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