
Revolution in Belgium
The July revolution in France stimulated revolt in Belgium. The Belgians revolted against the Dutch in
a complete rejection of the Vienna settlement. The revolt was driven by the national desire for self-
rule (independence) against the rule of William I. The Belgians main source of discontent included’
a) They wanted equal representation in the parliament yet they outnumbered the Dutch by
2:1.
b) Dutch interest was given priority over the Belgian even though the Dutch were the minority.
c) The Dutch were Protestants while the Belgians were Catholics.
The Dutch troops were driven away by the Belgians and in October 1830 the provisional
government was proclaimed with the independence of Belgium. A new constitution was
50
established in 1831(the most liberal in Europe. the parliament was to choose the king who
became Leopold I who ruled for thirty four years with skill. The Dutch invaded Belgium in
1831 but were repulsed by the forces of Louis Philippe.
Reign of Louis Philippe
Why Louis’ government was a benefit of the doubt
He was accepted because it was felt that he represented the interests of the broad section of the
French society. He had true hereditary claim to the throne, monarchist found him to be a good
alternative to the bourbon monarchy. He was associated with the revolution therefore pleasing the
revolutionaries and the Bonapartist. He had participated at the battle of Jemappes against the
Austrians. He was a seasonal critic of the appointment of Charles X and therefore a favourite of the
liberals. He retained his name Louis Philippe than being labelled Louis XIX or Philippe VII. Historical
habits and appearance associated him with the middle class a factor that was to make his reign
knotty.
Domestic policy
In education the government did make some sound achievements. In 1833, a law was passed by
Guizot whereupon primary schools were set up in every commune and colleges to train teachers.
Schooling was made free, but not compulsory so that by 1847, the number of primary schools
increased from 33,000 to 43,000. In order to please the Catholics could now teach but secondary
education was anti-clerical. It was a preserve of the state.
The Constitution of 1830 was revised. In the new constitution the king had the right to suspend laws
taken and rule by decree, the parliament could now propose laws. The number of voters was revised
giving France a franchise of 200 000 voters. However this change was not enough since only 3 % of
population could vote. Therefore Louis’ intention by increasing the franchise was to please the
liberals and republics, but failed to meet their demands.
Freedom of worship was guaranteed and censorship of the press was abolished. He wanted to do
away with the old tradition of giving Catholicism a privilege also wished to please anti clericals. This
51
meant that Catholicism was no longer the religion of the state as it used to be, but was now merely
taken as a religion “practiced by the majority of the Frenchmen”.
The advantage of Louis from the beginning was that he tried to do away with absolutism and pro-
clerical tendencies typical of the Bourbon Monarchy. At the same time he guaranteed civic liberties
and order. To a reasonable extent his regime managed to hold a balance between liberty and order
on one hand and constitutionalism and authority on the other.
Like the ministers of Charles X, those who served Louis were moved by malice, greed and self-
interests. According to Watson, the ministers showed little interests, if any, in the problem facing the
Frenchmen. The middle class and liberals were bitter that the vote was not extended to reasonable
levels.
Louis economic policy under Guizot was of lasses faire (non interference with activists of employers
and businessman). The factory law (1841) had little ripple effects as the government was given no
legal basis to inspect factories. As a result most workers suffered (poor working conditions and low
wages). Lack of the government intervention resulted in extreme corruption, graft, exploitation and
political “chickenery”. While the laissez faire policy pleased the middle class and businessman, it was
a hell on earth to the working class. In a period of prosperity the working suffered as proved by the
poor living standards. This gave an impetus to the ideas of socialism to thrive in France.
Bored by the policies of Louis many political groups rose against him. Following the footsteps of his
predecessors, he thought that repression was the best method, press censorship was re-introduced
(1834) and trade unionism was repressed. The Bonapartists strongly opposed him and drew their
inspiration from the Napoleonic legend. They looked back to the glorious days of Napoleon I and
contrasted it to the inactive and unadventurous foreign policy. Louis lacked political insight when he
brought back the remains of napoleon back to France from St Helena. He thought this would please
them but reawakened Bonaparte’s in the country.
The legitimists regarded Louis as a sell-out who could be replaced by a bourbon king. They tried but
failed in 1832 to rise against Louis. The republicanism received a wider appeal from the poorer
classes. To these people, it offered social justice and addressed labour problems which Louis was
failing to do. In 1831, workers demonstrated against Louis as unemployment, inflation and poor
working conditions. In Lyon, it was reported that industrial workers were earning eating their shoes
and work suits according to T.K. Derry.
52
Frustration forced that people to act against the king. No less than six attempts were made on his
life. Wilmot observed that political frustration was one of the factors which brought down Louis
Philippe. But to a smaller extent Guizot’s economic policy promoted some degree of economic
problems. Though there was vigorous railway construction and industrial expansion.
Conclusion
Louis’ domestic policy reveals massive contradictions which characterized his eighteen year reign. All
French were bored by his conduct and even his habits of lightening his own fire, shaving his own
beard and walking in the streets with nothing serve for his umbrella. His problems were twofold; he
tried to please various political groups but in the end failed to please none. Secondly, he was
unfortunate to have ruled during the era of massive economic problems hence the people shouted
that, “he was worse than Charles X”.
Foreign Policy
Like the domestic policy it was disastrous as it failed to please anyone. Only in Algeria did he attempt
to make a bid to bring glory to France. The Bonapartists were thirsty for a ruler who would follow
the footsteps of Napoleon I and bring back military greatness. The inglorious foreign policy led to his
downfall. He followed a peaceful policy for the benefit of the middleclass. It was also targeted at
befriending the major powers like Britain. In doing so his demise was spelt out.
Louis and Algeria
The conquest of Algeria was started by Charles X. In the 1830’s the French fought against the Byes of
Algeria. Louis was to complete the conquest. This adventure was meant to silence his critics who
believed that would not do what other countries were doing, the attainment colonies. Antony Wood
alludes to the effect that the conquest failed to awaken any patriotic or nationalistic feeling. It
actually fuelled opposition due to the war expenses, the viciousness of the fighting i.e. the death of
troops. In any event few had any desire towards colonies at that time. Most people regarded
colonies as burdensome and expensive to maintain. Colonies were to be essential in 1880’s.
Lamartine a poet commented that, “France is bored”.
Louis and Mahomet Ali of Egypt
For those who were hungry for foreign glory, the Mahomet affair was another serious blow. Ali was
ruling Egypt on behalf of the Turks hence a vassal of Turkey. Ali stepped in to help his Turkish
overlords on condition that he would be given Syria as compensation. His army had been trained by
53
the French, who sought to protect Egypt. The French were fascinated by Egypt since Napoleon I
fought there in the 1790’s. So the French had common interests in Egypt which was a traditional
French sphere.
In 1839, war between Ali and Turkey broke out. Turkish armies were defeated at Belen Pass and
Konia. The British under Palmerstone showed little interests in intervening in the near east. With no
help coming from the English Channel. The Sultan looked to Russian tsar Nicholas I who send his
troops to Turkey. Watson commented that Britain and France became too worried about the Tsar’s
intentions, pressed the sultan to come to terms with Ali and send the Russians home. In the Kuala
Treaty, Ali was given Syria but Ali was to respect the Sultan’s over lordship. Ali was not pleased with
the treaty. He wanted complete independence from the Sultan. War broke out again, Turkey was
defeated, seeing that their interests were threatened Russia and Britain stepped in to help. France
refused to join the coalition and went ahead supporting Ali. Theirs who was chief minister wanted
war against the coalition if they continue with their object ruining Ali. Palmerstone ignored this as an
empty threat and continued to work with tsar and defeated Ali.
The conflict was part of the ongoing Eastern Question. It showed how much Louis was a feeble
politician. At the height of the crisis France was isolated and unable to act in defence of his interests
and ally. He went on to fire Thiers thus Wilmot stated that he burdened himself with the
communication of a resounding diplomatic defeat. He showed that he was too weak to pursue a
diplomatic policy and therefore played second fiddle to the British and Russians.
Instead of pleasing those who wanted foreign glory he annoyed them. The events served to illustrate
how inconsistent and contradictory Louis’ foreign policy was. Scholars are content that it was
shabby, boring, dull and unattractive. After encouraging Ali he withdrew from Egypt when they
needed help the most.
Louis and Belgium
The Belgians were against the Dutch in 1830 in attack of the reactionary policies of 1815. To the
French thus was a splendid opportunity for Louis to step in and help the Belgians especially the
Catholics. Besides the fact that the Belgians were Catholics, they were a traditional sphere of
influence after being conquered by Napoleon. Louis refused to annex but sought British aid in
working out the independence of Belgium. He even refused to accept the invitation of his son to be
the king. Britain jumped in and Leopold I became the king.
54
It is clear that Louis was adopting a cautious policy, always playing second to the English since he
was afraid of annoying the great powers who might work against him. This was to ruin and cost his
throne. Therefore he had been described as a little boy under the supervision of his father. By
accepting being a yes man he disappointed the French. He refused aid to the polish and Italy in 1831.
Louis and Tahiti
The July monarchy was good at quarrelling. But according to one dictum, good things are better,
done than said. In 1843 Louis had a candid talk with the British over the island of Tahiti. He had sent
a group of French catholic missionaries and later declared Tahiti a French sphere of influence
(protectorate). It was a symbol of his frustration with the English policy under Palmerstone. This led
to the arrest of the British missionaries and the consul. The British strongly condemned the act and
forced the French to release him as soon as possible and on top of that the payment of damages.
The Tahiti incident reflects how much Louis feared Britain and could do anything to please them. He
failed to please anyone except himself, even the intended beneficiaries. Lovers of military glory
complained bitterly and even asked the question, who is ruling France, Britain or Louis?
The Spanish marriages 1846
His activities in Spain showed that his foreign policy had no strategy and ideas. Palmerstone had
done everything to humiliate France in general anytime he so wished. In 1848 a new government in
London led to improved relations between the two nations. Thiers was replaced by Guizot.
Negotiations were proceeding accordingly in search of a husband for the young Queen of Spain. But
in 1846 Palmerstone returned to office and intended to arrange the marriage of Isabella and Infanta.
Isabella was to marry someone directly linked to the British crown, hence attempted to obstruct the
French candidate.
In order to outmanoeuvre the English Louis arranged that one of his twelve sons Antoine to marry
the queen’s young sister Infanta with Isabella marrying her cousin. The cousin was an ageing
Spaniard believed to be impotent. Louis hoped that in the future an Orleanist monarchy would rise
and rule Spain since Isabella was expected to have no children. At that time it seemed as if
LouisPhillipe had scored and French deserved the diplomatic points. The marriages according to
Watson, the marriages were the last activity of Louis’ foreign policy. The diplomatic victory proved to
be hollow as Isabella wedded separately and was to have nine children including Alfonse XVI who
gained the throne in 1875 ensuring the continuation of her family line.
Louis and Charles compared
55
Both lost due to failure to adhere to the wishes of the masses hence lost out on their support and
confidence of a significant sector of the population mostly the middle class. They were caught off
guard by the strength of the outburst of opposition. But Charles had lees excuse since he attempted
a coup de tat, whereas Guizot had only forbidden the reform banquets.
The two rulers had sought to escape in abdication in favour of a grandchild, neither of who was to
rule. However the working class in1848 was more powerful and very articulate than they had been
in 1830. The economy was far more developed in the 1840’s that during the reign of Charles X.
Collapse of the July Monarchy
a) Economic conditions
Louis Phillipehad inherited a crumpling economy which had been messed by the radical
policies of Charles X. Economic recession had begun in 1826, persisted till 1832 or later.
There were grain shortages, rising inflation and unemployment. For the commons transition
from Bourbon rule to the Orleanist rule did not bring any significant changes. Various groups
failed to achieve their aims hence were in consistent conflict with government of Phillipe for
example the workers strikes in La Vendee as they demanded reforms.
b) Demands of the working class
The working class was the most aggrieved by the stagnant economic policies which satisfied
the middle classes. The workers called for lower prices, higher wages, and shorter working
hours. The attempted national workshops were half hearted as they ended in total failure.
The government responded by revoking oppressive laws which banned unlawful assembly
and unleashing the army and police on strikes and demonstrations. Instead the government
should have found ways of improving the plight of the worker. His failure proved to be a
fundamental point to his downfall.
c) Growth of Republicanism and Liberalism
They employed scathing propaganda to attack the government of Louis and its supporters.
Republicanism grew and gained support mainly from workers suffering economic recession.
But new repressive laws silenced the republicans. The workers were inspired by the work of
Louis Blanc the editor of the L’Organisation du Travail, a socialist newspaper which preached
the need for reform. The liberals were demanding the extension of the civil liberties while
republicans wanted increase in the franchise and a republican state. Other influential
socialist writers were St Simon and Proudhon who advocated for various means of dealing
with the increasing unemployment by the state taking control of the means of production.
56
d) Poor harvests of 1846-7
The harvest failures showed how France was vulnerable to economic recession. Hungry
thugs and mobs demonstrated increasingly against the government. The workers were the
most active since their wages were no longer able to sustain a decent lifestyle. So it was a
period of economic progress yet there was dwindling living standards. The poor harvests
prove the old adage that a hungry man is an angry man.
e) Reform banquets
During the 1840’s almost all the disgruntled groups within France were now in favour of
republicanism. In the streets people gathered clamouring for a number of reforms. The
workers were driven by the failure of the national workshops introduced following the ideas
of Louis Blanc. The program led to increased taxation thereby becoming unpopular. Richards
sums up the situation as the offering the working classes to join the revolution or form an
army against the government. Louis resorted to use repressive measures by unleashing the
National Guard under General Cavaignac upon the reformers. This led to the outbreak of the
1848 Revolutions hence Seaman concludes that, “the 1848 revolution in France began by
incident and elsewhere by excitement”.
Faced with these problems Louis abdicated in favour of his cousin by the revolutionaries adopted a
republican state. The Bonapartists were affected by the inglorious foreign policy, Liberals wanted a
further extension of civil liberties, Republicans desired for the widening of the electorate with the
removal of voter qualifications, Monarchist and Legitimist wanted a real bourbon leader and also
argued that Louis was not the legitimate ruler. All these factors and an unpopular foreign policy
made his downfall inevitable. A provisional government was put in place and drafted a new
constitution which made France a republican.
Revision Questions
i. How liberal was the government of Louis Philippe?
ii. Louis Philippe had nothing but good intentions for France. If this was so, why did
he fell from power in 1848?
iii. Evaluate the domestic and foreign policies of LouisPhilippeup to 1848?
iv. It was not what he did but what he failed to that brought about his end. Is this a
valid assessment of the downfall of the Julymonarchy in 1848?
v. Examine why all the opposition groups in France against Philippe voted for a
republic in 1848?
57
vi. Discuss the main causes of the revolution of 1848 in France?
vii. “France is bored”. Is this true of the situation in France by 1848?
THE SECOND REPUBPLIC 1848-1852
After the abdication of Louis Philippe the provisional government began its work, preparing France
for the new elections. The new constitution was complete and the country braced for election for
the presidency of the republic. The candidates were Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, a cousin of the
Napoleon I, Lamartine the Republican and Cavaignac the military general. Louis won the election
overwhelmingly as the people of France wanted to prevent the creation of a military dictatorship
under Cavaignac.
58
The Early History of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte
He was the son to the brother Napoleon I, who had ruled as the king of Holland. He was a dreamer
of the worst character who lived an adventurous life. He was a religious disciple of the ideas of his
great uncle. He joined the Italian secret society the Carbonari and participated in their papal revolt.
He devoted his time to writing two important books that glorified t Napoleon I, and had the effect of
making him popular among the French. La’extinction de Pauperism translated The Extinction of
Pauperism provided social reforms to deal with issues like unemployment, poverty and economic
transformation. Like Blanc he also advocated for a system of workshops to reduce unemployment. In
the Ideas Of Napoleon he argued that Napoleon I’s desire was the total liberation of Europe had he
not been disturbed by the great powers in 1815. It reminded the people of the glory days of
Napoleon I which they looked forward to with great zeal. It was this glorious policy he claimed to be
its guarantor.
His zest for power was observed in 1836 at Strassborg when he attempted to seize power from Louis
Philipe and in 1840 at Boulogne. After these events he was exiled to England and only returned to
France during the 1848 revolutions to lead the Bonapartists he assumed leadership without dispute.
His early history had prepared him for the leadership of France but it was rather the belief in the
heroic deeds of his great uncle; why he ascended to power.
Why did the French vote for Louis Napoleon?
The French were thirsty for the revival of the Napoleonic tradition in the foreign policy unlike the
unpopular inglorious policy of Louis Philippe. All the groups were convinced that voting for him
would not only guarantee success but would also bring domestic prosperity for the workers and the
middle class. These ideas were well articulated in his writings about the destiny of France internally
and externally.
The people were afraid of the creation of a military dictatorship by general Cavaignac; Lamartine the
other candidate was old and could no longer be trusted with public office. Thus Louis emerged as the
favourite. It was further thought that the republic the fortunes of the nation. Of interests was the
need to extent the liberal concessions and universal suffrage which Louis Philippe had denied the
French.
The name Napoleon was considered as the guarantee of law and order. It is said some voted
thinking that they were voting for Napoleon I. He kept the aspect of dictatorship behind the scenes
promising the nation great reforms. There is no doubt then that won the elections with a great
59
margin. He received 5, 4 million votes, Cavaignac had 1, 4 million and Lamartine had only 17
thousand.
The Constitution of 1849
The president could rule for a term of four years upon which new election were to be conducted. He
was to be elected by universal suffrage and his power was shared with the assembly. He was the
head of the state, commander of the army, appointed members of the senate, sign treaties and
declare war. Members of the assembly were elected by universal suffrage. It further ensured the civil
liberties of the individual. At least the new constitution gave the people what they had struggled to
attain under Louis Phillipe.It is the same document which he altered in 1851 to enable the transition
from the republic to the empire.
Domestic reforms
The domestic policy was much inspired by the first empire’s successes. He emphasized on economic
investments in industry and transport. The greatest reform by the emperor was the modernisation
of Paris under Prefect Barros Haussmann. The narrow streets were replaced with the wider
boulevards. Karl Marx observed that, “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality has been replaced by artillery,
cavalry, and infantry”. These were strategic as they made it difficult to raise barricades. The old
buildings were gentrified and the streets were lit up with gas lights. Paris was given access to clean
water and underground sewer system was constructed. Napoleon once said, ‘I found Paris smelling
of excrement and left it smelling like a rose”. The city became the centre of Europe once again as
shown by the great exhibition of 1856.
In the finances,Napoleon III followed the course taken by his uncle. He used the CreditMobilier to
offer easy credit to business. This enabled the state to finance industrial expansion and harbour
construction. The greatest of Napoleon’s economic activities was the construction of the Suez Canal.
In reference to his economic reforms napoleon III boasted that,
We have immense territories to cultivate, roads to open, harbours to deepen, canalsto dig, rivers to make navigable, railroads to complete. That is how I interpret theEmpire. Such are the conquests I contemplate; And you, all of you, who wish ourcountry's success, you are my soldiers.
During the same period, industrial expansion enabled the disappearance of unemployment as a
political problem and source of revolution in France.
60
Material prosperity was also enabled by the Emperor’s ability to limit room for possible political
opponents. Trade unions were allowed but the workers could not go on strike. Members of the
Legislative Assembly could be elected by manhood suffrage. The elections were stage managed to
enable members of the Bonapartists to win the elections. The senate was populated by nominees of
the emperor who were loyal to the emperor. Policies were introduced from the top; the parliament
was not allowed to scrutinize the policies neither was the public allowed to attend parliamentary
debates. Offenders were reluctantly sent into exile foe example Emile Zola and Victor Hugo. In
simple terms there was limited freedom within France as the emperor sought to restore order.
To boost the local economy he promoted free trade with other countries mainly Britain between
1854 and 1862. In 1860 he signed the Cobden Treaty with Britain the first attempt by the state to
stimulate economic development. However this opened French goods to stiff competition from
other countries. It was expensive to export French products like wine to England yet it was very
cheap to import British goods into France. The French middle class lost out to British merchants due
to the competition that came as a result of the agreement. In the long run he lost popularity among
the merchants.
Napoleon III was a humanitarian as proved by the establishment of a special fund to cater for the
elderly. The old houses were replaced with new housing schemes thus removing the slums from the
face of France. The new houses were meant to improve the living standards of the proletariats. In
this field he proved his worth and desires to assist the poor and the working classes.
Liberalisation of the Empire
Around the 1860’s Napoleon III transformed the empire by introducing liberal policies. Historians
seem not agree why he chose to follow such a path. Orthodox scholars are of the view that he was
satisfied with reforms he had introduced at home. Secondly, there was no longer any threatening
opposition and stability had been achieved at home. He had followed his axiom the empire meant
peace. Revisionist saw the development in a different way, for them, he was trying to unite with
mounting opposition; Republicans, Liberals and Bonapartists. Further he was suffering major
drawbacks in his foreign policy hence liberalisation was the only way out. They subscribe to the
argument that the reforms were implemented gradually as a way testing how the opposition would
react. For them liberalisation was an attempt to reconcile with the ever increasing opposition even
though the empire remained popular.
61
Liberal reforms
Since 1852 censorship was lifted. This gave the newspapers and other men of letters to publish
freely. The writers who had been send in exile returned to France amongst them Hugo. Trade
unionism became the order of the day while the policies of the emperor could be dissected.
Freedom of association was revoked
Foreign Policy
The second empire placed optimism among the French that the great days of the first empire were
to be revived. However they failed to realise that Napoleon III lacked the ruthlessness of his uncle
neither was he a military genius. With no time hope turned into despair as he failed to give the
French foreign policy glories. The main factor behind his dismal failure was the lack of leadership
skills, hesitation at critical moments as such he failed to pursue goals to their final end. He failed to
initiate any meaningful military reforms just like the Prussians who took advantage of the industrial
development to improve their army.
Mazzinian Republic 1848
Napoleon as the president heralded his arrival on the political scene by crushing the republic of 1848
in Italy. He intervened by sending the garrison force under general Audinot to reinstate the Pope
Pious IX who had been disposed. The move was designed to make him acceptable to other European
rulers and to gain support of the Catholics. The Catholics in the end recognised him, as the protector
of religion. The event gave glimmers of hope to the French since they considered him protector of
the state.
Crimean War 1854-56
The Crimean War was a war that brought to an end the Holy alliance created in 1815. The major
cause was the conflict over the control of the holy places of Jerusalem. This was after the agreement
with turkey which allowed French access to serve the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. The
agreement contravened other existing treaties with Russia that gave the Orthodox Church access in
the holy land of Jerusalem. The Russians under Nicholas I occupied the Danube in 1853 and refused
to give in to the demand for withdrawal. In 1854 France and Britain intervened to rescue the Turkish.
In 1855 the Piedmontese army joined on the side of the Anglo-French alliance. Austria dispatched an
62
ultimatum demanding Russia to accept the four points or else she would intervene. Unfortunately,
Nicholas I died and Alexander accepted the four points in order to end the war. After the defeat at
the battle of Sebastol the Russians surrendered.
In 1856 the Treaty of Paris was signed at which the following were concluded. Russia lost control of
maritime trade along the Danube; she was no longer the protector of the orthodox members in the
Ottoman Empire. The Black Sea was declared neutral and the independence of the Turkish Empire
was guaranteed. To napoleon III this was some form of glory; he had fought on the side of the
victorious alliance, the holy alliance collapsed, and the city of Paris became the capital of Europe
once again.
The Italian Fiasco 1859
The Treaty of Paris was an opener to cannon of surprises; the Piedmont had earned a seat for herself
at the settlement in 1856. Its Prime Minister Cavour in a speech made the Italian problem a
European problem. The emotional speech given is believed to have been directed to the great
powers of Europe. Napoleon III is believed to have said, “Oooh! What can I do for Italy?” However
nothing materialistic was achieved. It was only until the attempt on his life by one Orsini that
stimulated him to act leading to the Pact of Plombieres. This proves that Napoleon III lacked an
meaning tactics in dealing with foreign policy matters.
Pact of Plombieres was signed in 1858 between the Emperor and Cavour the prime minister of
Piedmont. The Piedmont was to provoke Austria into war so as to make French intervention
legitimate. Napoleon III did not want his intervention to be recognised as an aggressor. Further
Prince Jerome was to marry the daughter of Victor Emmanuel II. Piedmont was to gain Lombardy
and Venetia, while Nice and Savoy were to be awarded to France as compensation. An Italian
confederation was to be created under the leadership of the Pope. Napoleon III wanted the creation
of an Italy that he would be able to dominate.
War against Austria was initiated by the Cavour who mobilised the piedmont forces along the
Austrian frontier. He refused demobilisation demanded by the Hapsburg leading to the latter’s
declaration of war on the Italians. Without hesitation Napoleon III jumped into the conflict hoping to
achieve another glory for France. Together with the Piedmont army, the Austrians were defeated at
the battles of Magenta and Solferino. However, Napoleon III was now afraid of developments taking
place in Europe. Hesitant as always he became afraid of the creation of a powerful Italy which he
could not dominate, the catholic world heavily criticized him for having fought against a fellow
catholic nation and finally Prussian mobilisation along the Rhine worsened his fears. The result was
63
the betrayal of his alliance with the Italians as he signed the Truce of Villafranca with the Austrians.
Though in the end Nice and Savoy were released to France, only Lombardy was given to Piedmont.
His hopes of dominating Italy completely failed, the French to wait longer for real French glory.
The Mexican adventure 1863-64
Napoleon III was never shot of surprises as he joined the sail to Mexico to enforce the payment of a
long debt. The government of Mexico agreed on a payment plan hence Britain and Spain sailed back
to Europe. The emperor saw an opportunity to create a Catholic Mexican empire to win the loyalty
of the Catholics at home. It was aimed at mending the relations with Austria by making Maxmillien, a
relative of the Hapsburg, Emperor.
He remained behind and faced the resistance of the Mexican nationals led by Juarez. The war was
very costly for the French in financial and humanitarian terms thus contributing to the French
withdrawal. Maxmillien was left behind and was very unfortunate as he was killed by a firing squad.
In an attempt to mend relations with Austria he actually worsened it. France lost her beloved sons
and drained the French financial resources. Gradually the isolated France in European politics was in
emotion by unnecessary adventures.
Austro-Prussian War 1866
Napoleon II main agenda was to break the congress system and to make France the arbiter of
European politics. However as a dreamer he failed to realise the changing political chase board of
the continent. Past glories were never a guarantee that the future would always tilt in your favour.
What Napoleon I had achieved was due to his military capabilities, ruthlessness and talent which he
lacked. In 1866 he was cuckooed by the Prussian chancellor into an agreement which he bought
without second thoughts. The Prussians could not dominate Germany without the partial
dismantling of Austrian strong hold over the confederacy. Bismarck not sure how napoleon III would
react lured him to Biarritz. He was to remain neutral in war between Austria and Prussia and in
return would be assisted to purchase Belgium.
Why did Napoleon agree to such an agreement? He was a dreamer; hence he saw the two Germany
states equally matched, such that the war between them would be long. In the end he would jump
in and dictate the peace terms and give glory to the French. Here one has to question whether he
belonged to the times he lived. It was the ages of industrialisation were technological changes also
being adopted for military purposes. And the Prussians were ay the lead under von Roon and von
64
Moltke. Having achieved neutrality of the French, Bismarck agreed an alliance with the Italian La
Marmora to fight together against Austria for the release of Venetia. Russia assured the Prussians of
their neutrality.
When the war broke out diplomatically Napoleon had been beaten by Bismarck. Prussian military
power proved heavy for the Austrians as they were routed in seven weeks at the battle of Sadowa.
One historian observed and commented that, “It is France that has been defeated at Sadowa”. The
Prussians were the champions of Europe and Napoleon had no glory to talk of neither was there
anything to smile about.
Hohenzollern Candidature
The humiliation of Napoleon at the hands of Bismarck was not to end in the Seven weeks War.
Bismarck was sustained by making the Biarritz agreement a verbal one, there was nothing written
down. In 1867 the Spanish crown was declared vacant band candidates were called upon. Bismarck
and Kaiser William I forwarded Leopold of Hohenzollern as their candidate. Napoleon demanded the
withdrawal of Leopold for he was afraid of being encircled by powerful states with some allegiance
to Bismarck. Furthermore, Benedetti was instructed to get guarantees that the candidacy would not
be renewed in the future. The candidature was withdrawn; this gave Napoleon III the wrong sense of
belief. These are the very demands that Bismarck altered in the famous Ems telegram which forced
the French to gun for war.
Isolation of France
At this point was has to factor in the events in France. The second empire was an illusion. The hope
for survival lied in the defeat of the Prussian to revive the fortunes of the empire. The war was
agitated for by the War Party led by Empress Eugenie. He was told that without victory he should
not return to Paris a clear indication that he was no longer in control. In 1870 he hoped for European
nations to come to side but failed to realise that he had isolated France. Russians promised to
remain neutral as long the Austrians did not join France fearing that such a move would spur the
poles to rise again. Britain had no policy neither did she have any alliances as such had no reason to
be part of the conflict. Austrians had not forgotten the Italian and Mexican Adventure and as such
could not come to the aide of the French. Napoleon III found himself facing the mighty Prussian war
machine. Taylor asserts that, “thus the French were left alone against a united Germany”. And at
Sedan on 2 September 1870, Napoleon III surrendered bringing to an end the myth of la grande
nation.
65
Reasons for the fall of the Second Empire
The second empire was doomed from the onset considering the character of the usurper Napoleon
III. He lacked the ruthlessness required of a great leader. At many points in his career he hesitated
and suffered from indecision. This was a result that he was much drowned with the illusion of the
first empire. He further failed to distinguish being a politician and a military leader like his great
uncle whose footsteps he claimed to follow.
The liberalisation of the empire was another mistake. In attempt to reconcile with increasing
opposition he gave it the right to nail him to the end. Free censorship enabled the newspapers to
openly criticise his policies. The return of the exiles and the appointing of republicans in the cabinet
did nothing to serve the empire. Rather the opposition became more versatile in questioning his
policies and decisions. Republicans, Liberals and Bonapartists all scrutinised him more than ever
before.
Much harm to the second was achieved in the field of foreign affairs. Apart from the victory in the
Crimean War and other petty interventions Napoleon,The Little: failed to revive the glories of the
first empire. By 1870 he had successfully isolated France as almost all the great powers had some
vendettas against him. The Austrians would not forget the defeat in Italy and the death of
Maxmillen in Mexico (18640), the Russians reminded each other how he stood in support of the
Polish revolts (1863), and Italians would live never to forget the betrayal of 1859. Finally, the English
were disheartened by the way he always robbed small nations of their priced territories for example
taking of Nice and Savoy (1861).
Napoleon III was not a military genius, throughout his reign one observes that no meaningful military
reforms were introduced. By 1870 France was militarily backward compared to the advances made
by the other powers. At Sedan the Prussians fully utilised new technologies were as the French
remained loyal to the old weapons; the muskets. In this case he did not see that the greatness of the
first empire lied in the creation of a powerful army that used the technology of the day.
Revision questions
i. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte had nothing to offer France. Then, why did the French vote
for him as the president of the Second Empire?
ii. Why did Napoleon Bonaparte transform the Republic to an Empire in 1852?
iii. To what extent was the Second Empire 1852-01871 inspired by the First Empire 1800-
1815?
66
iv. “A showman and a sham dictator”. How convincing is this description of Napoleon III?
v. Account for the liberalisation of the Empire from 1860?
vi. France was isolate by 1870 due blunders in his foreign policy. Discuss the validity of this
view of Napoleon III’s foreign policy.
vii. The first empire was a source of inspiration to the second empire. How relevant is the
statement of Napoleon III’s rule of France 1852-1871?
Italian Unification1815-71
Introduction
The French revolution and Napoleon dismantled the cornerstones of the ancient regimes across all
Europe. At Vienna the conservatives attempted to revive the old by re-instituting vagaries that
Europe was about to completely forget. The return of Austrian dominancy eroded away the
revolutionary gains over Italy. This was coupled with the implementation of the legitimacy in the
central Italian duchies. There is no denial that the Italian s at least began to question the benefits of
foreign rule. Thus from 1815 onwards they began to make moves towards the creation of a single
Italy under what they called the Risorgimento/ Resurgence. The unification process can divided into
two phases the liberal phase 1815-1848 and the era of realist 1850-71.
Impact of Napoleon I
He removed Austrian autocratic system of administration at the battle of Lodi. By the terms of
Campo Formio he annexed territories and forced them to pay an indemnity. The French introduced a
fair system of governance under the Code guaranteeing the liberties of the individual. Under
napoleon I Italy was in three divisions one under the direct rule of the French empire, kingdom of
Italy in the north and kingdom of Naples under Jerome and later Murat. To some extent napoleon’s
rule was resented due to taxation policies, attitude of the police which all helped to mould Italian
desire for self rule. Italians therefore hoped that his downfall would see the creation of one Italy but
the Austrian domination returned.
Vienna Settlement 1815
67
The delegates at the settlement betrayed Italian wishes and hopes. They were so much concerned
with stability and not unification.Austrian dominance was revived in the central duchies of Lombardy
and Venetia was awarded to her as compensation for the loss of Belgium. In the other states like
Romagna, Tuscany and Parma, Austrian appointees were heads of government mainly those related
to the Hapsburg. Naples was ruled by the returned Bourbon monarchy in the form of Ferdinand I.
Thus the Metternich system found its real meaning in the management of such a vast empire whose
power dependent on the size and not the will of the people. Across all Italy and elsewhere Austrian
rule was resented. This led to the spread of national sentiments towards achievement of unity by
elimination of the foreigners.
Italy in 1815
Italy in 1815 showed what the major powers wanted it to be, a buffer against the French aggression.
Italy was in the words of Metternich a ‘mere geographical expression’ of rather she could not be
called a nation just like a pile of wood cannot be called a ship. There were five independent states
but the people shared a common language and religion hence defined them as one people.
The Disparity between the North and the South
Despite the political character of Italy which showed the disunity another important factor worth
taking note of was the differences in economic character. The south provinces or states were very
backward. They were agrarian in nature. There was a high level of illiteracy. This was unlike the
north which was economically improved with a much higher literacy levels. Such a social structure
made cohesion towards unity difficult as shall be proved later. Cavour who was to unify Italy
intended to bring together the northern states excluding the southern states as a result of the
economic and literacy disparities. Cavour’s ideas here come into conflict with those of Mazzini who
simply wanted the unity of all Italy.
The Liberal Phase
The period until 1848 was characterized by the attempts by the middle class to bring the Italians
together. They believed that they could achieve unity by advocating through the parliament and
other romantic methods.
The Formation of Secret Societies
The Italian dream for unity was set in motion by the establishment of organization to spread the
gospel of unification. The first was the Charcoal Burners or the Carbonari. Its primary target was the
68
removal, of Austrian domination of Italy. It rose into life in the 1820s but failed in quest. It was
accused of using unrealistic methods as shown by the failed 1820 revolts after forcing Ferdinand to
grant a constitution he later reversed it after attending the congress of Laibach. It did not tale all
required measures to challenge an imperial power like Austria. The uprisings in Naples, Sicily,
Piedmont were easily checked by the imperial forces of Austria. By the late 1820s most Italians were
disillusioned by the Carbonari. In Piedmont another revolt was stirred by the Carbonari. Victor
Emmanuel I abdicated and Charles Albert became the regent and granted a constitution however
the new king reversed the reforms. The result was the civil war where the liberals were defeated by
the absolute powers at the battle of Novara in 1821. The failures of the Carbonari were structural; it
was an elitist movement with the majority of its members being educated liberals with very little
support from the lower members of the society. It was poorly led and uprisings were not well
organised and coordinated.
The Young Italian Movement
It was founded by Giuseppe Joseph Mazzini a former member of the Carbonari. He was journalist by
profession and a patriotic Italian. He resented the domination of Italy by foreigners like the
Austrians. Like the Italians of the medieval era before for him Italy had been reduced to battle
ground by European powers. For him Italian nationalism was dead, as a sign of mourning he always
wore black clothes. He came up with Italian movement to do away with the disillusionment of the
Charcoal Burners. However the movement was restricted. It was open to the youth thus its
membership was those 40 years and below. His target was the educated elites including the masses
like the peasantry and the poor.
Mazzini believed that the only way to bring Italians together unify her as a republic. He detested
absolute government as he was afraid that the event of 1789 would catch up with the Italians.
Furthermore he saw the monarchy as limited as it did not give all political voice. For him it was only
under a republican state were all would have a say.
Mazzini as a patriotic Italian believed that only Italians could unify Italy. He was against the idea of
using foreign help. He stated that Italy will go it alone (Italia far a de se). He was in favour of a
popular insurrection by all Italians to drive away the Austrians. For him Italian unification could be
achieved by staging a war of liberation.
In order to fully spread the need for unification Mazzini was very instrumental in the propagation of
Italian nationalism. The young Italian movement developed a greeting method, ‘what is the time?’,
‘it’s time for unification’. He has been widely quoted in his pamphlets and publications ah having
69
said that, ‘the tree of liberty grows well when watered by the blood of mytrs”, the dagger of the
assassin grows more deadly if sharpened on the tombstone of a martyr’. The statements show that
he wanted Italians to sacrifice for the birth of their unified nation.
Mazzini unlike Cavour after him wanted the unification of all Italians despite the difference on
economic status and literacy levels. Though the membership was restricted to the educated elites,
the numbers continued to rise day by day
In 1848 the Mazzinian approach was put to taste. He had been joined by another patriot Giuseppe
Garibaldi. They took advantage of the revolution which had started in the Paris and launched an
onslaught on the Austrians in Naples, Sicily and Piedmont. The movement had been able to raise
only 100 guns which were inadequate against a power like the Austrians. Mazzini and Garibaldi were
able to topple the pope from his post to create the Mazzinian republic of 1848. All the uprisings
failed completely as by 1849 the Austrians had reinforced there control over Italy.
The Republic of 1848 was short lived. It was crushed by the French garrison under General Audient.
The pope was reinstated, Mazzini went into exile in Switzerland and garibaldi went to South
America. This marked the end of the romantic approach to unification. However in exile he
continued to support the ideas of unification. After 1862 he was elected Member of Parliament but
declined the offer on the basis that Italy had been unified a monarchy.
Mazzini’s Contributions
The unification through Mazzini’s ideas may have failed but not in vain. The unifiers of Italy learnt
that there was need for foreign aid to unify Italy. Mazzini had laid enough ground for unification by
spreading the gospel of unity and the horrors of foreign domination.
Charles Albert
He became regent of Sardinia after the abdication Emmanuel I. Like his contemporary Mazzini he
believed in Italia fara de se. He granted Piedmont a constitution which became the basis of the reign
of his son Emmanuel II. He granted a variety of reforms. He declared war against Austria but was
heavily defeated at the battles of Custozza and Novara in 1849.
Pope Pious IX
He was the head of the Papacy and desired a federation of Italian states under his jurisdiction.
However he came to power at a point when liberal ideas were gaining ground. He gave the Papacy
70
and its capital Rome a liberal constitution. Unfortunately his dreams were shuttered by the fear of
waging war against a fellow catholic nation, Austria.
Overview
It is clear from the above that the unification was not bound to be successful with the unrealistic
methods applied. They quickly forgot that the powers had gained strength at Vienna. Thus the only
way to challenge them was by military power. The absolute powers were not prepared to listen and
give in to the demands of the masses. However the power that be failed to realize that the new
urban developments were giving rise to new forces. The wishes of the masses were had be
accommodated. Socialism changed the urban landscape, the conflict between the employee and
employer became well defined. The writings of Louis Blanc were accepted everywhere. The forces
that triumphed at Vienna were challenged from below.
Italian unification 1850-71
The failure of the movement of 1848 called for the need to revise the methods being used. However
the revolutionary tide of the late 1840’s broke Austrian stronghold on various Italian states. The
greatest effect was the fall of Metternich. In Piedmont Emmanuel II became the king; he was
enthusiastic about the national project. The liberal constitution granted by Charles Albert was left
intact; the powers of the church in politics were reduced through the Saccardi laws. This was
followed by the appointment intro his cabinet count CamilloBensi de Cavour. Together they formed
a formidable alliance that brought Italians together.
Cavour, Piedmont and Unification of Italy
The student in this section seeks to answer whether the role played by the Sardinians was unification
or rather annexation of Italian states. The pathway is shaped by two scholarly views the orthodox
and the revisionist approach. The former argue that Cavour was the unifier of Italy. That without him
the whole process could have failed. They recognize his diplomatic skills as the key to the creation of
Italy. However the revisionists are of the view that without Cavour unification was possible. They cite
the European chase board after 1850 as most favourable, considering that the fall of Metternich had
contributed to the weakening of the Hapsburg Empire. Unlike the orthodox scholars revisionist
recognize the role of Cavour. Revisionists therefore conclude that the Italy that was created was
outside the intentions of Cavour, hence a by-product of his pursuit of Piedmontese interests. In
other words it was not unification but rather the annexation of Italian states by Piedmont. According
71
to Ramm the revisionist are informed by the fact that Cavour was not an Italian nationalist. At the
end the student must convince the examiner which argument holds water.
Cavour
The failure of the unification in 1848 did not take away the dream for single Italian nation. The end
of the reign of Charles Albert saw the ascendancy of Victor Emmanuel II. He was an ardent believer
in the creation of one Italy. He had a rare talent of spotting man with great ability. Thus early in the
1850s he appointed Count CamilloBensi de Cavour as minister of agriculture, trade and commerce
and later prime minister.
He was a Piedmontese national who believed in progress. He had shown his ideas in the newspaper
he founded Il Resorgimento. He debated extensively the necessity of liberal reforms, the adoption of
modern scientific methods in agriculture and trade. He saw the birth of Italy after the elimination of
the Austrians from Italian dominions. Unlike Mazzini his dream was confined to the northern parts of
Italy. It is in these states that his ideas were tasted. Cavour was not an Italian nationalist but a
Piedmontese nationalist. His goal was limited to the creation of a powerful, Sardinia. He despised
the northern states due to their backwardness, economically and literary. Richards I that context
described as a master of immediate realities.
He is understood to have been a firm, believer in what was practical than the idealistic perceptions
of Mazzini. He was a man of his time the real politick/realists. He saw the unification as impossible
without foreign aid. Political unification could only be achieved after economic regeneration; hence
the transformation of Piedmont into powerful Italian state was done with this in mind. The failure of
1848 had shown him the need for a firm foundation.
Once `in office Cavour modernized the Piedmont army with the latest technology. The army could
now stand equal with the rest of Europe technically but numerically vulnerable. He embraced the
development of canals, improvement of the railroads, roads and sea transport to enable smooth
trade. Sardinia was able to carry out profitable trade with France, Prussia and Britain. With no time
Sardinia became the most prominent of Italian states, hence the focal point of unification.
Foreign aid
Cavour’s depended on the revision of what Mazzini had prescribed. In terms of the foreign policy his
greatest worry was how to gain the support of a powerful nation. He had already concluded that
Italy could not make herself but had to be made. His eyes were France and emperor Napoleon III.
Napoleon III had always sympathised with Italian nationalism being a former member of the
72
Carbonari. Italy was a torch to any Bonaparte’s domination, as the career of his uncle had started
there. For napoleon the Rhine was now out of reach for them, Italy offered a backdoor for their
entrance into European affairs .Italy was strategic in the mind of napoleon it would herald the
collapse of the Vienna settlement.
Napoleon III and Piedmont (Italy)
Napoleon III saw Italy as the only way the French could destroy the Vienna settlement. The Rhine
was closed to any French machinations due to the Prussian motives. He was driven by events at
home. In 1857 the French economy shrunk and the elections returned 5 opponents of the empire. It
was only in foreign policy that he could avoid political concessions at home. However despite his
grandee designs he no means of involving himself into Italian affairs, it was the wind of events that
saw him there; the Orsini incident.
The Orsini Affair
Most Italians looked forward to the emperor’s quick actions in Italy they were confused with his
reluctance. Orsini thus made an attempt on his life, and in court declared that Napoleon must come
to the rescue of the Italians. However, there was drama to the build up of the French-Piedmont
alliance. Napoleon after the incident had called for the suppression of the Sardinian press and
intimidated Cavour by an Austro-French alliance. Such a combination would have spelled doom for
the Italian national hopes. Cavour without hesitation unconditionally threw Piedmont into the
Crimean war to kill any hopes for an Austrian-French alliance. Cavour had to make the Italian
problem an international crisis by exploiting the differences between the great powers.
Crimean War and the Treaty of Paris
The piedmont army gave a very good account of them and earned for Cavour a seat at the peace
settlement in Paris in 1856. In Paris Cavour made the Italian issue an international one. Napoleon III
reluctantly said; ‘what can I do for Italy?’
Pact of Plombieres
Finally napoleon and Cavour met at Plombieres to map the way forward. Napoleon hesitant as has
been wanted piedmont to Austria the aggressor so as to make her intervention legitimate. Cavour
made some great sacrifices to tempt the emperor into a deal. Prince Jerome was to marry Victor
Emmanuel’s daughter, France to receive nice and Savoy and the creation of an upper Italy from the
73
Alps to the Adriatic. Cavour did not take these terms seriously what was important was to get things
moving.
The war against Austria
Cavour found out that provoking the Austrians was a far difficult task. Piedmont had no grievances
against the Hapsburg. The only way was to mobilize her forces along the Austrian frontier. The
Austrians demanded the de-mobilization upon which Cavour refused. With their folly the Austrians
declared war on Piedmont. Taylor thus allude to the effect that the Austrians had solved the
problem which had been baffling Napoleon and Cavour. The Sardinian and French proved a handful
for the Austrians as they were defeated at Magenta leading to their expulsion from the plains of
Lombardy. The second defeat was at Solferino. Napoleon could have pursued with the war but the
Prussian mobilization made him afraid. Furthermore he was afraid of a powerful Italy which he could
not dominate. He opted out by signing the Truce of Villafranca.
Truce of villafranca
It showed the emperor’s failure to stick to a single policy and his hesitant character. He joined the
Austrians because he was afraid of a united Italy at her door step, the uprisings in three duchies
alarmed him as the French garrison was still in Rome and the desire to maintain catholic support at
home.
The Creation of the Kingdom of Italy
Cavour was heartbroken with the betrayal by Napoleon III to the extent of temporarily resigning
from the post of prime ministers. He returned and the kingdom of Italy was created with its capital
at Turin after victor Emmanuel had signed the treaty of Zurich (1861). Piedmont received Lombardy.
However the new Italy did meet the required needs; Rome and Venetia were still outside a unified
Italy. Nice and Savoy had been sacrificed as compensation to France. This meant that the unification
was far from complete. The central Italian states were included into an Italy after Cavour had made
them to vote in favour of union with Piedmont and not France. These duchies had already
denounced their Austrian linked leaders in favour of union with Piedmont.
The Sicilian Expedition
74
When the revolts broke out in Sicily and Palermo garibaldi joined them. When Nice and Savoy had
been given to France he had complained, “They have made me a foreigner in the land of my birth.”
The revolts were sparked by Mazzinian republicans and as a result of the excitement garibaldi
organized 1000 volunteers to support the revolt with the majority being students. Historians like
Morris seem to argue that they simply wanted to dodge their examinations. Poets who joined
wanted to add the romance to their poetry, the unemployed were and had nothing to do and
peasants were against their landlords who had increased rentals.
Cavour was against such an expedition as he was not a believer in radical republicanism, this was
evidenced by;
i. The refusal to release 1200 guns, purchased for such expedition.
ii. Instead he released 1000 rusty muskets which were inefficient and attempted to stop
the expedition.
Apologists tend to sympathise with Cavour for his refusal, they argued that he was ion dangerous
position which prevented him from openly supporting the expedition. However Morris observed
that supporting garibaldi was the only way for Garibaldi to win. The landing at Marsala was not
opposed by the local troops due to the cover that was offered by the British navy that was docked,
making his victory inevitable.
Naples Expedition
Cavour was now jealous after the success of the Sicilian expedition as he feared the creation of a
Sicilian Italian state which would dispute Piedmontese leadership. Secondly he feared the attack on
Rome would create an international crisis and other catholic nations would join in especially France.
He sent his agents to stir revolts in Naples in order to pre-empt garibaldi’s arrival but the
Neapolitans refused, Cavour then withdrew funds meant for the thousand. Just like at Marsala the
landing at Messina the British fleet offered cover. The king of Naples fled leaving garibaldi in charge
and he handed over his conquest to the king Emmanuel II. To show that he was a true Italian patriot
he refused a seat in the parliament and only accepted a bag of seed and retired to his farm at the
island of Caprera. This was followed by a referendum to decide the fate of the southern Italian states
and voted for union with Piedmont. The referendum was unique in its own way according to Morris
the ballot papers had no option for the NO vote.
Release of Venetia
75
Venetia was unified with the rest of Italy after the involvement of Prussia under Bismarck’s
leadership. The Italian kingdom was promised Venetia in the event of supporting the Prussians to
defeat the Austrians. Though the Piedmontese distinguished themselves as able soldiers they were
defeated by the Austrian army. The overall defeat of the Hapsburg in the Seven Weeks War, Venetia
was handed over to the united kingdom of Italy in 1866. This was to the satisfaction of Napoleon III
who felt the weight of how he betrayed the Italians in 1859.
Rome
The unification of Italy was incomplete without its natural and religious capital Rome. The only
impediment was the presence of the French garrison stationed there in 1848 to ensure the smooth
return of the pope after being forced to abdicate by Mazzini during the revolutions of that year. The
emperor was in great demand of more soldiers as the battle against the formidable Prussian forces.
Unlike his contemporaries napoleon III had no scheme for military reform as was the trend in Prussia
and piedmont. The French army was outdated and relied on obsolete weapons. Thus the emperor
saw numerical advantage as a weapon, therefore recalled the garrison force from Rome. The Italians
were left to peacefully annex Rome and baptized her as the political capital by 1871 completing the
unification process.
Revision questions
i. Why did the liberals fail to unify Italy in 1848?
ii. “A mere geographical expression”. How valid is this description of Italy in 1815?
iii. Mazzini the prophet, garibaldi the soldier and Cavour the statesman. Is this true of the
contributions of the garibaldi. Mazzini and Cavour to the Risorgimento?
iv. Italy could not make herself, she had to be made. How far do you agree with this view of
the unification of Italy?
v. Explain why Piedmont became the focal point of Italian unification?
76
GERMANY UNIFICATION 1815-71
Introduction
Background
The congress of 1815 reduced the Germany states from 300 to 39; this was a necessary step towards
unification. However the Germany states were ruled by princes who were interested in maintaining
the gains of 1815 than towards unification. Austria was made the president of the Germany
confederacy. The 39 states suited Metternich’s wishes since he could put the Germany nationalists
at bay. Austria in other words was given full control of affairs in all Germany with Prussia being
reduced to the vice presidency. The Germany princes were kept disunited by petty political
jealousies. By 1848 the dream of a single Germany was almost impossible. Nationalists had made
efforts beyond that to unite Germany but all efforts produced nothing.
77
The process of unification offered the drama of the second half of the 19 th century Europe. Germany
unity was more of a melodrama considering the exceptional role Bismarck has been assumed to
have played. Germany is of interest as unlike the Italian it was by their shear brilliance that brought
them together. The only common ground with Italian was a shared enmity with the Austrians. But
the controversy centres on Bismarck as to whether he intended to unify or to increase the power or
Prussia over the Germany states.
Why unification failed before 1848?
i. Terms of the Vienna settlement. It created a Diet that was an assembly for the whole of
Germany states in the eyes of Peacock it was grossly ineffective. It was an assembly of
the princes and not of the Germany people and was presided by Austria the chief enemy
of unification.
ii. The conflict between Prussia and Germany. The animosity between the two meant that
the schemes were aborted before birth. The classic example the attempt to build a
federal fortress died because of these antagonisms. The diet frustrated many serious
nationalists who wanted to see a united Germany under Metternich’s leadership the
diet was against liberal reforms thus only a few Germany states had liberal constitutions
e.g. Saxon, Weimar, Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria.
iii. Germany nationalist believed in nationalism and liberalism but not many understood
liberalism. It was a doctrine of intellectuals therefore the peasants felt not bound to
support them.
iv. In between the period 1815-48none wanted a unified Germany and for those who
wanted it, they did not know how to achieve it. There were conflicting ideas as to know
how the united Germany would like. Some wanted a federal Germany, others a republic
and others a simply unified Germany.
v. Austria was the chief “Satan” to the creation of a united Germany because she
maintained a heavy presence in Germany. He prevented efforts to spread of nationalism
and liberal ideas through the oppressive system the Metternich system. It suppressed
student demonstrations hence issued the Carlsbad decrees.
Carlsbad Decrees
78
It limited the movement of students from one university to another, once expelled one could not
enrol at any other. All universities were under a single chancellor appointed by Austria. The press
was heavily censored and by 1820 the diet was empowered to use the army to suppress any revolts.
Such developments hampered the smooth propagation of ideas geared towards unification.
Metternich banned all political parties or any group of five and none was allowed to wear any
revolutionary colours. Peacock concludes that, “under the Metternich system political progress
come to a standstill.” However despite all these problems Germany unification was a reality. No
amount of suppression would kill the idea; it could only be delayed, as other ways for unity were
available.
The Zollverein
This was a customs union initiated by Prussia. Trade barriers like customs duty were abolished within
the Germany states except Austria; it was allowed to smooth the flow of trade amongst Germany
states. Since it was championed by Prussia, she automatically assumed economic leadership while
Austria maintained political leadership. It enabled Prussia to secure several trading partners. By 1834
all the southern Germany states were members of the Zollverein except Austria were all members.
The customs union prepared Prussia for leadership in Germany affairs.
Through this Prussia witnessed the highest magnitude of prosperity and all German states began to
look at Prussia for leadership instead of Austria. It produced a leader who could become the
stepping stone towards unification. However the little progress was made towards liberalism. This
was because Prussia was ruled by a combination of Junkers and bureaucrats.
The Junkers were military land owning class who hated liberalism and anything that stood for it. One
such leader was William IV who believed in Devine rights of the kings hence challenging God was a
crime. He firmly believed that he was answerable to God and no-one else thereby stifling an effort to
bring a free unified Germany. The 1848 revolutions caught the German prince unaware, though they
[the Revolutions] failed they had an important bearing on the history of Germany as certain liberties
were granted to German states; speech, press and association.
Why did the liberals of 1848 fail?
The Constituent Assembly feared to present the views of the united Germany was badly constituted.
Out of the 400 members, 100 were workers and the other 300 were middle class who were anti
liberal. The Austrian army was very intact therefore it suppressed all revolts. It was exceptionally led
by able generals like Radetzky. The imperial forces were well organised compared to the
79
revolutionaries making their defeat inevitable. The revolutionaries of 1848 were driven by different
interests; this was a cause for disunity. The students and lecturers wanted the granting of liberal
reforms; workers were in favour of improved working conditions and nationalists unification. The
absence of a common objective meant that they were not a unified movement. The conservative
forces were able defeat each isolated movement. Moreover, the uprisings were urban or elitist in
nature and lacked the majority support of the peasants.
Bismarck
He was born in the Junker family, a law graduate who detested liberal ideas. At the University of
Berlin he extremely showed his anti-liberal attitudes. He was firm believer in the absolute power of
the monarchy to which he was accustomed to. A heavy smoker, he believed in the destiny of
Prussian to emerge as the ultimo leader of the Germany confederacy. Like Cavour, he was more
interested in the power of Prussian and all Germany. He joined the public service but retired to
farming. He entered politics by coincidence when he was called to replace a sick member of the
Frankfurt Parliament in 1848. While at the meeting he challenged Austrian supremacy in the famous
cigarette incident. The king was to conclude he is only to be used when the bayonet reigns. After the
Frankfurt meeting of 1848, Bismarck was appointed ambassador of Prussia to Moscow and later to
France. It was during this period that he came to understand international politics.
Appointment as Chancellor
In 1862 Kaiser William was on the verge abdicating due to mounting opposition from the liberals
who were against the military reforms led by von Roon and von Moltke. It was upon this event that
von Roon remembered Bismarck. At this point Bismarck was the Prussian ambassador to France.
Thus faced with the crisis Bismarck was called back to Berlin in the famous telegram
‘periculaenimoradepechezvous’- “Danger in delay. Hurry”. Upon arrival he advised the Kaiser against
abdication and was spontaneously appointed the chancellor in 1852.
Bismarck’s Prussia Ideology
He was anti liberal in nature and as son of a Junker he had learnt to accept monarchical rule. He
grew up in a world where the Germans were submerged under the domination of Austria. He was a
firm believer in the power of Prussia which he hoped to extent its influence in all German states. It
must be understood that he was a Prussian nationalist and not a German nationalist. He did not
want the power of Prussia to be submerged into a Germany. Revisionist scholars tend to argue that
he fought against unification from the onset. He wanted to ensure the elimination of Austria out of
80
all German affairs. His resentment was based on the nature of the Hapsburg Empire which was made
up of variegated nationals. To show that he was for Prussia he was quoted, “All for Prussia and
nothing for Germany”, “Prussian we are and Prussian we shall remain”. To win for Prussia his goals
he was a man of action and indomitable will power as Thomson puts it. This is proved by the well
known statement that, “Germany has its eyes not on Prussia’s Liberalism but on its might. The great
questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and resolutions of majorities, but by blood and
iron.”
Early Reforms
Immediately upon arriving in the capital Berlin he prevented the king from abdicating as he was
appointed chancellor of Prussia. He further suspended the constitution and ruled according the state
of emergency arguing that if a wrong is done achieve good then it was right. The liberals were
silenced through the gagging of the press and were driven out of official positions. The collection of
taxes continued unabated. Though he was heavily attacked by the Liberals he was aware that
success in foreign affairs would win him their favour.
Military reforms
Once in office he continued to pursue the military reforms that saw Prussia having an advance army
equipped with the latest weapons. The muzzle loading guns were replaced by the needle gun with
higher firing power. The new guns had a firing power of more than five times than those used
elsewhere in Europe. Von Moltke adopted the strategic use of the railways to quick deployment of
the soldiers to ensure quick victory. This means that there was an expansion of the railway line into
thousands of kilometres. During the war with Austria in 1870 the Prussian forces took only twenty
five days to reach to the front while the Austrians took forty-five days. And in the war of 1870-71
they reached the French frontier in 36 hours and the French took several days.
Moreover the soldiers were recruited for a period of seven years and these totalled 68000 men. By
1870 Prussia had an army of 180 000 regular forces, 175 000 reserve troops. In contrast the Austrian
military system was inefficient with soldiers who could withdraw their service, basic training was
chaotic, and two thirds of the army could not load and fire a gun. Out of its 600 000 men only half of
them were capable military men. The tone of the Austrian forces was symbolized by the poor
leadership of general Gyubal and his comrades.
Unlike the Italian states which had to rely on the Piedmont’s undisputed role. The Germans relied on
the thoughtful and decisive leadership of the Prussians without foreign aid. Rather the unification of
81
the German states was achieved by the diplomatic manipulation of the international powers and
their interests.
Economic Reforms
Prussia was blessed with abundant natural resources; the Ruhr valley was rich in coal, the Saar valley
with zinc and copper together with the Upper Silesia. These resources made possible the
industrialization of Prussia. In the long run this gave the Prussians the edge over its neighbours as
shown by the extension of the railways and the equipping of the army with the latest of technology.
Resources and capital saw her developing the steam engines transforming the mining sector for
example between 1852 and 57 production grew by 1,92 tonnes. New laws were passed which saw
mining sector under the state supervision and labour was made free making it more profitable. An
American economist Keynes was to argue that, ‘the Germany states were not found on blood and
iron but by coal and iron.”
As the leader of the Zollverein, Prussia accumulated a lot of revenue that facilitated the
establishment of the Bank of Prussia. She had collected 14, 5 million marks in 1834, while she
accumulated 27, 5 million in 1845. The economic block was strengthened with the treaties that were
signed with Holland in 1851, Piedmont 1851, Belgium in 1852 and France 1862. These economic
developments were the first step towards political integration of Germany.
The Nationalverein
This was the nationalist movement that was formed in order to revive Germany nationalism
liberalism. In the 1860’s as Ramm comments, “the Germany national question barely retained public
interest; no one enjoyed talking about German nationalism.” The spatial success of Italian
nationalism inspired Germany nationalism in the 1860’s. one German journalists, “ the German
nation to sick principles and doctrines, literal greatness and theoretical existence, what it demands
to power, power, power and to a man who offers it will offer honour and more honour than he can
imagine.”
Basic of Bismarck’s Foreign Policy
The basis of Bismarck’s foreign policy was to isolate and to seek alliances at every stage in the
unification process. He was given lecturers in foreign policy and understands Russian and French
during his tenure as Prussian ambassador to Moscow and Paris. Unification was achieved by the
extension of Prussian dominance over the Germany states by eliminating the Austrians. According
the Disraeli Bismarck said that , ‘ as soon as the army shall be brought in such a situation to inspire
82
respect I shall see the first best pretext to declare war on Austria, dissolve the diet and give national
unity to Germany under Prussian leadership’, however this does mean that he had a plan for
unification. It was basically an outline of the long-term aims of a man not yet aware of the
complexities of politics at the highest level. Between 1860 and 1870 three wars broke out, Bismarck
threw himself into the wars with missionary zeal and as a disciple of Carl von Clausewitz who defined
war as the continuation of politics by other means.
Bismarck and Germany 1862-1870
Bismarck’s wars 1864-1871
Danish war 1863-4
The first diplomatic act by Bismarck was the war against Denmark in 1864 over the control of the
two duchies Schleswig and Holstein. Germany sentiment wanted the incorporation of the two
duchies. German sentiment wanted the two duchies with Holstein populated by the Germans,
Schleswig was predominantly Danish. Bismarck went into an alliance with Austria for he was afraid
of being accused of acting alone in matters affecting Germany. The Danish were defeated leading to
the Convention of Gastein in 1864. The convention concluded that Holstein must be administered by
Austria while Schleswig went to Germany. Bismarck was well aware that the Germans in Holstein
would complain about Austrian administration. Taylor is the view that the convention was well
calculated by Bismarck to bring about the inevitable war with Austria. The decision for war was
made by Bismarck after realising that the whole of European powers were engaged elsewhere. The
Russians busy with Poland and Napoleon III not sure what he really wanted.
Austro-Prussian War 1866
The causes of the war are a matter of controversy. The administration and desire for domination of
all Germany by Bismarck seem to be main causes. Just Italy, the unification of Germany also required
the same methodology. Bismarck was not sure of how Napoleon would react if war broke out. They
met at Biarritz and agreed that for his neutrality Napoleon would be assisted in the pursuit of
Luxembourg. Napoleon III agreed to the terms hoping that the war would be long fought and in the
end become the peacemaker. The hope for some form of glory eluded him.
Bismarck being diplomatic he was aware of the Italian need for Venetia from the Austrians. He and
La Marmora agreed to into an alliance for the release of the duchess of Venetia, after the fall of the
83
Austrians. When the war broke out the Austrians were defeated within seven weeks, one of the
quickest victories in history. The military reforms of von Roonand von Moltke were bearing fruits for
the Prussians. The use of the railways for deployment and strategic envelopment worked well for
the Germany forces. Bismarck being aware of the impact of a total victory against the Austrians
decided not to pursue the victory of Sadowa. Some historians are of the view that in his mind he saw
Austria as a future ally. The Germany success was seen as a defeat for France and napoleon III, “it is
France that has been defeated at Sadowa”.
The war was followed by the signing of the Treaty of Prague by which Austria forfeited influence
over Germany affairs. In fact she lost the status of an empire. Italy was awarded Venetia, and
attained elements of a great power. What won the day for Bismarck was his limited objective:
achieving Prussian dominance north of the Main while Austria sought to keep the dream of greater
Germany alive. Prussian gained Holstein, Hanover, Nassau, Hesse-Cassel and the free city of
Frankfurt. The victory was to change the chancellor’s dream, having replaced Austrian supremacy
he was overtaken by desire to unify the whole of Germany. Hence A.J.P Taylor concluded that,
“Germany unification was a by-product of Bismarck’s never-ending pursuit of Prussian interest”.
The Isolation of France and the Creation of the Germany Empire
The future of Germany after 1866 depended on the policies of two great powers; France and Russia.
However Bismarck had already settled the case with Moscow having declared his support during the
polish uprising in1863. Events in post 1866 era were more determined by the French policy than that
of Germany. The success of Germany over Austria was good news for the Russians to them Prussia
was a better devil than the Hapsburg. The reason being they shared areas interest in Eastern Europe.
The Hohenzollern candidature
The first act towards the rise of Germany was initiated by the Spanish crown becoming vacant in
1867. Europe was called upon o provide candidates. Kaiser William IV and Bismarck forwarded
Leopold of Hohenzollern as their candidate. Napoleon III reactionary as he was saw the development
as a threat, if he was accepted France was to be encircled by allies of Germany. To the east was a
powerful Prussia, to the west Spain allied to Prussia and to the south east a unified Italy.
The French emperor demanded the withdrawal of the candidacy and guarantees that it would never
be renewed again. These demands were agreed to by Bismarck. LCB Seaman in view of Bismarck’s
actions comments that he was afraid of Napoleon and not sure of his intentions. However, at home
84
Napoleon III was forced into war by the Empress Eugene and the War Party. He believed that the
empire would get a lifeline by a major victory in foreign affairs.
War against Prussia
The war began in 1870 with the French ill-prepared for battle. The war proved that Napoleon III was
not a military genius that characterised his uncle. He failed to inspire the army. Technically the
Prussians were way ahead with weapons of the day. The imperial forces were checked at the battle
Metz and later the emperor surrendered at the battle of Sedan (1870). In 1870 France was very
isolated to the extent no nation intended to come to her rescue. Britain was kept at bay by
publication of the French intentions over Belgium; the Austrians were recovering from the defeat of
1866. Further napoleon’s involvement in the Italian fiasco and the death of Maxmillien in Mexico
gave them enough reason to stay out of the war. The treaty of 1856 made it impossible for the
Russian navy to enter the Black Sea.
Results of the war
In 1871 the Germany Empire was proclaimed in Versailles after the conclusion of the Treaty of
Frankfurt. France lost the significant provinces Alsace and Lorraine. The new French government had
to pay reparations to the Germany state. After negotiations the North Germany states agreed to be
incorporated into an enlarged Prussia which masqueraded as the Germany Empire. This completed
the unification of Germany on Prussian terms. The Italians also made some benefits since the
withdrawal of the roman garrison by the French enabled them to occupy Rome, making it her
political capital.
Evaluation
The unification according to the traditional school of thought would have not sufficed without the
diplomatic brilliance of Bismarck. They identify him as the father of the united Germany. However
they were challenged by the revisionist who saw it otherwise. Though they acknowledge the
brilliance of Bismarck, they sight other factors. They point that the Zollverein had already paved the
way for unity in Germany by its exclusion of Austria. Secondly they subscribe to the view that
Bismarck intended to strengthen Prussia and not the unification of the whole of Germany. The
Germany of 1866 as limited as it was all he wanted. The Germany Empire for them was a by-product
of his never-ending of Prussian interest as Taylor mortifies. Therefore the revisionists are of the view
that unification was achieved through the prussianisation of Germany states or Prussian annexation
of Germany states into an enlarged Germany. If it was unification they ask, why we have Germany
85
sates outside the empire like Bavaria, Austria and Switzerland. For them, Bismarck fought against
unification from the beginning.
Despite the debates in 1871 a unified Germany appeared tilting the balance of power once again.
Revision questions
i. Unification is the wrong word to describe the process. Discuss this opinion with
reference to the creation of the German empire.
ii. Examine why Austria did lose the leadership of Germany to Prussian by 1866?
iii. How far did the events between 1862 and 1871 support the claim that,” Bismarck
worked steadfastly to bring about the unification of Germany”.
iv. “Bismarck was a brilliant opportunist, who used opportunities as they were”. Discuss
unification of Germany in light of this view?
v. How much does unification of Germany owe to planning and how much to chance?
vi. Assess the contributions of the Zollverein to subsequent unification of Germany?
86
Top Related